Is this new or a repackaging? Anyhow, expected out August 18th on Music & Arts per Presto (https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/9509415--anton-rubinstein-piano-concertos-nos-1-2-pieces-caracteristiques-op-50).
New - I think.
I just hope that Jarvi père doesn't race coarsely through them like he did with the Scharwenkas for Chandos, a release I frankly disliked.
Well, their Rubinstein 3 is significantly faster than Marshev's or even the 32 minute average (coming in at about 29:46), I see... their concerto 5 comes in at about 43:23, again much less than the 48:26 so far average. So it's a concern. We'll see?
(I see Ms Shelest can be heard on Youtube in a 2020 2-piano performance of the first concerto with Dmitri Shelest- itself faster (30:33 vs 38:15) than the norm...)
I recall a comment made by one of the Chandos recording team when I was in the studio while Rufinatscha 6 (now 5) was being recorded. They were discussing upcoming recording sessions (Raff) in Geneva under the great Estonian-born conductor - the comment was: "That'll be fast". And they were right!
Personally, I've always found that a lot of Rubinstein recordings (particularly the symphonies) sound as though a brisker pace would do them a huge favor (and an attempt at speeding them up in Audacity has so far confirmed that hunch).
QuotePersonally, I've always found that a lot of Rubinstein recordings (particularly the symphonies) sound as though a brisker pace would do them a huge favor
The real problem in my view is that there's no absolutely top-flight recording of any Rubinstein symphony. They need an awful lot of help - and never get it.
Yes, perhaps the torpitude of the current crop of recordings is more of a symptom than a cause. And I fully agree with you: these works need all the assistance that they can get.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Saturday 15 July 2023, 13:29The real problem in my view is that there's no absolutely top-flight recording of any Rubinstein symphony. They need an awful lot of help - and never get it.
I think the Hanson/Wuppertal recording of the 2nd on MD+G comes closest. The Wuppertal band has always impressed me as a fine ensemble -- no exception here -- and MD+G provides them with their usual great sound.
I think you're probably right, John, although it's 'only' the 4-movement version.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 17 July 2023, 14:24I think you're probably right, John, although it's 'only' the 4-movement version.
Another point in its favor!
I nearly added something to that effect, but didn't want to be accused of anti-Rubinsteinianism 8)
It's an odd thing that his music provokes such strong feelings, when on the whole it is unremarkably conventional, even for its own time. I wonder why? I certainly appreciate his gift for memorable melody and some of his works have either a syrupy charm or rythmic muscularity, so I wouldn't want to be without my Rubinstein recordings because of that but otherwise, with those few notable exceptions, there really isn't much nourishment in his music
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Monday 17 July 2023, 19:52there really isn't much nourishment in his music
Nor in popcorn, but I can't resist pouring out another bowl.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 17 July 2023, 16:44I nearly added something to that effect, but didn't want to be accused of anti-Rubinsteinianism 8)
You're in good company! Tchaikovsky agrees with you. He was an astute judge of music; read his comments about "Carmen" and "Die Walkure". Writing about the six-movement version of the "Ocean" symphony -- never mind the final seven-movement one -- he wrote that "Rubinstein has added two movements to his Symphony; although very charming, they destroy the artistic balance of the classical sonata form and make this perfect work excessively long."
I'm not sure that Tchaikovsky objected to them merely for being 2 more than the by then traditional 4 (not, by the way, a "classical" balance, since the "classical" tradition was a 3 movement symphony, only occasionally 4), but if he did, he seems to have changed his mind by 1875, I deduce for extremely obvious reasons.
The 7-movement version on Naxos takes just short of 73 minutes. What was the man thinking of?
ambitious, yes. Could have added a chorus to the finale, or something.
Also, the 6-movement version is the 2nd version (1863), the 7-movement version is his final version of 1880. The 1851 version has 4 movements.
Getting back to the Shelest recording of concertos 1 and 2, they are expected (to market) in 9 days from now and any questions of timing should be answerable then, presumably...
Correction:
per Music & Arts (https://musicandarts.com/product/anton-rubinstein-piano-concertos-nos-1-2-pieces-caracteristiques-op-50-anna-shelest-piano-neeme-jarvi-conductor-available-august-18-2023/) the timings of the new recording are
Piano concerto no.1:
1. Moderato. 15:40 (compared to 17:06 on Marco Polo, or 18:22 - Zamparas on Centaur)
2. Andante con moto 6:20 (vs 8:21 on MP, 7:12- Zamparas)
3. Con moto 11:15 (vs 12:29 on MP, 12:49 "Allegro non troppo" - Zamparas)
Pièces caractéristiques, Op.50 (arr. Arkady Leytush)
track 4. No.3. Barcarole (2:38)
track 5. No.5. Berceuse (4:23)
Piano concerto no.2.
6: 1. Allegro vivace assai. 16:41 (vs 18:59)
7: 2. Adagio non troppo. 8:12 (vs 11:33)
8: 3. Moderato. 9:47 (vs 10:35)
Don't know if the Banowetz/Walter recording is generally considered well-judged in tempi, but this new recording is overall faster in total time than it is in every movement.
The finale of no.1 - apparently oddly different in one of the three performances (there are at least 4, I know, counting the Orion LP which I might also try to track down - maybe a Danacord and/or other complete sets too besides this and the Marco Polo one) - is Con moto in the orchestral score, Allegro non troppo in the composer's reduction and maybe in revised full score editions (maybe even ones due to the composer? Would have to look into that) for all I know, so the discrepancy isn't an impossible thing.
(Orion LP for concerto 1: 18:40/9:10/11:58. Michael Fardink, pf.)
I was going to comment on this yesterday, having done comparative timings, but I see you've done all that work for me. I might only add a comparison between the venerable Ruiz recording of the Fifth Concerto versus the Järvi. Ruiz takes 11 minutes in the slow movement compared to only 8 for Järvi.
I think we can conclude that if you want to hear Raff or Rubinstein and you also have a train to catch, you have no need to worry if Järvi is on the podium.
However, sometimes that train is worth catching. I always got the feeling that the Banowetz recordings were much too slow, particularly in the 1st concerto.
I suspect NJ's a bit too speedy.
Just an observation, I can't remember who said it (it might even have been on Facebook!) but someone said Rubinstein benefited from faster tempi. Maybe this set would prove that?
There's fast and there's NJ, though!
(NJ- not one of the less ambiguous of abbreviations...*)
*I wonder how many students of NJ teach in NJ...
The clue's in the thread title!
Indeed! ;D
Having now listened to the recording, my feelings are a bit mixed. Firstly: fast though they are, I am convinced Järvi is spot-on in his choice of tempi. They lend the music a vigor that most recordings I've heard in the past are lacking; Rubinstein's music simply doesn't survive an approach that stretches it too thinly.
On the flip side, I have to admit also that Shelest's pianism is lacking the muscularity that both Banowetz and Samparas exhibit and this music really needs. She plays the more lyrical passages beautifully, but that solo in the finale of the 1st concerto has to be a thunderous display of bravado, and Shelest is apparently incapable of giving it the necessary heft. However, what really kills things for me is the recording balance: during orchestral tutti, the piano is sometimes barely audible. It makes you appreciate that those old Marco Polo recordings had a really competent sound engineer at the helm, which made up for a lot of their shortcomings.
Oh dear. A missed opportunity, then...