Arthur Rubinstein: The Complete Album Collection Help

[mn dave]

Which one is that? One of the early Chopins?

Mixed bag disc: Debussy, Ravel, Liszt, Rubinstein, Rachmaninoff, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Brahms

[George]

Mixed bag disc: Debussy, Ravel, Liszt, Rubinstein, Rachmaninoff, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Brahms

Cool! I love his early recordings.

[kishnevi]

Oh! Thank you very much for posting this. I heard the 1969 performance, and that explains my displeasure. (Mandryka, you're right that he had only started playing it a few years before. The slow movement is 10:30ish in length but seemed fast, to me, at the very onset.) If the giant box has the 1965 version I'll try it sometime soon...

Brian,  it's on CD 135 (second CD of the Unreleased Recordings doublet).

[Mookalafalas]

I just listened to CD 140.  It is a random selection of solo piano stuff played live (but never released) in a 1961 concert.  It seemed a bit rocky at the beginning, and then was just riveting.   He was incredibly popular as a live performer, in spite of not being at all glitzy, and whatever it is (an intimacy? an immediacy that most performers don't have?) it comes through in this disc.  It's a shame he didn't allow more of his live stuff to be recorded.  As a top star, he was always given terrific recording engineers, that might be part of what makes this disc (and the whole box) so engaging. When he hits the higher end notes, the piano sounds like it's in my study...

[Mandryka]

I just listened to CD 140.  It is a random selection of solo piano stuff played live (but never released) in a 1961 concert.  It seemed a bit rocky at the beginning, and then was just riveting.   He was incredibly popular as a live performer, in spite of not being at all glitzy, and whatever it is (an intimacy? an immediacy that most performers don't have?) it comes through in this disc.  It's a shame he didn't allow more of his live stuff to be recorded.  As a top star, he was always given terrific recording engineers, that might be part of what makes this disc (and the whole box) so engaging. When he hits the higher end notes, the piano sounds like it's in my study...

These are worth hearing

[mn dave]

I need a magnifying glass for the backs of the "record" jackets. 

[Mookalafalas]

These are worth hearing

  Amazon has these, but doesn't say anything about them. Live recitals that aren't in the box?

[Mandryka]

  Amazon has these, but doesn't say anything about them. Live recitals that aren't in the box?

As far as I know they aren't in the box.

[akiralx]

SO, if you have 72 or more of the 144, pass on it.
If you have less than 72, consider it.
If you have less than 44, buy it.

I have 5. So I bought it.

I have none -  mainly because I've disliked every stereo AR recording I've ever heard.  I did quite like his mono Chopin recordings on EMI.... so should I partake?

[Mandryka]

Rubinstein gave a concert in Amsterdam in September 1954, with the Waldstein, Carnival, the Chopin Barcarolle and some other things. It was recorded and is now available on concertarchive, a yahoo concert sharing private group. Well worth hearing if you like the Rubinstein thing - I'm not as fan as some people here, but some things in this live concert had me strapped to my seat. He was on form that night, the recording gives you a glimpse of why people slept outside the box office to be sure of getting a ticket. The sound is fine.

PM me if you have difficulty getting it.

[Brian]

Brahms Concerto No 2

LSO/Coates 1929
BSO/Munch 1952
RCA/Krips 1958
Philly/Ormandy 1971

Which one do you prefer, and why? Also accepting general comparisons and contrasts without preferences attached.

[Ken B]

Brahms Concerto No 2

LSO/Coates 1929
BSO/Munch 1952
RCA/Krips 1958
Philly/Ormandy 1971

Which one do you prefer, and why? Also accepting general comparisons and contrasts without preferences attached.

I have heard only the last two. Krips.

[Que]

Brahms Concerto No 2

LSO/Coates 1929
BSO/Munch 1952
RCA/Krips 1958
Philly/Ormandy 1971

Which one do you prefer, and why? Also accepting general comparisons and contrasts without preferences attached.

The Krips is a favourite of mine, very inspired. And with favourite I mean that when I want to listen to this concerto, I will reach for this recording first.  The Coates is mainly  interesting as an historical documentation, rushed and with cuts due to the limited recording time. Don't know the other two. Though I vaguely recall auditioning the Ormandy, must not have made a very big impression...

Q

[Jo498]

I have had the box for about 4 years and only listened sporadically, partly because I had owned already 20-30 discs with recordings included.
Now I decided to make sure that I listen to everything at least once. I will do this not completely systematically and started with a few odd disks but from next week I will start at the beginning and proceed roughly chronologically. Although I will take liberties if something catches my interest (e.g. if a work or recording is mentioned/discussed in a forum I follow).
In the last few days I already listened to the following disks (I did not listen to the Noches twices, the recording is included twice to reproduce original couplings)

CD 55 FALLA * GRANADOS * ALBÉNIZ * MOMPOU ~ RUBINSTEIN * SAN FRANCISCO SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA * JORDA
CD 62 RACHMANINOFF - PIANO CONCERTO NO. 2 * LISZT - PIANO CONCERTO NO. 1 ~ RUBINSTEIN * REINER * WALLENSTEIN
CD 72 RACHMANINOFF - RHAPSODY ON A THEME OF PAGANINI * FALLA - NIGHTS IN THE GARDENS OF SPAIN ~ RUBINSTEIN
CD 89 A FRENCH PROGRAM - RAVEL * POULENC * FAURÉ * CHABRIER ~ RUBINSTEIN

I especially liked the Paganini Rhapsody and the Spanish and French solo stuff. I don't think I had listened to any of these before, maybe to the French one. And I had the Noches already in an earlier coupling in the older edition.

[George]

I need a magnifying glass for the backs of the "record" jackets. 

The biggest loss in the pink box reissue of this set is all of the original liner notes from the original issue of the set, where each volume had its own informative notes with lots of great stories about Rubinstein and his recording experiences. 

[Jo498]

You mean the "brown book" version of the original Collection, I assume? The hardcover companion book of the big box is nice but it has of course more general information. I had a dozen or so of the "brown" collection and frankly I disliked them because discs would get scratches and the spines were almost illegible because of the brown background.

I should add that I managed to listen to all (except for the bonus DVDs and stuff, I think) of the Rubinstein box last summer but was too lazy to keep notes or a "diary" about the process.

[George]

You mean the "brown book" version of the original Collection, I assume? The hardcover companion book of the big box is nice but it has of course more general information. I had a dozen or so of the "brown" collection and frankly I disliked them because discs would get scratches and the spines were almost illegible because of the brown background.

Yes, I meant the cardboard case version. I originally thought the case might scratch the CDs, but so far, no problems. Plus, I bought the first 30 or so for cheap from a used store. I am grateful for all that extra info in the booklets, which were done in a classy way, with thick paper, great essays, classy font, etc.

[Jo498]

I've had the experience that these book-cardboard covers tend to scratch very early on. Basically, some discs sit so tight in there that they got scratched the first time I took them out. Back then I used additional cases for most of them and also stopped buying them.
The first issue of CBS Masterworks Heritage or what they were called, had similar cases although they were not as tight. Neither are the slim cardboard cases of the "Pink Box".
I agree that they are "classy" and prettier than the standard jewel case and also nicer than some other alternative cardboard cases but overall I think the practical deficiencies made them worse than the standard cases.

[George]

I've had the experience that these book-cardboard covers tend to scratch very early on. Basically, some discs sit so tight in there that they got scratched the first time I took them out. Back then I used additional cases for most of them and also stopped buying them.
The first issue of CBS Masterworks Heritage or what they were called, had similar cases although they were not as tight. Neither are the slim cardboard cases of the "Pink Box".
I agree that they are "classy" and prettier than the standard jewel case and also nicer than some other alternative cardboard cases but overall I think the practical deficiencies made them worse than the standard cases.

I hear you. Since I bought them cheap, the potential scratching doesn't bother me. I had one issue from this series in a jewel case and did not like it. The liner notes were the same, but printed on that flimsy, magazine like paper that they use. So far the scratching hasn't caused any playing issues, but if it comes to that, I have the pink box as a backup. I rarely pull the pink box out, as I always listen to the earlier recordings, all of which I have in the old cardboard-book style cases.

At any rate, I think it's great that we have each found an option that works for us. The music-making is well worth it.

[Jo498]

Usually CDs are not affected by slight scratches at all, so I don't want to cause panic. It was a bit of a nuisance when I wanted to sell the doubles and had to admit slight scratches (whereas most stuff in my collection is fairly pristine).
I also tried with my finger to pry the sleeve that it gets a little looser or wider so the CD would get in and out easily. Once that is the case, it's no problem but I really had cases I scratched the first time I tried to get them out. Actually with the CBS masterworks the problem sometimes tends to be too loose fits so one has to be careful that the discs don't fall out!