Rufinatscha Symphony No.3

[FBerwald]

The woodwind and brass section definitely sound at odds with the strings. Add to this the whole mood of the piece is very sombre - one has to prepare before listening to this offspring of Rufinatscha. Most of us are enthralled by the sound-world of his Symphony No. 5 in D that this switch to a brooding C minor No. 3 is sort of like a sudden jump from a preppy Mozart Concerto to Rachmaninoff's Isle of the dead [apologies for this sort of layman's example]. The reviewer's total dismissal of this piece and tone is what has upset so many of us .

[Alan Howe]

I added reverberation to the recording via Audacity and found the sound greatly improved!!

[MartinH]

Don't know about Audacity, but I did run it thru the Surround Sound system with an setting to simulate different concert halls, and the added space and reverb really did make it sound better.

A friend was over today and we gave the symphony a listen and he had a nice idea. Take some other obscure symphony for which we have all the parts and give the arranger for the Rufinatscha only the 5 string parts and ask him to complete the symphony. Then compare it to the original and then we'll know if it's really possible to render an accurate, or close, version with only 33% of the score.

[Ilja]

Perhaps not a positive review, but neither is it a very well-written one. If I had two thousand words to spend (which on the internet one really should do sparingly) more of it might concern the performance and sonics. I have great sympathy for MusicWeb (and even published on the site), but it is fairly clear that they are in need of a clearer editorial line (and, honestly, a new web site). Despite never having been a particular fan of Rufinatscha's music, I'd hate the Tyrolean Museum to be influenced by this.

[Alan Howe]

Oh, I'm sure that our Innsbruck friends won't be deflected from their promotion of Rufinatscha's music. They believe in him! As do I...

[Alan Howe]

MusicWeb makes amends:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2016/Aug/Rufinatscha_sy3_CD13020.htm
Many thanks to the perceptive reviewer!

[Mark Thomas]

That's more like it. A very even-handed review.

[Gareth Vaughan]

Agreed. Someone who is listening properly!

[Ilja]

And it is good to see someone I can agree with regarding the respective merits of the two recordings of the Sixth/Fifth.

[semloh]

I can't help but comment on Ilja's well-chosen footnote:

- By comparing and scaling these great musicians you are diminishing art itself. Every artist has its own mind, sensibility and technique which gives us varieties and choices. Please do not make art into a competition: it is insulting to wonderful composers and artists - Anonymous YT commenter

The ABC classical music station has held competitions for every type of composition, and even now is running one for 'best classical music for Rio Olympics'! Crikey!  [thanks - winge over]
Love Rufinatscha, and insufficiently discriminating to mind which recording!

[chill319]

Hear hear!

And yet, life's too short to listen closely to _all_ the art music that's been recorded. For help selecting I particularly look for advocates, those who have found a personal connection to particular works and composers. Time and again this forum has proven a valuable resource. Thanks to all.

[JimL]

Well, mes amis, I have finally heard all of the extant Rufinatscha symphonies, and I must say that after my initial impressions, he has been knocked down a peg in my estimation (although I still consider him an estimable composer).  I know that it was standard in earlier periods of music (particularly the Baroque) to recycle material, but the symphonies after No. 3 seem to be chock full of ideas that Rufinatscha came up with in his 2nd and 3rd.  Cases in point: the motive from which the principal theme of the first movement of the 2nd Symphony is derived is reused in the finale of the 4th (formerly 5th) Symphony, and the quotation of the aforementioned material in the cadence of the 2nd theme group is virtually identical in both symphonies.  The 2nd subject in the opening movements of both the C minor and B minor symphonies is virtually identical, and same can be said of the 2nd subjects in the finales of both works.  Also, it appears that some of the material from the trio of the scherzo in the C minor symphony was recycled in the same section of the 5th (formerly 6th).  It's almost like Rufinatscha was either dissatisfied with his treatment of the material in one work, so he subsequently recycled it in another, or that he ran out of fresh ideas, and had to self-plagiarize.     

[eschiss1]

doesn't bother me when other composers (Ropartz (especially), Medtner, Mahler, etc.) do things arguably rather much like this, but I'll have to hear it in context. (Of course it helps a lot in the latter cases that the material being repeated - in Ropartz' last 3 quartets and 5th symphony, e.g. - is _worth_ hearing again in the same or altered guises.)

[JimL]

Admittedly, the most extreme case of this is Alfredo Casella's first 2 symphonies, where he lifted the slow movement from the 1st, and just stuck it into the 2nd wholesale.  Didn't even rescore or transpose it.

[eschiss1]

Well, no, that's not the most extreme case I can think of. But, well,...

I was going to say I haven't a chance of hearing Rufinatscha 3 but I think I can listen to the reconstruction over NML, so I will do so.