Talk:Piano Concerto No. 2 (Prokofiev)

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Solo piano?

I find the references to "solo piano" confusing. How a piano in a piano concerto is solo? Was the first performance a piano reduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marius63 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That common language for concertos. The featured instrument in a concerto is often called the solo part.DavidRF (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity

I consider my fairly subjective description of the piece apposite, as people reading the article are probably mainly going to be interested in the music and prepared to listen to it themselves, and also because a summary of the most important facts precedes it. More information on Prokofiev and his second piano concerto can be found at the given links. (User:Livedevilslivedevil)

Really? I was wondering what your source on it having "eerie" and "moonlit" pianissimo was. Also, this is not one of the hardest concerti; it is one of the most difficult in the *common* repertoire. -John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.221.40 (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source there, and I dídn't say there was. You know you are at liberty to change it. However, leaving Wikipedia's not very strict basic principles out of the equation, I don't see what damage it is doing anyone. (User:Livedevilslivedevil) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

PLEASE keep it. It may not adhere to the strictest interpretation of wikipedia's guidelines, but it adds considerably to the article! 67.193.146.119 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some commentary and even analysis (of which at present there's precious little) is welcome, I should think. But there's far too much moment-by-moment subjective description. I've made a start at pruning this back for the first two movements, and adding citations from reputable sources. But a lot more work needs to be done - though of course someone can be brutal and simply replace what's there for the last two movements with a brief description and some citations from published sources, which may well be what I'll do later unless anyone has a better idea. Alfietucker (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone has gotten rid of some of the subjectivity but in so doing has made the article extremely awkward to read. It seems that every statement goes somewhere along the lines of The orchestra then comes in, blah blah blah. According to so-and-so, blah blah blah. The piano then also comes in, blah blah blah. According to another so-and-so, blah blah blah. I do apologize for the strange explanation, but what I'm saying is that the article is now really choppy. I think it may be necessary for someone to come in and simply delete much of the article and rewrite it in the example of most other musical pages - that is, write maybe a short paragraph or two for each movement. Mwakin21 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First class!

This article is really an amazing piece of work, first class, thanks! Soczyczi (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR?

Now almost a month ago an OR tag has been placed by a user, unwillingly he says!? No reason has appeared on this talk page. In this article I don't see anything but an occasionally somewhat enthusiastic description of the piece, there's no research at all involved. Is there any OR done when an article says grass is green? One reads music, one listens to a concert, and then one describes what happens. Soczyczi (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Long descriptive passages with no citations will get an OR tag. As editors, we're supposed to be citing secondary sources here (reviews, articles, program notes), not making stuff up ourselves. At the very least, the references mentioned at the end and internal single-bracket links should be migrated to in-text ref-tag notes.DavidRF (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it up on Live..'s talk page a while ago, but I forgot to take action. It is a regrettable thing, but it must be trimmed, at the very least. ALTON .ıl 02:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent edits, DavidRF. Soczyczi (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit too descriptive?

I do admire whoever put the effort into writing out this incredibly lengthy article, but is it really necessary? This page sounds more like an essay from a music appreciation class than an article in an encyclopedia. The veeery lengthy descriptions put this piece out as just about the single greatest work of art conceived by humans, and while it is an amazing piece, I would not call it the best. Could someone consider condensing a bit?

Also, this article does lack just about any outside sources as it is almost entirely opinion. I think that as an encyclopedia article, there should be more of a focus on fact, not opinion.Mwakin21 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a shot at pruning this 'Analysis' and reinforcing what's left with published citations. But I'm sure it could do with more condensing. Any thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe most of the gushing descriptions could be toned down a bit... -- megA (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have another look. Alfietucker (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much more encyclopedic now. It was the "ineffectual distress flares" that finally lost me... -- megA (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original version lost?

This entry says the 1913 version of the concerto is “lost,” the “original score” destroyed in a fire. Was there only one copy of the score or the orchestral parts? Had it never been published or printed? This seems very strange to me. Perhaps somebody has more information. Opus131 (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of recordings

Do we really need a list of 40+ recordings? We probably don't need a list at all, but if we want one, I think it should be limited to recordings that meet some specific criteria, e.g., recordings that earned some notable award, such as a Grammy. TJRC (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A quick perusal of Rachmaninoff's 2nd and 3rd concertos shows they currently list no recordings.MisterCSharp (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Finally, the listing of any notable recordings and references is recommended, complete with links, so as to allow the reader to obtain further information if desired. See also below #Recordings and #References for formatting." per: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines MisterCSharp (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the next question is, which, if any of these are notable? And under what criteria? TJRC (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]