Donald Satz wrote:

>When Ulvi first raised this issue of the "theme", I kept listening to
>Annie Fischer's version of the thrid movement.  Initially, I also thought
>that this theme was a natural outgrowth of what came before it.  The
>movement begins in such a "dark" manner, then lightens before the frivolous
>theme begins.  However, after repeated listenings, I concluded that the
>theme just sucks.  It's a loser and an excellent reminder that no matter
>how good you are at something, some days it doesn't click at all.

Of course this is too subjective a matter for disagreement to be
meaningful.  But can you explain what makes a theme "suck" and why you
discovered that attribute only after repeated listening?

It's been my impression that themes for the most part are neutral and
become interesting by what the composer does with them.  (The first
movement ot Beethoven's Fifth and the second movement to his Seventh
Symphonies are perhaps extreme examples.  How about the final movement to
his Quartet Opus 127?) I'm too lazy now to get up and seek out a recording
of the concerto and so am writing from recollection of prior listening and
my recollection has never been other than that the theme's vitality is
maintained consistently through its development and wanderings between the
piano and various parts of the orchestra.

Walter Meyer