Rufinatscha's Symphonies: important update

[Alan Howe]

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...

[Peter1953]

I am very curious....

[eschiss1]

Seconded, will watch.

[Alan Howe]

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!

[eschiss1]

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?

[Alan Howe]

I've already done so, Eric.

[eschiss1]

*headspins* Thanks

[Alan Howe]

I thought it was important to get the correct picture 'out there' as quickly as possible.

[Peter1953]

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?

[Mark Thomas]

Fascinating, Alan, but I'm a mite confused....

Concerning:

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

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.

[petershott@btinternet.com]

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.

[Mark Thomas]

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.

[Alan Howe]

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!

[MusFerd]

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!   

[Alan Howe]

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.