Rubinstein PCs 1 & 2 Anna Shelest/N. Järvi

[eschiss1]

I'm not sure that Tchaikovsky objected to them merely for being 2 more than the by then traditional 4 (not, by the way, a "classical" balance, since the "classical" tradition was a 3 movement symphony, only occasionally 4), but if he did, he seems to have changed his mind by 1875, I deduce for extremely obvious reasons.

[Alan Howe]

The 7-movement version on Naxos takes just short of 73 minutes. What was the man thinking of?

[eschiss1]

ambitious, yes. Could have added a chorus to the finale, or something.

[eschiss1]

Also, the 6-movement version is the 2nd version (1863), the 7-movement version is his final version of 1880. The 1851 version has 4 movements.

[eschiss1]

Getting back to the Shelest recording of concertos 1 and 2, they are expected (to market) in 9 days from now and any questions of timing should be answerable then, presumably...

[eschiss1]

Correction:
per Music & Arts the timings of the new recording are
Piano concerto no.1:
1. Moderato. 15:40 (compared to 17:06 on Marco Polo, or 18:22 - Zamparas on Centaur)
2. Andante con moto 6:20 (vs 8:21 on MP, 7:12- Zamparas)
3. Con moto 11:15 (vs 12:29 on MP, 12:49 "Allegro non troppo" - Zamparas)

Pièces caractéristiques, Op.50 (arr. Arkady Leytush)

track 4. No.3. Barcarole (2:38)
track 5. No.5. Berceuse (4:23)

Piano concerto no.2.
6: 1. Allegro vivace assai. 16:41 (vs 18:59)
7: 2. Adagio non troppo. 8:12 (vs 11:33)
8: 3. Moderato. 9:47 (vs 10:35)

Don't know if the Banowetz/Walter recording is generally considered well-judged in tempi, but this new recording is overall faster in total time than it is in every movement.

The finale of no.1 - apparently oddly different in one of the three performances (there are at least 4, I know, counting the Orion LP which I might also try to track down - maybe a Danacord and/or other complete sets too besides this and the Marco Polo one) - is Con moto in the orchestral score, Allegro non troppo in the composer's reduction and maybe in revised full score editions (maybe even ones due to the composer? Would have to look into that) for all I know, so the discrepancy isn't an impossible thing.

(Orion LP for concerto 1: 18:40/9:10/11:58. Michael Fardink, pf.)

[John Boyer]

I was going to comment on this yesterday, having done comparative timings, but I see you've done all that work for me. I might only add a comparison between the venerable Ruiz recording of the Fifth Concerto versus the Järvi. Ruiz takes 11 minutes in the slow movement compared to only 8 for Järvi.

I think we can conclude that if you want to hear Raff or Rubinstein and you also have a train to catch, you have no need to worry if Järvi is on the podium. 

[Ilja]

However, sometimes that train is worth catching. I always got the feeling that the Banowetz recordings were much too slow, particularly in the 1st concerto.

[Alan Howe]

I suspect NJ's a bit too speedy.

[Jonathan]

Just an observation, I can't remember who said it (it might even have been on Facebook!) but someone said Rubinstein benefited from faster tempi.  Maybe this set would prove that?

[Alan Howe]

There's fast and there's NJ, though!

[eschiss1]

(NJ- not one of the less ambiguous of abbreviations...*)

*I wonder how many students of NJ teach in NJ...

[Alan Howe]

The clue's in the thread title!

[Jonathan]

Indeed! 

[Ilja]

Having now listened to the recording, my feelings are a bit mixed. Firstly: fast though they are, I am convinced Järvi is spot-on in his choice of tempi. They lend the music a vigor that most recordings I've heard in the past are lacking; Rubinstein's music simply doesn't survive an approach that stretches it too thinly.

On the flip side, I have to admit also that Shelest's pianism is lacking the muscularity that both Banowetz and Samparas exhibit and this music really needs. She plays the more lyrical passages beautifully, but that solo in the finale of the 1st concerto has to be a thunderous display of bravado, and Shelest is apparently incapable of giving it the necessary heft. However, what really kills things for me is the recording balance: during orchestral tutti, the piano is sometimes barely audible. It makes you appreciate that those old Marco Polo recordings had a really competent sound engineer at the helm, which made up for a lot of their shortcomings.