Artur Rubinstein

[George]

Perhaps I should explain that when I said "sounded like the recordings were made when they were made" I mean something along the lines of "they sound like the performers were sitting in a barrel and the recording apparatus was covered by a bunch of pillows".  It's a fine line, of course, and the Marston effort I have (IIRC, limited to the Knappertsbusch recordings of Parsifal and Meistersinger as released on Naxos) walk it fairly well,  but my ears would rather the errors are made in the EMI way:  even a little bit of "old sounding" goes a long way with my ears.

Sure, we all have our own preferences, of course.   

BTW, of Rubinstein's two other recordings of the Mazurkas do you have a preference? 

Yes, the second mono one. You'll be happy to know the sound is better than it is on the first mono set:

[kishnevi]

Sure, we all have our own preferences, of course.   

Yes, the second mono one. You'll be happy to know the sound is better than it is on the first mono set:

Thanks, although me being me there's a good chance I'll end up getting both.  (And I should note that I don't really have a problem with the sound of the EMI mazurkas.  It's only the concertos I have a problem with, and his stereo recording of them was one of the first CDs I ever got thirty five years ago or so.)

[George]

Thanks, although me being me there's a good chance I'll end up getting both.  (And I should note that I don't really have a problem with the sound of the EMI mazurkas.  It's only the concertos I have a problem with, and his stereo recording of them was one of the first CDs I ever got thirty five years ago or so.)

Honestly, I think if you have one of the mono Rubinstein's, you have enough Rubinstein Mazurkas. There's too many other great Mazurka players out there who need to be heard. 

[The Raven]

I will probably pick up some more Beethoven concerti soon;

just pm me whenever you wonder about a beethoven piano concerto recording. i can always prepare a preview for you...

[jwinter]

Last night I burned an MP3 CD of Rubinstein's 1950s mono Mazurkas, Nocturnes, Waltzes, Polonaises, Scherzi, & Impromptus, and listened to it in the car this morning on my way to work on shuffle.  Nice commute.   

[Herman]

Listening to the box set, it appears that there are two Rubinsteins. The earlier recordings are more mercurial and hell bent for leather. In the stereo era, he went for a different aesthetic- more precisely judged and magisterial. Both Rubinsteins are wonderful.

I don't know which 'box set' you are listening to, but one might say there are three Rubinsteins. The  prewar Rubinstein recording EMI / HMV 78s, and who indeed sounds rather impulsive on occasion; then there's the middle period, with mono LPs for RCA in the 'forties and early fifties. And the third period is the rather more mellow stereo period.

The recordings from the middle period have long been obscured, since RCA was more interested in bringing the stereo recordings to the marketplace. Only with the big Rubinstein edition (in something like 75 volumes) did these exquisite recordings come to light again. I would definitily recommend seeking out his Brahms, Schumann and Chopin from this era.

[Lisztianwagner]

A Rubinstein thread, how lovely!

Artur Rubinstein is absolutely one of the most extraordinary pianists of the 20th century, my favourite along with Ashkenazy and Richter. I've always been quite impressed by his piano technique, intense, passionate and beautifully expressive, but at the same time extremely elegant and refined; absolutely marvelous. I really admire the clarity, the agility and the brilliance of his playing as well as his superb use of the rubato and the graces-notes; especially in Chopin's works, it almost becomes a sort of hypnotism, that's impossible to be untouched by the suggestive power and the natural beauty expressed by the great polish pianist (for example Chopin's Nocturnes and Mazurkas, such outstanding recordings!).
He was definitely one of the most distinguished Chopin's interpreters I've ever heard; I think that, apart from Ashkenazy, it's rather hard to find another pianist showing more mastery and naturalness in playing that music than Rubinstein; he was really able to express all the poetical beauty, the melancholic, dreamy atmosphere, the deep, haunting passion Chopin infused into his compositions.
He was at his best in Chopin, but also Rubinstein's perfomances of Schubert, Brahms, Ravel, Liszt, Beethoven and the Spanish music are certainly stunning.

Maybe his weakest point was that, having Chopin in his blood so much, he sometimes tended to 'chopinize' the other composers too; like his performance of Liszt's La campanella.....too soft, not thrilling, overwhelimng enough for Liszt's music.

[George]

Artur Rubinstein is absolutely one of the most extraordinary pianists of the 20th century....(for example Chopin's Nocturnes and Mazurkas, such outstanding recordings!).

Which of his three recordings of each do you enjoy?

[Lisztianwagner]

Which of his three recordings of each do you enjoy?

I've got the Chopin Collection.

[asin]B000026OW3[/asin]

[George]

I've got the Chopin Collection.

Ok, so the last (stereo) ones.

[Lisztianwagner]

Ok, so the last (stereo) ones.

Yes. What are the other recordings like?

[Brian]

So far, from the great big Rubinstein Box (in CD# order, not listening order):



The Szymanowski is wonderful, but a little rushed in the first two movements; some of my favorite orchestral details get glossed over. Paleczny (Kord) is still top choice, followed by Paleczny (Semkow). The Brahms is marvelous. The Schumann likewise (mmm those 'Fantasiestucke'). Right now I'm listening to his Beethoven Fifth with Barenboim, and it's more proof that a lot of the time, slow and steady does win the race.

My favorite performance so far might be the highly romanticized Mozart rondo, though, to my surprise.

[Todd]

The Szymanowski is wonderful, but a little rushed in the first two movements

Didn't notice the Szymanowski in the set.  I'll have to get to that one soon.  I've listened to a few of his chamber discs.  His stereo Brahms chamber music is possibly the best stuff I've heard from him (I have the earlier box of just that, along with Chopin).  Still so much to sample.

[Brian]

Didn't notice the Szymanowski in the set.  I'll have to get to that one soon.  I've listened to a few of his chamber discs.  His stereo Brahms chamber music is possibly the best stuff I've heard from him (I have the earlier box of just that, along with Chopin).  Still so much to sample.

I'll say this for the Szymanowski (which, when I saw it in the box, my reaction was a verbal "aahh!!" followed by immediate grabbing): it's the most romantic performance I've ever heard. Rubinstein and especially Wallenstein bring out the composer's debt to his past, more than Gardner, Semkow, or even Wit. Part of this is that the Los Angeles Phil supplies the strings and the violins sound like pure Hollywood whenever they get a big tune.

Currently assembling some shitty mail-order Chinese furniture (one leg of this bar stool is shorter than the other three; return the whole thing by post or tape some spare change to the bottom?) and needing some serious emotional support, so I have a bag of chocolate chips and three more Rubinstein discs:



What's so impressive to me is that even when he's not the best I've ever heard, he's still very good. Always. On every disc so far. I can't point to one and say "that wasn't good." I can't point to one and say "all-time favorite," yet, either (maybe because I've been light on Brahms so far; but his Schumann has been tremendous), but the man was so consistent.

[Mandryka]

Didn't notice the Szymanowski in the set.  I'll have to get to that one soon.  I've listened to a few of his chamber discs.  His stereo Brahms chamber music is possibly the best stuff I've heard from him (I have the earlier box of just that, along with Chopin).  Still so much to sample.

Try to hear the earlier record of Brahms op 25 he made with Pro Arte.

Another  record I remember liking was the Beethoven concerto 4 with Mitropoulos. I remember thinking that Mozart PC24 with Krips wasn't really very good. I would say the same for a lot of his Chopin, the Walzes and Sonatas for example. I have a vague memory of some terribly disappointing Chopin preludes.

Personally I think his post war popularity as a soloist is a product of marketing, especially in Chopin.  Most of the real interesting solo Rubinstein records are pre war. By the 1970s even his Chopin was stiff, apart from the polonaises. Even the Chopin records from the 1950s seem mostly dull to me. There are some exceptions - Ravel waltzes certainly. Navarra and Franck and Chopin Pollonaises and a small handful of late Brahms pieces  possibly. And things may have been different when he played with other people - the chopin concertos for example

Of course, he had mystique, a result of his marketing machine I think, so the groupies still loved him.

A propos, there's this quote:

Obviously, not every decision was determined by profit-and-loss
considerations.  We willingly LOST money on Vladimir Horowitz.  Each
of his albums cost Columbia in guaranty, recording and advertising
expenses about a hundred thousand dollars; they generally recouped
half of that amount.  But it WAS Horowitz, who is generally considered
the greatest living pianist.  Only Artur Rubinstein challenges him
-- and the legend surrounding Horowitz is greater.  In Movies, Garbo
had the mystique.  In rock music, Dylan has it.  In classical music,
it's Horowitz.  We decided that the business loss was more than
offset by the musical contribution and accompanying prestige.

I bet they made similar losses for Rubinstein, partly because of the advertising budget. The fans slept outside the concert hall to get a ticket. Of course, I disagree with Clive Davies about musical contribution for Horowitz, and the same for Rubinstein.

[George]

What's so impressive to me is that even when he's not the best I've ever heard, he's still very good. Always. On every disc so far. I can't point to one and say "that wasn't good." I can't point to one and say "all-time favorite," yet, either (maybe because I've been light on Brahms so far; but his Schumann has been tremendous), but the man was so consistent.

Almost word for word, I stated the same exact sentiment elsewhere on this forum.