I have some important news from Innsbruck concerning the true chronology of Rufinatscha's symphonies.
Remember: this is what we thought we knew:
Symphony No. 1 in D major (1834)
Symphony No. 2 in E-flat major (1840)
Symphony No. 3 in F major - lost
Symphony No. 4 in C minor (1846): only the piano four-hands adaptation in 3 extant movements survives
Symphony No. 5 in B minor (1846): versions exist for both piano four-hands and orchestra
Symphony No. 6 in D major (ca.1865): versions exist for both piano four-hands and orchestra
So, please watch this space as I put together the latest information...
I am very curious....
Seconded, will watch.
The information I am relaying here comes from an article written by Dr Franz Gratl, Curator of the Music Collection at the Tiroler Landesmuseen in Innsbruck, which appears in the September issue of the magazine Der Schlern published in Bolzano (in the Italian South Tyrol).
Dr Gratl's article concerns the number and chronology of Rufinatscha's symphonies and concludes with the following revised information:
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; composed: Vienna 1846; performed: Vienna, September 1846; wind/brass parts being reconstructed by Michael F.P.Huber for first modern performances on 24th and 25th 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?)
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): orchestral version presumably never performed'. It is undated. It was erroneously identified as the Symphony in C minor now known as No.3 (above).
Thus we actually have four complete symphonies plus one whose wind/brass parts are being reconstructed for performance later this year, and one undated fragment in three movements of which only the piano four-hands version has survived. I trust that's clear...
Grateful thanks to Franz Gratl for sending me a copy of his article!
As this is a public forum I hope there would be no objection to the article in Wikipedia being updated with this information also (w.p.attr, etc etc etc ) or if not, once possible?
I've already done so, Eric.
*headspins* Thanks :)
I thought it was important to get the correct picture 'out there' as quickly as possible.
This is quite something. Most interesting. I wish I could attend the performance of the C minor symphony. Well, who knows. And I suppose it will be released on CD not much later, or is that wishful thinking?
Fascinating, Alan, but I'm a mite confused....
Concerning:
Quotethe 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): orchestral version presumably never performed'. It is undated. It was erroneously identified as the Symphony in C minor now known as No.3
Why hasn't this now been included in the renumbered canon, even though it is only extant in a piano four hands reduction of three movements?
Might a translation of the full article in
Der Schlern be possible?
I assume from the renumbering that in none of the manuscripts, and particularly
old Nos.5 and 6, did Rufinatscha himself number a symphony and that it was the Innsbruck people, prior to performance and recording, who numbered them based on their knowledge at the time.
Too many questions. I do apologise.
Yes..... the brain was making a laboured attempt at the first two of Mark's questions - but he's articulated them quite precisely.
And another question - which is rather a silly one given it is seriously premature, but how might this revised knowledge connect up with possible recording plans of Chandos? And, indeed, any update on Chandos intentions here? Sorry: obviously, Alan, all you can do is speculate!
And before you exclaim that all of us should practise patience, thank you for spreading this news so quickly.
Sorry for my opaque grammar, Peter. I had just come in from a long and tiring choir practice and wasn't at my best. I also neglected to echo your thanks to Alan, which I do belatedly now.
Some answers:
The re-numbering is entirely the work of Dr Gratl in Innsbruck. I don't think Rufinatscha numbered his symphonies at all, so the former numbering by Dr Manfred Schneider was based on what he thought the situation was a decade ago.
I assume that the three-movement torso in C major (not minor) can't be dated, so it would be a bit of a guess where it might come in the sequence. In addition, it's not a complete work, shorn as it is of its finale.
As for future recording plans, all I know is that the (new) No.3, with re-constructed wind/brass parts, will be recorded when it is performed in November. Chandos presumably still have plans to record No.4 (formerly 5) coupled with the Piano Concerto, although that's been on hold for a while, so...
Regarding a possible translation - I'm too busy at present! Apologies to all!
Alan Howe, thanks for distributing the news. I would be very grateful for comments concerning my assumption that the D major Symphony (Nr. "6" or correctly Nr. 5) is more likely from c1852. I can find no arguments against this thesis - does anyone have? Anyone who can convince me that the D major Symphony sounds like an "Alterswerk" from the 1860s, different from the B minor work? To me, the B minor Symphony is thematically more original and formally more convincing, the opus ultimum is somewhat lengthy (does this word exist in English?) and definitely not Rufi's symphonic masterpiece. And what do you think: I do NOT agree with Manfred Schneider that this symphony brings a new solemnity or gravity to the 19th-century symphony, foreshadowing Bruckner. Bruckner is SO different, from the very beginning!). I have always felt that Rufinatscha is formally quite conservative and that he seems to follow the path of Schubert ("Great" C major Symphony) with a portion of Beethoven and some effects in instrumentation resembling Berlioz. What do you think?
Greetings from Innsbruck and many thanks for your comments!
For what it's worth, MusFerd, I wrote elsewhere on this forum:
We shouldn't forget, I think, that Rufinatscha's symphonies, while thoroughly individual, are also predominantly serious and conservative in style. Musically, Rufinatscha was more conservative than, say, Schumann - which explains the latter's description of the Op.3 Sonata as "quite absurd" (in German: "ganz albern" - which could also be translated as "quite inept/fatuous"). Remember Schumann was equally dismissive of the efforts of other more conservative composers, e.g. Moscheles and (Franz) Lachner.
Nowadays we tend to think of Schumann, perhaps, as being on the conservative side in the "Music Wars" of the mid-nineteenth century. And indeed, when compared to progressives such as Berlioz, Liszt, and Wagner, he was. What we forget in the process are the composers further to the musical right (as it were) and their attempts to preserve and extend the gains of the past, but in a respectful and conservative manner. That this was thought possible explains the compositional projects of composers such as Czerny, Lachner and Rufinatscha. For what it's worth, my take on what happened is that, ambitious though Lachner's and Czerny's attempts were to do this, both ultimately failed because they lacked the genius required. In Rufinatscha, however, we have precisely the sort of composer that we might previously have thought not to have existed at all - a composer to the right of those who came to be perceived as conservatives themselves, but who may yet have been a genius...
What I would say in addition, however, is that there seems to me a certain amount of truth in the notion that Rufinatscha introduces something quite new-sounding - in his B minor Symphony in particular. There is something peculiarly solemn and high-minded about the feel of that entire symphony that I can't find in an entire symphony before 1846. Of course, I may be wrong about this - but so far nobody has put forward a candidate...
Whether or not it is right to point forward to Bruckner, as Manfred Schneider has suggested, is a matter for debate. What is without doubt is that the gap from Schubert to Bruckner can no longer be regarded as such: rather, it is a continuum in which composers such as Lachner and Rufinatscha now occupy an undisputed place.
It could explain why Dahlhaus created the idea of a "gap", however. Who sought to bring any sort of re-conceptualization to the symphony between 1852 and 1876? There was either a conservative approach (e.g. Dietrich, or perhaps Goetz and Grimm) or an extension of the Berlioz "programmatic" approach (e.g. Raff).
And yes...Dr. Gratl, I presume? Lengthy is indeed a valid English word. And I definitely noticed the parallels between the Rufinatscha 5th and the Schubert 9th. Did you notice that the "motto" running throughout the Rufinatscha 5th is Mozart's "Jupiter" motive that begins the finale of that work, transposed to D?
*feels a random need to point out that "Mozart's Jupiter motive" predates Mozart by centuries - it's a Gregorian themelet, and used by others in Mozart's time and before and after. (As noted when for instance such a confirmed anti-Mozartean as d'Indy ended up basing one of his string quartets on the same intervals.) Anyway, sorry- back to the ranch...*
Grateful thanks for all these valuable comments! I would like to refer to the thematic allusion to the "Jupiter" symphony. The c minor Symphony - no. 3, which will be performed in autumn - starts with a theme which is almost a citation of the opening of Mozart's c minor piano sonata KV 457. And there is a recurring second theme which seems to be directly taken from Beethoven's Coriolan overture.
And a short reply to Alan Howe's statement: I agree, abolutely. The b minor Symphony is really highly original, especially if you keep in mind that it was composed in 1846. It would be interesting to compare all the compositions on a symphonic scale dating from about the same times - and you surely know more of those "Unsungs" than I.
There is a last observation from my side: I have an overview of all extant compositions of Rufinatscha. He had absolutely no talent for "small" and "happy" stuff. Everything is broad, solemn, tragic. That's what he also brings to the symphonic genre. He does not laugh in his music - not even in the Lieder or his piano music.
QuoteHe had absolutely no talent for "small" and "happy" stuff
That's immediately apparent from the 3 CD set of his piano music. To my ears, the smaller pieces are all quite derivative of contemporary models. The Piano Sonatas show more of his individuality and it's the final one, the ruminative and sometimes quite dark op.18 in D minor, which is the most successful.
Quote from: MusFerd on Wednesday 03 October 2012, 07:25
There is a last observation from my side: I have an overview of all extant compositions of Rufinatscha. He had absolutely no talent for "small" and "happy" stuff. Everything is broad, solemn, tragic. That's what he also brings to the symphonic genre. He does not laugh in his music - not even in the Lieder or his piano music.
Is that so? I think Rufinatscha shows not only in his orchestral works a great amount of compositorial skills of a high level, but also in his chamber music. An example. Personally I rank his Piano Quartet in C minor (1836) to the best in its genre. To my ears the first movement smiles. Rufinatscha wasn't that much of a sombre character or am I mistaken?
I am a bit disappointed by his great piano works, e.g. the sonatas. Absolutely pleasant to listen to, no question about that, however IMHO not showing very much individuality. Schubert is not far away.
Well, Peter1953, I agree that Rufinatscha's chamber music often shows originality and highest quality. And of course, not all his works are sombre. But I still believe that the composer had a strong inclination to tragedy, drama and dark colours. If you take his piano works and Lieder, for example, he was very fond of the deepest possible register of the piano.
Finally, I heard the "New 3rd Symphony" is finished now by Composer Michael F.P.Huber ! :)
Wonderful - and congratulations on the completion.
Any opinion of the completed work would be very gratefully received here in advance of the premiere next month...
Some news for the Rufinatscha fan club:
This saturday the school of music in Mals, Rufinatscha's birthplace, will be renamed as "Johann Rufinatscha-Musikschule". On this occasion a festschrift will be presented. It will contain a short biography, an updated and complete catalogue of his works and a discography.
On Saturday evening Marlies Nussbaumer will play some of his compositions for solo piano in Mals - and the same in Innsbruck on Sunday.
And finally: The documentary film on Johann Rufinatscha is finished, it will be shown as a prologue to the concert in Mals on Saturday rvening and also in the orchestral concert with the c minor symphony completed by Michael F. P. Huber and the concert arias in Innsbruck, 25 Nov.
Wonderful news, MusFerd!
One question, if I may: will the catalogue of Rufinatscha's works be made more widely available?
Well, I think an online publication of the catalogue would be the best way to guarantee spreading... articles of scientific value, a new task for the Unsung Composers Forum ;)...
An interesting thought, MusFerd. We'll give it some thought...
Is there a chance of the documentary on Rufinatscha's live going on sale as a DVD, preferably with English commentary or sub titles?
I'll try to find out, John. May take a while, though.
A DVD has been released and will be available soon. But I am quite sure that it neither contains an English summary nor English subtitles. But I haven't seen the DVD yet, only the film (German version).
Thanks for this information. We would be very grateful for further news of the availability of the DVD...
The issue of using the revised numbering of Rufinatscha's symphonies has been raised elsewhere. I am suggesting here, therefore, that - for the moment at least - we stick to the old numbering system (as used on the commercially produced CDs) until such time as the revised numbering becomes common practice. If there is any doubt, such a formula as "Symphony No.6 (now 5)" could be used. Hopefully, in due course, this might be reversed to become "Symphony No.5 (formerly 6)" until such time as the revised system is widely accepted. However, it may already be too late to change things...
Whatever we do, we must above all maintain clarity. For this reason I do not advocate a wholesale and immediate change to the revised system.
Has the new numbering been "officially" adopted and, if so, what is the body that has the authority to do so?
I would think that Dr. Gratl's finding that the original 3rd Symphony isn't a symphony at all, and that the newly discovered C minor Symphony is the 3rd should be accepted immediately. Unless one wants to count the two-piano score of the remaining symphony in the canon. If you can call it that.
I think we're going to have to wait and see what our Innsbruck friends come up with when they release the newly reconstructed Symphony in C minor on CD. It's no use us doing one thing and the commercial world doing something else.
I'm personally hoping that the forthcoming CD will (a) provide Dr Gratl with an opportunity to explain the revised numbering and (b) actually use the new system. The problem remains the existence of commercial releases using the old system.
Thanks, Alan. So the Tiroler Landesmuseum people are the arbiters, I assume? Are Chandos aware of this development, I wonder?
The problem reminds me of Cipriani Potter's symphonies. Perhaps we could adopt a practice which I encountered in an article by Rohan H. Stewart-MacDonald.
He sets each number in quotation marks to make clear that this is the old practice, e.g. "No. 8".
'Clementi's Orchestral Works, their Style and British Symphonism at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century: S. Wesley, Crotch, Macfarren, Potter and Sterndale Bennett'.
Ad Parnassum: A Journal for Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Instrumental Music, V/2 (2007), pp. 7-72.
De facto, Franz Gratl is going to determine what happens. As for Chandos, I have no idea whether they know or not. And so here we have the problem of evolving scholarship as it relates to a newly rediscovered composer: almost inevitably what has been thought to be the case no longer is. But sleevenotes, etc. have already been written. Bolting horses and all that...
hrm. RISM sometimes lists a cataloguing system they regard as reasonably authoritative; not in this case I think. That said, they do list three works as symphonies by Rufinatscha (they never claim to be complete, that's not their purpose)- the first, the B minor, and the C minor that lacks winds and percussion parts (http://opac.rism.info/search?documentid=651006255 (http://opac.rism.info/search?documentid=651006255), manuscript copy (Abschrift) after 1860. Is that the one now regarded as an overture to something else, not a symphony? I should double-check, will do so, yes...)
Dear friends, I would plea for the new system (of course, I have to). We will present the reconstructed version of the c minor symphony no. 3 on November 24 (Mals) and 25 (Innsbruck). Since there is no indication for the dating of the three movement fragment in C major, which is for piano 4hands and appears to be a sketch only, I would suggest to exclude this from the canon. Meanwhile, I have published the announced complete worklist, which will be available online soon. And we have already decided to adopt the new system for our November concert and the forthcoming CD release. The RISM data is old and, in this case, outdated.
This is good news and I am glad that you, as our most prominent Rufinatscha scholar, are giving a clear lead in this matter. Of course, it is unfortunate that the incorrect numbering has been perpetuated on the covers and in the sleevenotes of existing CDs, but nothing can now be done about that - except to hope, maybe, that corrections might be undertaken if they are re-released in the future, or erratum notices be made available, especially for the Chandos CD that has already been issued.
It also needs to be widely disseminated in musicological circles but I assume that you have that in hand MusFerd?
<<It also needs to be widely disseminated in musicological circles but I assume that you have that in hand MusFerd?>>
I'm doing my best.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Wednesday 31 October 2012, 18:56
The issue of using the revised numbering of Rufinatscha's symphonies has been raised
I see no reason to do this. There are precisely the same number of symphonies as before, but No. 3 is now a different work. It does no harm to leave the designation of No. 4 to an incomplete work, but removing the number will cause unnecessary confusion. Should Schubert's 7th and 8th be deleted merely because there are incomplete? Would anyone like to try to renumber the symphonies of Mozart? It isn't possible to determine how many symphonies Mozart wrote. Some of his symphonies have been left out of the list, while the numbered symphonies include works written by his father, or by friends. To renumber Mozart's symphonies each time a new one turned up, or an old one was found to be by someone else, would be unhelpful. I hope that Chandos will stick with the old numbering.
I disagree. It is now time to correct the numbering - before an incorrect chronological sequence becomes entrenched.
It won't help the cause of Rufinatscha's music if two numbering systems for the symphonies are perpetuated. Although I do have a lot of sympathy with what Hovite is saying, I don't really mind one way or the other provided there is agreement on which one to use and then we stick to it.
Musicological discoveries are welcome but they do disrupt numbering systems dreadfully! About a dozen years ago I was asked to come up with WoO (Werke ohne Opuszahl) numbers for Raff's works which had no opus number. The result was a neat, logical, sequential system for the 56 pieces, which has been adopted widely since then. But within a year of its publication someone unhelpfully found a song cycle mouldering away in a library and since then a further sixteen pieces have come to light! Wonderful to have them, of course, but it was quite impracticable to go back and change the WoO allocations to the original 56 works. So, the discoveries have been slotted in chronologically using letter suffixes. Not as satisfying as my original system but at least it works and it won't cause confusion with all the recordings and publications which have adopted the original WoO numbers.
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Wednesday 28 November 2012, 07:48
It won't help the cause of Rufinatscha's music if two numbering systems for the symphonies are perpetuated. Although I do have a lot of sympathy with what Hovite is saying, I don't really mind one way or the other provided there is agreement on which one to use and then we stick to it.
Musicological discoveries are welcome but they do disrupt numbering systems dreadfully! About a dozen years ago I was asked to come up with WoO (Werke ohne Opuszahl) numbers for Raff's works which had no opus number. The result was a neat, logical, sequential system for the 56 pieces, which has been adopted widely since then. But within a year of its publication someone unhelpfully found a song cycle mouldering away in a library and since then a further sixteen pieces have come to light! Wonderful to have them, of course, but it was quite impracticable to go back and change the WoO allocations to the original 56 works. So, the discoveries have been slotted in chronologically using letter suffixes. Not as satisfying as my original system but at least it works and it won't cause confusion with all the recordings and publications which have adopted the original WoO numbers.
The champion for that is of course, Dvorak's Symphonies... And then we probably don't want to talk about the numbering of Mozart's symphonies... Some of the numbered ones he didn't write (like #37 by FJ Haydn's brother Michael) , and some he did, didn't get numbers....
So, Rufinatscha can join the numbering confusion as well...
The difference with Rufinatscha is that he is hardly known: were it not for the Chandos recording, it would be a simple matter to make the switch to the new system. Even so, I think the change should be made along the lines I have described before.
Good idea - If the interest in him takes off, it would be nice to be consistent
Quote from: Hovite on Tuesday 27 November 2012, 23:16
I see no reason to do this. There are precisely the same number of symphonies as before, but No. 3 is now a different work. It does no harm to leave the designation of No. 4 to an incomplete work, but removing the number will cause unnecessary confusion. Should Schubert's 7th and 8th be deleted merely because there are incomplete? Would anyone like to try to renumber the symphonies of Mozart? It isn't possible to determine how many symphonies Mozart wrote. Some of his symphonies have been left out of the list, while the numbered symphonies include works written by his father, or by friends. To renumber Mozart's symphonies each time a new one turned up, or an old one was found to be by someone else, would be unhelpful. I hope that Chandos will stick with the old numbering.
Dear Hovite, the problem is that the "Symphony no. 4 in F" by Rufinatscha does not exist, a librarian of the Tiroler Landesmuseum has mistaken a concert aria with a symphony. And the symphonic fragment in C major from Rufinatscha's estate is not only incomplete, it exists only in a version for piano 4hands and bears no date - it can not really be included in the chronology of his symphonies.
Agreed, Dr Gratl.
It does seem a fair-enough point. As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, cataloguing the oeuvre of a composer newly-emerging from obscurity is fraught with pitfalls like this.