Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Artur Rubinstein

This is the first time you've heard this? I started working on this a year or so ago and did that awful thing where I listened to as many recordings of this as I could find. Most pianists seem to make this more of a scherzo. I've even read somewhere that this was Brahms lone "happy" piece. A handful took a darker approach. Rubinstein is unique in that he flirts with different moods. It isn't really a problem, it just seems out of character for him.

The new set is only missing the concert in Moscow, and according to Hank, includes a bit that wasn't in the set. I think the folks trying to get rid of that old box set are going to have to cut their price drastically. I already have the concert in Moscow and was thinking about getting the DVD anyway.

No no! I said this was the first version I heard.
I meant that I heard it on the LP that this originally came from.
(A while back.)


I never thought so; I think it's almost typical for him.

But maybe it's unusual for him to shift moods so rapidly and briefly -- maybe that's exactly what you meant.

Vinyl or shellac?



I don't think it's typical but there's no doubt that we hear things differently.

Sorry but put that down as another one I don't get.

(No idea what the 'shellac' is about....)

Edit: Oh OK -- shellac would be if I was even more ancient.
Never knew the older records were made of different stuff.

Maybe I'm the ancient one. I had shellac records until my father threw them away.

I didn't know either and had to look it up.

Shellac

Shellac 78s are brittle, and must be handled carefully. In the event of a 78 breaking, the pieces might remain loosely connected by the label and still be playable if the label holds them together, although there is a loud "pop" with each pass over the crack, and breaking of the stylus is likely.

Breakage was very common in the shellac era. In the 1934 John O'Hara novel, Appointment in Samarra, the protagonist "broke one of his most favorites, Whiteman's Lady of the Evening ... He wanted to cry but could not." A poignant moment in J. D. Salinger's 1951 novel The Catcher in the Rye occurs after the adolescent protagonist buys a record for his younger sister but drops it and "it broke into pieces ... I damn near cried, it made me feel so terrible." A sequence where a school teacher's collection of 78 rpm jazz records is smashed by a group of rebellious students is a key moment in the film Blackboard Jungle.

Another problem with shellac was that the size of the disks tended to be larger because it was limited to 80-100 groove walls per inch before the risk of groove collapse became too high, whereas vinyl could have up to 260 groove walls per inch.

By the time World War II began, major labels were experimenting with laminated records. As stated above, and in several record advertisements of the period ``the materials that make for a quiet surface (shellacque) are notoriously weak and brittle. Conversely the materials that make for a strong disc (cardboard and other fiber products) are not those known for allowing a quiet noise-free surface.

Maybe you saved yourself some tears!

That I knew. We had 78's back in the day, and I still have some of them, as well as some that I bought later on at vintage record stores. I know that they break much more easily -- and also that the sharp edges can be pretty vicious.

I never thought to wonder if this was related to their being of a different material.

I think most of what Rubinstein does is marked in the score. The only thing I found unusual about the performance was his overall tempo which was slower than many others.

I just picked up a CD of him playing the 4 scherzi and 4 ballades for $6 CAD! Such an awesome deal.

I kind of thought his tempo was all over the place and some of the dynamics were abrupt in a way inconsistent with the score, but I didn't write what you quoted.

Darn right you didn't.

Hello all.

I recieved the Arthur Rubinstein boxed set last Wednesday. Aside from some quality control issues (which are being corrected by the retailer) I'm very impressed with the set.

I first started buying Rubinstein CDs back in 1986 when I bought my first CD player. Previous to that, I had numerous LPs and even a few 78s. I sold or gave away my old Rubinstein CDs when I bought the 1999 set - the remastering was just so much better. This was especially the case in some of the later concerto recordings which were multi-miked with a vengeance and sounded very unnatural on LP and the early CDs - the piano sounded very dry and in the listener's lap - all very much improved in 1999.

The new set is being touted as having improved remastering from the 1999 set, with the SACD versions used whenever possible. Frankly, I can't tell any difference - it sounded fine in 1999 and still does. But the "new" material has to be heard to be believed - especially Petrouchka.

Anyway, here's my full review:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RJTC8WETQI5XX/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Great review, Hank. Rubinstein has always been one of my three favorites (Sokolov and Freire being the other two), and he's been there since I first heard him live in 1962.

I was especially surprised to learn that this new set includes a recording of "Three Movements from Petrouchka." The story I had heard long ago was that Rubinstein never performed the piece, even though it was dedicated to him, because he found it so technically difficult as to be unplayable. After reading your review, I went to the source -- Rubinstein's My Many Years -- and found I was misinformed. Rubinstein loved the piece and worked in tandem with Stravinsky while he was composing his "Petrouchka sonata." He played it frequently in concerts around the world in his middle years, but claimed never to have recorded it. His description (from p. 138 of the book) reads in part as follows:

"The manuscript of this Petrushka sonata [delivered to him by Stravinsky] was a regal present, written meticulously in a short, nicely bound book. . . . The first page of the book contained . . . the dedication in Russian: 'To my friend Arthur, a great artist, in full ownership," and his signature. It . . . was very difficult to play. When I made some remarks about a few passages which might retard the dynamic progress of the piece, he said, 'Play it any way you like. I give you carte blanche.' I took advantage of his permission [in live performances] but never made a record of it because I knew my Igor. In a bad mood he might announce: 'Rubinstein betrays my work when her performs it.'

So either he forgot about this recording when he wrote the book, or he hoped others would forget about it. From your description, I doubt it was the latter.

Is there any way to buy a copy of the Petrouchka recording without shelling out the price of a used car for the whole set? I love Rubinstein, but I also love to eat.

Thanks, Emanuel. I think Rubinstein meant that he never recorded Petrouchka under studio conditions.

If Sony goes by their past practices, then these recordings will not be issued separately. Volume 82 of the old Rubinstein box has not been put out on its own, and the 1951 & 1967 recitals on the 2009 Horowitz box are only available as part of the box.

Oh well. Thanks for the unwelcome news. Maybe in another 50 years -- or maybe some enterprising digi-geek will post it on YouTube next week.

I've certainly never seen a studio recording, and have not even read of the existence of one.

Which brings up some other questions: How long did Rubinstein maintain the Stravinsky in his repertoire? And if he continued to play it, say, into the '50's, might there be a possibility of some long lost live take? It would be an invaluable document.

Well, the recording in the new Sony collection is from a Carnegie Hall concert in 1961 - part of the series of ten concerts he gave for charity. So, he played it at least until then - although I've never seen concert programs from later that had that work. With the exception of Debussy, Rubinstein seems to have dropped a lot of his 20th Century repertoire from the 1960s onward.

Here's a nice AR youtube page.

No, He's not the best Chopin interpreter. Absolutely NOT.

He can't even compete with Paderewski and Cortot.