Rubinstein 4 reissue gets a drubbing...

[Mark Thomas]

Oh, for me too and for the same reason, but it still seems to me that credit should be due to Rubinstein in some areas.

[saxtromba]

Despite the drubbing the finale has received here, it has its defenders, among them Tchaikovsky, who wrote a review of an early performance by the Russian Musical Society orchestra under Nikolai Rubinstein.  He found the symphony as a whole to be "one of the most interesting that I have had occasion to hear in recent times," but was not wholly convinced by the first two movements.  The fourth movement, on the other hand, he found to be the best, in part because "both primary themes stand out for their unusual charm, inspiration, and fire."  So I'm not in bad company .

I would be interested to see more detail regarding the work's "failure".  What exactly is it trying to do at which it fails?  After all, it would be wholly wrong to criticize a Tchaikovsky symphony for not being emotionally detached in the manner of Brahms, say; it seems to me that Rubinstein is not attempting a conventional Romantic-Classical symphony, and that criticisms based on the idea that he is are unfair.

So what is Rubinstein trying to do here?  I take a hint from the title, which does appear to be his own.  His orchestral music is very operatic in general, and it strikes me as plausible that what we have here is essentially a four act abstract opera without words (a 'music drama', if you will, but assuredly neither Wagnerian nor specifically programmatic).  The 'characters' are the various blocks of sound, which are themselves organized around thematic or motivic elements, and the energy they create.  The finale goes the furthest in this direction, even beginning with a short overture.  You then have the principal material (the b-DAH, b-DUH rhythm and motif), followed by a secondary component (marked as Moderato assai for even greater contrast).  These take a considerable amount of time to play out, as each is immediately 'developed' through re-orchestrated repetitions, such that the actual sonata-form development, when it arrives, is perforce based on something altogether different (the charming woodwind only section omitted completely from the Golovchin recording).  Note that the recapitulation is in fact in a different key (A Major), preparing the listener for the transition to D Major at the climax.  But there is something else here, easily missed but key to understanding the overall structure of the drama: in the first movement, the second melodic block is first heard in the horns and recurs in the recapitulation on the strings, whereas here the second main melodic block is first heard on the strings and then, in its new key, on the horns, thus serving as a structural mirror of the first movement.  This symphony is not so carelessly built as one might guess.

Nor is the fact that the outer movements are in something of a sonata form particularly surprising or problematic.  This was the inherited form of a symphony, and Rubinstein, for all that he's doing something unusual here, is not overtly radical in his approach.  He could no more have written "symphony" without using (modified) sonata form than Wagner could have written the 'Beer Barrel Polka'.  But if one listens to the way he uses sonata form, it becomes clear that he's straying from the conventional path by a wide margin.  The question is whether or not the listener is willing to take that path with Rubinstein, and it's here that a truly idiomatic performance, such as is found in neither of the two recordings available) would be a tremendous help.

[Alan Howe]

I agree about the issue of available recorded performances. However, I find myself wondering whether any recorded performance will actually achieve the feat of making us "willing to take that path with Rubinstein". Until we hear a much better rendering we may not know for sure, but my strong suspicion is that the music itself simply isn't good enough to sustain this sort of symphonic conception - pace Tchaikovsky and Rubinstein's other defenders.

[sdtom]

In spite of all of the criticism about Rubinstein I'm surprised at the number of people who have the "Dramatic" symphony in their collection so I conclude that there must be some amount of good in it. I for one enjoy the work and own both the Delos and Naxos recordings. I don't feel that either has an advantage but I do feel it deserves a place on my shelf.

Comparing him to Tchaikovsky is unfair even though some of their composing was done in the same time frame. Perhaps this is the reason for the negativity he has been given.
Tom

[Alan Howe]

There's no doubt there's good stuff in the symphony. But that doesn't necessarily make it a good symphony.

[giles.enders]

I am not going to criticise Rubinstein or praise him, he wrote music that some like and others wouldn't bother with.  The point is, was it played well and recorded well, has as much been done to give the composition its best chance of a good reception.  We all know of some very banal compositions but there is usually someone out there who likes one or two of them including me.  It is quite ridiculous to take these things personally. 

[Alan Howe]

I see no problem with personal likes and dislikes - we all have them. It's when a personal view is pursued without any attempt at objectivity in discussions with others that the problems start.
As for Rubinstein 4, I stand by my opinion of the piece - but I'd be willing to re-assess it were it given a really first-rate recording one day.

[semloh]

........... It is quite ridiculous to take these things personally.

How else do you take music? 

[Alan Howe]

I think you have to cultivate a certain objectivity too...

[petershott@btinternet.com]

Maybe there's a danger of missing what I think is the central point in what Giles is saying? A reviewer, in order to do the job, must have a certain admiration or sympathy for the work in question. The reviewer's central task is then to assess the extent to which - as Giles says - the performance or recording enables the work to have its best chance of a good reception. Does the performance or recording do justice to the work, does it (to lapse into Aristotelian jargon) make actual the potential in the work? It is to get answers to these question that we read reviews - and take them seriously if they do just that.

Now if a would-be reviewer doesn't think too much of a work, or lacks sympathy with it, or is unfamiliar with its idiom or the conventions in which it is composed then that, in my view, makes him a less than ideal reviewer. (If I tried my hand at reviewing a performance or recording of a Handel opera, or a new work by Wolfgang Rihm, I'd seriously urge folk not to read the silly drivel I was undoubtedly writing - for I either don't much care for these things or don't understand them and thus would be ill-qualified to review them.)

Now that's the point I was (clumsily) after right at the start of this thread. I suspect that this reviewer (who otherwise writes good pieces) just doesn't care much about Rubinstein. He considers (rightly or wrongly) Rubinstein 4 a rather inferior symphony. So in delivering his drubbing he's running too many things together. What he should be concentrating on is whether this performance or recording enables the symphony to 'work', to have its best chance of a good reception.

But then I got (unfairly, in my view!) biffed on the nose for folk thought I was saying that all criticism or reviewing must somehow applaud the work, and if it didn't then its bad reviewing. That is not what I was trying to get at at all, and would be a silly position to hold.

[TerraEpon]

Well ok, if someone doesn't like Baroque opera at all, I would agree a review of a Handel opera by him wouldn't be all that worth anything.

But if he DOES enjoy Baroque opera and comes across a Handel opera that he finds boring, shouldn't that be a large consideration as a whole? Yes the performance might be important but if there shouldn't be a qualification that a reviewer needs to enjoy the piece just to make a review in the first place.

[Mark Thomas]

Spot on. Couldn't agree more. Etc.

[Alan Howe]

Agreed. And well said.

[semloh]

Ditto! 

[chill319]

The best reviews are usually positive (on the whole -- which doesn't mean that positive reviews are necessarily the best reviews). Negative reviews (re Hanslick)  often result from imposing an inappropriate set of expectations on a piece. That said, in this august company, negative reviews can be spot on -- as long as they are long on details.