Rubinstein 4 reissue gets a drubbing...

[Mark Thomas]

I'm loath to reopen this old wound, but maybe a couple of quotes from Mark Pullinger's review in this month's IRR of the Delos reissue of Golovchin's performance of Rubinstein's Fourth would be a useful addition to the thread:

"Imagine mediocre Mendelssohn stretched out to beyond an hour, or watered down Bruckner and you'll have a  fair idea what to expect. ... It is a great irony that Rubinstein gave his Fourth the title Dramatic, because drama is precisely what it lacks. His ideas are pleasant enough, but repeated too often so that the first movement takes a sprawling 22 minutes in which very little happens until the coda. The second movement is marked Presto, but any sense of forward momentum is effortful. His Adagio is probably the most successful movement, containing lyrical string writing, while the the finale feels disjointed."

He closes by complaining the Stankovsky, on Naxos, "drags out the material even further".

Oh dear.

[Alan Howe]

Pullinger is spot-on. To argue otherwise can only do harm to unsung music far more worthy of recording than Rubinstein 4 - which I'd still like to hear in a decent performance, by the way. For example, we still don't have Berger 2 on CD. Scandalous...

[Hilleries]

I'd prefer if reviews opened and gave more room to how the music is being played, then I'd welcome the reviewer's opinion on the music itself.
Two recent examples of review's that left me wondering until the very end of the text about the quality of the performance itself are musicweb's of Burgmüller's 2nd and allmusic's of Clementi's 1st and 2nd. In the former, the reviewer spends most of the time bashing the music (I love that symphony, so I naturally don't agree with the review and, as I read it, became more and more unreceptive of what the reviewer had to say). In the Clementi, the reviewer did the opposite, praising the music, which baffled me as to why the 'mediocre' rating (3/5), until I got to the very end where he says that the performance isn't good (maybe he could have pointed to the recordings of Scimone or d'Avalos as better alternatives?).

[Alan Howe]

The Burgmüller is full of marvellous music, but is, of course, a torso which ends with the scherzo - a quite unsatisfactory ending. As for the Rubinstein, I'm afraid a reviewer just has to start with the music before moving on to the performance because, frankly, the reader has to be made aware of its limitations as a piece first.

[Hilleries]

That's where I differ, I prefer reviews that bring the limitations of the piece second. IMHO it's "how do you like the piece?" is a far more subjective question than "how do you like the performance?". I don't know why, but that's what I usually feel when I read the author's opinions on both matters.

[eschiss1]

then again, if a review can get me to like, or at least pay attention to, the piece more (I think of a Fanfare review of the Beaux Arts trio set of Haydn's trios which gave me incentive to listen to the trios with fewer preconceptions and more interest- I think also of the best parts of Walker's Liszt biography, and some other excellent writings along those lines...) - then I am grateful.

[Alan Howe]

Most readers are simply not going to know the piece. It's therefore incumbent upon the reviewer to give an idea of the music first before proceeding to assess the performance.

[saxtromba]

There is an important point here which needs to be considered.  Take these two comments:

"Imagine mediocre Mendelssohn stretched out to beyond an hour, or watered down Bruckner and you'll have a  fair idea what to expect. ... It is a great irony that Rubinstein gave his Fourth the title Dramatic, because drama is precisely what it lacks. His ideas are pleasant enough, but repeated too often so that the first movement takes a sprawling 22 minutes in which very little happens until the coda. The second movement is marked Presto, but any sense of forward momentum is effortful. His Adagio is probably the most successful movement, containing lyrical string writing, while the the finale feels disjointed."

He closes by complaining the Stankovsky, on Naxos, "drags out the material even further".

and

....I prefer reviews that bring the limitations of the piece second. IMHO it's "how do you like the piece?" is a far more subjective question than "how do you like the performance?". I don't know why, but that's what I usually feel when I read the author's opinions on both matters.

I would completely agree that a reviewer ought to reveal her or his biases up front.  This can be done in a sentence ("I'm not a fan of so-and-so's music," for example), allowing the reader to balance the reviewer's personal taste against their actual critical statements.  And herein is the heart of the problem.  Simply dismissing a work or a composer with some snarky comments is not enough; the reviewer has an obligation to demonstrate the reason underlying their stance. 

Take the review mentioned above.  What exactly does "watered down Bruckner" mean?  Is the reviewer implying an influence here?  The mention of Mendelssohn, with whom Rubinstein is often linked, suggests as much.  We do know that there are links between Bruckner and Rubinstein; Rubinstein is reported to have praised Bruckner's Symphony#1 (the Linz version), and Bruckner categorically stated that "Since Wagner's death the greatest artist is Anton Rubinstein."  But this gets us only so far; when Rubinstein composed his fourth symphony (1874), he could have known only Bruckner's symphonies 1 and 2 (the other early symphonies were not publicly known until much later, and the disastrous premiere of #3 lay some years in the future).  Can we hear any Bruckner in Rubinstein's fourth?  I can't, and I'd like to have some idea why the critic concerned thinks he can.

Another responsibility of a critic of recordings is to get the facts about the performance straight.  The critic cited here seems to think that flipping off Stankovsky is a suitable finale to his/her 'crushing' review of Rubinstein.  So what do we find when we compare the two recordings?  Stankovsky takes 23'15" on teh first movement, compared to Golovchin's 22'08", which is hardly a significant difference.  Stankovsky's second movement comes in at 15'56", whereas Golovchin takes 14'30"-- but since Golovchin ignores many of the repeats it is not surprising that he shaves a minute and a half off Stankovsky's time.  It is true that Golovchin takes only 13'23" to get through the last movement, whereas Stankovsky takes 17'08", but since Golovchin omits the entire development section this is not a relevant comparison at all (it does indeed sound "disjointed," but not for the reasons the critic adduces, reasons which absolutely should have been part of an honest and complete review).  But then we have the third movement, selected by our critic as "probably the most successful."  Stankovsky takes 9'14"; Golovchin allows a full 15'09", which is to say that his version is two-thirds longer than Stankovsky's-- a greater difference than the other three movements combined once the omissions are taken into account.  This amounts to "dragging out" on Stankovsky's part?

It is probably too much to expect that any given critic will be able to enter into and understand every work they review.  But it is reasonable to expect that they will make absolutely clear their biases and areas of ignorance, and not too much at all to demand that, especially in a review of a substantial piece, they accurately provide relevant factual information regarding cuts or revisions to the score being performed.

[Alan Howe]

Ignorance on the part of a reviewer is certainly inexcusable and bias ought to be divulged; however, no amount of argument is going to convince me that R4 is anything other than a giant dud of a symphony - and I love my romantic symphonies long and demanding - Rufinatscha 6 (now 5), Urspruch, d'Albert, Georg Schumann 1, Rheinberger Florentiner, etc. etc....

[saxtromba]

.... no amount of argument is going to convince me that R4 is anything other than a giant dud of a symphony....

And this is precisely why you would never write a review of a recording of Rubinstein; it could be Heaven's Own Orchestra conducted by Rubinstein himself, and you would still be unable to hear anything good about it.  Fair enough; personal taste cannot be argued.  But in the context of this discussion, this is the point: reviewers who have already decided that a piece is worthless really should not be the ones writing a review of it, especially if it's a less well-known piece.  Only someone who can knowledgably and fairly assess the relation of the performance to the character and requirements of the work being performed should be reviewing it.  Anything else is just blather.

[petershott@btinternet.com]

Exactly, and well said. This is just what I was trying to express (in characteristically long-winded and clumsy way) way back at the start of the thread.

[Alan Howe]

Of course, despite the deficiencies of the performances available, I might still be right about the piece. And if I am, I don't see why I shouldn't say so in a review. It really doesn't do anyone any favours to write a review saying that a piece is good when it isn't. Sometimes we have just have to discriminate between the good and the not-so-good - and say so! After all, it is perfectly possible that even Heaven's Own Orchestra conducted by Rubinstein himself may not be able to rescue his 4th Symphony. However, I'll keep my eyes open for a new recording or public performance...

[khorovod]

reviewers who have already decided that a piece is worthless really should not be the ones writing a review of it, especially if it's a less well-known piece.  Only someone who can knowledgably and fairly assess the relation of the performance to the character and requirements of the work being performed should be reviewing it.  Anything else is just blather.

Sorry for stepping in on this out of the blue, I don't very often post but I enjoy reading the forum a lot and this discusion has been very interesting.
In respect of the above how do you know if a reviewer has already decided the value of a piece? Speaking generally I think  unless they say so we have no way of knowing if they have or not. What if they come to Rubinstein's fourth (which I do not know so have no axe to grind!!  ) with genuine curiousity and open mindedness but then decide that the music is poor? It just seems like because one person likes a certain symphony and the critic doesn't that there is an automatic assumption that the critic has not considered it properly.
I have seen on other forums a critic called all sorts of names for not liking a piece of new or unsung music and his abilities questioned and then a month later when he praises a different piece of unsung music, the same person quotes his new review like he is an absolute authority just because it chimes with their own opinion about it.
Now do I buy the Rubinstein symphony or not?? If nothing else this thread has made me more interested in it than I was before!!! 

[Alan Howe]

You should definitely buy it! Then do come back and give us your honest opinion of the piece. It's available very cheaply from Amazon sellers (+ £1.26 p & p):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B000069CUY/ref=sr_1_3_olp?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1361559545&sr=1-3&condition=new

[khorovod]

Okay I'm sold! Bought a copy, thanks for link.