Talk:Piano Concerto No. 4 (Saint-Saëns)

Description of concerto's form in terms of 3-mvt. model wrong or at least misleading.

I know this concerto reasonably well, and have the score which I can check for any details beyond immediate memory - and I believe the description given in the article of this concerto's form in terms of the traditional 3-movement form is wrong, or at least rather misleading. I believe I could correct this, but I would need to just wipe out whole sections of the paragraph describing its form, and I don't quite know whether I would be taking too many liberties in doing this.

This concerto is highly unusual in form, and in my opinion it is misleading to describe it as "[following] the typical concerto format of three movements". I think you can make a case for there being 4 movements, or for 2 movements - but definitely not 3. It depends on how you define what a movement is. The music falls into two major sections separated by a pause like that usually found between movements; but each of these two major sections is very distinctly subdivided into further halves, structurally quite independent of each other, although joined together without a break. (I would see the slower section in the second half as a linking section rather than a movement on equal footing with those preceding and following it.)

In this overall form in which it falls into two major sections each divided into two movements, it is very similar in architecture to the 3rd Symphony ("Organ Symphony").

Also, invoking the 3-movement model could imply (even though it is not stated in the article) that the first movement follows the sonata form usually found in the first movement of a concerto. In fact, it does nothing of the sort. It is effectively a set of "double variations" in which each half of each variation (as well as the original theme) is repeated in varied form, so that pairs of variations interlock. If "T" means theme, "1", "2", etc. represent variations, "a" and "b" are used to signify the first and second half of the theme or a variation (these being in binary form), and "'" is used to signify a variant form of a previous element, schematically this form might be represented thus:

Ta Ta' Tb Tb' 1a 2a 1b 2b 3a 4a 3b 4b - etc.

It is highly unusual for a concerto to begin with this kind of complex variation structure, and it is in no way characteristic of the first movement of the traditional 3-movement form. It is confusing to describe a concerto as following the 3-movement model and then follow that with a long list of ways in which it dramatically varies from that. In fact, it is one of the most unusual piano concertos I know of, as to form - the one which *least* conforms to the 3-movement model - not only out of Saint-Saens' concertos, but out of all concertos that I know by anyone.

In my opinion this paragraph needs to be almost totally rewritten from scratch. I believe I could do that, incorporating some or all of the description given above in this note; but I probably could not meet the most stringent standard of verifiability: that is, I do not know sources that describe the form of the concerto in this detail, but I could briefly describe it by referring to the score and using my knowledge of musical form. My impression of Wikipedia is that unreferenced statements usually get away with remaining in if a large number of people knowledgeable in a subject can see the obvious truth of the statements. While I have not discussed this issue with musical experts, it is my opinion that this description would be obvious to any musician who knows this concerto.

Should I give it a try, or just leave things as they are if I can't find references to back up every statement I might write? M.J.E. (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)