Rufinatscha from Chandos

[Alan Howe]

...and more important as it falls in the (now discredited) 'Dahlhaus gap'.

[jerfilm]

Isn't there some kind of "happy medium" here between the kind of esoteric analysis/review we'd all like to see and the inevitable comparison with other composers?   

I think we forget sometimes that the average concert-goer/classical record buyer has probably never taken a college course in music history, or music analysis or composition.  Certainly many including myself have never even taken an advanced course in "music appreciation".   We all have our favorite composers and we all know what we like to hear.  Almost nobody is "into" unsung composers as we are.  So when a name like Rufinatscha shows up in the cd display of new releases, they want to know "what does it sound like?"   What can a reviewer say that will let me know that I'll like it and not spend 20 bucks for something that I'll hate?   Does he sound like Beethoven or Schoenberg or Mahler or who?   Is that so bad?  I mean, minus the drivel about the dysfunctional Schumann or the bombastic Strauss or the overly simplistic Bruckner, etc ad infinitum......

Even the comparisons may not really help Mr. Average.   Say that this release may be the most important since the release of the Gernsheim symphonys certainly is true and speaks well to us, but what if you've never heard Gernsheim???

Jerry

[Alan Howe]

I agree and disagree. There is, of course, a need to 'position' an unknown composer in the mind of the public - but let's at least get the positioning right! 'Schubert 9 on the way to Bruckner' would have given a much better idea of R6 than some silly reference to Schumann. On the other hand, the Gernsheim reference at Records International is entirely appropriate - RI' s pitch is aimed, after all, at seekers after unsung music.

In the end, though, the problem with Rufinatscha - as with, say, Raff and Draeseke - is that we are dealing not merely with another unknown composer who wrote in the style of X, but one who actually forged his own style. In the final analysis, Rufinatscha actually defies comparisons...

[Hovite]

'Schubert 9 on the way to Bruckner' would have given a much better idea of R6 than some silly reference to Schumann.

Bruckner doesn't sound like anyone else, nor does Berwald, but is is useful to say that Rufinatscha falls somewhere between Schubert and Bruckner, as this provides considerable information without the need for lengthy explanation.

As for Schuman, the only connexion that I can see is that they both wrote concert overtures (tone poems) based on Schiller's play The Bride of Messina.

[Gareth Vaughan]

I agree and disagree. There is, of course, a need to 'position' an unknown composer in the mind of the public - but let's at least get the positioning right! 'Schubert 9 on the way to Bruckner' would have given a much better idea of R6 than some silly reference to Schumann.

Spot on, Alan. Rufinatscha doesn't sound anything like Schumann to my ears - and if one is going to discuss his orchestration one expects a little more (and more intelligent) comment than that he seems to like the lower strings a lot!

[mbhaub]

I've had the Chandos recording for a week now. Listened through three times. At the risk of being booed off the board, I just have to say I was less than impressed. After all the build up of Rufinatscha for the past several years I was expecting to be blown away -- I wasn't. But I'm not sorry I invested the time or money. Here's another confirmation of why some music is deemed great and passes into the reptertoire, and some passes into oblivion. Not that Ruf didn't have a fertile musical mind, but if I had to sum it up in one word it would be this: rambling. The symphony is just too long to support the weak material. Only the 10 minute finale seems appropriate. Each of the first three should have been cut down by 50%. And the orchestration, while capable, never "pops". But then, that's not uncommon. Not everyone could score like Raff or Wagner. There is a lot of material, but it's hard for the ear to determine "is this connecting material or a new theme?" or is this the second theme or something else? That for me was the hardest part: what's the form. The plain-vanilla orchestration sure doesn't help the ear assimilate it one bit.

Another issue is the conducting. I can't help but think that brisker tempos, more incisive playing, more brilliance would have aided this a lot. Was Noseda enjoying this? or was this just torture to get through? The recording is generally ok, but I wish the winds, brass especially, had been more prominent.

I'm glad to have heard this, and fortunate, too. Thanks Chandos for bringing it forth. It fills in another missing piece of the symphonic puzzle in mid-century Austria. But alas, Rufinatscha will remain a footnote in musical history. This symphony can't stand up to comparison with the likes of Brahms, Dvorak, Schumann or even Raff. He belongs in the other heap with Gernsheim, Draeseke, Spohr, Volkmann, and countless others whose hard work was outdone by a lack of genius.

Sorry to disagree, the 6th is no masterpiece.

[JimL]

I've had the Chandos recording for a week now. Listened through three times. At the risk of being booed off the board, I just have to say I was less than impressed. After all the build up of Rufinatscha for the past several years I was expecting to be blown away -- I wasn't. But I'm not sorry I invested the time or money. Here's another confirmation of why some music is deemed great and passes into the reptertoire, and some passes into oblivion. Not that Ruf didn't have a fertile musical mind, but if I had to sum it up in one word it would be this: rambling. The symphony is just too long to support the weak material. Only the 10 minute finale seems appropriate. Each of the first three should have been cut down by 50%. And the orchestration, while capable, never "pops". But then, that's not uncommon. Not everyone could score like Raff or Wagner. There is a lot of material, but it's hard for the ear to determine "is this connecting material or a new theme?" or is this the second theme or something else? That for me was the hardest part: what's the form. The plain-vanilla orchestration sure doesn't help the ear assimilate it one bit.

Another issue is the conducting. I can't help but think that brisker tempos, more incisive playing, more brilliance would have aided this a lot. Was Noseda enjoying this? or was this just torture to get through? The recording is generally ok, but I wish the winds, brass especially, had been more prominent.

I'm glad to have heard this, and fortunate, too. Thanks Chandos for bringing it forth. It fills in another missing piece of the symphonic puzzle in mid-century Austria. But alas, Rufinatscha will remain a footnote in musical history. This symphony can't stand up to comparison with the likes of Brahms, Dvorak, Schumann or even Raff. He belongs in the other heap with Gernsheim, Draeseke, Spohr, Volkmann, and countless others whose hard work was outdone by a lack of genius.

Sorry to disagree, the 6th is no masterpiece.

Strange, but the form of the first movement is quite evident to me, as is the ingenious way in which he manipulates the motives in the introduction to create his materials.  I could do a schematic, but what's the point?  IMHO, this is certainly a repertory-worthy work, and a damn sight better than you give him credit (or discredit?) for.  I do agree with you a bit about the orchestration, though.  Notice, for example that the upper strings never, absolutely NEVER play pizzicato.  Not even once in any of the movements.  So it does lack a bit of color.  But the material, once you're able to follow it, is actually quite concise, and memorable too. 

[Mark Thomas]

To briefly respond to Martin's post, which I entirely respect whilst disagreeing with it. Whilst I'm not one for "heavenly length" generally, it seems to me that both the length of the work and the "vanilla" orchestration flow from the material itself, which is generally speaking sober and serious, even in the scherzo. Having watched Noseda conduct this at the BBC Radio 3 recording a couple of days before it was laid down for Chandos I can tell you that he was definitely "into" the music, as were the orchestra. They were 100% committed and that communicated itself to the audience. Alan will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the Chandos recording omits the repeat in the finale (which is maybe why Martin favoured it), whilst the BBC one omitted both that and the first movement repeat. I found then, and still find, that the rather tauter opening movement which resulted was to my liking, and I was expecting to feel that the Chandos recording would be flabby by comparison. Whilst obviously its longer, it isn't and there is no drop in tension. It's just different. Rufunatscha is a "one off" and you either get him or you don't, it seems to me.

[Alan Howe]

Of course, this is why we have the forum - so that disagreements can be aired and that we can learn from each other. FWIW, I completely disagree. The reason? Because I don't know of anything like Rufinatscha 6 (or 5) - nor, for that matter, Raff or Draeseke at their best (Raff 3, Draeseke 3).
The jury, of course is out. Who knows what Rufinatscha's reputation will be in, say, 10 years' time?
BTW: I'll defend Noseda too - he was most definitely enjoying the music. After all, I witnessed myself how much he loved it - I was at the recording sessions! Just for the record...

[Ilja]

While I'm with Mark and Alan with regard to the intrinsic merit of Rufinatscha's work, I have to confess that the Chandos sixth wasn't quite the leap ahead I had come to expect; in fact it has brought me to re-assess the Seipenbach recording and see it in more favourable light than I did previously. One question to the sight readers though: does the score mention the tapering codas to the first and fourth movement or does it rather favour Noseda's approach>

[Alan Howe]

I asked Noseda at the recording sessions about the final bars of the 1st and 4th movements - he simply said that his version was how he understood the score...
As for the Noseda v. Seipenbusch issue - for me, the Chandos CD tightened up the piece considerably. However, perhaps we can think about it in terms of Toscanini v. Bruno Walter? 

[Alan Howe]

Another footnote regarding Noseda and whether he enjoyed making the recording. I know for a fact that Noseda would simply not agree to record something he didn't implicitly believe in. As evidence I add this: although Chandos advertise the CD just issued as 'vol.1', they still have the task of submitting the scores of the music for vol.2 to Noseda for his approval. So, he's got to like the 5th Symphony and the Piano Concerto, otherwise he won't record them!

[khorovod]

There is a positive review in the new Gramophone that I received in the post this morning. I already have my copy on order, looking forward to hearing it even more now!

[Mark Thomas]

The Gramophone review is indeed positive, but it's a very odd review by Peter Quantrill which smacks of being so heavily edited as to border on the incoherent. Still, gift horses, mouths and at least he picks up on the Blue Danube pre-echo in the trio which I have been banging on about since I first heard the piece!

[khorovod]

Yes it is quite oddly (badly?) written!