Sergei Rachmaninov - Piano Concerto No. 4, Op. 40 (ORIGINAL 1926 VERSION) [with score]

Yevgeny Sudbin - piano
Grant Llewellyn - conductor
North Carolina Symphony
recording date: January 2008
00:00 - I. Allegro vivace (Alla breve)
11:10 - II. Largo
18:25 - III. Allegro vivace
P.S: The gain for the volume in this video is raised by 7 decibels compared to the original recording, since I felt the original recording is too quiet. I also don't have the full score to this piece so... the reduction for 2 piano it is!

[@musicboiscores]

The score I used here is the one published by Boosey and Hawkes. Seems like they used the first edition which is the 1928 revision and pasted the manuscript of original 1926 version in the score, so that should indicate you which parts are the ones omitted from the revisions. P.S. The theme at 20:47 and 27:12 is so gorgeous... it's so unfortunate that it essentially is nowhere to be heard in the 1941 version.

[@roku401]

I would absolutely love a PDF of this, I've been trying to find it for the longest time!!! The OG version of the fourth Concerto is one of his most beautiful pieces, on par with symphonic dances...

[@roku401]

This is a treasure that is to be kept at all costs!!!!

[@user-uq6tx3nl9k]

This 1926 version of this masterpiece trully deserved more views than now.

[@unnamed_boi]

the version of the piece aside, i think sudbin's playing should deserve recognition as well... very tasteful and varied like for example just the rubato on the opening theme that makes the piano just slighly off from the orchestra, and also the rolling of some of the chords... very yummy stuff

[@SebastianBaptisteHuydts]

Very interesting from the perspective of a composer; While I am probably biased by my knowledge of the “final” version, which I consider an absolute masterpiece, I can understand why he revised it. I probably need to listen to this version a few more times, but especially the third movement seems less connected than the 1941 version. Thank you for all this work!!

[@tarikeld11]

Three passages I really miss in the final 1941 version: 26:26 - this is a fantastic conclusion to the climax. In the final version, Rach just repeats the beginning from 0:00. 27:13 - beautiful recapitulation of the second theme, as well as 27:34. Reminds me of Medtner. Btw the second version from 1928 version is also great!

[@DanielKRui]

I’ve been waiting for this score video for like 8 years

[@Balakirev_]

Same here.

[@AndrewKierszenbaum]

Yeah but it’s kinda unfortunate so much of the score is handwritten.. makes it hard to read 😢

[@musicboiscores]

@@AndrewKierszenbaum Sorry, it's the only score of this I could find! However, the handwritten bits are actually the cut bits compared from the 1928 first edition, which seems to also be the engraved parts here. So while it is quite difficult to read, it is also extremely insightful to know the parts Rachmaninov cut out from the first edition. It is certainly an interesting decision of the publisher, Boosey and Hawkes.

[@10lulu18]

I think the transition from 9:10 to 9:58 is a crucial passage. Keeping it may be a better choice. Especially from 9:42 to 9:58, it reached a climax of beauty.

[@samaritan29]

9:46 - reminds me of poem of ecstasy

[@789armstrong]

This original version is even greater than the revised versions, especially the 3rd movement. Superb performance.

[@Juha-th3go]

This feels all more connected than 1941 version. When I listened to 1941 version, I just could not stop thinking that this feels all separated. But now this feels like a real consummated Rachmaninoff's concerto.

[@MrCjsb]

A thousand thanks for this glorious Christmas present!

[@SCRIABINIST]

I think Rach should’ve kept most of the original in the 2nd and 3rd movement but I do agree with how superfluous some passages are

[@christianvennemann9008]

Same here. Although I agree with his revisions of the stormy middle section of the 2nd movement. In my opinion, his revisions of that section flow better than in the original version

[@anteb.k.8396]

Check out the hybrid version

[@anteb.k.8396]

Actually the 3rd movement is the main problem here, first two are beautiful, the 3rd starts great and then it al just evaporates in manic repetition

[@SCRIABINIST]

@@anteb.k.8396 I think some ideas Rach tried to develop weren't 'major' enough to be its own passage but some motifs should've been kept and maybe incorporated into other parts. It's, as you said, more of a repetitive problem than a musical one.

[@jaegeunlee89]

27:34 violin solo is so beautiful..

[@duqueadriano0081]

amazing original version. Thanks for uploading

[@christianvennemann9008]

Thank you for posting this! I mostly agree with his cuts to the original first movement, as numerous parts of that movement do feel superfluous; however, I wish he hadn't cut and recreated so much of the second and final movements, especially the triumphant theme at 20:47 (in my opinion, it is so much more beautiful and dignified than the rather, dare I say, corny beginning of it in the 1941 version), the climax's conclusion at 26:26, and that beautiful B major recapitulation utilizing major 7ths at 27:13 (I have no clue what could've possessed Rachmaninoff to scrap such a gorgeous part). The only reconstruction I agree with in the latter two movements is his reworking of the stormy middle section of the second movement except for getting rid of the rapidly descending chords at the end of the stormy section. To me, the 1941 version of that section sounds better. So, in my opinion, a "perfect" version that combines the 1941 version (I highly recommend the Michelangeli recording on olla-vogala's channel: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqSWgmeMftB_rJI) and this original 1926 version would be: - The 1941 version of the first movement, with 9:59 of the 1926 version of the 1st mvmt. to the end of it; - The 1926 version of the 2nd mvmt., except for 15:20 to 15:51 (replace this with 13:15 to 13:30 of the Michelangeli recording on olla-vogala's video); - The entire, UNALTERED 1926 version of the 3rd mvmt.

[@samaritan29]

regarding 3rd mvmt - I like original's recapitulation of the 2nd theme (27:13) because those harmonies are wonderful - however i also like the revised 3rd movement's cyclical return to the 1st movement's climax (6:50) as it is a glorious apotheosis -- I wish someone could write a mixed version that retains the return of the 2nd theme's as well as somehow incorporate the 1st mvmt's climax ..... but who am i to judge rachmaninoff's vision(s) - it's just that for both editions - the 3rd movement leaves me cold and wanting more ...

[@PianoturtleX]

I might consider writing the mix.

[@pianotalent]

At 5:16 a plane is slowly moving on a runway, preparing for the takeoff, making turns, getting up some speed, then at 6:34 the plane starts accelerating on a runway, the engines are roaring, at 6:50 the epic take-off is happening and the plane is smoothly lifting off above the land (breathtaking goosebumps), at 7:15 and after... the plane is gliding above the beautiful landscape.... Something similar is happening in the 3rd movement of a new version.

[@samaritan29]

that build-up is idiomatic of the development sections of rach's larger scale works (im thinking development of 1st sonata or 2nd symphony) where he will just write suave's of music where melodic content isn't the primary interest, but he instead focuses on orchestral layering, sonorities and colours that just go on and transmogrify your ears - and you can't help but just be lost in it. He tends to do that for quite prolonged periods of time, and at times one can feel that the music is wandering aimlessly and its simply atmosphere without content - where your just aching for a climax... though when it does (inevitably) arrive (6:51) it is quite catharctic.....

[@culturehorse]

Ravel could almost have written this. Wonderful piece. Thank you ...

[@stankaplan7747]

'Heart of Sorrow" my tribute to the mighty Rach.

[@MatthewMingLi]

Thank you so much for posting this! I've been looking for the 2-piano reduction of the original version for a long time now....may I ask how did you come across his handwritten score? I've asked the print department from Boosey about the 2-piano reduction and they replied that they are unable to locate the original version of this and only have the full score. I got frustrated and ended up writing my own reduction from the full score instead...do you happen to have a PDF version of this available?

[@Balakirev_]

Original versions are always great and innovative, but I have to say the second theme in 3rd movement from revised(1941) version is in my opinion really so touching, 😢 it’s just sounds like the old master was remembering all of his sweet and beautiful memories in his best time in russia, but those memories will never come true again until his death.. 😢😢

[@musicboiscores]

Now that I think about it, the 1926 and 1941 versions really has quite different emotional trajectories, while the 2nd theme of the 1941 version felt like a remembrance of old memories (especially with the original 1926 theme only appearing as sort of an afterthought in the violins once), the 1926 felt more like an exploration, it's like Rachmaninov's romantic style crashing with his new influences from his time in the United States.

[@yuehchopin]

danke

[@Dylonely42]

Indeed

[@fdezivan]

based original version

[@DanielKRui]

@23:25 what is that clarinet theme? Is it a variant of one of the earlier themes in the concerto?

[@musicboiscores]

Yes, that's a variation of the opening theme from the first movement.

[@DanielKRui]

@@musicboiscores the ascending scale matches, but the stuff afterward doesn’t match

[@alessandroronci1871]

Che bellezza

[@alphakrab5022]

17:07 After all, it's not plagiarism if you copy from yourself!

[@musicboiscores]

To be fair, the Etude-Tableau was never published in his lifetime so it makes sense for him wanting to use that theme somewhere... and at least he added lovely improvisational passages over it! (which sadly is replaced by rather flat repeated chords in the 1941 version...)

[@alphakrab5022]

@@musicboiscores Yes, I knew that! I'm not saying Rachmaninov is lazy or anything, this theme fits really well here. I feel it has more purpose than in the original Etude which, to me, feels like two completely unrelated ideas he didn't know how to use elsewhere. I'm glad he found a way in this beautiful concerto

[@DimensionPicturesAOT]

3rd movement is honestly lackluster in comparison to the magnificent melodies of the 1-2. Still, A great piece

[@notnipneb2810]

Yeah ik what you mean, the theme at 20:47 kinda saves it though, that might be my favourite theme in this concerto

[@ethanloch3802]

I think we should be honest with ourselves... Rachmaninoff knew what he was doing. In the first movement, he really didn't change anything other than cut out a few unnecessary passages. More or less the same with the second movement, apart from the middle section where it's scales instead of jarring chords. However, the third movement was pretty much completely rewritten. The last 5 minutes are essentially another piece of music. If I'm not mistaken, I think I can even hear his name as opposed to the 3 chords which end the 1941 version. It seems almost as if the story is different. In the 1926 version, it seems more pesimistic; a sequence which goes on and on in a world of darkness. However in the 1941 version, there's a palpable sense of victory, almost a beacon of hope. Perhaps this rewriting was more to do with his mindset than the gramatical errors of the sequences. 1941 isn't exactly an optimistic time in history, and yet in that version it seems as if he was more at peace with whatever he was thinking when this concerto was written.