Author Topic: Rufinatscha article @ MusicWeb  (Read 1743 times)

hyperdanny

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: Rufinatscha article @ MusicWeb
« Reply #30 on: Monday 04 December 2017, 11:08 »
Good point..it's just that , while I am surely keeping the Noseda, I like the 6th more "imposing"..or slow if you want..
To me, Noseda's fastest tempos do not communicate special involvement, just a more business-like rendition.
But in any case we're so lucky to have 2 recordings, even different in interpretation approach! What a luxury for an unsung!

Alan Howe

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9719
    • View Profile
Re: Rufinatscha article @ MusicWeb
« Reply #31 on: Monday 04 December 2017, 11:15 »
I learned the 6th (now '5th') Symphony from a two-piano arrangement which the TLM released before the full orchestral recording was made. I was, of course, bowled over by Seipenbusch's performance at the time and will always treasure it. Perhaps it's a case of (late) Walter (or Klemperer) vs Toscanini - there are glories in both approaches...

eschiss1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
Re: Rufinatscha article @ MusicWeb
« Reply #32 on: Monday 04 December 2017, 22:55 »
a recording of the arrangement or the arrangement itself?

A piano duet (not 2 pianos, piano duet, so this may be a different arrangement) version of the score published by Gotthard in 1870 (and reviewed in a contemporary issue of AMZ, I think??) can be downloaded from BSB Munich or IMSLP now, btw...
"A cat, as I keep on saying, is also a cat for a' that..." - from Natsume Sōseki's Wagahai wa Neko de Aru (I Am a Cat, part 2 chapter 1)

Alan Howe

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9719
    • View Profile
Re: Rufinatscha article @ MusicWeb
« Reply #33 on: Monday 04 December 2017, 23:23 »
It was a recording, not the score. I can't locate the CD in my collection, but now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure it was a piano 4-hands arrangement. Please excuse my confusion.

hyperdanny

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: Rufinatscha article @ MusicWeb
« Reply #34 on: Tuesday 05 December 2017, 09:57 »
May I ask a question? I'm a little confused about the numbering of Rufinatscha's symphonies..I thought that referring to the "old 6th" as the "new 5th" was relative to the fact that what was thought being the 3rd did not really exist.
If this is true (and I might be mistaken) ..hasn't it been rendered obsolete after the 3rd was "completed" by Huber?

Alan Howe

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9719
    • View Profile
Re: Rufinatscha article @ MusicWeb
« Reply #35 on: Tuesday 05 December 2017, 11:39 »
Here's what I wrote before, summarising an article written by the TLM's Dr Franz Gratl:

Symphony No. 1 in D major "Mein erstes Studium" (composed: Innsbruck, 1834; performed: Innsbruck, 1844)

Symphony No. 2 in E flat major (composed: Vienna, 1840; performed: Vienna, Feb.1844)

Symphony No. 3 in C minor (string parts only have survived - discovered 2007; composed: Vienna 1846;
     performed: Vienna, September 1846; wind/brass/timpani parts reconstructed by Michael F. P. Huber for first
     modern performances on 24 and 25 November 2012)

Symphony No. 4 in B minor (formerly known as No.5 - composed: Vienna 1846; performed: Vienna, October
    1846?)

Symphony No. 5 in D major (formerly known as No.6 - composed: Vienna 1850; performed: Vienna,
    Easter Monday 1852?)

Three Movements of a Symphony in C major (formerly erroneously identified as 'Symphony No.4 in C 
     minor'
- 1846: piano four-hands score presumed never orchestrated. Undated.)

Notes:

(i) The work formerly identified as 'Symphony No. 3 in F major - lost' never existed. Instead, it seems that the work in F major is actually a concert aria with an opening orchestral section in the same key (which was taken to be the opening of an unidentified symphony).

(ii) The work formerly identified as 'Symphony No. 4 in C minor' (1846 - of which only the piano four-hands adaptation of its three extant movements survives) is now properly identified as 'Three Movements of a Symphony in C major (not minor): presumed never orchestrated'. It is undated and therefore cannot be included in the numbered canon. It was erroneously identified as the Symphony in C minor now correctly known as No.3 (above).

So, to sum up, Rufinatscha wrote five full symphonies; the orchestration of No.3 was recently completed by contemporary composer Michael Huber. Three movements of a further symphony in C major exist in a piano four-hands version. There never was a symphony in F.

We can say, then, that Rufinatscha wrote five and three-quarter symphonies!

hyperdanny

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: Rufinatscha article @ MusicWeb
« Reply #36 on: Wednesday 06 December 2017, 09:38 »
all clear, thanks very much Alan!

Alan Howe

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9719
    • View Profile
Re: Rufinatscha article @ MusicWeb
« Reply #37 on: Wednesday 06 December 2017, 10:03 »
Complicated, isn't it? A case of evolving scholarship over the past twenty years or so...

hyperdanny

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: Rufinatscha article @ MusicWeb
« Reply #38 on: Thursday 14 December 2017, 21:18 »
yes very interesting....anyway, a few day ago I received my Christmas order from the Museum.
So far I could listen to only a couple cd's (ah, those Christmas errands..) but I am very happy so far; the Rufinatscha 3rd is surely very good , even if the completion strikes me as somewhat inauthentic)..but the Nagiller symphony is a revelation, it's uneven, it does not quite fully fulfill the promise of the fantastic 1st movement but still..I listened to it 5 times already..