I just finished listening to Anton Rubinstein's Symphony No 5 on Marco Polo. What a beautiful piece ...and very RUSSIAN from a man mocked for just the opposite by the FIVE!!!
The Ist movement is very gripping.
The IInd movement is the so Sprightly... (played this over and over again!!!)
Any opinions on this work.
(or is it just the MAGIC of No. 5 ?!?)
I'm afraid I have never been able to muster much enthusiasm for Rubinstein's music. For me it lacks true melodic invention, taught structural discipline and any truly clear voice. It is certainly not 'Nationalistic' in the way The Five might have wanted; it is very Germanic in spirit and sound - more so even than Tchaikovsky (whom they also criticised).
I listened to the Symphony No 5 again to make sure I wasn't being too harsh, but my opinion was only reinforced. To my ears the style is a mixture of Tchaikovsky and Brahms without either the wonderful melodies and drama of the former or the structural discipline and taughtness of the latter.
Not one for me, I'm sorry to say.
I remember the library having a copy of the old Turnabout Lp of his 'Ocean Symphony',when I was a teenager,some years ago!! I remember enjoying it & that it had one quite memorable tune. I haven't heard it since,but I keep meaning to buy the Naxos cd. It seems to me a work with a certain naive charm about it & rather good in a way. Unfortunately,Rubinstein doesn't seem to have really known how to sort the chaff from the wheat,as they say.
I also,had two of the Piano Concerto's,the once famous fourth & the fifth. The fifth struck me as,superficially, quite an impressive work,With quite a fun finale,but it wasn't something I wanted to listen to allot. Eventually,I gave them away to someone who aparently enjoyed them allot more than I did. The Fourth was performed,incidentally,by Shura Cherkassky,(Decca).
For me, only two of Rubinstein's symphonies have a chance at revival: the original version of the 2nd (before he turned it into a bloated oceanic suite), and the 5th.
The 5th is certainly the most Russian of the five. While it displays the perpetual Rubinstein problem with respect to development and organization of ideas, it is chock full of memorable tunes and exciting effects. It's one of his very happiest creations.
The overt Russian quality of the work is a reflection of Rubinstein's change of heart regarding nationalist music. Several works from that period (1880 and the years preceding) reflect this strong nationalist flavor, the 2nd Cello Concerto and the Caprice Russe being prime examples.
The 5th is also one of his more cleverly scored works. He achieves quite a bit with what is just slightly more than a Haydn orchestra: 2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 4 horns, 2 trumpets, tympani, and strings. That's it. No trombones, no tuba, no piccolo, no exotic visitors of any kind. That's quite an achievement.
Rubinstein just isn't a very good symphonist, or opera composer for that matter. The "Ocean" symphony does find its way to the cd player occassionally (in the 4-movement version), but the other symphonies and opera (The Demon) haven't been heard in this house in a long, long time. Rubinstein's strength lies in his solo piano works. There are many of them that I just love -- no, not the Melody in F. Despite his weaknesses, it hasn't stopped my from collecting an obscene number of cds with his music. It's embarassing, but I have more Rubinstein than Schumann, Schubert, Mendelssohn or Mozart -- combined! Another strength is in the piano concerto, especially the last three. They may be flashy, empty, bombastic - just what I want in a concerto. I'd rather hear one of these in a concert anytime than have to sit through another dreary reading of the more famous concertos.
Quote from: mbhaub on Wednesday 04 August 2010, 18:03
They may be flashy, empty, bombastic - just what I want in a concerto.
Hear, hear! I would challenge anybody who maintained that there wasn't a life-affirming thrill to be gained from listening to a cascade of almost unplayable notes!
Quote from: john_boyer on Wednesday 04 August 2010, 17:53The overt Russian quality of the work is a reflection of Rubinstein's change of heart regarding nationalist music. Several works from that period (1880 and the years preceding) reflect this strong nationalist flavor, the 2nd Cello Concerto and the Caprice Russe being prime examples.
I think you mean
succeeding, John. And I'm in full agreement. The 2nd Cello Concerto is also a repertory-worthy work. I can't say I'm familiar with the 5th Symphony, but now, at least I'm intrigued. Come to think of it, I could swear I heard most of the finale of the 5th on the radio, and was surprised to find out that the composer was Anton. I would have thought Lyapunov or another of Balakirev's acolytes (except for the lack of percussion, piccolo, etc).
I really must have a listen to my recording and remind myself how this works sounds!
I just looked up the old Turnabout LP of the 'Ocean' & found a rather nice page of (very) big colour photographs of the Vox LP. Also the Vox Lp of his Fourth Piano Concerto,plus,Scharwenka,Raff,Goetz,Joachim,Thalberg,Alkan & a nice Moscheles Lp with a risque Klimt painting on the front. All Vox. A nice bit of nostalgia. The website appears to be in Chinese or something,(I'm no expert),but you get the site if you 'google' 'Vox Candide'. (I didn't know Vox did stuff like Stockhausen!!!!) I have no idea which version of the 'Ocean' the Vox recording was.
I liked it anyway! I only wish Chandos would do it!!!!!
Incidentally,I definately preferred Rubinstein's Fifth Piano Concerto to a certain other more well known one,but let's not go back on that. Come to think of it,I really DO think it was a mistake selling them.
Am I alone in actually liking The Demon?
NOo, I'm with you Gareth. It's an imaginative and compelling work which I return to quite often. There's a sort of raw power to the best of Rubinstein's music and The Demon certainly has that. Returning to the Fifth Symphony, I can't say that it has ever made much of an impression on me, but I'll dig it out tomorrow. The one's I go back to are the Second (I don't mind how many movements) and the Sixth, which has a fin de siecle grandeur to it, but maybe that's because they're the two that I listened to again and again in my 20s as they were only ones available on LP?
I promise I'll give the Fifth a listen tomorrow....
I'm listening as I write this to Rubinstein 5, and it is certainly full of arresting ideas in quite a Russian-sounding idiom. However, as with so much of his music, I find that it is merely that - full of arresting ideas, but giving very little impression of organic development. I keep asking myself where the music is actually going and so get bored very quickly. I have tried and tried with so much of his symphonic music, but I encounter the same problem every time; a complete contrast with the music of Raff, for example.
In fact, having got bored with No.5, I've turned to No.6 and - despite (or because of?) the much more conservative idiom, I find a much greater sense of shape and line, not to mention far more fire and drama.
The 2nd Cello Concerto is much superior in that respect, since Rubi dispensed with any attempt at sonata form. It's simply two ternary movements and a very well-conceived, nearly monothematic rondo (in which the subsidiary ideas are easily traceable as derivatives of the rondo theme). The first movement is a three-part form, but has a quasi-developmental transitional passage back to the reprise of the A section, followed by a coda, hence making it a more expansive structure befitting a first movement. Very well-conceived!
I hate to get all speculative, but somehow I feel with his symphonies that Rubinstein was deliberately not playing to his strengths. I can only guess, but I get the impression that he was trying to write symphonies like famous symphonists. A symphony à la his own PCs #3 or #4, or perhaps in the vein of his under-known Violin Concerto, might have been superb. Clearly (at least to me) the guy could orchestrate, he could come out with some really fantastic tunes. But in his symphonies, they strike me as usually well-orchestrated, okay tunes, but I find them so forgettable that I forget them before they're even done playing.
I hate to say this, because based on a few works and his refusal to get ridiculously "nationalistic", I love Rubinstein. And, as symphonies are my second-favourite musical form (after operas), I want to love his symphonies. Don't get me wrong, I don't dis like any of them, but despite all my wishing and repeated attempts, I can't even fall in Like with them, much less fall in love.
I don't normally post in threads when I have nothing positive to say - it doesn't help anybody, including me. But this is different. When I say I want to love his symphonies, I'm totally sincere. Are there any passages in #5 that I should check out in detail? Can someone name a recording and perhaps give specific times on the tracks that I could check out? Rubinstein is exactly the type of Romantic composer I should love most, so I am willing to put in the effort here. I made the same effort after a few mildly-positive experiences with Reinecke and now he's one of my favourites!
PS: I actually like Демон quite a bit, though for some reason I feel it's a bit longish for its musical material. I must sheepishly admit to listening only to my favourite numbers from it these days.
Quote from: JimL on Wednesday 04 August 2010, 18:54
Quote from: john_boyer on Wednesday 04 August 2010, 17:53The overt Russian quality of the work is a reflection of Rubinstein's change of heart regarding nationalist music. Several works from that period (1880 and the years preceding) reflect this strong nationalist flavor, the 2nd Cello Concerto and the Caprice Russe being prime examples.
I think you mean succeeding, John.
No, I meant
preceding . The works I mentioned, the 2nd Cello Concerto (1874) and the Caprice Russe (1878), as well as works like the String Quartet #8 (1871), of which Tchaikovsky said, "[a] Russian melancholy element goes through the entire work...", were the high-water marks of Rubinstein's flirtation with nationalism, ending with his opera
The Merchant Kalashnikov (1879) and the 5th Symphony (1880).
In the remaining 14 years of his life, he would write only 14 more opuses. In these works, Russian elements make only occasional appearances, as in the finale of the 6th Symphony (1886). For the most part, though, these late works --
Moses, the Konzertstuck (both 1889), the
Acrostic #2 and
Ten German Songs ( both 1890),
Souvenir de Dresde (1894) -- these late works follow classical models.
Whatever one's opinion of the music's merits, I think we can all agree that the first three (major-key) Rubinstein symphonies were of enormous importance for Russian composers when they premiered. Glinka had tried to write a symphony and gotten bogged down, as Balakirev later would. Rubinstein showed the world in the early 1850s that Russians could play in the major leagues. That his sonata forms have sequences of ideas more often than compelling developments of them is not all that surprising. A client culture is a client culture, and at the beginning especially slopes can seem steeper.
Oh yes, I'm sure Rubinstein was enormously important. But his symphonies, sub specie aeternitatis, are not really all that good, in my view.
A most wonderful symphony, full of catchy, memorable themes, and a very clever balance of moods between the four movements. Take the sparkling 2nd movement, full of joy, followed by the utterly beautiful 3rd movement, with its serene opening of wind instruments. To my ears not for one second boring, on the contrary.
Rubinstein's Fifth is in my opinion a very great Russian symphony. No, not at the same level as Tchaikovsky. But then, Tchaikovsky wrote at least five truly monumental symphonic masterpieces; he had IMHO hardly any contemporary competitors.
Rubinstein was an undeniably important figure in Russian musical life - but definitely not a great symphonist. The attractive passages in his symphonies are mostly outweighed by lack of organisation and organic development. Don't get me wrong: I have enjoyed listening to them all at some point. But to mention them in the same breath as Tchaikovsky makes no sense - for me at any rate!
For me, they're ranked in this order of enjoyment:
1) 6th
2) 1st
3) 3rd
4) 2nd (the 4 movement version preferably)
5) 4th
6) 5th
Of the latter two, I can recall not a single theme; the preceeding four on the other hand contain more memorable material. I, too, had the old LP's of the 6th and the "Ocean". The 6th was with Beisel (sp?) conducting and the "Ocean" was an old USSR Melodya LP with Fuat Mansurov at the helm (pardon the weak pun!).
6: Heribert Beissel, Hamburg Symphony Orchestra (re?issued on Turnabout, 1973)
2: indeed Fuat Mansurov, Gosudarstvennyi simfonicheskii orkestr Ministerstva kulʹtury SSSR. (Melodiya, around 1982?)
Eric
I listened today to the Fifth. My first impressions were positive, the material from which he builds the first movement (indeed all the movements to be fair) is arresting and has a lot of vitality. Not particularly Russian IMHO, but I wouldn't hold that against him. About halfway through the first movement I realised that it is basically just a succession of episodes, there isn't really any true symphonic development. It's attractive, sometimes very virile, music but in the end it has energy but lacks momentum because it doesn't go anywhere, except back where we've already been. The finale suffers from the same problem. Essentially, the music is pointless. The Scherzo and the slow movement are both very attractive and much more successful because they are more modest in ambition. Overall, I thought better of it than I remembered, but it isn't a great symphony.
Don't get me wrong, Rubinstein's music, including the symphonies, has given me a lot of pleasure over the years and I'm an enthusiast, but what I like about his music is the melody, the colour with which invests individual episodes, the poetry and the sheer raw energy. It appeals to the heart, not the intellect.
Nice to hear from you again Brandt! Been a while. How do you like the Forum's new avatar?
Although I appreciate the importance of Rubinstein to the development of Russian music, the 5th symphony just doesn't do much for me. To me, the inner movements lack the character and strength to carry me along. My attention wanders.
That said, there are other symphonies I like a lot less, and maybe it would benefit from a better recording than the one I have. I wonder if some conductor and orchestra could come along and breathe real passion and life into the 5th.
Those of you who like this symphony -- do you have a recording to recommend?
I reckon that No 5 is Rubinstein's best symphony. Whenever I want to hear some Ruinstein, I invariably get out the Marco Polo CD of that work. It must still be selling alright as Marco Polo have not yet got round to transferring it to their cheapo Naxos label, unlike some of his other symphonies.
..or maybe they still have unsold stocks of the Marco Polo originals that they need to shift first? :)
That was certainly their policy a few years ago for deciding when to reissue on Naxos.
Quote from: JimL on Thursday 05 August 2010, 22:56
Nice to hear from you again Brandt! Been a while. How do you like the Forum's new avatar?
Thank you, Jim! I like it just fine.... If I may, I'd like to make a small adjustment to my previous ranking by moving the 5th up one spot and putting the 4th at the very bottom. Reason being, I'd forgotten how blessed long the "Dramatic" is. Nearly a full hour of material that really isn't that captivating. As for the 5th, when all is said and done, I actually can recall the clarinet theme now after a hearing of it last night. Today, I put on #4 - can't recall a single theme.
And yet, by comparison, I can recall a lot of Raff 7 - reckoned by some to be his weakest symphony. Actually, for me there is no comparison...
For me, the problem with Rubinstein is his attitude. Yes, there is a lot of creativity and energy there, but he simply doesn't seem much interested in what to do with it. All this production, but so little apparent effort dedicating to fine-tuning. Compare it to Saint-Saëns, where all the ideas get beaten into form in a way that makes them memorable. Rubinstein's ideas are certainly no worse than S-S's, but they're crippled by a lack of focus.
I may have overstated the impact of Rubinstein's first three symphonies on his fellow Russians. This hardly constitutes research, but I just bumped into some liner notes with this sentence: "[Rimsky-Korsakov's] First Symphony was heralded by César Cui as the first by a Russian composer." If accurate, Cui for one was unaware of Rubinstein's three only a dozen (or so) years after their appearance.
Cui, and the rest of the Mighty Five were very well aware of Rubinstein's symphonies. They simply didn't consider him a 'Russian' composer. He was born in disputed territory (which changed hands often; currently it is in the Republic of Moldova), his schooling was German, and he was a converted Jew. He himself famously lamented "Russians call me German, Germans call me Russian, Jews call me a Christian, Christians a Jew. Pianists call me a composer, composers call me a pianist. The classicists think me a futurist, and the futurists call me a reactionary. My conclusion is that I am neither fish nor fowl – a pitiful individual!"
And that pitiful creature gave me many, many hours, no, days of listening pleasure like no other unsung composer ever did.
Quote from: Peter1953 on Saturday 07 August 2010, 18:48
And that pitiful creature gave me many, many hours, no, days of listening pleasure like no other unsung composer ever did.
Hear hear
I seem to recall Robert Volkmann's 2nd symphony was a strong influence on one of Tchaikovsky's early symphonies, though- the influences weren't all Russian (well, ok, of course; Tchaik hated Brahms but was of course open enough to the European mainstream otherwise...) However, I may be misremembering and the influence may have gone in the opposite direction...
Eric
Well, let's see ....
Memorable, enjoyable works by Cui _____
Memorable, enjoyable works by Rubinstein _____
Composers condemned by Cui
Rubinstein, Rachmaninoff, and Tchaikovsky
Rimsky-Korsakov did not reciprocate the esteem of Cui. He openly disparaged Cui's orchestral talent.
So, from my angle, to be criticized by Cui is praise indeed!
:P
Quote from: Amphissa on Saturday 07 August 2010, 21:55
Well, let's see ....
Memorable, enjoyable works by Cui _____
Memorable, enjoyable works by Rubinstein _____
Composers condemned by Cui
Rubinstein, Rachmaninoff, and Tchaikovsky
Rimsky-Korsakov did not reciprocate the esteem of Cui. He openly disparaged Cui's orchestral talent.
So, from my angle, to be criticized by Cui is praise indeed!
:P
Memorable, enjoyable works by Cui- from the looks of their scores, his string quartets; from the sound of them, his orchestral suites and piano works.
Memorable, enjoyable works by Rubinstein - many of them. Just not as much so as Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff (and he might have criticized Medtner I suppose had they bumped into each other, but no matter conjecturing.)
Thanks for the interesting quote, JimL. Here's another interesting one back atcha, from Yastrebstev's "Reminiscences of Rimsky-Korsakov," describing a concert given by Anton Rubinstein on 1886-02-15 (old style?): "The program, devoted entirely to Russian composers, opened with eleven études by Chopin (op. 10 and 25) ..."
Well, strictly speaking, at the time Poland was indeed part of the Russian Empire.
That was why Chopin had to leave Poland, and could never return. When Russia annexed Poland, Chopin was implicated in the Resistance (in thought and word, if not deed). Had he gone back to Poland in his lifetime, he would have been arrested and maybe imprisoned or executed. At minimum he would have been sent back into exile. And of course, the Russians, having already claimed Poland as their own, would have claimed him as well.
I was intrigued by comments made about Rubinstein's 5th symphony. I listened to sound bites of the symphony and was immediately attracted to the second movement. I consequently ordered the cd, which I received this morning. This afternoon I played the cd and have to say that I very much enjoyed the symphony overall and in particular the second movement. I can well appreciate why one member played this movement over and over! It's such a fun movement, good humoured and joyous. Indeed the whole symphony, as described on Amazon is that is it perhaps the most joyous of all Rubinstein's works. For me the whole symphony works. The third movement had me thinking of Dvorak's New World symphony for a few moments, with its brass opening, had visions of Hovis bread for a while - hope that doesn't sound too silly but that was the effect the first minute or so of the 3rd movement had on me!!! I don't know any of the other symphonies but suspect they are far more serious and therefore a lot less fun to listen too. I plan to look into the other symphonies though in due course. I note that Demon is also mentioned in this thread. Checking my cds, I came across "Exotic music from the Opera" and one of the tracks is "Ballet music from the Demon". Listening to it a couple of times, I liked the piece (approx. 9 mins in length) and found it quite melodious - not great music but certainly a very enjoyable listen.
Cheers
Dennis
Have to say. Judging by the amount of posts on this thread,whatever the ultimate value of Anton Rubinstein's music,he certainly gets an online debate going!
People can say what they want about Rubinstein. They can laugh at him, like Prokofieff and his generation did, they can criticize him mercilessly, they can berate his music all they want. But Rubinstein had one thing too many lesser composers didn't: dignity. There is a seriousness of intent and dedication of his life to music that intrigues me and causes me to respect him despite the failings of the music. And as long as there are people learning to play piano seriously, his name and music will always hold a place in the music world. I've tried to learn to play some of his early works, but they're beyond me, except for Op. 3 (Melody in F). While most modern pianists spend careers promoting Liszt, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninoff and others, it's gratifying to know that Joseph Banowetz is so dedicated to bringing us Rubinstein's music.
I believe there's a fellow named Howard who's doing a little work in that area, too.
Quote from: mbhaub on Saturday 21 August 2010, 00:31
People can say what they want about Rubinstein. They can laugh at him, like Prokofieff and his generation did, they can criticize him mercilessly, they can berate his music all they want. But Rubinstein had one thing too many lesser composers didn't: dignity. There is a seriousness of intent and dedication of his life to music that intrigues me and causes me to respect him despite the failings of the music. And as long as there are people learning to play piano seriously, his name and music will always hold a place in the music world. I've tried to learn to play some of his early works, but they're beyond me, except for Op. 3 (Melody in F). While most modern pianists spend careers promoting Liszt, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninoff and others, it's gratifying to know that Joseph Banowetz is so dedicated to bringing us Rubinstein's music.
I agree that Rubinstein
the man is deserving of respect for his integrity and his achievements but that isn't a reason per se for me to listen to his music or to revise my opinions of it. Some of it I like but other pieces such as his Dramatic symphony will remain overblown and clumsily written to my mind however great a guy he was personally. The two things are separate in the same way Wagner's music and his appalling personality are and should be.
On the other hand, when he was careful, he could be very well organized. I find no quarrel with the structures or developmental skills in either the 4th or 5th PCs.
There is also the G major Violin concerto.. structurally quite intact for Rubinstein. And quite melodious too!!! ;D
Personally I find the Violin Concerto one of his least memorable pieces, but all this talk of Rubinstein has led me to dig out several CDs of his music in the last week when I've been laid low with a virus. There's an immediate attraction in many of his works which I think comes from his knack of penning a memorable phrase and, in his orchestral works, the ruggedness and masculinity of his characteristic orchestral palette. I hadn't listened, for example, to the first two piano concertos for years and yet they grabbed me straight away. I don't think that either is great music, but they are attractive pieces. There were longeurs too - the Dramatic Symphony and the Erioca Fantasia stand out - but it has been good to reconnect with Rubinstein. Last week at least, he's provided "comfort food".
I find the VC quite memorable, but in this work my only problem seems to be the development in the first movement. Rubi just seems to be toying around with a motive from the first subject without really developing much of anything. Also, the phrase he's using is a pastoral little soundbite that contains little intrinsic excitement. He never does anything to inject a little dramatic intensity into it.
Quote from: JimL on Sunday 22 August 2010, 15:19
I find the VC quite memorable, but in this work my only problem seems to be the development in the first movement. Rubi just seems to be toying around with a motive from the first subject without really developing much of anything. Also, the phrase he's using is a pastoral little soundbite that contains little intrinsic excitement. He never does anything to inject a little dramatic intensity into it.
I know what you are talking about. It sometimes frustrates me to no end that he misses developing some critical sections and just mentions some absolutely gorgeous passages once only to forget them completely (in the final movement!)
Today I came across Rubinstein 5 (on Naxos, formerly Marco Polo) in my collection and I must say that I was more impressed than I have been in the past by the piece. One thing is certain: it is extremely well done by the George Enescu Philharmonic Orchestra (Bucharest) under Horia Andreescu - there's no sense of routine in the playing and much is truly excellent. Indeed, I'd hazard that this is the best recording of a Rubinstein symphony on the market (not that there's much choice, really).
Anyway, rather than being bored, I felt that this was a thoroughly worthwhile work with some truly beautiful as well as exciting passages (try ca. 7 mins into the finale). All in all, an unexpectedly enjoyable listen - with a Slavonic-sounding earworm in that finale - lovely!
In this one work there is/has been competition, three different versions in all I think - at least Marco Polo/Naxos, Centaur (Kolman/Slovak Philharmonic), and Melodiia LP (Zverev, 1990). As recorded symphonies of Rubinstein go it's about as popular among conductors and record labels/studios as nos. 2 (I find two recordings, one several times reissued on a couple of labels?, of no.4, two recordings of no.3, two of no.6. Many of no.2, I think, so all these others come in distant whatevers, but still...)
What we need is a updated version of Piano Concerto No. 5 on a Good piano - The Naxos version, while amazing, interpretation wise - the Piano used in the recording left a lot to be desired. The upper register passages called to mind the honky-tonky sounds of a Period piano.
QuoteToday I came across Rubinstein 5 (on Naxos, formerly Marco Polo) in my collection and I must say that I was more impressed than I have been in the past by the piece.
That's a surprise! Well, I guess what you say, Alan, is as good a reason as any to dust off my copy and see if the passage of time provokes the same Pauline conversion...
Well, there was no blinding light - more a warm glow. And you can't ask for much more...
Inspired by this forum I just re-listened to that Naxos issue of "Ocean Symphony". Of course it's a bit too long, and I am hearing a lot of Raff in there, not knowing whether there was an obvious influence, or just an adhering to the musical modes of that time in Weimar (?) Raff and Rubinstein had met in Weimar, as far as I remember having read somewhere.
The music is well-played. As far as the sound balance is concerned, I remember working at that time in Bratislava, the Marco Polo sound team used to call the products of the local team "Tomatophon" :-)
I doubt that there's much Raff in the Ocean Symphony, Adriano. The original four movements date from 1851, by which time Raff had written very little for orchestra and none of it had been performed. More likely, as you say, that they were both "adhering to the musical modes of that time in Weimar".