Rufinatscha Symphony No.3

[Alan Howe]

Thanks, Dr Gratl. That's good to know.

[Mark Thomas]

As is so often the case, Alan has ably summarised the pros and cons of this important release, which I've now heard a few times. Like its two successors, Rufinatscha's Third Symphony serves to remind us what a significant voice this unknown Tyrolean could have become, had he been better known. It is a masterful, serious piece of composition, the outer movements (and particularly the splendid finale) being particularly impressive. Rufinatscha chooses his material with care and gives his structures plenty of time to develop, although they are never over-long or diffuse. The slow movement, which comes second, and the rather bucolic scherzo are perhaps not quite up to the standard of their counterparts in the Fourth or Fifth, but that's setting the bar rather high, and the symphony overall is a very fine piece of work. Although the scoring itself has many reminders of late Schubert, the bones of the work are much more forward-looking - there are clear harbingers of Bruckner in the sheer scale of Rufinatscha's conception for example. Dr Gratl's booklet notes, ably translated by Alan himself, quote at length from a fascinating contemporary review of the Third. The author clearly regarded Rufinatscha as a reformer and something of a conservative revolutionary. He mentions a Berliozian idée fixe, although I have yet to identify it.  Michael Huber's modern realisation of the score (only the original string parts are extant) strikes me as completely idiomatic and convincing. He has clearly studied Rufinatscha's other orchestral works minutely.

Lest they be forgotten, the three concert arias, which total just over half an hour, are no mere make-weights, and are almost as substantial and worthwhile discoveries as the Symphony.

Although they in no way devalue the importance of this CD, I do have some small misgivings about the recording itself. The combination of a restricted acoustic, and a smallish orchestra with strings playing with minimum vibrato, does indeed make the work sound thinner, and so more strident, than I suspect it should. If the Third could be treated to the sort of performance and recording that Chandos afforded the Fifth, then I am sure that many more beauties and dark corners hidden in this performance would be revealed. That's not to denigrate either producers or performers here, though, who hardly have the resources of a major label. I should also say that two of the concert arias feature a soprano with a very distinctive voice, which may not be to everyone's taste.

Overall though, we must be hugely grateful to the Tiroler Landesmuseen for seeing through this project to record all of Rufinatscha's symphonies. What talent the man had, and how shameful was the neglect of it by his contemporaries.

[Martin Eastick]

I am looking forward with anticipation for my copy to arrive! - and, am pleased that the Tiroler Landsmuseum's other CD's have not disappeared, as I am sure that there are still some titles missing in my collection!

[Alan Howe]

Thank you, Mark, for your review. I concur with (almost) every word. My only quibble would with the notion that the two inner movements are less outstanding than those in Symphonies 4 or 5. I believe that a larger orchestra and a more generous acoustic would allow for more sheer beauty - as well as more light and shade - to come through.

[Alan Howe]

Listening again, the slow movement of No.3 seems to me to alternate between sections of stunning lyrical beauty and others of immense, almost crushing power. Some sonorities hark back to Beethoven (9?), others look forward to Bruckner. This is astonishing music. The unbuttoned, rustic scherzo, by contrast, stands somewhere between Schubert (9) and Mahler. Extraordinary. Of course, I imagine neither Bruckner nor Mahler knew Rufinatscha, so there must just have been something in the (compositional) water.

By the way: this is often music of an identifiably outdoor Austrian stamp. Of Mendelssohn/Schumann there is not a trace. Still less does Rufinatscha point forward to Brahms.

[eschiss1]

Unless Julius Epstein knew his teacher's works (wholly possible?) and played some for -his- pupil Mahler (... could be. Don't know if any biography of Mahler has ever mentioned anything like this, though.)

[Mark Thomas]

I'll clearly have to listen again with greater attention to the middle movements, Alan, to see if I hear what you hear. Don't get me wrong, though, I wasn't saying that I thought them unremarkable, just that I didn't think them quite as remarkable as the outer movements, or their equivalents in his two final symphonies.

[Alan Howe]

I can see why the first and fourth movements would grab the attention of anyone listening to this music. The middle movements are surely intended to offer a contrast to the titanic goings-on which open and and close the work.

[Alan Howe]

I'm now fully in the grip of this magnificent music. Listening to it alongside other (sung) symphonies of the same period only enhances its stature, originality and grandeur.

[DennisS]

I have listened several times to this symphony and earlier today listened to it again and jotted down my thoughts and feelings on each movement. Before passing on my comments, I would like to say the following. I already had three Rufi symphonies - symphonies 1 , 5 (now 4) and 6 (now 5) all purchased from Tiroler-Landesmuseen of course. I bought the CDs mainly because of the glowing praise these works received on UC!  Upon receiving the earlier CDs, I listened to the music but have to confess that initially I didn't "get" the music. Indeed, it took me several listens before I became familiar with the music and then become far fonder of this composer! With symphony no 3 however, from the very first time I listened to it, I was completely and utterly taken with the music! The opening movement grabbed my attention immediately and was really thrilling! My attention and enjoyment never waned through movements 2, 3 and 4, with its triumphant and totally satisfying conclusion. It is almost self-evident that IMHO this symphony is, of the 4 Rufi symphonies I have, my favourite!(and perhaps I might go so far as to say Rufinatscha's best symphony - I may have to revise my opinion however when my CD of Symphony no 2 turns up!) As I listened to this symphony again, I wrote down my comments and here they are. Movement 1 : grand, big dramatic opening , air of expectancy, a lot of tension, strong sense of forward propulsion, big climaxes, leading to a contrasting quiet conclusion. This movement grabbed me from the very first note and kept me enthralled through the entire movement! Movement 2 : very strong and enjoyable contrast to previous movement, hesitant, questioning, beautifully and delicately scored, less dramatic than movt 1 but still with moments of drama, passages of limpid beauty, some gorgeous writing for the strings, with an impressive conclusion, combining feelings of both hesitancy and delicacy. Movement 3 : a joyous, dance-like movement, delightfully scored, firstly with  slowing down of the music, then becoming more lyrical with almost a pastoral feel to the music, beautiful writing for the woodwinds (loved the flute trills!), then a more relaxed feel to the music before building up again and culminating with a very satisfying conclusion. Movement 4 : very dramatic opening, recalling the drama of the opening movement, draws the listener in immediately, the music then becomes calmer and more relaxed, although the drama is never far away, strongly insistent forward propulsion of the music takes over with a pronounced rhythmic drive combined with imaginative scoring, slowing down then followed by crescendos, with the music constantly developing and evolving all the while, moments of relaxation but always followed by high drama, leading to a triumphant conclusion! As is obvious by my comments, I am hugely impressed by this symphony. I can see why some members have stated that the opening and closing movements, both hugely dramatic, tend to bookend the 2 inner movements and for that reason tend to overshadow the 2 middle movements. This not my opinion however as I believe the 2 inner movements provide an effective, very satisfying foil to the opening and closing movements. As far as I am concerned, this is a marvellous, thrilling and hugely enjoyable symphony. If you don't already have it, buy it!!!!

[Alan Howe]

That's a really helpful description, Dennis. Thanks so much for taking the time to write it all down and share it with us. I'm really glad too that you have been taken by the music to the same degree as me. I can't get it out of my head at all...

[semloh]

Yes, indeed, thank you, Dennis. You certainly have a refined ability to describe music.

[UnterEinemDach]

Find postings very helpful. Thank you! What I miss, though, is some appreciation of Mr Huber´s reconstructive work.

Appraising the "flute trills in the scherzo" is actually complemeting Mr Huber´s creativity; same goes for those clarinette interjections and timpani accents.

Or take the last movement, where Michael FP Huber in the horn passage creates a link with the 1st movement, something Rufinatscha wouldn´t have done. So, maybe hats off to Mr Huber?

Best
UED

[Alan Howe]

The answer is simple: of course, there's bound to be a large 'Huber element' in such a major reconstruction. However, I still find the overall effect to be essentially faithful to Rufinatscha when compared to his other symphonies. Beyond that, we need an expert to judge...

[JimL]

Don't be so sure Rufinatscha "wouldn't have done" anything.  There are some indications of thematic/motivic linkages in both the 4th and 5th symphonies.  The 5th, in particular has a "motto" theme cyclically running through it in 3 of the 4 movements.  It first appears in the slow introduction of the first movement, becomes an integral part of the second subject in that movement, and reappears in both the slow movement and at the very end of the finale.  In the 4th symphony there is definitely a linkage between the second subject of the slow movement and the second theme of the finale, IIRC.