Anton RUBINSTEIN (1829-1894)
Symphony No.4 in D minor Op.95 Dramatic (1874) [65:24]
State Symphony Orchestra of Russia/Igor Golovchin
rec. The Great Hall of the Moscow Conservatory, Russia, October 1993
DELOS DRD2012 [65:24]
The thing is I have a bit of a weakness for a symphony with a good curiosity-tweaking
name. Sadly, for every Alpine and Inextinguishable, every Romantic
and Resurrection there is a Rubinstein Dramatic. If it wasn’t
named so perhaps you wouldn’t mind so much but I find it hard to think
of another work that crawls its way through a dragging hour plus in such a
singularly undramatic way.
Rubinstein’s importance in the history of Classical Music in Russia
is assured and unchallenged. As a piano virtuoso he had few peers. As a conductor
he brought to performance many new works by his fellow contemporaries. Perhaps
his most important contribution was the founding of the St. Petersburg Conservatory
in 1862 which was the first music academy in Russia. Perhaps it was this latter
role, functioning as a teacher and pedagogue, that resulted in so much of
his music being finely crafted and wholly functional yet lacking true inspiration.
With a great work or composer you cannot imagine a single chord being voiced
another way, a single note being played by another instrument - the work as
a whole feels ‘right’. With this Rubinstein symphony, for all
its inoffensive competence the sense is that melodies, instruments, harmonies
are interchangeable at will. The other great problem is the length. Concision
is clearly a concept Rubinstein chose not to embrace. I’m a great believer
in not sanctioning cuts a composer has not approved. However, the conclusion
with this work is that halving its length would have in no way lessened the
impact.
Curiously the impulse to write the 4th Symphony - which this is
- came after a break of nearly twenty years so one has to assume that the
muse was with Rubinstein. Unfortunately his muse does rather like filling
great pages with the musical equivalent of an aircraft’s holding pattern
- you keep flying safely enough but going nowhere and getting ever more frustrated.
The first movement is a case in point - over twenty two minutes of generic
drama but singularly little excitement. Rubinstein has a knack of, just when
you think you are in the final straight, veering away from a final cadence
to try another generic peroration. It had me thinking - rather uncharitably
- of Arnold’s Grand Grand Overture which goes through an entire
instruction booklet of ‘endings’. The bad news is Rubinstein does
this seriously. The second movement scherzo is titled Presto which
one normally takes to mean pretty nippy. Here we jog along more like a middle
distance athlete rather than a sprinter - Bruckner aside I cannot think of
any ‘fast’ movements in romantic symphonies that are anything
like as long but length is the only common factor. By some considerable distance
the 3rd - slow - movement contains the best music in the work.
It’s a lyrical Adagio with a singing main theme that develops
in a memorable way. The finale has the good sense to be the shortest movement
in the work but again is unfortunately formulaic in having a slow introduction
leading to an Allegro con fuoco - treat the ‘with fire’
instruction with care. It would be quite wrong to say this is a work without
any redeeming features but its main value is to remind you just what a towering
genius Tchaikovsky was. Even Arensky and Taneiev emerge much more favourably.
Glazunov at his dullest and least inspired is in a different league.
The useful liner makes the valid and interesting point that Rubinstein was
seeking to prove that there was viable mileage in the traditional four movement
symphony at a time when the form had been pronounced dead by the acolytes
of Wagner. It’s a worthy cause but a shame to report that Rubinstein
was not the man to carry the torch for the musical form he championed. You
know a work is in trouble when the liner writer writes; “the work is
not particularly impressive as a complete and unified work.” or quotes
Tchaikovsky as saying “an excessive abundance of main ideas, many of
which appear only episodically and are underdeveloped”. To be fair the
rest of the Tchaikovsky quote is more positive.
As far as this recording goes this is a straight reissue by Delos of the 1994
Russian disc release. Playright and copyright are reassigned to Delos as 2012
but it is not clear if the recording has been re-mastered. As a performance
it is competent. Rubinstein’s rather fussy inner part-writing causes
the strings some ensemble and intonation problems that additional rehearsal
or more takes would have solved. Woodwind principals are good but the playing
as a whole is a tad anonymous. The brass have few opportunities to rage or
roar in good old-fashioned Soviet style - indeed the trombones join the fray
for the finale only. Conductor Igor Golovchin’s work I have enjoyed
more in the past - there’s a crackling Rachmaninov 3rd Symphony
and a good Gliere Ilya Murometz from the same team as here. Engineering
is good without ever being exciting but somehow one feels that the ennui of
the piece has affected all the other departments too - this is respectful
professional playing and recording without ever sparking into the inspired.
Quite why Delos felt this was a disc worthy of revival escapes me. There is
another recording from the early days of Naxos which - read and weep - is
significantly slower in every movement. Strange to relate I will not be seeking
out that performance for comparison not with my ‘watching-paint-dry-in-exotic-places’
cruise already booked. Can I go back to sleep now please?
Nick Barnard
Can I go back to sleep now please?