Rufinatscha Symphony No.3

[Alan Howe]

I had been wondering why the recording of Symphony No.3 turned out to be some six minutes shorter than the first performance, the length of which was reported by the conductor, Karlheinz Siessl, as 53 minutes. Apparently the first movement exposition repeat plus a few transitional bars have been left out of the recording.

Another reason for a second recording...?

[Alan Howe]

Some further points have been made to me about Rufinatscha:

1. Style: not yet Brucknerian or Wagnerian, but going in that direction. Also some influences from Mendelssohn and Schumann. As a symphonist, the starting-point is Beethoven, with a Schubertian sense of scale, Schumannesque expressivity and some Brucknerian features. His mastery of orchestral colour is in advance of Schumann, although Schumann is more original.

2. Character: little is known about the composer himself, but it seems he must have been very ambitious, otherwise he wouldn't have found his way to the sophistication of Vienna from provincial Innsbruck. He certainly made a name for himself around the time the 3rd Symphony was written and performed (1846). He would seem to have been a stubborn individual because he remained true to his predominantly conservative style throughout his life. Later he probably felt embittered at being left behind by musical fashion.

3. Comparisons are unavoidable. Rufinatscha may not be genius of the stature of his famous contemporaries, but his rediscovery is thoroughly justified.

[Alan Howe]

For those who haven't heard the music yet, try these audio samples (Symphony No.3 = tracks 1 to 4):
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/johann-rufinatscha-symphonie-nr-3-c-moll/hnum/6808869

[Alan Howe]

Down to earth with an almighty bump...
http://musicweb-international.com/classrev/2016/Jul/Rufinatscha_sy3_CD13020.htm

[eschiss1]

All that verbiage on the reviewer's part for "context" and no mention of Rufinatscha's own pupils, but maybe he's never heard of Brüll. Well, side issue.

[Double-A]

I enjoy reading a negative review when I am in the mood and I clicked on the link hoping to get a nice assortment of well crafted sarcasms and incisively worded put downs.

No such luck.  This writing is as dull as its writer suggests Rufinatscha's music is.  The composer is bad, the orchestra is bad, the conductor is bad, the recording is bad, the sound is bad, the instrumentation* is terrible.  (The reviewer admits as discreetly as he can manage that the singers are ok).

I have no familiarity with Rufinatscha's music and maybe it is dull (come to think of it:  The soundbites don't suggest it is, but it is hard to extrapolate from 30 seconds to a 15 minute movement).  The probability is rather low that a CD from a source with a good reputation would be this bad.

It seems like a good idea to introduce a little known composer in a review of this kind, but the "biography" supplied here is excessively long.  It also suffers from the sneer that the reviewer sees fit to display throughout his work (as monotonously as he says the music is).  It seems that Rufinatscha couldn't even manage his own finances and was generally a looser.  (Mozart messed up his private life at least as  bad BTW).  And somehow  a connection is suggested to his alleged lack of success as a composer.  If the music were bad and Rufinatscha had been highly successful making money would that surprise the reviewer?

Not knowing the recording I still think that string parts are simply not enough to "reconstruct" a symphony (unless the composer is as bad as the reviewer here suggests and does instrumentation by having everybody playing at all times--something easily disproved by the soundbites).  The work should almost be called "composed by Mr. Huber based on the string parts by Rufinatscha".  The case is quite different from reconstructing a symphony from a piano reduction:  Every leading voice will be represented in the reduction (in some cases even with hints at the instrumentation) while wind or brass solos are missing completely from the string parts and need to be composed fresh to fit the harmonic and rhythmic frame provided by the source.  I'd think it would be wiser to record a piece with more complete material.

*The reviewer knows that the instrumentation is largely not by Rufinatscha.  Yet he manages to criticize Rufinatscha for it and at the same time to say that Huber managed to reproduce Rufinatscha's (bad) style of instrumentation.  Even though he admits early in the review that he had heard Rufinatscha once before in his life and didn't pay attention because he was bored.  Remarkable.

[FBerwald]

Seems to be a review by a person who came in prepared to hate the music but with the hypocritical self-assurance that "he could evaluate any obscure composer on first hearing with sympathetic ears". His constant warnings regarding the dreariness of the music is just dreary in itself. He claims the booklet was written by a Rufinatscha enthusiast - Well the review, in my opinion, was by a definite Rufinatscha Non-enthusiast.

These kind of unwarranted negative reviews are the things that prevent unsung music from getting a wider hearing. May be someone from this forum should write a counter review. Musicweb-International does publish 2 or more reviews of many releases.

[Alan Howe]

I just find it incomprehensible that a critic would hate this wonderful music.

[FBerwald]

There are a lot of close-minded people out there. Dear Alan, why don't you write the counter review?

[Gareth Vaughan]

This review strikes me as typical of a young man very pleased with himself and determined to make his mark as a reviewer. It has all the brash discourtesy and sneering arrogance of youth. A very poor imitation of Bernard Shaw at his most trenchant - but Shaw, of course, was an accomplished musical reviewer and writer and managed to be amusing as well, something which Mr Stevenson (Bob) assuredly is not. This review is as worthless and empty as its writer (absurdly) declares Rufinatscha's music to be.  I note that contributors to this forum have already shown how easy it is to highlight the many flaws in this complacent trash.

[eschiss1]

I haven't heard the reconstruction of the 3rd symphony yet and won't say one thing or another. I'll note that another reviewer with a similar reaction to the release who'd heard more of his music, and who knew that this is the (probably) last entry in the label's complete cycle, would more likely have written a more compact review that, even if about the same in content, would have noted that this disc might be more for the completist- that someone wanting to hear this composer closer to his best should hear symphony in D (#6 it says, actually 5) on Chandos, or the symphony in B minor on the Tyrol museum label...

I post to the MW message board way too often, but maybe someone else wants to say -something- polite...

[jerfilm]

Reminds me of an old friend of mine who never could wait to hear what was going to come out of his own mouth next......

[Alan Howe]

why don't you write the counter review?

I'm too close to the project to be suitably objective, I'm afraid.

[Jonathan]

Personally, I really like this recording! Must give it another spin.

[mbhaub]

I've had this recording sitting on the back burner for a long time and having read the MWI review, it was time to put it on. Well...it is no masterpiece regardless of the booklet writer's opinion. Just what it is I don't know - there is no way that this reconstructed work is "close" to the original. There's a lot of odd sounding wind writing that seems really out of place. Trombones in the 3rd movement. The trumpet blasts away in the first movement with no sense of blend. It's hard to accept that with only the five string parts extant, that a reasonable construction of the whole by adding at least 16 other wind and timpani parts can be authentic. I may be wrong. What really would have helped is to trim the length of the whole thing - the outer movements are way too long for their meagre material.

The recorded sound is no help - it's a very raw, edgy sound. The orchestra string section is small, which always results in that thin, wiry sound. No Vienna Philharmonic here. The playing wasn't terrible at all. The winds are in tune, and so are the few strings. But the conducting just seems so heavy handed at times.

Nonetheless, I'm glad to have it and that I've heard it. Great, undiscovered masterpiece? Not a chance, but worth a listen, even if it is echt-Rufinatscha.