...at MusicWeb:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Rubinstein_dramatic_DRD2012.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Rubinstein_dramatic_DRD2012.htm)
My view must be taken with a pinch of salt since I haven't heard this CD. But the review is an example of the kind of reviewing that makes me emit a rather snotty Hummph!
I get the impression the reviewer (who actually often writes pretty good pieces on MusicWebb) just doesn't care for Rubinstein. In which case I think he should have declined the opportunity to review it: the 'not caring for a piece' in my mind rather disqualifies such a person from reviewing. I take far more seriously a negative or critical review which is written along the lines of "the piece is terrific / rewarding / beautiful / exciting...or whatever. However this particular performance or recording fails to do it justice because of X, Y, Z." And in properly objective reviewing, in which judgments admit of reasoned justification (or defence), that 'because of' is crucial.
In this review there are too many rather vague claims supported by a kind of "it seems" or "it feels".
For example "Engineering is good without being exciting...." Eh? What's he saying? I don't actually want engineering to be "exciting": I want a truthful, well balanced recording not some over the top thing that a hi-fi fanatic might use to demonstrate how the bass of his speakers can shift the soot from the chimney.
Again "....but somehow one feels that the ennui of the piece has effected all the other departments...this is respectful professional playing and recording, without ever sparking into the inspired". What does that mean? Is it a complaint against the orchestra, the conductor, the recording, or Rubinstein? Hardly incisive comments, and the writing is of the sort one expects to read in a hi-fi comic (or Gramophone) and not on MusicWeb which aspires to higher standards.
However enough grumbling and humphing from me!
I completely disagree. The review should be the music as a whole. If one has to like the music to review if then the whole system gets skewed.
I'm afraid that I agree with TerraEpon, Peter. I'll admit to being no better than lukewarm towards the piece myself but the reviewer's comments about Rubinstein's Fourth are well expressed and supported by the examples which he gives. Only to give unsung works positive reviews, which is the logical outcome of what you are suggesting, weakens the argument for the strongest of them, the genuine contenders, to become repertory pieces, whilst accepting that some unsung works aren't well written lends credibility to the case for those that are. I'm not saying that Rubinstein's Fourth is particularly bad, but I do feel that we should not automatically have a go at a reviewer when he expresses what are, IMHO, cogent criticisms.
I have the recording: it's not very good, I'm afraid. The woodwind are sometimes jarringly out of tune and the whole performance, while not bad, just reflects the piece which aspires to a level of profundity and scale of which the composer simply wasn't capable. I'm with the reviewer too on this occasion.
I must agree. I have defended Rubinstein on a number of occasions but I do feel that the Symphony No. 4 is really the weakest of his symphionies - at least in terms of how far it falls short of its aspirations. I have the Marco Polo CD, but haven't played it for years. Perhaps I should give it another hearing to see if it confirms my opinion.
Gareth, I also have the MP recording (in Naxos reissue guise) and, quite honestly, I've tried and tried to like the piece in this performance too, but to absolutely no avail. It's a dud, I'm afraid - the piece, I mean. All huff and puff to very little purpose. I don't think anybody could rescue it, although I'd buy the CD to find out...
Yes, Rubinstein wrote much stronger works than this. Just amongst the Symphonies Nos.2, 5 and 6 are much more successful.
Far worse than a reviewer not liking the piece is giving off wrong information about it (or in this case, other recordings)...
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Gliere_Muromets_ALC2019.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Gliere_Muromets_ALC2019.htm)
He seems to imply Farberman is the only one which isn't cut, which is completely wrong.
Let's not get into whether this or that recording of Ilya Muromets is uncut, or not, please...
I think the review is amusing, and pulls no punches. It explains its verdict on each of the three key elements - the recording, the music and the performance - and tells anyone considering buying the CD all they need to know.
I imagine Rubinstein's 4th as supermarket muzak - quite pleasant but no chance of being distracted from choosing the right laundry liquid. :)
Trouble is, Colin, it aspires to be a Great Symphonic Statement. If it were being played at my local supermarket, it'd chase away all the customers and the staff would die of boredom - while I'd be standing there giving it one final chance to prove itself...
I cannot disagree more and I'm sorry to say but I don't like the way Rubinstein's 4th is being discussed. I'm certainly not amused.
Although I think Rubinstein wrote better symphonies, his 4th has enough fine, melodic and memorable passages. The first movement is dark, dramatic and with ominous moments. The Presto is surprising and the slow movement emotional, like I expect from a romantic symphony. However, to my ears the final movement is the problem. It's too long and rather boring. And that is what remains. Alas.
QuoteI don't like the way Rubinstein's 4th is being discussed. I'm certainly not amused.
Peter, please don't take offence. I'm sure that none of us want to upset you but surely one is allowed to think less of a work than does another member - and say so?
Apologies, Peter. There's no intention to offend on my part. I have tried a number of times to get into the symphony, but have to report absolutely no progress at all - which is pretty unusual for me with regard to unsung music. Anyway, I'm glad that you enjoy it overall more than I - and, naturally, I respect your opinion. A really well-played, fiery performance may persuade me to change my mind, so it is to be hoped that we soon get something rather better than the two rather unconvincing recordings we have had up to now.
haven't heard more than one of them (and then only once awhile ago, which is as well as not hearing at piece at all for most works, for me- and I have a reasonably good musical memory and still say so...), but there have been at least three recordings, not two - unless the Golovschin, on Russian Disc, is one of the two being discussed and I just haven't noticed the fact. And that's just CD recordings; there may have been LPs for all I know. (His 3rd symphony, on the other hand, has to my knowledge only received CD recordings, because the orch. parts had been lost and had to be created anew for the premiere recording, making an LP recording at least unlikely...)
___
Oh. WHOOPS. Ok, I now see with some embarrassment that the Delos _is_ the 1993 Russian Disc recording... I thought Delos had reached into their own archives for a recording of their own. I seem to remember this Golovschin recording being panned the first time out, nineteen years ago, in Fanfare magazine (not that the reviewer - was it David Johnson? Maybe John Wiser?... don't recall. ... was too pleased with either recording then, or the piece either, it's true.)
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Saturday 27 October 2012, 14:47
QuoteI don't like the way Rubinstein's 4th is being discussed. I'm certainly not amused.
Peter, please don't take offence. I'm sure that none of us want to upset you but surely one is allowed to think less of a work than does another member - and say so?
Of course, but that's not what irritated me a bit. Rubinstein deserves more respect than being used as background muzak in a supermarket. No hard feelings, for me this discussion is closed.
The association of Rubinstein 4 with supermarket muzak is no doubt inappropriate. For one thing, the symphony is definitely not mere background music - just the opposite, in fact, because it aspires to be a major symphonic statement. The problem is that Rubinstein just doesn't do major symphonic statements. It wasn't his genre.
I'm with Mark here. It doesn't aid the cause of unsung music not to be critical where this is appropriate. People will not take us seriously if we are not able to put aside our subjective likes and dislikes in order to come to a more objective assessment of a piece of music. Of course, where this approach can offend is when one's own particular favourite candidate for elevation to sung status is being criticised. Thus, for example, I personally find it especially difficult when Draeseke's music is being taken apart - although, in his case, I at least have a whole website full of scholarly material to refer to.
To return to Rubinstein 4, however, I have never read a laudatory assessment of the music. So all I have is my own ears and my (no doubt limited) musical experience. And both of those tell me that, for all its incidental beauties, it fails in what it sets out to be - a major symphonic statement. And I firmly believe it would be wrong not to say so.
No offence meant, of course...
Though if one believes Bradford Robinson (http://www.musikmph.de/musical_scores/vorworte/418.html) (in his preface to the MPH version of the work- these are not always laudatory, btw; that for Wetz sym. 1 is (http://is) practically a hatchet-job...) Tchaikovsky rather liked the work. (If so, evidence for that, at least, may be in his diary and letters an older edition (1906, Newmarch/Modest Tchaikovsky) - not the newer one with its rather controversial thesis -of which has been Google-scanned... hrm.)
Actually, in partial contradiction of what I wrote earlier, I believe the late Dr Alan Krueck thought highly of Rubinstein's 4th - I have it in an email somewhere.
...indeed, Dr Krueck wrote to me back in March 2005:
<<I am...mystified that the Dramatic or Russian symphonies never achieved repertoire status.>>
So there we have it: a respected musicologist who was convinced of the worth of Rubinstein's 4th (and 5th).
I must clearly try again...
...meanwhile here's a fair review of the CD which prompted this thread:
http://audaud.com/2012/10/anton-rubinstein-symphony-no-4-in-d-minor-dramatic-state-sym-orch-of-russia-igor-golovchin-delos/ (http://audaud.com/2012/10/anton-rubinstein-symphony-no-4-in-d-minor-dramatic-state-sym-orch-of-russia-igor-golovchin-delos/)
Hmmm, well I liked the piece enough to DL the Marco Polo recording a few years ago. Haven't listened to it in long enough to remember anything though...
Though I imagine based on track record it's even worse than the recording being discussed, so...
The Naxos is better played: at least the orchestra plays in tune!
There are several problems with the Golovchin recording, of which the most important is that the second and fourth movements are incomplete (and the solo string lines which add such a weird sound to the scherzo are performed by the entire sections). On the other hand, it's worth listening to for the third movement, which is a full two-thirds longer than the recording by Stankowsky, and much richer (it makes very clear why Mahler was a fan of Rubinstein's music).
As to the status of the symphony: it's perhaps worth noting that George P. Upton, among the most widely read commentators on music of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, regarded it very highly indeed; in his Standard Symphonies, first published in 1888 and reprinted many times thereafter, he described it as "the greatest of Rubinstein's works of this kind." He was impressed by Rubinstein's use of the orchestra, asserting that "in technical skill, boldness of treatment, and largeness of conception [the symphony] is a masterpiece of musical art." In describing each movement, he continued to find things to praise, considering the development in the first movement "masterly," the second movement pleasingly eccentric, and the third movement's main theme, "exquisitely tender and graceful," for example, and concluding his description of the fourth movement quite enthusiastically: "It flows on with resistless force, constantly gathering fresh energy as new ideas are added, and finally closes with a triumphant outburst in which the principal subject is heard again asserting its superiority." There are no qualifications in his praise.
I suspect that Upton, unlike modern listeners, may have heard Rubinstein himself conduct the work (or at least heard someone who knew Rubinstein's interpretation). Rubinstein himself took 58 minutes to get through the piece, and almost certainly did not sanction cuts. Assuming that his account of the slow movement was more akin to Golovchin's than Stankovsky's, that leaves about 45 minutes for the other three movements. It's clear that the first, second, and fourth movements must be played with extreme vigor (though with room for ebbs and flows in tempo as befit the various motifs). In addition, if we abandon the fixation on Schumann and Mendelssohn which plagues Rubinstein criticism and recognize the relation of this symphony to Schubert's 9th, it also becomes clear that a proper performance has to take the lyric nature of the structure into account. Rubinstein centered his music on melody, and treated melodies and melodic fragments as blocks of sound which could be superimposed upon each other at will (quite different from a contrapuntal approach). To expect this symphony to sound, or work, like Brahms or even Schumann, is an error of interpretation. Ironically, Rubinstein's method, here and elsewhere, is rather more akin (in approach, though definitely not in sound) to Wagner's attitude to the symphonic tradition; Wagner described the development sections of even the greatest symphonies as 'the clattering of dishes at a royal feast').
I would very much like to hear a recording of this symphony by a specialist in Prokofiev, say; such an approach would be able to make the most of what Upton rightly singled out as "startling dissonances and complicated chromatic passages," and bring the symphony properly to life, something not done by either recording presently available.
What a fascinating exposition, Saxtromba. You've encouraged me to add Rubinstein's Fourth to my listening schedule for tomorrow and I'll try to approach it in a more positive frame of mind than I have done before.
I've done my duty and re-auditioned the piece. Far too long. Terrible finale. No change, I'm afraid. However, I'm all the more convinced that a performance needs to be much bolder (and faster in I, II and IV) for it to make any real effect - although, having said that, I just don't think the piece is great music.
By comparison, when I first heard Rufinatscha 6 in an expansive performance, I could still recognise it for the grand work it is; I prefer the tauter approach of Noseda, but don't think the piece requires it. Not so, it would appear, with R4.
A minor quibble, and off-topic, but not worth an entire thread: since you brought up Rufinatscha, in light of the recent discovery that the (old) 3rd Symphony isn't a symphony, and that the recently discovered work is the 3rd Symphony, and that there is no 6th since there are only 5, would it be possible to start using the new numbering? In other words, you mean the 5th, Alan.
(that sort of thing makes me want to start a topic inspired by a rather better-known composer, name of Dvorak, though the symphony-renumberings of his are just best-known... compare the numberings of the symphonies of Haydn or Mozart (when only about a dozen of each were generally played anyway, mostly) most often used in the early-to-mid 19th-century to those most often used today- but... anyway. Sorry...)
Back to Rubinstein's Fourth.
As promised, I sat down and listened to it, in Stankovsky's performance on Marco Polo, this afternoon. I must say first of all that it was a more powerful and enjoyable work than I remembered it to be. Stankovsky's interpretation and his orchestra's playing struck me as strong and direct, with only the odd passage which seemed diffident or just plain too slow. Rubinstein has the gift both of writing instantly memorable melodic ideas and of conjuring up appropriately colourful orchestration in which to clothe them, so that the score abounds, at least in the first three movements, with effective and highly attractive episodes. What, it seems to me, he did not achieve in this symphony at least is to meld those episodes into a convincing symphonic edifice.
I understand Saxtromba's contention that Rubinstein "treated melodies and melodic fragments as blocks of sound which could be superimposed upon each other at will" but I would be more convinced of his skill as a symphonist firstly if at the same time he hadn't also attempted a sonata structure for the first movement and secondly if those ideas were capable of sustaining its 25 minute length. They aren't, attractive and appropriate for Rubinstein's purpose though they are. Whilst I'm the last person to accept untested the prejudicial criticism of the past, I do have to agree with Rubinstein's detractors that his self-confessed disinterest in reviewing or revising his scores, which he seems to have laid down in a sort of "stream of consciousness" manner, lets him down when writing large works. The movement, however he constructed it, would be so much more effective were it half the length and that's down to Rubinstein because, although they could have been tightened up here and there, there doesn't seem too much wrong with Stankovsky's tempi. What has to be conveyed here is drama, so speed has to be tempered with some appropriate weight.
In the middle two movements Rubinstein is on much safer ground and I thought the third, slow, movement a real gem which doesn't outstay its welcome. The material of the second movement is a delight but, again, at 15 minutes long it is about double the length it needs to be. There is an enormous amount of pointless repetition here, even allowing for the fact that Stankovsky could have got more of a move on. I haven't seen the score, so I don't know if Stankovsky is observing repeats indicated by Rubinstein or if the composer has re-used episodes but in a different order. Either way, enjoyable though it is, less would be more.
I'm afraid that, for me, the material of the finale is not up to the level of inspiration which Rubinstein achieved in the other movements and so it doesn't go anywhere near disguising Rubinstein's prolixity. Even though it is eight minutes shorter than the opening movement, its 17 minutes seem interminable by comparison.
So, I'm very pleased that I renewed my acquaintance with the Fourth, even though my overall view of the work wasn't changed. If the shade of Anton Grigorevich asks my advice on his Symphony this Halloween night, I will say: "Keep all their basic material but cut the first two movements in half, leave the slow movement alone, replace the finale with a better one no more than 10 minutes long and you'll have a winner of a 40 minute symphony".
Trouble is, a symphony with a finale that is such a failure is not a work I can take seriously as a whole. For me it's still a dud overall, I'm afraid.
Oh, for me too and for the same reason, but it still seems to me that credit should be due to Rubinstein in some areas.
Despite the drubbing the finale has received here, it has its defenders, among them Tchaikovsky, who wrote a review of an early performance by the Russian Musical Society orchestra under Nikolai Rubinstein. He found the symphony as a whole to be "one of the most interesting that I have had occasion to hear in recent times," but was not wholly convinced by the first two movements. The fourth movement, on the other hand, he found to be the best, in part because "both primary themes stand out for their unusual charm, inspiration, and fire." So I'm not in bad company :) .
I would be interested to see more detail regarding the work's "failure". What exactly is it trying to do at which it fails? After all, it would be wholly wrong to criticize a Tchaikovsky symphony for not being emotionally detached in the manner of Brahms, say; it seems to me that Rubinstein is not attempting a conventional Romantic-Classical symphony, and that criticisms based on the idea that he is are unfair.
So what is Rubinstein trying to do here? I take a hint from the title, which does appear to be his own. His orchestral music is very operatic in general, and it strikes me as plausible that what we have here is essentially a four act abstract opera without words (a 'music drama', if you will, but assuredly neither Wagnerian nor specifically programmatic). The 'characters' are the various blocks of sound, which are themselves organized around thematic or motivic elements, and the energy they create. The finale goes the furthest in this direction, even beginning with a short overture. You then have the principal material (the b-DAH, b-DUH rhythm and motif), followed by a secondary component (marked as Moderato assai for even greater contrast). These take a considerable amount of time to play out, as each is immediately 'developed' through re-orchestrated repetitions, such that the actual sonata-form development, when it arrives, is perforce based on something altogether different (the charming woodwind only section omitted completely from the Golovchin recording). Note that the recapitulation is in fact in a different key (A Major), preparing the listener for the transition to D Major at the climax. But there is something else here, easily missed but key to understanding the overall structure of the drama: in the first movement, the second melodic block is first heard in the horns and recurs in the recapitulation on the strings, whereas here the second main melodic block is first heard on the strings and then, in its new key, on the horns, thus serving as a structural mirror of the first movement. This symphony is not so carelessly built as one might guess.
Nor is the fact that the outer movements are in something of a sonata form particularly surprising or problematic. This was the inherited form of a symphony, and Rubinstein, for all that he's doing something unusual here, is not overtly radical in his approach. He could no more have written "symphony" without using (modified) sonata form than Wagner could have written the 'Beer Barrel Polka'. But if one listens to the way he uses sonata form, it becomes clear that he's straying from the conventional path by a wide margin. The question is whether or not the listener is willing to take that path with Rubinstein, and it's here that a truly idiomatic performance, such as is found in neither of the two recordings available) would be a tremendous help.
I agree about the issue of available recorded performances. However, I find myself wondering whether any recorded performance will actually achieve the feat of making us "willing to take that path with Rubinstein". Until we hear a much better rendering we may not know for sure, but my strong suspicion is that the music itself simply isn't good enough to sustain this sort of symphonic conception - pace Tchaikovsky and Rubinstein's other defenders.
In spite of all of the criticism about Rubinstein I'm surprised at the number of people who have the "Dramatic" symphony in their collection so I conclude that there must be some amount of good in it. I for one enjoy the work and own both the Delos and Naxos recordings. I don't feel that either has an advantage but I do feel it deserves a place on my shelf.
Comparing him to Tchaikovsky is unfair even though some of their composing was done in the same time frame. Perhaps this is the reason for the negativity he has been given.
Tom :)
There's no doubt there's good stuff in the symphony. But that doesn't necessarily make it a good symphony.
I am not going to criticise Rubinstein or praise him, he wrote music that some like and others wouldn't bother with. The point is, was it played well and recorded well, has as much been done to give the composition its best chance of a good reception. We all know of some very banal compositions but there is usually someone out there who likes one or two of them including me. It is quite ridiculous to take these things personally.
I see no problem with personal likes and dislikes - we all have them. It's when a personal view is pursued without any attempt at objectivity in discussions with others that the problems start.
As for Rubinstein 4, I stand by my opinion of the piece - but I'd be willing to re-assess it were it given a really first-rate recording one day.
Quote from: giles.enders on Wednesday 21 November 2012, 16:20
........... It is quite ridiculous to take these things personally.
How else do you take music? ???
I think you have to cultivate a certain objectivity too...
Maybe there's a danger of missing what I think is the central point in what Giles is saying? A reviewer, in order to do the job, must have a certain admiration or sympathy for the work in question. The reviewer's central task is then to assess the extent to which - as Giles says - the performance or recording enables the work to have its best chance of a good reception. Does the performance or recording do justice to the work, does it (to lapse into Aristotelian jargon) make actual the potential in the work? It is to get answers to these question that we read reviews - and take them seriously if they do just that.
Now if a would-be reviewer doesn't think too much of a work, or lacks sympathy with it, or is unfamiliar with its idiom or the conventions in which it is composed then that, in my view, makes him a less than ideal reviewer. (If I tried my hand at reviewing a performance or recording of a Handel opera, or a new work by Wolfgang Rihm, I'd seriously urge folk not to read the silly drivel I was undoubtedly writing - for I either don't much care for these things or don't understand them and thus would be ill-qualified to review them.)
Now that's the point I was (clumsily) after right at the start of this thread. I suspect that this reviewer (who otherwise writes good pieces) just doesn't care much about Rubinstein. He considers (rightly or wrongly) Rubinstein 4 a rather inferior symphony. So in delivering his drubbing he's running too many things together. What he should be concentrating on is whether this performance or recording enables the symphony to 'work', to have its best chance of a good reception.
But then I got (unfairly, in my view!) biffed on the nose for folk thought I was saying that all criticism or reviewing must somehow applaud the work, and if it didn't then its bad reviewing. That is not what I was trying to get at at all, and would be a silly position to hold.
Well ok, if someone doesn't like Baroque opera at all, I would agree a review of a Handel opera by him wouldn't be all that worth anything.
But if he DOES enjoy Baroque opera and comes across a Handel opera that he finds boring, shouldn't that be a large consideration as a whole? Yes the performance might be important but if there shouldn't be a qualification that a reviewer needs to enjoy the piece just to make a review in the first place.
Spot on. Couldn't agree more. Etc.
Agreed. And well said.
Ditto! :)
The best reviews are usually positive (on the whole -- which doesn't mean that positive reviews are necessarily the best reviews). Negative reviews (re Hanslick) often result from imposing an inappropriate set of expectations on a piece. That said, in this august company, negative reviews can be spot on -- as long as they are long on details.
I'm loath to reopen this old wound, but maybe a couple of quotes from Mark Pullinger's review in this month's IRR of the Delos reissue of Golovchin's performance of Rubinstein's Fourth would be a useful addition to the thread:
"Imagine mediocre Mendelssohn stretched out to beyond an hour, or watered down Bruckner and you'll have a fair idea what to expect. ... It is a great irony that Rubinstein gave his Fourth the title Dramatic, because drama is precisely what it lacks. His ideas are pleasant enough, but repeated too often so that the first movement takes a sprawling 22 minutes in which very little happens until the coda. The second movement is marked Presto, but any sense of forward momentum is effortful. His Adagio is probably the most successful movement, containing lyrical string writing, while the the finale feels disjointed."
He closes by complaining the Stankovsky, on Naxos, "drags out the material even further".
Oh dear.
Pullinger is spot-on. To argue otherwise can only do harm to unsung music far more worthy of recording than Rubinstein 4 - which I'd still like to hear in a decent performance, by the way. For example, we still don't have Berger 2 on CD. Scandalous...
I'd prefer if reviews opened and gave more room to how the music is being played, then I'd welcome the reviewer's opinion on the music itself.
Two recent examples of review's that left me wondering until the very end of the text about the quality of the performance itself are musicweb's of Burgmüller's 2nd and allmusic's of Clementi's 1st and 2nd. In the former, the reviewer spends most of the time bashing the music (I love that symphony, so I naturally don't agree with the review and, as I read it, became more and more unreceptive of what the reviewer had to say). In the Clementi, the reviewer did the opposite, praising the music, which baffled me as to why the 'mediocre' rating (3/5), until I got to the very end where he says that the performance isn't good (maybe he could have pointed to the recordings of Scimone or d'Avalos as better alternatives?).
The Burgmüller is full of marvellous music, but is, of course, a torso which ends with the scherzo - a quite unsatisfactory ending. As for the Rubinstein, I'm afraid a reviewer just has to start with the music before moving on to the performance because, frankly, the reader has to be made aware of its limitations as a piece first.
That's where I differ, I prefer reviews that bring the limitations of the piece second. IMHO it's "how do you like the piece?" is a far more subjective question than "how do you like the performance?". I don't know why, but that's what I usually feel when I read the author's opinions on both matters.
then again, if a review can get me to like, or at least pay attention to, the piece more (I think of a Fanfare review of the Beaux Arts trio set of Haydn's trios which gave me incentive to listen to the trios with fewer preconceptions and more interest- I think also of the best parts of Walker's Liszt biography, and some other excellent writings along those lines...) - then I am grateful.
Most readers are simply not going to know the piece. It's therefore incumbent upon the reviewer to give an idea of the music first before proceeding to assess the performance.
There is an important point here which needs to be considered. Take these two comments:
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Friday 08 February 2013, 10:06"Imagine mediocre Mendelssohn stretched out to beyond an hour, or watered down Bruckner and you'll have a fair idea what to expect. ... It is a great irony that Rubinstein gave his Fourth the title Dramatic, because drama is precisely what it lacks. His ideas are pleasant enough, but repeated too often so that the first movement takes a sprawling 22 minutes in which very little happens until the coda. The second movement is marked Presto, but any sense of forward momentum is effortful. His Adagio is probably the most successful movement, containing lyrical string writing, while the the finale feels disjointed."
He closes by complaining the Stankovsky, on Naxos, "drags out the material even further".
and
Quote from: Hilleries on Friday 08 February 2013, 19:41
....I prefer reviews that bring the limitations of the piece second. IMHO it's "how do you like the piece?" is a far more subjective question than "how do you like the performance?". I don't know why, but that's what I usually feel when I read the author's opinions on both matters.
I would completely agree that a reviewer ought to reveal her or his biases up front. This can be done in a sentence ("I'm not a fan of so-and-so's music," for example), allowing the reader to balance the reviewer's personal taste against their actual critical statements. And herein is the heart of the problem. Simply dismissing a work or a composer with some snarky comments is not enough; the reviewer has an obligation to demonstrate the reason underlying their stance.
Take the review mentioned above. What exactly does "watered down Bruckner" mean? Is the reviewer implying an influence here? The mention of Mendelssohn, with whom Rubinstein is often linked, suggests as much. We do know that there are links between Bruckner and Rubinstein; Rubinstein is reported to have praised Bruckner's Symphony#1 (the Linz version), and Bruckner categorically stated that "Since Wagner's death the greatest artist is Anton Rubinstein." But this gets us only so far; when Rubinstein composed his fourth symphony (1874), he could have known only Bruckner's symphonies 1 and 2 (the other early symphonies were not publicly known until much later, and the disastrous premiere of #3 lay some years in the future). Can we hear any Bruckner in Rubinstein's fourth? I can't, and I'd like to have some idea why the critic concerned thinks he can.
Another responsibility of a critic of recordings is to get the facts about the performance straight. The critic cited here seems to think that flipping off Stankovsky is a suitable finale to his/her 'crushing' review of Rubinstein. So what do we find when we compare the two recordings? Stankovsky takes 23'15" on teh first movement, compared to Golovchin's 22'08", which is hardly a significant difference. Stankovsky's second movement comes in at 15'56", whereas Golovchin takes 14'30"-- but since Golovchin ignores many of the repeats it is not surprising that he shaves a minute and a half off Stankovsky's time. It is true that Golovchin takes only 13'23" to get through the last movement, whereas Stankovsky takes 17'08", but since Golovchin
omits the entire development section this is not a relevant comparison at all (it does indeed sound "disjointed," but not for the reasons the critic adduces, reasons which absolutely should have been part of an honest and complete review). But then we have the third movement, selected by our critic as "probably the most successful." Stankovsky takes 9'14"; Golovchin allows a full 15'09", which is to say that his version is
two-thirds longer than Stankovsky's-- a greater difference than the other three movements combined once the omissions are taken into account. This amounts to "dragging out" on Stankovsky's part?
It is probably too much to expect that any given critic will be able to enter into and understand every work they review. But it is reasonable to expect that they will make absolutely clear their biases and areas of ignorance, and not too much at all to demand that, especially in a review of a substantial piece, they accurately provide relevant factual information regarding cuts or revisions to the score being performed.
Ignorance on the part of a reviewer is certainly inexcusable and bias ought to be divulged; however, no amount of argument is going to convince me that R4 is anything other than a giant dud of a symphony - and I love my romantic symphonies long and demanding - Rufinatscha 6 (now 5), Urspruch, d'Albert, Georg Schumann 1, Rheinberger Florentiner, etc. etc....
Quote from: Alan Howe on Wednesday 20 February 2013, 23:30.... no amount of argument is going to convince me that R4 is anything other than a giant dud of a symphony....
And this is precisely why you would never write a review of a recording of Rubinstein; it could be Heaven's Own Orchestra conducted by Rubinstein himself, and you would still be unable to hear anything good about it. Fair enough; personal taste cannot be argued. But in the context of this discussion, this is the point: reviewers who have already decided that a piece is worthless really should not be the ones writing a review of it, especially if it's a less well-known piece. Only someone who can knowledgably and fairly assess the relation of the performance to the character and requirements of the work being performed should be reviewing it. Anything else is just blather.
Exactly, and well said. This is just what I was trying to express (in characteristically long-winded and clumsy way) way back at the start of the thread.
Of course, despite the deficiencies of the performances available, I might still be right about the piece. And if I am, I don't see why I shouldn't say so in a review. It really doesn't do anyone any favours to write a review saying that a piece is good when it isn't. Sometimes we have just have to discriminate between the good and the not-so-good - and say so! After all, it is perfectly possible that even Heaven's Own Orchestra conducted by Rubinstein himself may not be able to rescue his 4th Symphony. However, I'll keep my eyes open for a new recording or public performance...
Quotereviewers who have already decided that a piece is worthless really should not be the ones writing a review of it, especially if it's a less well-known piece. Only someone who can knowledgably and fairly assess the relation of the performance to the character and requirements of the work being performed should be reviewing it. Anything else is just blather.
Sorry for stepping in on this out of the blue, I don't very often post but I enjoy reading the forum a lot and this discusion has been very interesting.
In respect of the above how do you know if a reviewer has already decided the value of a piece? Speaking generally I think unless they say so we have no way of knowing if they have or not. What if they come to Rubinstein's fourth (which I do not know so have no axe to grind!! :) ) with genuine curiousity and open mindedness but then decide that the music is poor? It just seems like because one person likes a certain symphony and the critic doesn't that there is an automatic assumption that the critic has not considered it properly.
I have seen on other forums a critic called all sorts of names for not liking a piece of new or unsung music and his abilities questioned and then a month later when he praises a different piece of unsung music, the same person quotes his new review like he is an absolute authority just because it chimes with their own opinion about it. ::)
Now do I buy the Rubinstein symphony or not?? If nothing else this thread has made me more interested in it than I was before!!! :D
You should definitely buy it! Then do come back and give us your honest opinion of the piece. It's available very cheaply from Amazon sellers (+ £1.26 p & p):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B000069CUY/ref=sr_1_3_olp?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1361559545&sr=1-3&condition=new (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B000069CUY/ref=sr_1_3_olp?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1361559545&sr=1-3&condition=new)
Okay I'm sold! Bought a copy, thanks for link. :)
Do let us know what you think when it arrives...
I will do for sure.
Thank you. Maybe you can dissuade me from my negative view of the piece...
This thread inspired me to dust off my well-worn CD of this piece ... except I couldn't find it. My collection is so disorganised! However, thanks to the invaluable Naxos streaming subscription I listened to it again. I have to say I can't be so negative about this piece. It may not be "great music" but it isn't tedious either. Perhaps I'm a forgiving listener. There are places where the finale does tread water rather, but not so much that I would condemn the whole piece out of hand, and I still have bits of the scherzo chasing around in my mind a day later.
Well I have listened to it three times the last few days and I reckon my views so far are more akin to Alan's than anyone else's but I guess that it could be a lot better performed and recorded than the Naxos recording is. I do like the themes though and I think if all the movements (except the slow movement) were about half the length that they are then it could be more worthy of the name Dramatic. I mean if Rubinstein had made the work shorter not that there should be cuts introduced by the way, as I would always prefer to here the composer's thoughts than someone else's after the event!! It does seem a bit rambling in this recording though and not sure I want to spend money on another version of it tbh! :-\
Thanks for taking the time to buy a recording and report back.
Here's a much more positive review. I don't agree with it for a second, but in the interests of fairness...
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2013/Apr13/Rubinstein_sy4_DRD2012.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2013/Apr13/Rubinstein_sy4_DRD2012.htm)
Thanks for the link, Alan. No surprise perhaps, but I almost fully agree with the reviewer, except for his remark on the finale. The more I listen to the Fourth, the more I love it.
Wouldn't it be a boring world if we all agreed? Normally I find Byzantion a perceptive critic (i.e. I agree with what he says!), but I feel that he has been way too kind to Rubinstein here. However, "à chacun son goût" as they say in foreign climes.
It's always good to have a different perspective. Makes one re-think one's opinions.
I am grateful for this thread. It made me look again at Rubinstein, of whom I have only the PCs. I tried to listen to samples of the different symphonies on various sites, and a glimpse of No. 6 was impressive. I tried especially hard to see whether a box set of Rubinstein seems to be available, but this does not seem to be the case (pun unintended).
No.6 is the best of the bunch, I believe.
I've gotten to know both 5 and 6, and I'd say they're both equally fine, however the 5th is more concise. I also have a soft spot for No. 1.