"Oh Mighty Monster": the Rubinstein "Ocean" Symphony

[Steve B]

Ok, I add it to the GREAT Rubinstein pantheon, especially the 7(sic!)movements , final (On Naxos) version, and especially the storm in the weird and effective slow movement. 72 minutes and barely a longueur. What you think of this whale, guys(especially you Rubinstein afficiando you, Peter1953?.
Steve

[Peter1953]

Steve, I guess you won't be surprised what I think of Rubinstein's Second. The whole symphony is a very varied range of moods and timbres. A series of seven symphonic poems. I like in particularly the 3 Andantes, especially the beautiful 5th movement. To my ears this is a really stunning Great Symphony.
This is a 'Mighty Monster' I cannot get enough of. I love all the nearly 73 minutes of it!

[Alan Howe]

For me, it's not enough of a monster. Not nearly enough 'bite'! However, it does make good listening...

[Pengelli]

I had the old 'Vox/Turnabout' Lp out of Haverfordwest library when I was a teenager,three....ahem,I mean,thirty odd,years ago,and I remember enjoying it. On the other hand, I never took it out again,as far as I can recall,and I haven't heard it since,although I keep meaning to buy the Naxos cd. As far as I'm aware,the Vox recording has never been released on cd.

[jimmosk]

If you're a fan of Rubinstein's Ocean, check out Joseph Abert's Symphony No. 4, "Columbus", which is subtitled "A Portrait of the Sea in Symphony Form". Composed about a decade after the Rubinstein, it plows many of the same waters. (Nope, I simply can not resist a pun).

-J

--
Jim Moskowitz
The Unknown Composers Page: http://kith.org/jimmosk/TOC.html
My latest list of unusual classical CDs for auction: http://tinyurl.com/jimsCDs

[Steve B]

Exactly, peter1953. Your enthusiasm for Rubinstein is truly infectious!Symphony 3 next!Steve

[Alan Howe]

If you're a fan of Rubinstein's Ocean, check out Joseph Abert's Symphony No. 4, "Columbus", which is subtitled "A Portrait of the Sea in Symphony Form".

Actually, I would venture to suggest that Abert's is the better work; indeed he is a very fine composer whose best works (symphonies 5 to 7) have never been played in the modern era.

[edurban]

I can't resist reposting this G. B. Shaw review of an Ocean Symphony performance:

20 December 1893

...Mention of the London Symphony Concerts reminds me that I said nothing at the time about the last one, at which Mr. Henschel revived Rubinstein's Ramsgate Symphony, sometimes described as The Ocean. 
In judging this work it should be borne in mind that Rubinstein is a Russian, and that in no country in Europe is it possible to keep so far away from the ocean as in Russia.  Also that Rubinstein's rating as a composer is not high.  He is only oceanic in respect of not being fresh, and of being drenchingly copious.  His songs, duets, and pianoforte pieces are sincerely sentimental and sometimes pretty, though they are all compiled from the works of greater composers; but an ocean symphony-no, thank you.
    If I cannot have Wagner's sea music, I can content myself with Mendelssohn's Hebrides, or even Grieg's scrap of storm music in Peer Gynt, or, if no better may be, with Strauss' North Sea waltz played in the true Strauss manner.  I only draw the line at Rubinstein's attempt to stuff out the chords of C and G major with musical chaff to something like the bigness of the round pond in Kensington Gardens.  It is no use: the thing, oceanically considered, is a failure.  Leave the ocean out of the question, and you have a bustling and passable third-hand Schubert symphony.  Mr Henschel mercifully cut two movements out of it; and when he proceeds to cut out the other four my enjoyment of the work will be complete.  By way of putting Rubinstein entirely out of countenance, his work was prefaced by Weber's Ocean, thou mighty monster, sung by Mrs. Eaton, a lady of formidable physical powers, which she used with due discetion and artistic feeling...

David

[eschiss1]

Alas, they were rather restrained with their criticism back then!

[TerraEpon]

Out of curiosity, I know there's two versions of this, was one simply more movements than the other, or was there other changes?

[eschiss1]

Out of curiosity, I know there's two versions of this, was one simply more movements than the other, or was there other changes?

I think there used to be an essay on this at the American Symphony Orchestra website but the website's undergoing some reshuffling so nothing's accessible there at the moment. Hopefully it'll be up there again one these days...

[edurban]

TerraEpon, I can't answer your question, but aren't there 3 versions, with the storm movement being added last?

David

[eschiss1]

I think also that if anyone can get ahold of "Anton Rubinstein: a life in music" (Philip Taylor) it might well answer the question fully- not the excerpts on books.google.com, though.

[eschiss1]

TerraEpon, I can't answer your question, but aren't there 3 versions, with the storm movement being added last?

David

According to Naxos, 1851, 1863, 1880. They don't give much detail, unfortunately.

[Pengelli]

It is witty,but in all fairness to Rubinstein,I would rather listen to his 'Ocean symphony,any day,' than endure a play by Shaw. Talk about a snoozefest!
The 'Chocolate Soldier's got some good tunes though!!!