Me too. How exciting.

I might not be able to stay the course or contribute but I'll certainly be following as far as I can.

I heard Daniil Trifonov playing Prokofiev's concert 1. It was such a brilliant performance! One of my favourite pianists now.

Stay on topic please...

Right, we're only discussing second piano concertos right now, not first piano concertos .

All right, I'm going to post a brief overview of the exposition of the first movement of the Chopin F minor concerto. This is not in any way intended to be a detailed or complete analysis.

Bars 1-70:
Orchestral introduction to the movement. The main themes are introduced. In the last few bars of this introduction there are hushed half-diminished chords, alternating voicings (look at the score and you'll see what I mean). This prepares the listener for the entrance of the piano.

Bars 71-74:
The piano has its own little introduction, leading into

Bars 75-82:
Statement of the first theme from the piano, with a little ornamentation.

Bars 83-100:
More of the thematic material, a little bit of development. Gains momentum near the end of the passage.

Bars 101-104: Interlude with a gradual ascending figure from the piano, and then a fast descending figure (again, look at the score). Leads into

Bars 105-112:
Another key melody, this time woven between sixteenth notes (semiquavers) in the RH. Near the end of the passage, the piano gets more arpeggiated figures, in a gradual crescendo to

Bars 113-114
Ascending figure similar to that in 101-103.

Bars 115-124
Passage similar to the preceding one (105-112). Arpeggios near the end lead into A flat major for the next theme...

Bars 125-140
Theme in major in the piano. with slight ornamentation.

Bars 141-147
Quite a bit of ornamentation, with fast runs (a couple of them are 18 against 4, again look at the score for details).

Bars 148-150
I isolated these few bars because they contain a major transition: the small notes in the piano at the end of bar 148, and the simple but effective following two bars, solidifying the new C minor tonality.

Bars 151-168
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, my favorite bars of the piece. The modulation of keys is as follows:
C minor-G minor-D minor-A minor-E minor-D major/minor (you'll see what I mean when you look at the score)-A flat, not counting small transitions.
The section from 165-168 is particularly lovely.

Bars 169-172
Running bass line against RH melody in chords. Modulates back to F minor.

Bars 173-174
Descending arpeggio figures in the RH, transitioning back once again to C minor. Again, look at the score for details.

Bars 175-178
The same 1-bar ascending figure used in successively higher octaves; once you learn it, you can play those whole 4 bars.

Bars 179-180
Trills/tremolos in both hands, concluding the exposition.

Performance tip: For these two bars, the RH is written as a trill on the D and Eb, with a sixteenth-note tremolo going on at the same time between the B natural and G around it (look at the score, otherwise you won't know what I'm talking about). This is performed by doing a tremolo between the thirds Eb-G and B natural-D, so you get the trill between the bottom note of the first third and the top note of the second third, and the tremolo between the top note of the first one and the bottom note of the second one. If that doesn't make sense to you please don't hesitate to tell me and I'll try to be clearer. I don't do a very good job explaining musical concepts in words...

What happened to the thread?

Nobody has posted for days for some reason, it seems like there were a lot of contributors before. Did people not realize I posted the Chopin concerto analysis in my last post?

I think there are a few issues. As I indicated early on, I thought the thread wasn't well defined. When it did start becoming clear what you had in mind, it wasn't really what would be called "analysis," so, the title is misleading. Sure, it's within a broad definition of the word but it's not really what we think of as analysis. I think the title might tend to scare away the people who might want to do what you want to do, and at the same time, the actual content just wouldn't interest people who might come on here looking for real "analysis." This is more like a cross between play-by-play and program notes. Nothing wrong with that -- but it's not well-described by the title. For this, maybe you'd do better starting a new thread and calling it something more in line with what it is.

I think another problem was that it wound up being about two concertos. One at a time makes more sense. (I know that it was Kreisler who suggested doing two, which I thought was a mistake, including because at that time it wasn't even clear what we were supposed to be doing.)

The admonition to "Stay on the topic" probably didn't help either, especially since the "topic" was very fuzzy, which you probably didn't realize. For what you want to do, I think it would be best to let it be very free-wheeling. Maybe part of the problem is that you think what you're doing is a more technical and specific thing than it is. If it were really "analysis," then I can see that it might make sense to try hard to keep it tight, but this is more general and casual -- so probably best to let it be casual. You indicated that there was trouble on the other thread keeping it on topic. Maybe it's in the nature of this kind of thing to meander (if people are interested in discussing it at all, which you should be glad about!) and maybe it's best for you to be OK with that. (I don't see why not!)

(for clarification)
I'm going to rename the other forum as the ALF - Adult Learner Forum, to stress the purpose of the forum and its threads. There was a sonata analysis thread in order to get some basic knowledge out there, since "sonata form" is a basic form for understanding works. The purpose was not so much to analyze pieces, but to understand this form, going from simpler to more complex works.

Of course if you're learning about sonata form and analyzing music in that form, you also have to know how to recognize a subject, modulations, cadences and whatnot. A lot of the "wanderings" were necessary, and then also if you're trying to give prerequisite things ahead of time, how much do you give and how? These things are usually taught in courses where everything is preplanned and put into some kind of order.

Going from the sonata thread in the "ABF" to a concerto thread in this forum cannot be the same thing. You're not just graduating to a more complex form which more seasoned musicians know. Because they know it, they don't need to learn about it. Or if someone needs to learn about it, is this the right forum for that? Is this for "advanced learners" or for musicians?

If it is an exploration of certain concertos and it is assumed that people here understand concertos, do comparisons with other works play a role? If it is about concertos per se, does comparing other works play a role in the sense of seeing commonalities and differences?

I've been formally studying sonata form and analyzing sonatas, after graduating from the dance form (binary, ternary etc.), and I've looked at one concerto but haven't really gone out of my way to learn about concertos. I just had a quick look:

short definition
This tells me that the "sonata allegro form" being studied in the ABF is the form used in one of the movements of a concerto, and the dance forms I studied are used in other movements. And of course there is a solo part. I'm not sure whether this would be something to be studied here, or in the ABF.

Kreisler gave excellent suggestions, such as mentioning if part of the music reminds you of other music or certain forms. That leaves me out as participant because my knowledge base isn't broad enough yet, but that might put it to the level of this forum. But it would also mean allowing digressions. I would certainly lurk for that. If someone refers to a piece or musical form, anyone at any level can scoot over and look it up to compare.

Am about to read keystring's posts, which I am sure are full of cogent ideas. For me, I have not forgotten this thread but it's taking me awhile to get marshaled to be able to do anything. I'm getting closer.

I'm with Mark in thinking the purpose of the thread is unclear. We've had the high level breakdown of what happens when and Polyphonist added significant detail, but it's hard to get into the nitty gritty of analyzing this because the topic is too big for one post. It doesn't help that the score linked is a 2 piano version and contains zero information about the orchestration. Of course this being a forum of pianists maybe we don't care about the orchestral part but it's integral to the piece and a piano reduction doesn't really help me understand what's going on.

Also getting back to Mark's criticism is this thread about the piano part and performance issues or is this focused on analyzing the concerto as a whole? So we've had the high level play by play but no one's analyzed the themes, polyphonist has touched on the harmonic structure, but what does all that accomplish and how are those effects created?

It seems we're focusing on Rach 2 which would be my preference. Maybe I'll go looking for a downloadable full score.

There's at least one full score at imslp.org for Rachmaninoff Concerto 2. I can't imagine trying to analyse it from a reduction.

There's a 2-piano score at IMSLP too.