I bought my first copy of the Brahms back in the early 60's when I was in
college (Yes, I am that old).  A quote from the unattributed notes served
to pique my curiosity.  This was my first Brahms disk, so obviously, I paid
no attention to the liner notes.  After an interesting account of the
disastrous premier, the notes continue:

"No one coming new to Brahms should start with this concerto - the
Second Symphony, the Haydn Variationsm even the Second Concerto are far
better choices.  For this youthful work is indeed a kind of Brahmsian
fluke, a splendid setting-out upon a path Brahms was destined never to
fully explore.  It is not Wagnerian - Brahms politely but thoroughly set
Wagner aside while he wa still in his teens.  But it has in its massive
organization of sound, in its fists-fuls of chords, in its fierce and
athletic passion something of Prokofiev and the Bartok of the first two
piano concertos.  The harmony, of course, is far too proper for Prokofiev,
not to mention Bartok.  Yet it was strong enough in 1859 to cause the poor
Leipzig hack to howl about "screaming dissonances and discordant noises".
Filled through it is with intimatations of the Brahms to come, this
concerto will always be a thing unique and apart from his other symphonies
and concertos - an example of that most interesting and mysterious of all
artistic roads, the road not taken."

I am not sure that I agree with the above, but it did make me buy the
record.  This is one of my 2 favorite concertos, the Rachmaninoff 3rd, also
in d, being the other.  Currently, and for a long while, the Graffman/Much
which I have on LP (Victrola reissue (?), 1965)is my version of choice, but
since I have 8 other versions, maybe I will give them all a new listen
soon.

What other work had such a tortured birth, going from Symphony to 2-piano
sonata and finally having most of the original parts end up as a concerto.
Of course, in my perfect world, all music would end up as piano concertos!!

Joel Hill
[log in to unmask]
Tallahassee, FL