Rubinstein’s Third

[Peter1953]

I'm curious to know what members think of this nearly forgotten Russian symphony from 1855.

My opinion is that it's a work of great charm and evidence that Rubinstein was surely capable of writing a fine, melodious symphony full of memorable tunes. I think Rubinstein makes with his 3rd a major symphonic statement, almost up to the same level as the great sung composers of the romantic era.

[Alan Howe]

Funnily enough, it's on my desk waiting to be listened to again! I don't remember it at all, but I'm looking forward to making its re-acquaintance.

BTW the Centaur performance (coupled with No.5) would seem to be the best available:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Symphonies-3-5-Rubinstein/dp/B0000057WN/ref=sr_1_62?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1351444443&sr=1-62

[Alan Howe]

I certainly wouldn't describe the symphony as a major statement, but what I can hear are striking foreshadowings of Tchaikovsky's early symphonic manner, although without that great master's melodic distinction. Nevertheless, this is the sort of thing that Rubinstein does best - i.e. predominantly lyrical writing, very nicely orchestrated and extremely grateful on the ear. What's particularly interesting is its date: 1854-5, according to the Centaur sleevenote. This is surely significant: Rubinstein is clearly starting from a base of Mendelssohn/Schumann, but there is a greater concentration on colour and melodiousness - two of Rubinstein's strengths as a composer. And in so doing he is establishing the Russian symphonic tradition. 

[mbhaub]

I remember Barry Kolman - he was a guest conductor in an orchestra I play with quite some time ago. He was amazed that I knew the Rubinstein 3rd - thanks to him. Apparently the score survived years of neglect, but the orchestral parts had disappeard. He entered the entire score into Finale to get the parts for performance and his recording. Marco Polo borrowed his parts.

After our concert, several of us and he went drinking and we got to talking about Rubinstein. He loved the 3rd and 5th obviously. He argued that the 3rd in particular was worthy to stand next to Tchaikovsky's first three. I could never concede that, but his sincere appreciation of forgotten music couldn't be dismissed.

[eschiss1]

*checks to see* Given the tendency of recent and not-so-recent years (and days) and the tense way you were speaking, I thought he had died- it seems not, fortunately. Anyway.

[Alan Howe]

I remember Barry Kolman...(h)e loved the 3rd and 5th obviously. He argued that the 3rd in particular was worthy to stand next to Tchaikovsky's first three.

How fascinating. There's obviously a strong link between the two composers' styles. Like you, though, I couldn't agree with Mr Kolman, but how marvellous to hear such enthusiasm for unsung music.

[Alan Howe]

Having listened to Rubinstein's 3rd again, I found myself wondering just what the composer lacked - and I think it's the ability to conceive a symphonic movement which truly moves inevitably from point A to point B. Frankly, much as I like the work's incidental beauties, I often have no real idea where he's going and so my attention wanders. In contrast, take the (long) first movement of Raff's 1st Symphony: I never find myself lost in the score's (many) incidental beauties - in fact I find myself swept along in a manner that is never sustained throughout a Rubinstein movement. In short, it's Raff's sense of symphonic movement, plus his sheer Schwung, which his Russian contemporary lacks.