Rubinstein 4 reissue gets a drubbing...

[Alan Howe]

...at MusicWeb:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Rubinstein_dramatic_DRD2012.htm

[petershott@btinternet.com]

My view must be taken with a pinch of salt since I haven't heard this CD. But the review is an example of the kind of reviewing that makes me emit a rather snotty Hummph!

I get the impression the reviewer (who actually often writes pretty good pieces on MusicWebb) just doesn't care for Rubinstein. In which case I think he should have declined the opportunity to review it: the 'not caring for a piece' in my mind rather disqualifies such a person from reviewing. I take far more seriously a negative or critical review which is written along the lines of "the piece is terrific / rewarding / beautiful / exciting...or whatever. However this particular performance or recording fails to do it justice because of X, Y, Z." And in properly objective reviewing, in which judgments admit of reasoned justification (or defence), that 'because of' is crucial.

In this review there are too many rather vague claims supported by a kind of "it seems" or "it feels".

For example "Engineering is good without being exciting...." Eh? What's he saying? I don't actually want engineering to be "exciting": I want a truthful, well balanced recording not some over the top thing that a hi-fi fanatic might use to demonstrate how the bass of his speakers can shift the soot from the chimney.

Again "....but somehow one feels that the ennui of the piece has effected all the other departments...this is respectful professional playing and recording, without ever sparking into the inspired". What does that mean? Is it a complaint against the orchestra, the conductor, the recording, or Rubinstein? Hardly incisive comments, and the writing is of the sort one expects to read in a hi-fi comic (or Gramophone) and not on MusicWeb which aspires to higher standards.

However enough grumbling and humphing from me!

[TerraEpon]

I completely disagree. The review should be the music as a whole. If one has to like the music to review if then the whole system gets skewed.

[Mark Thomas]

I'm afraid that I agree with TerraEpon, Peter.  I'll admit to being no better than lukewarm towards the piece myself but the reviewer's comments about Rubinstein's Fourth are well expressed and supported by the examples which he gives. Only to give unsung works positive reviews, which is the logical outcome of what you are suggesting, weakens the argument for the strongest of them, the genuine contenders, to become repertory pieces, whilst accepting that some unsung works aren't well written lends credibility to the case for those that are. I'm not saying that Rubinstein's Fourth is particularly bad, but I do feel that we should not automatically have a go at a reviewer when he expresses what are, IMHO, cogent criticisms.

[Alan Howe]

I have the recording: it's not very good, I'm afraid. The woodwind are sometimes jarringly out of tune and the whole performance, while not bad, just reflects the piece which aspires to a level of profundity and scale of which the composer simply wasn't capable. I'm with the reviewer too on this occasion.

[Gareth Vaughan]

I must agree. I have defended Rubinstein on a number of occasions but I do feel that the Symphony No. 4 is really the weakest of his symphionies - at least in terms of how far it falls short of its aspirations. I have the Marco Polo CD, but haven't played it for years. Perhaps I should give it another hearing to see if it confirms my opinion.

[Alan Howe]

Gareth, I also have the MP recording (in Naxos reissue guise) and, quite honestly, I've tried and tried to like the piece in this performance too, but to absolutely no avail. It's a dud, I'm afraid - the piece, I mean. All huff and puff to very little purpose. I don't think anybody could rescue it, although I'd buy the CD to find out... 

[Mark Thomas]

Yes, Rubinstein wrote much stronger works than this. Just amongst the Symphonies Nos.2, 5 and 6 are much more successful.

[TerraEpon]

Far worse than a reviewer not liking the piece is giving off wrong information about it (or in this case, other recordings)...
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Gliere_Muromets_ALC2019.htm

He seems to imply Farberman is the only one which isn't cut, which is completely wrong.

[Alan Howe]

Let's not get into whether this or that recording of Ilya Muromets is uncut, or not, please...

[semloh]

I think the review is amusing, and pulls no punches. It explains its verdict on each of the three key elements - the recording, the music and the performance - and tells anyone considering buying the CD all they need to know.

I imagine Rubinstein's 4th as supermarket muzak - quite pleasant but no chance of being distracted from choosing the right laundry liquid.

[Alan Howe]

Trouble is, Colin, it aspires to be a Great Symphonic Statement. If it were being played at my local supermarket, it'd chase away all the customers and the staff would die of boredom - while I'd be standing there giving it one final chance to prove itself...

[Peter1953]

I cannot disagree more and I'm sorry to say but I don't like the way Rubinstein's 4th is being discussed. I'm certainly not amused.
Although I think Rubinstein wrote better symphonies, his 4th has enough fine, melodic and memorable passages. The first movement is dark, dramatic and with ominous moments. The Presto is surprising and the slow movement emotional, like I expect from a romantic symphony. However, to my ears the final movement is the problem. It's too long and rather boring. And that is what remains. Alas.

[Mark Thomas]

I don't like the way Rubinstein's 4th is being discussed. I'm certainly not amused.

Peter, please don't take offence. I'm sure that none of us want to upset you but surely one is allowed to think less of a work than does another member - and say so?

[Alan Howe]

Apologies, Peter. There's no intention to offend on my part. I have tried a number of times to get into the symphony, but have to report absolutely no progress at all - which is pretty unusual for me with regard to unsung music. Anyway, I'm glad that you enjoy it overall more than I - and, naturally, I respect your opinion. A really well-played, fiery performance may persuade me to change my mind, so it is to be hoped that we soon get something rather better than the two rather unconvincing recordings we have had up to now.