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
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!
For me, it's not enough of a monster. Not nearly enough 'bite'! However, it does make good listening...
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.
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 (http://kith.org/jimmosk/TOC.html)
My latest list of unusual classical CDs for auction: http://tinyurl.com/jimsCDs (http://tinyurl.com/jimsCDs)
Exactly, peter1953. Your enthusiasm for Rubinstein is truly infectious!Symphony 3 next!Steve
Quote from: jimmosk on Monday 20 December 2010, 20:38
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.
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
Alas, they were rather restrained with their criticism back then!
Out of curiosity, I know there's two versions of this, was one simply more movements than the other, or was there other changes?
Quote from: TerraEpon on Tuesday 21 December 2010, 06:45
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...
TerraEpon, I can't answer your question, but aren't there 3 versions, with the storm movement being added last?
David
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.
Quote from: edurban on Tuesday 21 December 2010, 07:19
TerraEpon, I can't answer your question, but aren't there 3 versions, with the storm movement being added last?
David
According to Naxos (http://www.naxos.com/mainsite/blurbs_reviews.asp?item_code=8.555392&catNum=555392&filetype=About%20this%20Recording&language=English#), 1851, 1863, 1880. They don't give much detail, unfortunately.
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!!!
Other question -- is the Naxos recording the same as the Marco Polo (which I heard and found really boring)? I seem to remember it wasn't, and I'm too lazy to navigate the eternally slow Naxos website to check...
With all this praise, I'm tempted to give it another go if I can.
It's the same recording. Unfortunately.
Naxosdirect is often faster and their links can also be found by a quick websearch. They're both the Gunzenhauser recording apparently, yes (I don't think I've heard it yet but expect I probably won't like it much myself, maybe until e.g. Hans Stadlmair, say, has a crack at it in the studio?. Naxos has done new recordings of e.g. Szymanowski's symphonies (... all 4? I don't think so- I'm surprised if there's been two recordings out of the first, though Botstein conducted it in public..., apparently yes, Stryja and Wit have both recorded it for MP and Naxos respectively. I'll be... well, it is fun, but the other three, though, are genius, and his other works even better...erm... offtopic.) but I think most of their transfer series has been transfers, not new recordings.
As far as Shaw is concerned, the following exchange of missives with Churchill is one of my favorites:
S. to C: "Am having two tickets for the opening of my new play held for you at the box office. Bring a friend, if you have one".
C. to S: "Can't make opening night. Please reserve tickets for the second performance, if there is one."
Excellent, Jim! BTW Shaw on Goetz:
<<"He [Goetz] has the charm of Schubert without his brainlessness, the refinement of Mendelssohn without his limitations and timid gentility, Schumann's sense of harmonic expression without his laboriousness, shortcomings, and dependence on external poetic stimulus; while as to unembarrassed mastery of the materials of music, showing itself in the Mozartean grace and expressiveness of his polyphony, he leaves all three of them simply nowhere. Brahms, who alone touches him in mere brute musical facility, is a dolt in comparison to him.">>
Nothing if not opinionated, Shaw was a preachy old thing and some of the speeches in his plays are remarkable for their length and (some would say) tediousness. In Mart Crowley's play, "The Boys in the Band", one of the characters dismisses Shaw with the camp remark: "...that Bernadette Shaw - talk, talk, talk!"
Of course, he goes way over the top about Goetz. Nevertheless, hyperbole can sometimes be useful...
Readers on this forum will know that I am a great admirer of Rubinstein's music generally and feel that he has been underated. Perhaps now his music is starting to gain the recognition it deserves. Although I rate his work highly, I accept that on occasion, themes are spun out and there can be longueurs, with also an element of being a bit samey. Re - symphony no 2, "Ocean", acting on Mark's recommendation, I bought the original 4 movement version. I liked it a lot, especially the inspired writing for the woodwinds in the first movement. I then decided without being given any recommendation to purchase the 7 movement version, if for no other reason, out of curiosity - would it be more of what I like?? I have only recently received the latest disk and listened to it attentively. The answer is "yes", I do like it. It is though a little bit like 2 diffent symphonies. The original version works quite well and is very appealing. The revised version (revised twice) has a programme, the 7 movements corresponding loosely to the 7 seas but ,IMO, this is somewhat tenous as some of the movements don't seem to me to have much to do with water as such. I just ignore the programme and simply go with the music. I feel though that the added second movement does convey though the turbulence of the ocean quite effectively. Summing up, if I am pressed for time, I will listen to the original version. If I have more time, then I will listen to the revised version. Both work well for me.
Cheers
Dennis
How about this performance on YouTube?>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CagBYfUquU
Apologies if we've discussed this before - I haven't done a thorough search to find out.
Was it REALLY called the "Ramsgate Symphony"?!
Of course not! That was Shaw being bitchy.