I have recently being playing Rubinstein's PC3 and have found it rather a joyful and satisfying listen. I was wondering what others make of the piece?
As someone who is, perversely I know, quite blind to the merits of No.4, I find Rubinstein's third and fifth piano concertos much more to my taste, but for contrasting reasons. No.3 is indeed a carefree and trouble-free work, always in high spirits and never outstaying its welcome. Melodically it's top notch, too. No.5, of course, is a very different prospect but, for all its faults, I love its granitic, almost-Sibelian, grandeur.
I'm now very fond of No.4 too...
Not something I usually say but I find that it benefits from cuts - the last movement has a real swing to it that is hampered by long slow passages (or so I remember - I haven't listened for ages). The recording by Josef Hofmann has cuts and has a lot more pace - or maybe it was the old Orion recording? I really must revisit this...
I have never quite understood why Rubinstein's 4th concerto has always seemed to hold a somewhat precarious place on the outside fringes of mainstream repertoire, even more so when Ruiz' Genesis LP of No5 appeared in the early 1970's, closely followed by No3 perfromed by Robert Preston on Orion/Ember Classics, thus enabling the inquisitive listener for the first time to hear what else Rubinstein could achieve (not that there was much else of substance, other than the "Ocean" Symphony, available at that time, for better or for worse)!
Not that I have anything against No4, which I have always liked - but certainly nowhere near top in my list of favourites! However, No5 certainly made an immediate striking impression, in a way that No4 could never have done, and then when No3 was released, I began to take Rubinstein far more seriously, and wanted to hear more of his works. However, though, now much of his music, especially in larger forms, has been recorded, I have to conclude that, unfortunately, my early expectations are not going to be fully realised! In spite of this, however, I would consider the 5th as the most inspiring, with the much-different No3 coming a close second. Then would come the 4th, with Nos 1 and 2 in that order...................
I'm with Martin 100% on his estimation of the Rubinstein piano concertos. I would add that I have much enjoyed his other piano concertante works too.
The 5th is Titan scale gem that rewards repeated listening. One can hear how Tchaikovsky was inspired in many a passages. I once wrote to Hyperion requesting them to consider recording the 5th.
I wouldn't agree. PC5 is far too long for its material, especially the first movement. That's Rubinstein's biggest fault as a composer, in my view...
Spot on as to Rubinstein's major fault, Alan. He is too prolix by half. He is one composer whose works are often improved by judicious pruning.
Rubinstein doesn't do titanic - his attempts founder on the iceberg of over-ambition. Symphony No.4 is a prime example. PC5 is more enjoyable than that because the composer is often at his best when writing for his own instrument.
Agree to disagree! Still think of Rubi's 5th as Titanic (purely in terms of the sound world he creates) but agree about your assessment of his 4th symphony... I do agree about pruning - His Violin concerto is a prime example of "just-enough" gorgeous music.
Nope - at 50 mins No.5's just too loooooooong. As to sound world, well it's Beethoven PC5 on steroids coupled with enormous amounts of pianistic twiddling going nowhere fast. Sorry: if this is Rubinstein's Titanic, it was always bound for the ocean floor.
But when he keeps to approx half an hour, as he does in PCs 3 & 4, he's fabulous...
Whether movie, musical, or association, "Titanic" no longer has a positive connotation for me personally (unless it's "The Unsinkable Molly Brown". But that wasn't the musical I meant.)
NOPE - It's not too long for me. We are all entitled to our opinion but Alan's instance on having the last word in everything has spoiled discussions on this forum for quite some time! Perhaps you can rename this from Unsung composers to Alan's Views on Unsung composers.
It was the old Orion recording that had the cuts in the finale of the 3rd. In fact, I was gobsmacked when I heard the finale uncut. Much of the material that Preston cut was cyclical references to the previous movements, and the finale holds together formally somewhat better because of it in the cut version, but the uncut version serves to unify the work as a whole, so both have things to be said for them.
I do think that the Fifth is flawed, it is overlong and it is repetitive, but it's material is so strong and the sound world which Rubinstein creates is so compellingly austere and monumental (especially in the first movement which always makes me think of a mountains), that I'll forgive it those faults. A little judicious pruning here and there would have turned it into a masterpiece, but that wasn't Rubinstein's way.
QuoteAlan's instance on having the last word in everything has spoiled discussions on this forum for quite some time!
Apologies. I'll restrain myself in future.
Apology accepted. I love this forum for its spirited discussions and varied points of view - it has opened my eyes to many composers I might otherwise ignore. Apologies to Alan if i hurt your feelings. That was never my intention.
You were quite right to say what you did. It's a fault I must correct.
Hmmm, well, getting back to Alan's original question. I love the 3rd piano concerto! It's not too hot and not too cold, not too lumpy and not too long - it's just right. But don't ask me to explain that in musical terms! ;)
*looks for a recording of Eric Coates' "Three Bears" fantasy to explain it in musical terms*
;D ;D