It caused a great conmotion to me!!

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
It caused a great conmotion to me!!

effectively, a true and great conmotion caused to me hear Bruchs 1st violin concerto in Jascha Heifetz-Malcom Sargent version, from 1951 in NAXOS edition! Yes, you are right, I know also that exists a posterior recording in stereo, but after hear it I think that this version is something special and different, Heifetz dont looks here impulsive like always, most probably -I think- because of Sir Malcoms authoritharian conduction. The 2nd movt is really a poem!, and also comes Beethovens 1st and 2nd romances, with my admired William Steinberg conductor and a real surprise to me Louis Spohr s 8th violin concerto, also an interesting work. All is superlative here, I recommend it to you fervently!. The bad thing is that the CD always have been there, close to my hands and  I ve bought it only to day, how many hours of pleasure...missed!! (sighs) oscar.olavarria

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

Exists also a Gramophone review:

"Naxos could easily have labelled this particular CD ‘The Greatest Jascha Heifetz Album Ever’" Gramophone november 2011. Best regards oscar.olavarria

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

Ah yes Oscar, the wonderful Heifetz.  And there's another superb Obert-Thorn transfer on Naxos, of Mozart's Concerto No.5 (with Sargent) and the Bach concerti.  Also, do you know the Bruch Scottish Fantasy (also with Sargent)? Lovely!

Chris

Chris A.Gnostic

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

of course Chris, Heifetz is....Heifetz!, but Im not an unconditional of him, I find him something mechanic, and I think that frecuently he fall into an unnecessary virtuosity, but specifically in this performance he makes a marvelluos job, for over Salvatore Accardo-Kurt Masur/Gewandhaus Orch s version inclusive, my preferred version for many years. And about the Beeth two romances included here, this are the only recording of this works he did, and because of that this CD its also an invaluable document. Exciting performances! oscar.olavarria

 

PD. Of course I will hear promptly the Scottisch Fantasy that you gently recommend to me!

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

...And apart from the Scottish Fantasy, you may try the other two less famous Violin Concertos (both in d minor) as well as the Serenade for Violin in a minor. One should not neglect or bypass his three Symphonies; they are wonderful listening and his Chamber Music (two fine String Quartets, a more rewarding String Quintet and an intriguing Piano Trio, to mention the most interesting).

There are wonderful recordings for all the above, more than one to choose.

Parla

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

Parla

Funny you mentioned the Bruch symphonies (and other works for violin & orchestra) as I picked up both last month for just pennies and have them on my playlist currently. I have to say that Accardo grows in my estimation more and more for the beauty of his playing - I have an increasig fondness for his recordings of the Paganini concertos, which are really interesting works when placed in the context of their time. I tried to find a decent biography of Paganini but it has proved very difficult.

The Bruch chamber pieces you mention are interesting but will have to wait...

Naupilus

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

"I have to say that Accardo grows in my estimation more and more for the beauty of his playing..." (Parla says)

 

I assure you that if it you listen the Heifetz-Sargents recording from NAXOS (1951) you ll change inmediatelly to Heifetz. I give you signed this!!Better than Accardo, Vengerov, Mutter, etc, superior to all!!   oscar.olavarria

 

 

 

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

I think you misquote Naupilus with me, dear Oscar. However, I don't find Naupilus observation about Accardo wrong. I appreciate Accardo's musicianship a lot. In any case, I don't think Naupilus or me claim that Accardo is better than Heifetz. He is a viable alternative, very musical and refined (Heifetz was not famous for his refinement, at least always). And Accardo is better recorded, anyway.

Parla

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

Parla wrote:

"Heifetz was not famous for his refinement, at least always".

Well, perhaps not always, only 99.99% of the time.

Chris

Chris A.Gnostic

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

Do you really find, Chris, the tone and technic of Heifetz refined, let's say compared to the Olympian sound of an Oistrach or the elegant and fine virtuosity of a Kreisler?

Parla

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

I seem to find Heifetz's recordings less attractive than I used to. Perhaps once bedazzled by his technique and the very close miked sound he presumably demanded I sometimes now find him a little emotionally detatched from the music. The Scottish Fantasy doesn't quite match Oistrakh/Horenstein or indeed Campoli/Boult for me (Tasmin Little/Handley are not bad either) but I must admit it's quite a while since I played the Heifetz; perhaps time to give it another airing. It was said to one of du Pre's favourite records in the biography by the woman whose name currently escapes me (Elizabeth something?).

Sargent was a brilliant accompanist although disliked by many orchestral players I seem to recall  reading that Heifetz would demand him when recording in the UK. Some of Heiftz's 78s (I grew up with his Tchaikovsky) were made with Barbirolli who later refused to work with him after he said Heifetz was unacceptably rude to individual orchestral players on one occasion. Sargent meanwhile was brilliant at keeping up with Schnabel's sometimes erratic tempi in their unsurpassed Beethoven concerti and the most wayward of all, Mark Hambourg, in what was I think the first recording of Beethoven's third where tempi are all over the place and Hambourg plays Moscheles's outrageous cadenza.

But back to Heifetz, his Mendelssohn concerto with Beecham is good fun. One senses they too did not get on as each tries to outrace the other in the finale. One of EMI's first uses of taped masters it still sounds pretty good on my World Records EMI transfer.

As for Bruch No 1 it has to be young Menuhin's first recording, again perhaps because I grew up with the 78s. I was looking for a Chandos disc of one of the other concertos & a symphony the other day but it must have got misfiled.....

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

parla wrote:

Do you really find, Chris, the tone and technic of Heifetz refined, let's say compared to the Olympian sound of an Oistrach or the elegant and fine virtuosity of a Kreisler?

Parla

Yes, to Heifetz (refined), yes to Oistrakh (Olympian), yes to Kreisler (elegant and fine virtuosity). Wonderful violinists all of them, and each unique. As Perlman said in the DVD "The Art of the Violin", what was astonishing is how those great violinists of the past each sounded 'unique' - their sound was (is) instantly recognizable.

Alas, of the three only Oistrakh did I hear 'live'.

Chris

Chris A.Gnostic

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

Anyway, Chris, if you find "refinement" in Heifetz, so be it. However, the "Olympian" and the "elegant and fine virtuosity" for Oistrach and Kreisler respectively are two basic aspects of the refined playing of violin. Based on what even violinists have claimed, Heifetz, with his preoccupation about his technic and dazzling virtuosity, had sacrificed a certain degree of the elegant and beautiful tone of the instrument. "Unique" and "instantly recognisable" does not ensure or presuppose a refined tone and exquisite playing.

Having said that, I don't mean Heifetz was not one of the greatest violinists of his time and of the past century, in general. I just give priority to the finest of tone for an instrument like the violin as well as to a virtuosity that keeps the elegance despite and beyond the dazzling effects of dexterity.

Parla

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

"Do you really find, Chris, the tone and technic of Heifetz refined,
let's say compared to the Olympian sound of an Oistrach or the elegant
and fine virtuosity of a Kreisler?" (Parla)

 

I think that Heifetz doesnt have a reason to be envious of Oistrakh or Kreisler like you say,  because he had all the qualities of him, and more (none plays Sarasate s "Gypsy airs" better than Heifetz), he was a virtuose, his technic was magnific and his sound pure and clean (I find that Kreisler and also Menuhin after him had an exagerated vibrato how was usual at that time). I ve read in some place that Heifetz played using Sarasate s violin, what do you know about this??. Regards oscar.olavarria

 

PD. what do you mean with "olympian" dear Parla?, if you wanted to say athletic, you ll agree with me about that Oistrakh doesn have nothing of athletic...

"The Scottish Fantasy.....Tasmin Little/Handley are not bad" (33lp)

dear 33lp, Tasmin Little has a bit or nothing to do against Heifetz s version of this work! 

 

 

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

Dear Oscar, I never claimed Heifetz was a lesser violinist than any other great one. I just find sometimes his timbre was affected by his well-known dazzling technic. You should not overlook that, more than other violinists, he had also fierce critics. By the way, his vibrato was fast enough not to bother you, but he had it and it is noticeable. The Sarasate's "Gypsy Airs" is not the anthem of the instrument. How was his Franck, Mozart or Beethoven?

Heifetz, like all the great violinists, had played several superb instruments, including some Stradivarius and Guarneri. If he played also on Sarasate's violin, good for him. By the way, do you know that Sarasate had small fingers and his technic and compositions were dictated by this limitation?

"Olympian" is the right word for Oistrach and Chris got it and approved it. Definitely, it does not mean athletic in this context. I will suggest that you may check a better dictionary to find out...the truth.

Parla

RE: It caused a great conmotion to me!!

Oscar, it's no wonder you are confused about the meaning of 'olympian'. It is very confusing.

You might think that the word is related to the olympic games, which in ancient times took place in Olympia in southern Greece. 

But no. It refers to the ancient Greek Gods who resided above Mount Olympus in northern Greece and from there serenely looked over the affairs of men below. Olympian describes that God-like, serene nobility.

During the Olympic Games in London, I saw many newspaper reports referring, incorrectly, to 'olympian' activities of athletes - so even the British cannot be relied on to use the word correctly!

For a fine 'olympian' recording of Oistrakh, (and in the context of current threads) you could try his Brahms violin concerto (with Klemperer) or the Beethoven (with Cluytens).  Both truly 'olympian' performances, and utterly different from Heifetz's equally valid ones.

Hope that helps with the confusion anyway!

Chris

Chris A.Gnostic

Pages

Log in or register to post comments
© MA Business and Leisure Ltd. 2014