Rufinatscha PC

[JimL]

There was something about the mathematics of my previous post that bugged me, so I listened a few more times and I figured it out.  Three bars of four contains the same number of beats as four bars of three.  Now I get it.  It's actually four bars of three, but the phrasing is divided in such a way as to make it sound like three bars of four!  Was this guy a tummler or what?

[JimL]

Actually, a closer listen revealed that the first theme in the finale starts out with a five measure phrase.  Or at least that was how it sounded at my last count.  This thing really grows on you. 

The first movement has some relatively unusual procedures, too.  The opening dialogue between soloist and tutti is more like an in-tempo introduction, which also serves as a point of articulation and focus of development.  The actual first subject (which bears no small melodic and harmonic resemblance to the first theme of the Chopin Op. 11) is used as a baroque ritornello (it closes the exposition - in B flat minor, no less!)  It begins the reprise, pops up in the expertly integrated cadenza and closes out the movement.  The second subject has an interlude based on the piano's opening part of the introductory dialogue which is omitted from the solo exposition but returns at the culmination of the development and again in the coda.  Again and again one is reminded that Rufinatscha was truly an original thinker with a notable melodic gift.  His music simply must not be allowed to languish in a museum.

[Peter1953]

Apart from all musicological analyses, it's just wonderful music to listen to.

[JimL]

Oh absolutely.  That would go without saying were it not for the fact that it needs saying - often and to whoever you can say it to.  And now I'm not so sure that it's a five measure phrase - maybe it's divided into 4 and 3...I can't figure it out and I can't get it out of my head either!  And now it's telling me to get someone else to listen to it too... 

O.K.  It's time for the million dollar question, I guess.  The Raff PC is one of the greats of the literature, sung or not.  The von Henselt Op. 16 is right up there with it, IMHO.  In your humble (or otherwise) opinions, how does the Rufinatscha G Minor stack up next to them? 

[JimL]

Well, I'm the first to answer my own question, since you are all a little slow (for whatever reason), but my answer is a resounding VERY WELL!  Put the Rufinatscha up there too for occasional (or even better, frequent) revival.  Dare I say even repertory status?

BTW, that theme that begins the finale starts out (as near as I can tell) with THREE measures in common time, followed by a switch to triple meter.  Like I said, it's got a hitch in its metric giddyup.  Absolutely splendid!

Of course, I'd really like to get a look at that score to check...

[peter_conole]

Hi all

I  agree with your 'self-answer' Jiml. The concerto is pretty much one of a kind, with wonderful individual touches and ideas. Yes, it fully deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the Raff and Henselt concertos. Just to narrow things down a bit, it must surely be one of the truly great concertos of the period c1840 -1856 (death of Schumann). Am listening to it again right now.

Now for a bit of real heresy -  I think the work could well hold its own in the concert hall with the likes of its companion piece on the Tirolean disc. All that is needed is some committed concert performances and a couple of recordings (with all the high-tech trimmings) featuring major international pianists - with A+ grade orchestras and modern grand pianos, not just period instruments, however well they sound.

regards
Peter

[Alan Howe]

I understand that Hyperion may be interested...

[JimL]

No heresy to me Peter...

Has Mike Spring inquired about obtaining the score from the Landesmuseum?

[Gareth Vaughan]

Mike has a copy of the 2-piano score, which I sent him, and the recent CD. Let's see what happens.

[Ilja]

In the full awareness of risking the ire of my fellow forum members, might I say that I experienced a (albeit slight) slight sense disappointment after hearing the concert? Not that it's bereft of ideas, not melodious enough or not well-constructed – it's just that in my view, it just doesn't quite measure up to the level of most of his other compositions. Those are exceptional works, whereas this concert remains much more generic.

[Peter1953]

Could your slight disappointment be caused by the fact that the concert is performed by a small orchestra, Ilja?
Well, I must confess that I really like the Piano Concerto, and I think it is very Rufinatscha, but... my favourites still are
(1) Symphony 5, (2) Symphony 6 and (3) Piano Quartet in C minor.

[JimL]

I was only let down slightly by the finale.  I felt it could have been a bit more formally expansive than a simple rondo, rollicking and jaunty as it may be.  The brevity of the finale throws the overall balance of the piece a bit out of whack (the first movement is longer than the last two combined by a couple of minutes).  But it's a minor quibble.  I consider the work to be a major find and sure to bring a smile to the faces of any audiences fortunate enough to hear it live, and garner standing ovations for performers and work alike.  It certainly has no shallow and flashy pyrotechnics, but is constructed entirely of strong musical ideas, expertly worked through (except, as I said, in the finale).  Even then, the unabashedly delightful material of the finale more than makes up for its uncomplicated formal straightforwardness.

That said, I'm afraid I can't really agree with Ilja's assessment of the work vis-a-vis the other music of Rufi I've gotten to know.  I hear a strong and individual voice in every measure.  He had his own style, which was far from "generic".  Indeed, as I pointed out in an earlier post, his construction of the first movement is quite ingenious and individual.  He had his own take on the "concerto problem", and his solution works quite well for me.  IMHO, it is indeed too bad that this work seems to be the only one he attempted in the genre.

[DennisS]

Hello

a Merry Christmas to all members.

I recently received the PC. It arrived quite quickly, although I did pay a little extra for a speedier delivery - worth it though! Listened to the concerto this morning. I quite enjoyed it but felt a little unmoved by it. I also agree with JimL and his comments re- the finale. I feel that I too will need to listen to it a few more times to more fully appreciate it. I don't think though it has anything to do with the old-fashioned piano but I did feel that the piano sound sounded a little "dull" in comparison to the more quicksilver tones of a modern piano. I too would like to go on record as saying my favourite Rufinatscha is symphony no 5! I especially love the opening movement!

Cheers
Dennis

[JimL]

I understand concertos a little differently, as immersed as I am in the ethos of the times in which the Romantic works in the genre were created.  The concerto was the equivalent of "pop music" today - designed more to be entertaining and moving than intellectually stimulating or challenging.  That was the province of the symphony.  Rufinatscha's work, in that respect is very much of its time.  I find the material more moving the more familiar with it I get, and in some respects, Rufi was ahead of his time in the first movement's distribution of material and motivic transformations.  Definitely a precursor to Brahms.  The slow movement is absolutely exquisite, and I find it taxes my patience less than many a slow movement in a good number of concertos.  The concerto's only concession to popular taste is the finale, but you know, considering just how many Romantic concerto finales outstay their welcomes, maybe its quicksilver conciseness isn't that bad a thing after all.   

And let me add now: MERRY XMAS TO ALL!!!!!!! 

P.S. My birthday was yesterday.  Looking back, I can see the hill now. 

[Alan Howe]

A musicologist friend of mine who has just been listening to the Rufinatscha PC for the first time has emphasised what is of fundamental importance about the work - and that is its sheer originality. As he has written to me, when listening to a PC from 1850, one might expect clear influences - Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Hummel, Moscheles, etc. However in reality there is no such clear influence. Rufinatscha, as in his other mature compositions, is an original voice and should be taken on his own terms.

I suspect that a couple of the major independent labels have twigged this and that there may be a bit of a Rufinatscha splash over the next year or two. Let's hope that recording plans actually come to fruition...