Talk:Arthur Rubinstein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rubinstein's Memory

Rubinstein's memory was formidable, and photographic in the sense that he actually SAW the score in his mind as he performed. Harvey Sachs' biography of the pianist goes into some detail about Rubinstein's memory, to the extent that the pianist stated he would see a stain from a cup of coffee on the page--in his mind's eye. However, there is no evidence that Rubinstein would memorize a piece after only a single read through. In fact, Rubinstein's memory lapses, and his deftness at covering them up so non-professionals would not notice, is legendary. As regards the Franck Symphonic Varations, the story of Rubinstein learning the piece on a train is recounted by Harold Schonberg, a reliable source. THD3 15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I was mistaken regarding the source for the account of Rubinstein learning Franck's Symphonic Variations, although not the story itself. The source is Part 2 of Rubinstein's own memoirs, My Many Years, page 198. He learned it while en route, via train, to Madrid for a concert, without benefit of a piano (Rubinstein practiced difficult passages in his lap). It was not memorized in a single read through, but took more than one day. Rubinstein's memory, while formidable, was not infallible. He suffered from occasional memory lapses, as evidenced in pirate recordings and recounted by his son, John Rubinstein. THD3 14:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm

A gentle reminder, folks, to try to avoid sarcasm. It doesn't help Wiki or anything it's trying to accomplish. (If you're unsure of what sarcasm is:

>:If you have citations, go ahead and add them. Thanks. Grover cleveland 12:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For the context of that remark, see the Don Lorenzo Perosi talk page. Or don't waste your time and just avoid the sarcasm. LorenzoPerosi1898 13:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rubinstein & Brahms

I love the quote about Rubinstein, Brahms, and Scriabin. Upon reflection, I think that more could/should be said about AR's love for Brahms. I recall that AR was quick to point out (a) that he was 10 years old when JB died, thus he always thought of him as a "contemporary" composer; (b) that from the moment he heard the first piece of Brahms, he immediately had to have every piece he could get his hands on by him; (c) that he had cherished contacts with Joachim and several other musicians who knew Brahms. In fact, would it be fair to say that after Chopin, Brahms was AR's favorite composer? Anyhow, I humbly suggest that the Brahms connection could be expanded by a sentence or two. Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 09:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have citations, go ahead and add them. Thanks. Grover cleveland 12:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I could add ten and you wouldn't be happy. THD3 will be happy to oblige. LorenzoPerosi1898 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Brahms was Rubinstein's favorite composer, not Chopin--even though Rubinstein is more closely associated with Chopin these days. THD3 14:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

grammar

I'd like to correct this sentence, but I'm not sure what is meant by it: "Astor Piazzolla cites a Rubinstein concert staged in Buenos Aires in 1939 as one his first great impressions..." If "of" is added, we get "Astor Piazzolla cites a Rubinstein concert staged in Buenos Aires in 1939 as one of his first great impressions..." but I'm still uncertain what is meant by "impressions." Did Rubinstein make an impression at this concert and, if so, on whom? The public, Piazzolla, or both. Kap42 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can we add on the article, the correct pronunciation of "Rubinstein"?? Is it:

• "rubin stine" (rhymes with wine) or...
• "rubin steen"

????

Rubin"stine". Stein=stone in German. - 62.134.176.208 10:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ETC

the wawa doll(baby!) music professor!

Rubinstein is widely considered as the greatest pianists of the 20th Century.

Needs to be backed up by a reference. My edit to "one of" the greatest pianists was reverted by 87.69.0.37, whose contributions include downgrading Sviatoslav Richter, who would also be a candidate for greatest pianist of the twentieth century. I wonder whether this anonymous user has some kind of agenda. Grover cleveland 13:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

He's probably just a fan of Mr. Rubinstein. :) As for Richter, he's up there, no doubt about it, but with Rachmaninoff, Cortot, Horowitz and Gould in the same century, Richter has some stiff competition for the title of "greatest pianist." 66.108.4.183 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Sure -- I totally agree that there are many candidates for the great pianists of the century. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide such contests. Grover cleveland 04:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but it's good to have exchanges of views. For example, I love Cortot's playing, but I would never have put him in the same class as Richter, Rachmaninoff, Horowitz and Gould. JackofOz 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a little devil's-advocate-ish for me, but if you go by "the consensus," the two greatest of the 20th Century were Horowitz and Rubinstein. The previous generation: Hoffmann (sp?) and Rachmaninoff. Previous to that: Liszt and Anton Rubinstein. Again, that's just "consensus." But it's a firmly established consensus. LorenzoPerosi1898 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if pianists of the 20th century are defined as those whose careers were developed for the most part in that century, the list of potential candidates would range from Moriz Rosenthal to Martha Argerich, including Leopold Godowsky, Josef Lhevinne, Ignaz Friedman and Claudio Arrau, amongst others, in the process. At the end of the day, selecting the greatest pianist of the 20th century will be a matter of pure personal choice.MUSIKVEREIN 17:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

POV/Verifiability Problems

I've tried to fix some of the worst problems with this article. Sentences such as

He [Rubinstein] never aspired to the stratospheric level of technique achieved by Leopold Godowsky or Vladimir Horowitz, but was more than equal to the task of the standard repertoire.

are great examples of the kind of thing that should not appear in a Wikipedia article. Do we actually know what level of technique Rubinstein aspired to? Is there any documentary evidence? If not, Wikipedia should not speculate about Rubinstein's internal state of mind. If so, this claim should be backed up with citations. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Are the assertions that Godowsky and Horowitz achieved a "stratospheric" level of technique, or that Rubinstein was "more than equal" to the "standard repertoire" (whatever that is) an undisputed fact, or a statement of opinion? Surely the latter. See WP:NPOV. I've deleted the most egregious violations. Please read these Wikipedia policies -- thanks. Grover cleveland 04:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Rubinstein stated in an interview with Harold Schonberg that a flawless technique was not his goal. "Look at Godowsky. It would take me five hundred years to achieve that kind of mechanism. But he was a slave to the instrument, unhappy away from the piano." I think that pretty clearly illustrates Rubinstein's thinking. As to the comments about Horowitz's or Godowsky's technique, I suppose one could say ANY pianist has good or bad technique. But it's generally accepted in musical/pianistic circles that Godowsky and Horowitz were technical masters. THD3

Great -- if you have the citation information for that Rubinstein quote, please include it in the article. The "stratospheric" quote is still problematic according to WP:NPOV, even if it would be agreed to by most critics. Instead of saying "Horowitz has a stratospheric technique", we should rephrase as "Critic X says that Horowitz has a stratospheric technique", including citation information. I would also add that a decent case could be made that Horowitz's technique was somewhat less than "stratospheric" in all its aspects: for example compare his recording of Scriabin's Fifth Sonata with Richter's; it is very difficult to deny that Richter operated on a wholly different technical level, at least in that piece. Grover cleveland 21:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I think I may have a solution which is to base the technical talk on a quote from Rubinstein's memoirs, where he professed envy at pianists who could perform Scarlatti sonatas to perfection. I'll look up the quotes and add documentation. As for Horowitz, remember the guy was past his prime in 1976 when the recording was made. I'm familiar with Richter's Scriabin 5th--stunning. THD3

Ahh I had forgotten that the Horowitz Scriabin 5 was such a late recording. You have a point (and indeed I am a great Horowitz admirer myself). Grover cleveland 23:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Past his prime or not, I'm very fond of that performance, which is unmistakably horowitzian: it has colour, sweep and the trademark Horowitz sonority. Also, I'm not alone in that: David Dubal is a great admirer of that rendition, and Harold Schonberg, in his book on the pianist, says that "it far eclipses all other recordings of the work". Richter's version - faster (more than a minute shorter) and tauter - is really impressive, but Horowitz' Scriabin 5th is my desert island choice for that piece.MUSIKVEREIN 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Helen Rubinstein connection

Why is the connection Helen Rubinstein -- or the lack thereof -- relevant? I vote it be removed. Brrk.3001 22:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is not relevant. Rubinstein is not an uncommon name.THD3 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Einstein

and physicist (and sometimes-musician) Albert Einstein, among others.

Is this sourced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.175.123 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Author?

Is there a way to tell who wrote this article originally? I would like to know so I can congratulate their grammatical style. Thanks,

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.77.145 (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Realy Congress Poland?

Congress Poland was liquidated in 1865 by tsar Alexander II of Russia as a punishment for January Uprising. Formally Rubinstein was born in Vistulan Country.--85.221.163.147 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Eldest Son?

Rubinstein was NOT the eldest son, but rather the seventh and LAST child born to his parents. He was the youngest by far, being born six and a half years after the next-youngest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlakor (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I have no idea how that slipped past us. In fact, in his memoir, Rubinstein states he was born several years after his next youngest sibling, and "rang the doorbell as a rather belated and unwelcome guest." I have corrected the article.THD3 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Boycott of Post-War Germany

The article states: "contrary to popular belief that it was the murder of Jews including many members of his own family during World War II which caused Rubinstein to cut all ties with German audiences, it was actually his disgust with Germany's conduct during the First World War which led Rubinstein never to play there again." The article proceeds to contradict itself three paragraphs later: "He refused to play in post-war Germany because of the Nazi extermination of most of his family." Neither statement is sourced. Since both statements cannot be true, unless someone can provide documentation corroborating one and refuting the other, I propose that both be deleted. 69.38.199.154 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the Sachs bio, Rubinstein never played in Germany after WWI. He returned there at least once, to visit Frankfurt in the early 1970s, but did not play any concerts.THD3 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

Does anyone know if he actually became an American citizen legally? --Karljoos (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There're no sources about his nationality. Nothing supports that he became an American citizen --Karljoos (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rubinstein became an American citizen in 1946. I have added a citation.THD3 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

POV/Weasel

"He is widely considered" not only is unencyclopedic, but also is a statement that support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. It should go out ASAP!--Karljoos (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added a source and removed the WW tag. Numerous other articles on pianists contain statements such as this, including the article on Sviatoslav_Richter and Claudio_Arrau.THD3 (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

On the cititation tag, are you looking for a citation for Spanish music (the term itself is a bit misleading, since Rubinstein also was an early champion of Heitor Villa-Lobos, who was Brazilian), or are you wanting a citation for Brahms and Chopin as well?THD3 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just going for the Spanish composers. On the other hand, we all know he was a great performer of Brahms and Chopin, but in order to keep the encyclopedic tone i think it would be good to add references --Karljoos (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "He is widely considered"-thing and for the same reason, can't we just say that "according to the NY Times..."?--Karljoos (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur and Israel

"While he identified himself as an agnostic, Rubinstein was nevertheless proud of his Jewish heritage. He was a great friend of Israel, which he visited several times (...)". Sources? References?--Karljoos (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the citations. According to Sachs, Rubinstein was more than sympathetic to Israel, he was a right-winger who favored deporting Palestinians to Jordan - but I did not put that in the article.THD3 (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I know he was, but sources are sources my friend! Thank you very much for all your work in this (and so many other) article(s).--Karljoos (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Congress Poland or Imperial Russia?

According to Congress Poland it existed till 1915. Maybe Congress Poland in Imperial Russia? Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rubinstein's discography

I've made some changes to the section dealing with Rubinstein's recordings. I've added a reference to Rubinstein's first recording, made in 1910 and now very rare. I've also removed the word "live" from the bit about Rubinstein's piano rolls. Rolls are correctable, and are thus not "live", nor are they recorded in front of an audience (other than the technicians). I've deleted the information about specific compositions - Rubinstein's repertoire was large enough that to touch on all he recorded would be cumbersome, and to single out works like the Grieg Concerto is not appropriate. Finally, I added a bit about Rubinstein's aversion to live recordings (for example, his entire Carnegie Hall ten-recital marathon in 1961 was recorded by RCA, but he only allowed a small fraction to be issued - and even then there was some editing done). I've put in a small reference to the live recordings that have been issued posthumously on non-RCA labels. Any suggestions are welcome.THD3 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Studied with Paderewski??

Rubinstein briefly visited Paderewski and the elder pianist may have coached Rubinstein. But to say Rubinstein studied with him is exaggeration. Rubinstein did study extensively with Heinrich Barth - - also a teacher of Wilhelm Kempff. Barth was quite exacting and whenever Rubinstein did anything Barth didn't approve of, from wrong notes to wayward interpretation, Barth would bite his lip to his beard went horizontal! (THD3 wrote this but doesn't remember when.) THD3 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rubinstein actually went on record saying that Paderewski was a "bad pianist." 69.38.199.154 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not surprising. For all his fame, Paderewski was what would nowadays be called "a bad pianist". Have you ever heard his records? He could not play chords with the left and right hands together to save his life. The occasional (deliberate) inexactitude is one thing, but he was pathological. He would not even get into the preliminary auditions for a piano competition, let alone win a prize. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz (and 69.38.199.154), I just want to remind you that this this is not a forum for general discussion of personal opinions on Rubinstein or Paderewski, but a forum for discussion of this article's changes and improvements. Thank you. --Karljoos (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the greatest virtuosos of 20.th century ??

Somebody who did not practice a lot and could not play really difficult pieces is one of the greatest virtuosos ?? Not many Chopin Etudes, no Liszt Etudes, no Rachmaninov 3rd, no Islamey, no whatever has pianistic demands. Maybe he was a great musician, but surely no virtuoso and quite surely not one of the greatest.

Also it's wrong that he did not concertize in Germany after WW II because of the extermination of his family. He did not concertize in Germany already after WW I because he thought Germany was responsible for it. - 62.134.176.208 10:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "one of the greatest piano virtuosos" is a little overboard in Rubinstein's case, but it isn't true that he could not play really difficult pieces: he did record Schubert's Wanderer Fantasy and Liszt's B minor sonata; and in his heyday, he played (though, to my knowledge, didn't record) two pieces dedicated to him - Stravinsky's Three Movements from Petrouchka and Villa-Lobos' Rudepoema - which rank among the most difficult in the piano literature. MUSIKVEREIN, 09:15, 22 August, 2007

I am quite fond of Rubinstein but I would never think to attach the term "virtuoso" to this pianist. Rubinstein himself recognized his place in the pantheon when he had this to say of Horowitz, whom he conceded "is the better pianist, but I am the better musician." That said, Musikverein is quite right in his/her defense of Rubinstein's ability/willingness to tackle technically demanding pieces. Petrouchka and the Rudepoema were dedicated to him, and are monstrously difficult. While it's true that Rubinstein tackled few of Chopin's Etudes and none of Liszts, I read somewhere (and apologize for my inability/failureto cite) that he was not overly fond of the genre. He never recorded any of Debussy's, or Schumann's "Etudes Symphoniques" in the studio, despite the fact that Schumann is a composer whom he adored, it's a lovely piece, and is not exceptionally demanding technically. He played / recorded it live after much goading, and it's a fine performance indeed. 69.38.199.154 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I attended several Rubinstein concerts in London in the 1950s and 60s. He was a great showman, but there was not a lot of substance to his playing. Allan Evans of Arbiter Records has this to say:

"He gets on my nerves" Witold Gombrowicz on Rubinstein's pianism. "The beloved idol of the masses, who upheld him as a great romantic phenomenon, Rubinstein did not receive acclaim or acceptance from discerning colleagues or listeners. How could Moriz Rosenthal, a Liszt pupil and friend of Brahms, compete with the larger public and record sales of the younger, oft-recorded star? Yet when Rosenthal once spoke of Rubinstein, he meant Anton, and "not the present clown". Artur Rubinstein made his reputation by having emphasized the grandiose, the soft and tender, to produce an effect that became easily understandable and clearly communicated while playing. When the music became complex or beyond him, the thinking ceased and the playing plodded along until something arrived which he elevated to stir up his public. Friedman and Rosenthal despised this side of his art and personality. His autobiographies were labeled as "fiction" by Ella Brailowsky, who knew him nearly 60 years. If one listens to Rubinstein's first disc, from 1910, it has the sentimental playing of a salon fop posing as a sensitive poet. It was recorded in the same year, according to his first volume of self-reflection, that he bested Ignaz Friedman in a shared concert (which he remembers from the audience's noise and alludes to not having heard a note of Friedman's playing). In the long run Rubinstein will be viewed as a popularizer who introduced great music and created a love for it among many who otherwise might have remained equivocal to the classical and romantic repertoire."

I think this is a pretty fair assessment. Tony (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The verbiage in question (one of the greatest virtuosos of the 20th Century) was removed long ago. As for the point raised by Tony, it would be legitimate to include some well sourced criticism of Rubinstein to balance out the more laudatory parts. Rubinstein's playing was certainly not to everyone's taste. But any comments must be well sourced. I'm hesitant to include anything Rosenthal said - he never had anything positive to say about anybody and it's pretty obvious his comments about younger pianists who eclipsed Rosenthal's fame were inspired by jealousy. As for Evans' statement that "Rubinstein did not receive acclaim or acceptance from discerning colleagues or listeners" - I guess Harold C. Schonberg, Sviatoslav Richter, Maurizio Pollini and a host of others would not be considered "discerning"?THD3 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Just a reminder... Please note the Manual of Style when editing the opening paragraph:

The opening paragraph should have:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility));
2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
3. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);
   1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable.
   2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
4. What the person did;
5. Why the person is significant.

The fact that Rubinstein was Jewish is already in the article in the appropriate place, which is not the opening paragraph.THD3 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)