# Brahms: Violin Concerto in D, op. 77



## science

Brahms' violin concerto is currently on the fifth tier of the Talk Classical community's favorite and most highly recommended works, making it the highest-ranked violin concerto.

As usual for a work of this stature, Wikipedia has a nice article about it, including a little analysis that amounts to a listening guide, but the best online listening guide to this work that I know of is by Kelly Dean Hansen. The best source for recording recommendations is probably Trout's blog post on this work:



> Condensed Listing:
> 1.	Heifetz, Reiner (cond.), Chicago Symphony Orchestra	(1955)
> 2.	Oistrakh, Klemperer (cond.), French National Radio Orchestra	(1958)
> 3.	Oistrakh, Szell (cond.), Cleveland Orchestra	(1969)
> 4.	Szeryng, Monteux (cond.), London Symphony Orchestra	(1958)
> 5.	Neveu, Dobrowen (cond.), Philharmonia Orchestra	(1946)
> 6.	Oistrakh, Konwitschny (cond.), Staatskapelle Dresden	(1954)
> 7.	Hahn, Marriner (cond.), Academy of St. Martin in the Fields	(2000)
> 8.	Milstein, Steinberg (cond.), Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra	(1954)
> 9.	Szigeti, Harty (cond.), Hallé Orchestra	(1928)
> 10.	Mutter, Karajan (cond.), Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra	(1981)


This site also has a poll on this site and a lengthy thread about favorite recordings of this work.

Anyway, as usual, the main questions of this thread are: *Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it?*

And of course, what are your favorite recordings?


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Favorites:

Szeryng/Monteux/London Symphony
Oistrakh/Konwitschny/Saxon State Orchestra* (actually, The Dresden Staatskapelle). *mono recording
Grumiaux/Van Beinum/Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra (Royal Concertgebouw)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Oh boy, how long do you guys have?  This is my favorite work. I have 163 recordings of it. Yes you read that correctly. Just over half of these are on CD and the rest downloaded. Yeah, I'm pretty nuts for the piece. It all started 26 years ago when I had a front row seat to hear Joshua Bell, and I was hooked. It is the dark, searching quality of the first movement that most gets me.

As far as recordings go, let me start by saying I am NOT a big fan of the famous Heifetz/Reiner version. I remember reading the reviews in the mid-90s and excitedly purchasing it, only to be sorely disappointed. Heifetz and Reiner toss it off as a showpiece, which it is not. I must hear struggle and heart to like a Brahms VC recording. Ironically enough, Heifetz's earlier account with Koussevitzky is one of my absolute favorites. In that recording I hear true poetry.

Admittedly biased as I am, I do not think there is another piece in all of the classical music repertoire that has been as lucky on disc as this one. I believe it is THE work to demonstrate your chops as a violinist, even more than the Beethoven. And sure enough, there are literally dozens of GREAT readings from every violinist imaginable. 

It is hard to round down, but I would have to say the following are the most essential renditions for everyone to hear once:

Bronislaw Huberman/Artur Rodzinski (Pristine, Music & Arts)
Fritz Kreisler/Leo Blech (Naxos, Music & Arts, Biddulph, Pearl)
Jascha Heifetz/Serge Koussevitzky (RCA, Naxos, IDIS)
Joseph Szigeti/Sir Hamilton Harty (EMI, Naxos)
Adolf Busch/Hans Münch (Guild, Music & Arts, Arbiter)
Ginette Neveu/Roger Desormière (Tahra, SWR)
Efrem Zimbalist/Serge Koussevitzky (Doremi, Pristine)
Georg Kulenkampff/Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt (Dutton, Pearl)
Christian Ferras/Rudolf Kempe (Archipel)
Erica Morini/George Szell (Music & Arts)
Itzhak Perlman/Carlo Maria Giulini (EMI)
David Oistrakh/George Szell (EMI)
Johanna Martzy/Paul Kletzki (Testament)
Herman Krebbers/Bernard Haitink (Philips)
Nathan Milstein/Anatole Fistoulari (Praga, EMI)
Anne-Sophie Mutter/Kurt Masur (DG)

You might say Huberman, Kreisler, Heifetz, and Szigeti form a sort of Mt Rushmore, each with something different to say. But it doesn't stop with them, as all lovers of this concerto must hear Busch, Neveu, Zimbalist, Kulenkampff, Ferras, Morini, and Martzy. And then for modern stereo, with all apologies to Szeryng and Grumiaux fans, I must give pride of place to Perlman, Oistrakh, Krebbers, Milstein, and Mutter. 

But of course I am nuts for this work, so I have ranked all 163 recordings in my collection, giving five stars to the most esteemed versions.

Here is the full list. Happy listening! 

1.	Bronislaw Huberman/Artur Rodzinski (Pristine, Music & Arts) *****
2.	Fritz Kreisler/Leo Blech (Naxos, Music & Arts, Biddulph, Pearl) *****
3.	Fritz Kreisler/John Barbirolli (Naxos, Biddulph, Opus Kura, Classica d’Oro, Strings) *****
4.	Jascha Heifetz/Serge Koussevitzky (RCA, Naxos, IDIS) *****
5.	Ginette Neveu/Roger Desormière (Tahra, SWR) *****
6.	Joseph Szigeti/Sir Hamilton Harty (EMI, Naxos) *****
7.	Adolf Busch/Hans Münch (Guild, Music & Arts, Arbiter) *****
8.	Efrem Zimbalist/Serge Koussevitzky (Doremi, Pristine) *****
9.	Ginette Neveu/Issay Dobrowen (Dutton, EMI) *****
10.	Georg Kulenkampff/Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt (Dutton, Pearl) *****
11.	Jascha Heifetz/Arturo Toscanini (Doremi, IDIS) *****
12.	Christian Ferras/Rudolf Kempe (Archipel) *****
13.	Erica Morini/George Szell (Music & Arts) *****
14.	Erica Morini/Bruno Walter (Tahra, Archipel, Nuova Era) *****
15.	Adolf Busch/William Steinberg (Music & Arts) *****
16.	David Oistrakh/Kirill Kondrashin (1963 rec.) (BBC) *****
17.	David Oistrakh/Otmar Nussio (Aura) *****
18.	Itzhak Perlman/Carlo Maria Giulini (EMI) *****
19.	David Oistrakh/George Szell (EMI) *****
20.	Johanna Martzy/Paul Kletzki (Testament) *****
21.	Herman Krebbers/Bernard Haitink (Philips) ****1/2
22.	Jascha Heifetz/George Szell (Prelude) ****1/2
23.	Gioconda de Vito/Paul van Kempen (Naxos, Arkadia) ****1/2
24.	Yehudi Menuhin/Wilhelm Furtwängler (Tahra, Naxos, EMI) ****1/2
25.	Nathan Milstein/Paul Kletzki (Claves) ****1/2
26.	David Oistrakh/Charles Bruck (INA) ****1/2
27.	David Oistrakh/Sir Malcolm Sargent (BBC) ****1/2
28.	Leonid Kogan/Kirill Kondrashin (1967 rec.) (Melodiya LP) ****1/2
29.	Leonid Kogan/Karl Eliasberg (Monopole, Arlecchino, Music Online) ****1/2
30.	Ginette Neveu/Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt (Tahra, Scribendum, Acanta) ****1/2
31.	Ginette Neveu/Antal Doráti (Music & Arts) ****1/2
32.	Nathan Milstein/Anatole Fistoulari (Praga, EMI) ****1/2
33.	Christian Ferras/Carl Schuricht (Testament) ****1/2
34.	Erica Morini/Artur Rodzinski (DG, Westminster, Millennium) ****1/2
35.	David Oistrakh/Kirill Kondrashin (1952 rec.) (Melodiya, Omega, Urania, Moscow Studio) ****1/2
36.	Anne-Sophie Mutter/Kurt Masur (DG) ****
37.	David Oistrakh/Hermann Abendroth (Tahra, Scribendum) ****
38.	David Oistrakh/Franz Konwitschny (DG, Profil, Ds Classics) ****
39.	Nathan Milstein/Pierre Monteux (Tahra, Arioso, Music & Arts, Audiophile) ****
40.	David Oistrakh/Antonio Pedrotti (Supraphon, Multisonic) ****
41.	David Oistrakh/Fritz Rieger (Archipel) ****
42.	Nathan Milstein/William Steinberg (EMI) ****
43.	Nathan Milstein/Victor de Sabata (Tahra, Archipel, Nuova Era, Arkadia) ****
44.	Herman Krebbers/Hein Jordans (Philips, Fontana LP) ****
45.	David Oistrakh/Gennadi Rozhdestvensky (1966 rec.) (EMG, Leningrad Masters, Icone) ****
46.	Gioconda de Vito/Wilhelm Furtwängler (Tahra, Idis, Urania, Music & Arts) ****
47.	Leonid Kogan/Kirill Kondrashin (1959 rec.) (EMI, Guild) ****
48.	Leonid Kogan/Pierre Monteux (Doremi, Melodiya) ****
49.	Yehudi Menuhin/Sir Adrian Boult (BBC) ****
50.	Leonid Kogan/Charles Bruck (Testament) ****
51.	Janine Jansen/Antonio Pappano (Decca) ****
52.	Henryk Szeryng/Pierre Monteux (RCA, JVC) ****
53.	Gioconda de Vito/Eugen Jochum (Tahra) ****
54.	Gioconda de Vito/Rudolf Schwarz (Archipel, Amare) ****
55.	Xue-Wei/Ivor Bolton (ASV) ****
56.	Ida Haendel/Sergiu Celibidache (Testament) ****
57.	Isaac Stern/Sir Thomas Beecham (Sony) ****
58.	Yehudi Menuhin/Rudolf Kempe (EMI) ****
59.	Arthur Grumiaux/Eduard van Beinum (Philips, Regis) ****
60.	David Oistrakh/Otto Klemperer (EMI) ***1/2
61.	Joseph Szigeti/Dmitri Mitropoulos (Music & Arts, Legend, Enterprise) ***1/2
62.	Jascha Heifetz /Fritz Reiner (RCA) ***1/2
63.	Nathan Milstein/Herbert von Karajan (Tahra) ***1/2
64.	David Oistrakh/Witold Rowicki (CD Accord) ***1/2
65.	Gioconda de Vito/Ferenc Fricsay (Audite) ***1/2
66.	Yehudi Menuhin/George Schneevoigt (Doremi) ***1/2
67.	Michael Rabin/Rafael Kubelik (Doremi) ***1/2
68.	Michael Rabin/Zoltan Rozsnyai (Testament) ***1/2
69.	Zino Francescatti/Eugene Ormandy (Biddulph, Naxos) ***1/2
70.	Joseph Szigeti/Eugene Ormandy (Sony) ***1/2
71.	Vadim Repin/Riccardo Chailly (DG) ***1/2
72.	Joshua Bell/Christoph von Dohnányi (Decca) ***1/2
73.	Henryk Szeryng/Antal Doráti (Mercury) ***1/2
74.	Henryk Szeryng/Rafael Kubelik (Orfeo) ***1/2
75.	Christian Ferras/Herbert von Karajan (DG) ***1/2
76.	Leonid Kogan/Vasil Stefanov (BNR) ***1/2
77.	Pinchas Zukerman/Daniel Barenboim (DG) ***1/2
78.	Albert Spalding/Wilhelm Loibner (Indie, Pearl) ***1/2
79.	Christian Ferras/Charles Bruck (Ina) ***1/2
80.	Wolfgang Schneiderhan/Karl Böhm (Urania, Opus Kura) ***1/2
81.	David Garrett/Zubin Mehta (Decca) ***1/2
82.	Anne-Sophie Mutter/Herbert von Karajan (DG) ***1/2
83.	Arthur Grumiaux/Ernest Ansermet (Andromeda) ***1/2
84.	Nathan Milstein/István Kertész (Music & Arts) ***1/2
85.	Ossy Renardy/Charles Munch (Dutton, Pristine, Dante, Biddulph) ***1/2
86.	Hideko Udagawa/Sir Charles Mackerras (Chandos, Nimbus) ***1/2
87.	Viktoria Mullova/Claudio Abbado (Philips) ***1/2
88.	Herman Krebbers/Willem Mengelberg (Music & Arts) ***1/2
89.	Julia Fischer/Yakov Kreizberg (Pentatone) ***1/2
90.	Tasmin Little/Vernon Handley (EMI) ***1/2
91.	Boris Belkin/Iván Fischer (Decca) ***1/2
92.	Shlomo Mintz/Claudio Abbado (DG) ***1/2
93.	Ulf Hoelscher/Klaus Tennstedt (EMI) ***1/2
94.	Wolfgang Schneiderhan/Paul van Kempen (DG) ***
95.	Gidon Kremer/Leonard Bernstein (DG) ***
96.	Isaac Stern/Eugene Ormandy (Sony) *** 
97.	Berl Senofsky/Sir John Barbirolli (West Hill Radio Archives) ***
98.	Hilary Hahn/Sir Neville Marriner (Sony) ***
99.	Gil Shaham/Claudio Abbado (DG) ***
100.	Hans Klepper/Alfred Scholz (Quintessence) ***
101.	Zino Francescatti/Dmitri Mitropoulos (Orfeo, Intaglio, Andromeda) ***
102.	Ricardo Odnoposoff/Carl Bamberger (Doremi) ***
103.	Elmer Oliveira/Gerard Schwarz (Artek) ***
104.	Arthur Grumiaux/Sir Colin Davis (Philips) ***
105.	Mincho Minchev/Vasil Stefanov (Vivace, Balkanton BCA) ***
106.	Thomas Zehetmair (Avie) ***
107.	Ilya Kaler/Pietari Inkinen (Naxos) ***
108.	Johanna Martzy/Günter Wand (Hänssler) ***
109.	Henryk Szeryng/Carl Schuricht (Ina) ***
110.	Gidon Kremer/Herbert von Karajan (EMI) ***
111.	Berl Senofsky/Rudolf Moralt (Forgotten Records, Historic Records) ***
112.	Nathan Milstein/Eugen Jochum (DG, Belart) ***
113.	Zino Francescatti/Leonard Bernstein (Sony) ***
114.	Henryk Szeryng/Erich Leinsdorf (Praga) ***
115.	Philippe Hirschhorn/Jiri Starek (Doremi) ***
116.	Uto Ughi/Wolfgang Sawallisch (RCA) ***
117.	Zino Francescatti/Erich Leinsdorf (Music & Arts) ***
118.	Takako Nishizaki/Stephen Gunzenhauser (Naxos) ***
119.	Leonid Kogan/Pavel Kogan (Yedang) ***
120.	Maxim Vengerov/Daniel Barenboim (Teldec) ***
121.	Zino Francescatti/Ernest Bour (Hänssler) ***
122.	Henryk Szeryng/Bernard Haitink (Philips) ***
123.	Siegfried Borries/Max Fiedler (Music & Arts) ***
124.	Endre Wolf/Anthony Collins (World Record Club) ***
125.	Leonidas Kavakos/Riccardo Chailly (Decca) **1/2
126.	Julian Rachlin/Mariss Jansons (Warner) **1/2
127.	Sarah Chang/Kurt Masur (EMI) **1/2
128.	Lisa Batiashvili/Christian Thieleman (DG) **1/2
129.	Antje Weithaas (CAvi-Music) **1/2
130.	David Nadien/Vilem Sokol (Cambal d’amour) **1/2
131.	Thomas Zehetmair/Christoph von Dohnányi (Teldec) **1/2
132.	Aaron Rosand (Vox) **1/2
133.	Pinchas Zukerman/Zubin Mehta (RCA) **1/2
134.	Eduard Grach/Kirill Kondrashin (Russian Compact Disc) **1/2
135.	Susanne Lautenbacher/Robert Wagner (Vox, Family Library of Great Music) **1/2
136.	Viktor Tretyakov/Yuri Temirkanov (Brilliant Classics) **1/2
137.	Viktor Tretyakov/Vladimir Fedoseyev (Revelation, Olympia) **1/2
138.	Alexei Bruni/Ilmar Lapinsch (EMG) **1/2
139.	Joseph Swensen (Linn) **1/2
140.	Vladimir Spikakov/Yuri Temirkanov (RCA) **1/2
141.	Renaud Capuçon/Daniel Harding (Erato) **1/2
142.	Kyung Wha Chung/Simon Rattle (EMI) **1/2
143.	Itzhak Perlman/Daniel Barenboim (EMI) **1/2
144.	Raphaël Oleg/Libor Pešek (Denon) **1/2
145.	Jacques Thibaud/Jean Fournet (Philips) **1/2
146.	Rachel Barton Pine/Carlos Kalmar (Cedille) **1/2
147.	Frank Peter Zimmermann/Wolfgang Sawallisch (EMI) **1/2
148.	Frank Peter Zimmermann/Alan Gilbert (New York Philharmonic) **1/2
149.	Bohuslav Matoušek/Vladimir Válek (Stradivari) **1/2
150.	Dmitry Sitkovetsky/Sir Neville Marriner (Hänssler) **1/2
151.	Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg/Edo de Waart (EMI) **1/2
152.	Borika van den Booren/Eduardo Marturet (Brilliant) **1/2
153.	Nikolaj Znaider/Valery Gergiev (RCA) **1/2
154.	Benjamin Schmid/Cristian Mandeal (Oehms) **
155.	Andrés Cárdenes/Ian Hobson (Artek) **
156.	Takayoshi Wanami/Adrian Leaper (IMP) **
157.	Ivan Czerkov/Helmut Bucher (Denon) **
158.	Christian Tetzlaff/Thomas Dausgaard (Virgin) **
159.	Katrin Scholz/Michael Sanderling (Berlin Classics) **
160.	Isabelle Faust/Daniel Harding (Harmonia Mundi) **
161.	Evgueni Bushkov/Alexander Rahbari (Discover) **
162.	Nigel Kennedy/Klaus Tennstedt (EMI) **
163.	Joseph Szigeti/Herbert Menges (Philips, Mercury) **


----------



## DaveM

Unbelievable list! The Brahms VC was the first major classical work I listen to as a young child: Szigeti on 78s -don’t know which conductor, maybe Ormandy.. I tried to find something comparable on LP, since I loved Szigeti's interpretation, with the help of my father at the time. In those days, you could bring the record back in the first day or two for any reason.

Hmm, just noticed that the one I finally picked on LP was the Berl Senofsky. I had forgotten the name.

Never been a fan of Heifetz for the Brahms or Beethoven. Great technically, but IMO, emotionless.


----------



## DavidA

The above list certainly contains more than I could listen to in a lifetime! I do like this work when it is played as Brahms intended . The recordings I have and can remember:

Heifetz / Reiner - fabulous
Heifetz / Koussavitsky - also fabulous but limited recording quality in orchestra
Oistrakh / Klemperer - also fabulous in a different way 
Kennedy / Tennstedt - not without interest but the first movement is too slow. 
Stern / Ormandy - very good and coupled with a great version of Double Concerto

It is worth pointing out that Brahms marked his first movement Allegro non troppo and players who seek to play too slowly out of some misplaced reverence can make it seem dull. I do believe that forward momentum is very important in Brahms else the music sticks


----------



## Enthusiast

Until the 20th Century it was probably the greatest violin concerto (much as I like the Beethoven). It is a very great work that is powerful musically while also offering the soloist a truly heroic role. One more the lists of recommended recordings seem bizarre to me. Yes, I enjoy the various Oistrakh recordings and I do also like the Heifetz, Zimbalist, Stern and Milstein recordings. But this is a concerto in which Kremer shone (in three recordings) and Isabelle Faust's recording is also a great one. And Shaham's is perhaps his greatest record. These are all perhaps a bit less showy than many but that's the way I like Brahms. I also don't object to Kennedy's recording: it _is _slow but he makes it work, IMO.


----------



## shadowdancer

About the composition: One of the best violin concerti of all time in my opinion.

About recording: Heifetz & Reiner is enough for me. Of course, based on a much shorter list than the one presented by Brahmsianhorn. 

Cheers


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

science said:


> Condensed Listing:
> 1. Heifetz, Reiner (cond.), Chicago Symphony Orchestra (1955)
> 2. Oistrakh, Klemperer (cond.), French National Radio Orchestra (1958)
> 3. Oistrakh, Szell (cond.), Cleveland Orchestra (1969)
> 4. Szeryng, Monteux (cond.), London Symphony Orchestra (1958)
> 5. Neveu, Dobrowen (cond.), Philharmonia Orchestra (1946)
> 6. Oistrakh, Konwitschny (cond.), Staatskapelle Dresden (1954)
> 7. Hahn, Marriner (cond.), Academy of St. Martin in the Fields (2000)
> 8. Milstein, Steinberg (cond.), Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra (1954)
> 9. Szigeti, Harty (cond.), Hallé Orchestra (1928)
> 10. Mutter, Karajan (cond.), Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (1981)


I made a list once of recordings that seem to be the most acclaimed (so not my opinion). Very closely resembles Trout's list:

David Oistrakh/Otto Klemperer (EMI) 
Jascha Heifetz /Fritz Reiner (RCA)
David Oistrakh/George Szell (EMI)
Henryk Szeryng/Pierre Monteux (RCA, JVC)
Nathan Milstein/Anatole Fistoulari (EMI, Praga)
David Oistrakh/Franz Konwitschny (DG, Profil, Ds Classics)
Nathan Milstein/William Steinberg (EMI)
Arthur Grumiaux/Eduard van Beinum (Philips, Regis)
Itzhak Perlman/Carlo Maria Giulini (EMI)
Anne-Sophie Mutter/Herbert von Karajan (DG)
Ginette Neveu/Issay Dobrowen (Dutton, EMI)


----------



## Tchaikov6

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh boy, how long do you guys have?  This is my favorite work. I have 163 recordings of it.


Oh, gosh... I have one recording of this piece! :lol: It is Hilary Hahn with Neville Marriner, which I enjoy immensely.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh boy, how long do you guys have?  This is my favorite work. I have 163 recordings of it. Yes you read that correctly. Just over half of these are on CD and the rest downloaded. Yeah, I'm pretty nuts for the piece. It all started 26 years ago when I had a front row seat to hear Joshua Bell, and I was hooked. It is the dark, searching quality of the first movement that most gets me.
> 
> As far as recordings go, let me start by saying I am NOT a big fan of the famous Heifetz/Reiner version. I remember reading the reviews in the mid-90s and excitedly purchasing it, only to be sorely disappointed. Heifetz and Reiner toss it off as a showpiece, which it is not. I must hear struggle and heart to like a Brahms VC recording. Ironically enough, Heifetz's earlier account with Koussevitzky is one of my absolute favorites. In that recording I hear true poetry.
> 
> Admittedly biased as I am, I do not think there is another piece in all of the classical music repertoire that has been as lucky on disc as this one. I believe it is THE work to demonstrate your chops as a violinist, even more than the Beethoven. And sure enough, there are literally dozens of GREAT readings from every violinist imaginable.
> 
> It is hard to round down, but I would have to say the following are the most essential renditions for everyone to hear once:
> 
> Bronislaw Huberman/Artur Rodzinski (Pristine, Music & Arts)
> Fritz Kreisler/Leo Blech (Naxos, Music & Arts, Biddulph, Pearl)
> Jascha Heifetz/Serge Koussevitzky (RCA, Naxos, IDIS)
> Joseph Szigeti/Sir Hamilton Harty (EMI, Naxos)
> Adolf Busch/Hans Münch (Guild, Music & Arts, Arbiter)
> Ginette Neveu/Roger Desormière (Tahra, SWR)
> Efrem Zimbalist/Serge Koussevitzky (Doremi, Pristine)
> Georg Kulenkampff/Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt (Dutton, Pearl)
> Christian Ferras/Rudolf Kempe (Archipel)
> Erica Morini/George Szell (Music & Arts)
> Itzhak Perlman/Carlo Maria Giulini (EMI)
> David Oistrakh/George Szell (EMI)
> Johanna Martzy/Paul Kletzki (Testament)
> Herman Krebbers/Bernard Haitink (Philips)
> Nathan Milstein/Anatole Fistoulari (Praga, EMI)
> Anne-Sophie Mutter/Kurt Masur (DG)
> 
> You might say Huberman, Kreisler, Heifetz, and Szigeti form a sort of Mt Rushmore, each with something different to say. But it doesn't stop with them, as all lovers of this concerto must hear Busch, Neveu, Zimbalist, Kulenkampff, Ferras, Morini, and Martzy. And then for modern stereo, with all apologies to Szeryng and Grumiaux fans, I must give pride of place to Perlman, Oistrakh, Krebbers, Milstein, and Mutter.
> 
> But of course I am nuts for this work, so I have ranked all 163 recordings in my collection, giving five stars to the most esteemed versions.
> 
> Here is the full list. Happy listening!
> 
> 1.	Bronislaw Huberman/Artur Rodzinski (Pristine, Music & Arts) *****
> 2.	Fritz Kreisler/Leo Blech (Naxos, Music & Arts, Biddulph, Pearl) *****
> 3.	Fritz Kreisler/John Barbirolli (Naxos, Biddulph, Opus Kura, Classica d'Oro, Strings) *****
> 4.	Jascha Heifetz/Serge Koussevitzky (RCA, Naxos, IDIS) *****
> 5.	Ginette Neveu/Roger Desormière (Tahra, SWR) *****
> 6.	Joseph Szigeti/Sir Hamilton Harty (EMI, Naxos) *****
> 7.	Adolf Busch/Hans Münch (Guild, Music & Arts, Arbiter) *****
> 8.	Efrem Zimbalist/Serge Koussevitzky (Doremi, Pristine) *****
> 9.	Ginette Neveu/Issay Dobrowen (Dutton, EMI) *****
> 10.	Georg Kulenkampff/Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt (Dutton, Pearl) *****
> 11.	Jascha Heifetz/Arturo Toscanini (Doremi, IDIS) *****
> 12.	Christian Ferras/Rudolf Kempe (Archipel) *****
> 13.	Erica Morini/George Szell (Music & Arts) *****
> 14.	Erica Morini/Bruno Walter (Tahra, Archipel, Nuova Era) *****
> 15.	Adolf Busch/William Steinberg (Music & Arts) *****
> 16.	David Oistrakh/Kirill Kondrashin (1963 rec.) (BBC) *****
> 17.	David Oistrakh/Otmar Nussio (Aura) *****
> 18.	Itzhak Perlman/Carlo Maria Giulini (EMI) *****
> 19.	David Oistrakh/George Szell (EMI) *****
> 20.	Johanna Martzy/Paul Kletzki (Testament) *****
> 21.	Herman Krebbers/Bernard Haitink (Philips) ****1/2
> 22.	Jascha Heifetz/George Szell (Prelude) ****1/2
> 23.	Gioconda de Vito/Paul van Kempen (Naxos, Arkadia) ****1/2
> 24.	Yehudi Menuhin/Wilhelm Furtwängler (Tahra, Naxos, EMI) ****1/2
> 25.	Nathan Milstein/Paul Kletzki (Claves) ****1/2
> 26.	David Oistrakh/Charles Bruck (INA) ****1/2
> 27.	David Oistrakh/Sir Malcolm Sargent (BBC) ****1/2
> 28.	Leonid Kogan/Kirill Kondrashin (1967 rec.) (Melodiya LP) ****1/2
> 29.	Leonid Kogan/Karl Eliasberg (Monopole, Arlecchino, Music Online) ****1/2
> 30.	Ginette Neveu/Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt (Tahra, Scribendum, Acanta) ****1/2
> 31.	Ginette Neveu/Antal Doráti (Music & Arts) ****1/2
> 32.	Nathan Milstein/Anatole Fistoulari (Praga, EMI) ****1/2
> 33.	Christian Ferras/Carl Schuricht (Testament) ****1/2
> 34.	Erica Morini/Artur Rodzinski (DG, Westminster, Millennium) ****1/2
> 35.	David Oistrakh/Kirill Kondrashin (1952 rec.) (Melodiya, Omega, Urania, Moscow Studio) ****1/2
> 36.	Anne-Sophie Mutter/Kurt Masur (DG) ****
> 37.	David Oistrakh/Hermann Abendroth (Tahra, Scribendum) ****
> 38.	David Oistrakh/Franz Konwitschny (DG, Profil, Ds Classics) ****
> 39.	Nathan Milstein/Pierre Monteux (Tahra, Arioso, Music & Arts, Audiophile) ****
> 40.	David Oistrakh/Antonio Pedrotti (Supraphon, Multisonic) ****
> 41.	David Oistrakh/Fritz Rieger (Archipel) ****
> 42.	Nathan Milstein/William Steinberg (EMI) ****
> 43.	Nathan Milstein/Victor de Sabata (Tahra, Archipel, Nuova Era, Arkadia) ****
> 44.	Herman Krebbers/Hein Jordans (Philips, Fontana LP) ****
> 45.	David Oistrakh/Gennadi Rozhdestvensky (1966 rec.) (EMG, Leningrad Masters, Icone) ****
> 46.	Gioconda de Vito/Wilhelm Furtwängler (Tahra, Idis, Urania, Music & Arts) ****
> 47.	Leonid Kogan/Kirill Kondrashin (1959 rec.) (EMI, Guild) ****
> 48.	Leonid Kogan/Pierre Monteux (Doremi, Melodiya) ****
> 49.	Yehudi Menuhin/Sir Adrian Boult (BBC) ****
> 50.	Leonid Kogan/Charles Bruck (Testament) ****
> 51.	Janine Jansen/Antonio Pappano (Decca) ****
> 52.	Henryk Szeryng/Pierre Monteux (RCA, JVC) ****
> 53.	Gioconda de Vito/Eugen Jochum (Tahra) ****
> 54.	Gioconda de Vito/Rudolf Schwarz (Archipel, Amare) ****
> 55.	Xue-Wei/Ivor Bolton (ASV) ****
> 56.	Ida Haendel/Sergiu Celibidache (Testament) ****
> 57.	Isaac Stern/Sir Thomas Beecham (Sony) ****
> 58.	Yehudi Menuhin/Rudolf Kempe (EMI) ****
> 59.	Arthur Grumiaux/Eduard van Beinum (Philips, Regis) ****
> 60.	David Oistrakh/Otto Klemperer (EMI) ***1/2
> 61.	Joseph Szigeti/Dmitri Mitropoulos (Music & Arts, Legend, Enterprise) ***1/2
> 62.	Jascha Heifetz /Fritz Reiner (RCA) ***1/2
> 63.	Nathan Milstein/Herbert von Karajan (Tahra) ***1/2
> 64.	David Oistrakh/Witold Rowicki (CD Accord) ***1/2
> 65.	Gioconda de Vito/Ferenc Fricsay (Audite) ***1/2
> 66.	Yehudi Menuhin/George Schneevoigt (Doremi) ***1/2
> 67.	Michael Rabin/Rafael Kubelik (Doremi) ***1/2
> 68.	Michael Rabin/Zoltan Rozsnyai (Testament) ***1/2
> 69.	Zino Francescatti/Eugene Ormandy (Biddulph, Naxos) ***1/2
> 70.	Joseph Szigeti/Eugene Ormandy (Sony) ***1/2
> 71.	Vadim Repin/Riccardo Chailly (DG) ***1/2
> 72.	Joshua Bell/Christoph von Dohnányi (Decca) ***1/2
> 73.	Henryk Szeryng/Antal Doráti (Mercury) ***1/2
> 74.	Henryk Szeryng/Rafael Kubelik (Orfeo) ***1/2
> 75.	Christian Ferras/Herbert von Karajan (DG) ***1/2
> 76.	Leonid Kogan/Vasil Stefanov (BNR) ***1/2
> 77.	Pinchas Zukerman/Daniel Barenboim (DG) ***1/2
> 78.	Albert Spalding/Wilhelm Loibner (Indie, Pearl) ***1/2
> 79.	Christian Ferras/Charles Bruck (Ina) ***1/2
> 80.	Wolfgang Schneiderhan/Karl Böhm (Urania, Opus Kura) ***1/2
> 81.	David Garrett/Zubin Mehta (Decca) ***1/2
> 82.	Anne-Sophie Mutter/Herbert von Karajan (DG) ***1/2
> 83.	Arthur Grumiaux/Ernest Ansermet (Andromeda) ***1/2
> 84.	Nathan Milstein/István Kertész (Music & Arts) ***1/2
> 85.	Ossy Renardy/Charles Munch (Dutton, Pristine, Dante, Biddulph) ***1/2
> 86.	Hideko Udagawa/Sir Charles Mackerras (Chandos, Nimbus) ***1/2
> 87.	Viktoria Mullova/Claudio Abbado (Philips) ***1/2
> 88.	Herman Krebbers/Willem Mengelberg (Music & Arts) ***1/2
> 89.	Julia Fischer/Yakov Kreizberg (Pentatone) ***1/2
> 90.	Tasmin Little/Vernon Handley (EMI) ***1/2
> 91.	Boris Belkin/Iván Fischer (Decca) ***1/2
> 92.	Shlomo Mintz/Claudio Abbado (DG) ***1/2
> 93.	Ulf Hoelscher/Klaus Tennstedt (EMI) ***1/2
> 94.	Wolfgang Schneiderhan/Paul van Kempen (DG) ***
> 95.	Gidon Kremer/Leonard Bernstein (DG) ***
> 96.	Isaac Stern/Eugene Ormandy (Sony) ***
> 97.	Berl Senofsky/Sir John Barbirolli (West Hill Radio Archives) ***
> 98.	Hilary Hahn/Sir Neville Marriner (Sony) ***
> 99.	Gil Shaham/Claudio Abbado (DG) ***
> 100.	Hans Klepper/Alfred Scholz (Quintessence) ***
> 101.	Zino Francescatti/Dmitri Mitropoulos (Orfeo, Intaglio, Andromeda) ***
> 102.	Ricardo Odnoposoff/Carl Bamberger (Doremi) ***
> 103.	Elmer Oliveira/Gerard Schwarz (Artek) ***
> 104.	Arthur Grumiaux/Sir Colin Davis (Philips) ***
> 105.	Mincho Minchev/Vasil Stefanov (Vivace, Balkanton BCA) ***
> 106.	Thomas Zehetmair (Avie) ***
> 107.	Ilya Kaler/Pietari Inkinen (Naxos) ***
> 108.	Johanna Martzy/Günter Wand (Hänssler) ***
> 109.	Henryk Szeryng/Carl Schuricht (Ina) ***
> 110.	Gidon Kremer/Herbert von Karajan (EMI) ***
> 111.	Berl Senofsky/Rudolf Moralt (Forgotten Records, Historic Records) ***
> 112.	Nathan Milstein/Eugen Jochum (DG, Belart) ***
> 113.	Zino Francescatti/Leonard Bernstein (Sony) ***
> 114.	Henryk Szeryng/Erich Leinsdorf (Praga) ***
> 115.	Philippe Hirschhorn/Jiri Starek (Doremi) ***
> 116.	Uto Ughi/Wolfgang Sawallisch (RCA) ***
> 117.	Zino Francescatti/Erich Leinsdorf (Music & Arts) ***
> 118.	Takako Nishizaki/Stephen Gunzenhauser (Naxos) ***
> 119.	Leonid Kogan/Pavel Kogan (Yedang) ***
> 120.	Maxim Vengerov/Daniel Barenboim (Teldec) ***
> 121.	Zino Francescatti/Ernest Bour (Hänssler) ***
> 122.	Henryk Szeryng/Bernard Haitink (Philips) ***
> 123.	Siegfried Borries/Max Fiedler (Music & Arts) ***
> 124.	Endre Wolf/Anthony Collins (World Record Club) ***
> 125.	Leonidas Kavakos/Riccardo Chailly (Decca) **1/2
> 126.	Julian Rachlin/Mariss Jansons (Warner) **1/2
> 127.	Sarah Chang/Kurt Masur (EMI) **1/2
> 128.	Lisa Batiashvili/Christian Thieleman (DG) **1/2
> 129.	Antje Weithaas (CAvi-Music) **1/2
> 130.	David Nadien/Vilem Sokol (Cambal d'amour) **1/2
> 131.	Thomas Zehetmair/Christoph von Dohnányi (Teldec) **1/2
> 132.	Aaron Rosand (Vox) **1/2
> 133.	Pinchas Zukerman/Zubin Mehta (RCA) **1/2
> 134.	Eduard Grach/Kirill Kondrashin (Russian Compact Disc) **1/2
> 135.	Susanne Lautenbacher/Robert Wagner (Vox, Family Library of Great Music) **1/2
> 136.	Viktor Tretyakov/Yuri Temirkanov (Brilliant Classics) **1/2
> 137.	Viktor Tretyakov/Vladimir Fedoseyev (Revelation, Olympia) **1/2
> 138.	Alexei Bruni/Ilmar Lapinsch (EMG) **1/2
> 139.	Joseph Swensen (Linn) **1/2
> 140.	Vladimir Spikakov/Yuri Temirkanov (RCA) **1/2
> 141.	Renaud Capuçon/Daniel Harding (Erato) **1/2
> 142.	Kyung Wha Chung/Simon Rattle (EMI) **1/2
> 143.	Itzhak Perlman/Daniel Barenboim (EMI) **1/2
> 144.	Raphaël Oleg/Libor Pešek (Denon) **1/2
> 145.	Jacques Thibaud/Jean Fournet (Philips) **1/2
> 146.	Rachel Barton Pine/Carlos Kalmar (Cedille) **1/2
> 147.	Frank Peter Zimmermann/Wolfgang Sawallisch (EMI) **1/2
> 148.	Frank Peter Zimmermann/Alan Gilbert (New York Philharmonic) **1/2
> 149.	Bohuslav Matoušek/Vladimir Válek (Stradivari) **1/2
> 150.	Dmitry Sitkovetsky/Sir Neville Marriner (Hänssler) **1/2
> 151.	Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg/Edo de Waart (EMI) **1/2
> 152.	Borika van den Booren/Eduardo Marturet (Brilliant) **1/2
> 153.	Nikolaj Znaider/Valery Gergiev (RCA) **1/2
> 154.	Benjamin Schmid/Cristian Mandeal (Oehms) **
> 155.	Andrés Cárdenes/Ian Hobson (Artek) **
> 156.	Takayoshi Wanami/Adrian Leaper (IMP) **
> 157.	Ivan Czerkov/Helmut Bucher (Denon) **
> 158.	Christian Tetzlaff/Thomas Dausgaard (Virgin) **
> 159.	Katrin Scholz/Michael Sanderling (Berlin Classics) **
> 160.	Isabelle Faust/Daniel Harding (Harmonia Mundi) **
> 161.	Evgueni Bushkov/Alexander Rahbari (Discover) **
> 162.	Nigel Kennedy/Klaus Tennstedt (EMI) **
> 163.	Joseph Szigeti/Herbert Menges (Philips, Mercury) **


And you lot say I'm obsessive with my Beethoven Symphony cycles? Hahaha. That's some list!


----------



## Pyotr

Henryk Szeryng / Monteux / London Symphony


----------



## dismrwonderful

#58 is my favorite. I really enjoy the Kreisler cadenza which is the best one for this piece, IMO.

Dan


----------



## realdealblues

The Brahms Violin Concerto is definitely a great work that I love hearing and have no reservations about. Why do I love? Why does anyone love anything? Just wonderfully written and resonates inside.

Lots of great recordings of this one. Some favorites of mine from the top of my head...

Joseph Szigeti/Hamilton Harty/Halle Orchestra
Fritz Kreisler/John Barbirolli/London Symphony Orchestra
Nathan Milstein/William Steinberg/Pittsburg Symphony Orchestra
Jascha Heifetz/Fritz Reiner/Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Arthur Grumiaux/Eduard Van Beinum/Concertgebouw Orchestra
Henryk Szeryng/Pierre Monteux/London Symphony Orchestra
Henryk Szeryng/Antal Dorati/London Symphony Orchestra
David Oistrakh/Otto Klemperer/French National Radio Orchestra
Nathan Milstein/Anatole Fistoulari/London Philharmonia Orchestra
David Oistrakh/George Szell/Cleveland Orchestra
Itzhak Perlman/Carlo Maria Giulini/Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Issac Stern/Eugene Ormandy/Philadelphia Orchestra
Nathan Milstein/Eugen Jochum/Vienna Philharmonic
Henryk Szeryng/Bernard Haitink/Concertgebouw Orchestra
Anne-Sophie Mutter/Herbert Von Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic
Thomas Zehetmair/Christoph von Dohnanyi/Cleveland Orchestra
Gil Shaham/Claudio Abbado/Berlin Philharmonic
Hilary Hahn/Neville Marriner/Academy Of St. Martin In The Fields
Leonidas Kavakos/Riccardo Chailly/Gewandhaus Orchestra
Rachel Barton/Carlos Kalmar/Chicago Symphony Orchestra


----------



## wkasimer

> Ginette Neveu/Issay Dobrowen (Dutton, EMI) *****


This one, also a favorite of mine, is also available on Opus Kura; if you don't mind surface noise, I think that this is the best transfer of this recording.


----------



## Ras

*Mutter with Kurt Masur and the New York P.O. is my favorite:
*








*Jansen with Pappano is good too:*


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Ras said:


> *Mutter with Kurt Masur and the New York P.O. is my favorite:
> *
> View attachment 112014
> 
> 
> *Jansen with Pappano is good too:*
> 
> View attachment 112015


My top two digital choices. Both are excellent.


----------



## DaveM

This is a unique CD with numerous cadenzas for the Brahms VC (didn't see it on the long list above):


----------



## Ras

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My top two digital choices. Both are excellent.


I'm happy to agree with you on that, Brahmsianhorn

I just listened to *L. Biatiashvilli with C. Thielemann* from DG for the first time on Spotify, and I liked that one too. 
People often blame Thielemann for being a conservertive, but I like some of his recordings. Is there something wrong with something good done well? I still like the old fashioned take on the Romantics.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Ras said:


> I'm happy to agree with you on that, Brahmsianhorn
> 
> I just listened to *L. Biatiashvilli with C. Thielemann* from DG for the first time on Spotify, and I liked that one too.
> People often blame Thielemann for being a conservertive, but I like some of his recordings. Is there something wrong with something good done well? I still like the old fashioned take on the Romantics.


Now that is one I have not heard. After Jansen's recording came out a couple of years ago, I took a well-deserved break from this concerto.


----------



## wkasimer

> 130. David Nadien/Vilem Sokol (Cambal d'amour) **1/2


Despite indifferent sonics and a less-than-first-rate orchestra, I have a much higher opinion of this one. Nadien was the concertmaster of the NYPhil in the late 60's, and was a superb violinist. It's a pity that he made no commercial recordings, to the best of my knowledge.

It's on Spotify, if anyone's interested.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Ras said:


> I'm happy to agree with you on that, Brahmsianhorn
> 
> I just listened to *L. Biatiashvilli with C. Thielemann* from DG for the first time on Spotify, and I liked that one too.
> People often blame Thielemann for being a conservertive, but I like some of his recordings. Is there something wrong with something good done well? I still like the old fashioned take on the Romantics.


Well, this is funny. I listened to the Batiashvili at lunch just now. Though there were a few nice, hushed moments I was not too fond of it. I decided it rated 2 1/2 stars. I pulled up my list and realized I already had it on there with the same 2 1/2 stars! I guess it is not always easy to remember all 163 recordings.


----------



## Ras

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I guess it is not always easy to remember all 163 recordings.


It's a golden age for music listeners we are living in now - we're literally spoiled for choice!


----------



## Heck148

Heifetz/Reiner/CSO
Szeryng/Monteux/LSO


----------



## Merl

I didn't think I had many accounts of this until I checked the CD racks and the HD and I have a heady 10 (which is a lot for a piece I have badly neglected, even though I enjoy it). I have:

Mutter / Masur
Hope / CoE
Heifetz / Reiner
Mutter / Karajan
Heifetz / Reiner
Podger / Manze
Wallfisch / OAE
Perlman / Barenboim
Bernardini / Butt
Jansen / Pappano
Bell / Dohnanyi

The last recording I played in the car was Podger / Manze and I really enjoyed it. I couldn't compare it as I don't know the work well enough. Oh, I also have Kennedy / Tennstedt (shoot me). That's a poor account.

Edit; I forgot Hahn / Mariner


----------



## DavidA

I have not mentioned I have Julia Fischer - a glorious performance in modern sound


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> The last recording I played in the car was Podger / Manze and I really enjoyed it. I couldn't compare it as I don't know the work well enough.


Where did you obtain Podger/Manze? I don't see it anywhere.


----------



## fluteman

science said:


> Brahms' violin concerto is currently on the fifth tier of the Talk Classical community's favorite and most highly recommended works, making it the highest-ranked violin concerto.
> 
> As usual for a work of this stature, Wikipedia has a nice article about it, including a little analysis that amounts to a listening guide, but the best online listening guide to this work that I know of is by Kelly Dean Hansen. The best source for recording recommendations is probably Trout's blog post on this work:
> 
> This site also has a poll on this site and a lengthy thread about favorite recordings of this work.
> 
> Anyway, as usual, the main questions of this thread are: *Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it?*
> 
> And of course, what are your favorite recordings?


I must be a real Brahms VC nut, because I am very familiar with ALL of those recordings, except for the Szigeti/Harty, which I have heard, but not for quite some time, and many more. My comments on each:
1. Electric, but of course more about Heifetz than Brahms. Still a must have.
2. One of the best. Oistrakh was superb with Brahms and just about everthing else. Not the best orchestra performance. No. 6 below has poor mono sound quality but a better orchestral performance.
3. Another superb Oistrakh effort, but poorly recorded.
4. One of three great Szeryng versions I have, the others are with Dorati and Haitink, but the Monteux one may be the best overall. 
5. Very good soloist but poorly recorded and balance isn't good. Neveu died in a plane crash only a couple of years later, which makes her seem more like a legend today than she likely would be otherwise.
6. See 2 above. Perhaps the best Oistrakh version overall but poor sound quality.
7. I love Hahn generally but not a big fan of this. Great virtuosity and very fast and energetic but lacks weight and substance.
8. Widely praised but I'm not such a Steinberg fan and prefer Milstein's Jocum / Vienna Philharmonic version on DG in very good stereo sound.
9. Fine if you're willing to put up with ancient noisy historical recordings. Szigeti was too far past his prime in the 1959 LSO/Menges recording for Mercury (by 1950 his playing was unsteady, likely due to worsening arthritis). IMO better to go with the 1945 recording with Ormandy on Columbia, fine performance but mediocre sound quality.
10. Better than Mutter's later disastrous version with Mazur and the NY Philharmonic. She's too stylistically mannered for me.

Many other fine ones are not on this list. Gidon Kremer with Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic from 1975 on EMI is an especially great one. Karajan called Kremer the world's greatest violinist. Also, Itzhak Perlman with Giulini and the Chicago Symphony from 1977, also on EMI. Heifetz-caliber virtuosity without quite as much of the Heifetz hard-edged brilliance and a wonderfully pure tone.


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> I must be a real Brahms VC nut, because I am very familiar with ALL of those recordings, except for the Szigeti/Harty, which I have heard, but not for quite some time, and many more. My comments on each:
> 1.* Electric, but of course more about Heifetz than Brahms.* Still a must have.
> 2. One of the best. Oistrakh was superb with Brahms and just about everthing else. Not the best orchestra performance. No. 6 below has poor mono sound quality but a better orchestral performance.
> 3. Another superb Oistrakh effort, but poorly recorded.
> 4. One of three great Szeryng versions I have, the others are with Dorati and Haitink, but the Monteux one may be the best overall.
> 5. Very good soloist but poorly recorded and balance isn't good. Neveu died in a plane crash only a couple of years later, which makes her seem more like a legend today than she likely would be otherwise.
> 6. See 2 above. Perhaps the best Oistrakh version overall but poor sound quality.
> 7. I love Hahn generally but not a big fan of this. Great virtuosity and very fast and energetic but lacks weight and substance.
> 8. Widely praised but I'm not such a Steinberg fan and prefer Milstein's Jocum / Vienna Philharmonic version on DG in very good stereo sound.
> 9. Fine if you're willing to put up with ancient noisy historical recordings. Szigeti was too far past his prime in the 1959 LSO/Menges recording for Mercury (by 1950 his playing was unsteady, likely due to worsening arthritis). IMO better to go with the 1945 recording with Ormandy on Columbia, fine performance but mediocre sound quality.
> 10. Better than Mutter's later disastrous version with Mazur and the NY Philharmonic. She's too stylistically mannered for me.
> 
> Many other fine ones are not on this list. Gidon Kremer with Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic from 1975 is an especially great one.


With respect, I can never understand this kind of statement. Reiner and Heifetz play the Brahms as he wrote it. Or what shouldn't they have played?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> With respect, I can never understand this kind of statement. Reiner and Heifetz play the Brahms as he wrote it. Or what shouldn't they have played?


He bulldozes his way through as if to show how fast he can play. Technique should serve the music, not be an end in itself. As someone myself who loves the Brahms concerto, Heifetz and Reiner fail to move me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DaveM said:


> Never been a fan of Heifetz for the Brahms or Beethoven. Great technically, but IMO, emotionless.


Precisely, at least in his later recordings


----------



## fluteman

DavidA said:


> With respect, I can never understand this kind of statement. Reiner and Heifetz play the Brahms as he wrote it. Or what shouldn't they have played?


Heifetz used his virtuosity to create a heightened sense of drama and intensity that was hugely effective and compelling. Make no mistake, I'm a big fan, and have many of his recordings. But it was very much an approach unique to Heifetz. It was also an approach that was more effective live than on record, according to Itzhak Perlman, for one, and Perlman referred to Heifetz as "a god". Virgil Thomson was famously unimpressed with Heifetz, though he had to concede the spectacular, "gleaming" technique, thinking him too mechanically perfect.

The Brahms VC has some remarkable features. For one thing, sometimes the violin and orchestra are equals, and sometimes the orchestra is soloist and the violin accompanies. Though it has the typical Brahms carefully considered and intricate construction, it also has, or can have, a florid, improvised gypsy feel to it. But don't look to Heifetz to bring those aspects of it to the fore.

In the fullness of time, the Heifetz recorded record is still very highly thought of, but no longer considered definitive by all. The critic John Marks is probably even more anti-Heifetz than Thomson was. I'm a big Heifetz fan, as I said, but the long-term cost of having a unique approach and standing alone is just that -- he stands alone.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fluteman said:


> Heifetz used his virtuosity to create a heightened sense of drama and intensity that was hugely effective and compelling.


I don't consider playing like a robot to be dramatic or intense. Listen to Huberman's first movement. It's fairly fast but also full of emotion.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Precisely, at least in his later recordings


I listened to the earlier Heifetz with Koussevitsky last night, and thought that it was superb. Not only is Heifetz more emotionally involved, but there's a lot to be said for a great orchestra and conductor. And the sound, by 1939 standards, is excellent, at least in the Naxos transfer.


----------



## fluteman

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't consider playing like a robot to be dramatic or intense. Listen to Huberman's first movement. It's fairly fast but also full of emotion.


Oh, so now I have to defend Heifetz on a recording by recording basis? No thanks. I understand the arguments in favor of other violinists, and we haven't begun to name all the great ones. But the acid test for any performing artist is, does he or she or they have that unique "it" factor that audiences can't get enough of? Heifetz had it. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in Huberman or any of the numerous great recordings I and others have mentioned. Heck, Ossy Renardy recorded a great Brahms VC with Munch and the Amsterdam Concertgebouw, and was killed in a car accident just a few years later at the age of 32. Though not quite up to Heifetz / Oistrakh / Milstein technical standards, he had a very personal and non-robotic approach. Who knows what other great performances he had in him? Fortunately, it's a big world and there's room for all types.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> I listened to the earlier Heifetz with Koussevitsky last night, and thought that it was superb. Not only is Heifetz more emotionally involved, but there's a lot to be said for a great orchestra and conductor. And the sound, by 1939 standards, is excellent, at least in the Naxos transfer.


My mouth literally dropped open the first time I heard Heifetz's cadenza with Koussevitzky


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fluteman said:


> Oh, so now I have to defend Heifetz on a recording by recording basis? No thanks.


Well, to be fair, your post above was a response to a discussion of the Heifetz/Reiner recording specifically.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Where did you obtain Podger/Manze? I don't see it anywhere.


Oops, my bad. Getting my Bach mp3s mixed up. It's Skride / Oramo. No wonder you didn't recognise it.


----------



## fluteman

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well, to be fair, your post above was a response to a discussion of the Heifetz/Reiner recording specifically.


Well, OK, and your opinion is valid. Some think the Heifetz/Reiner Brahms and Tchaikovsky, the Heifetz/Munch Beethoven and Mendelssohn, and several other famous Heifetz records, stand on Olympus towering above all the rest. Others think he played like an emotionless robot. I think, he was the violin superstar of his day, and had a unique and distinctive way of playing, but in the fullness of time many have come to realize that many other great violinists of the past and present have as much to offer, if not more in some ways. Did he begin to mail it in late in his performing career? Maybe in some cases. He basically retired from touring while still in his 50s, understandably burned out as he had been concertizing pretty much full time since he was seven. At any rate, I've made it pretty obvious I'm interested in many other violinists as well, as you are, so we're really on the same page.


----------



## Heck148

Heifetz, Oistrakh and Milstein are my consistently favorite violinists...all had widely different styles, approaches, tone qualities...I don't buy the line that Heifetz played like a robot, an automaton...that's nonsense....I love the intensity, the incredibly centered, focused tone, at all dynamic levels, the phrasing, expression...his recordings are deservedly held in high rrgard....


----------



## DaveM

Most of this discussion hinges on things that are purely in the realm of personal preference. I have said I’m not a fan of Heifetz because I found him technically perfect (well, almost), but (almost) emotionless. Others swear by him in both departments. Obviously, Heifetz was adored more than not so I don’t contest other viewpoints.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I used to find Heifetz emotionless, being used to more pronounced gestures. But I now appreciate his working within the constraints of the music. I didn't hear the one with Reiner, but with Serge it is the only version I've heard of this concerto I can listen to. I find just about all interpreters of Brahms including symphonies usually go for romantic side, and is to me unlistenable. I can only stand more restrained, Classical versions.


----------



## PlaySalieri

The first mvt outshines the other two by a considerable margin and I put it behind Beethoven and Mendelssohn.


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> Heifetz used his virtuosity to create a heightened sense of drama and intensity that was hugely effective and compelling. Make no mistake, I'm a big fan, and have many of his recordings. But it was very much an approach unique to Heifetz. It was also an approach that was more effective live than on record, according to Itzhak Perlman, for one, and Perlman referred to Heifetz as "a god". Virgil Thomson was famously unimpressed with Heifetz, though he had to concede the spectacular, "gleaming" technique, thinking him too mechanically perfect.
> 
> The Brahms VC has some remarkable features. For one thing, sometimes the violin and orchestra are equals, and sometimes the orchestra is soloist and the violin accompanies. Though it has the typical Brahms carefully considered and intricate construction, it also has, or can have, a florid, improvised gypsy feel to it. But don't look to Heifetz to bring those aspects of it to the fore.
> 
> In the fullness of time, the Heifetz recorded record is still very highly thought of, but no longer considered definitive by all. The critic John Marks is probably even more anti-Heifetz than Thomson was. I'm a big Heifetz fan, as I said, but the long-term cost of having a unique approach and standing alone is just that -- he stands alone.


Heifetz was another victim of the tall poppy syndrome in that he was so much better than everyone else technically that people tended to cry he's playing on the grounds that he was emotionless . He never did have much time for emotional lingering and sometimes his speeds appeared too fast for those who mistook emotional wallowing for interpretive depth. However it is interesting that with the rise of HIP that speeds have tended to get faster and Heifetz does not now seem so fast. In fact I have a couple of interpretations of the Beethoven concerto which are faster than-it's in the first movement.In fact I have a couple of interpretations of the Beethoven concerto which are faster than Heifetz. Heifetz is one approach - thank goodness not the only one. But he is a reminder that music needs to flow and not get bogged down which happens in many recordings in the Brahms concerto. 
I would also recommend people listen to Heifetz's earluermusic performance with Koussavitsky.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't consider playing like a robot to be dramatic or intense. Listen to Huberman's first movement. It's fairly fast but also full of emotion.


But Heifetz doesn't play like a robot - period!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> But Heifetz doesn't play like a robot - period!


He did in the Reiner recording, even compared to his own earlier recording with Koussevitzky, and many agree with me. Why can't you just understand that sometimes people simply hear something different than you do? It's not because we don't like Heifetz, or think he is "too good," or whatever other conspiracy you dream up. The fact that I like his earlier recording proves it's not personal. I simply report what I hear - period!


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He did in the Reiner recording, even compared to his own earlier recording with Koussevitzky, and many agree with me. *Why can't you just understand that sometimes people simply hear something different than you do?* It's not because we don't like Heifetz, or think he is "too good," or whatever other conspiracy you dream up. The fact that I like his earlier recording proves it's not personal. I simply report what I hear - period!


I could ask you the same question. Conspiracy theory? On an Internet opinion site? What an earth are you thinking of? Come on, this site is a bit of fun where we share our thoughts as music lovers not that we might think up conspiracy theories. Because you and I don't agree isn't because I've got some conspiracy theory, it is simply that we see things differently. And I think that's good because variety is the spice of life . Wouldn't life be boring if we all thought the same?
Sorry mate but Heifetz does not play like a robot on the Reiner recording. There are some people who might not care for his style but for goodness sake don't tell me he's like a robot . I simply report what I hear too - and incidentally what a lot of other people hear! As one reviewer noted: 'Heifetz's engaging energy serves the music handsomely (especially as he supplies his own virtuosic yet stylistically attuned cadenza), making this warhorse of a concerto sound ever fresh and vital.'
No conspiracy theory - I don't even know the guy concerned


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I could ask you the same question. Conspiracy theory? On an Internet opinion site? What an earth are you thinking of? Come on, this site is a bit of fun where we share our thoughts as music lovers not that we might think up conspiracy theories. Because you and I don't agree isn't because I've got some conspiracy theory, it is simply that we see things differently. And I think that's good because variety is the spice of life . Wouldn't life be boring if we all thought the same?
> Sorry mate but Heifetz does not play like a robot on the Reiner recording. There are some people who might not care for his style but for goodness sake don't tell me he's like a robot . I simply report what I hear too - and incidentally what a lot of other people hear! As one reviewer noted: 'Heifetz's engaging energy serves the music handsomely (especially as he supplies his own virtuosic yet stylistically attuned cadenza), making this warhorse of a concerto sound ever fresh and vital.'
> No conspiracy theory - I don't even know the guy concerned


Well hopefully you agree then that some people just don't respond to Karajan, and it is not due to some other reason such as saying he is a victim of his own celebrity. No, he is simply a conductor who - in the opinion of many, including myself - applies the same bland, smooth, creamy sound to every composer. We simply report what we hear. I have nothing against Karajan or Heifetz! On occasion - when I like what I hear - I like some of their recordings.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well hopefully you agree then that some people just don't respond to Karajan, and it is not due to some other reason such as saying he is a victim of his own celebrity. No, he is simply a conductor who - in the opinion of many, including myself - applies the same bland, smooth, creamy sound to every composer. We simply report what we hear. I have nothing against Karajan or Heifetz! On occasion - when I like what I hear - I like some of their recordings.


I have never said he is a victim of his own celebrity. As he is the best selling conductor of all time there might be just a few who disagree with the 'many' you apoear to quote. ! Btw I also report what I hear! And just for the record this thread is on the Brahms violin concerto not on the conducting merits of Karajan!


----------



## fluteman

stomanek said:


> The first mvt outshines the other two by a considerable margin and I put it behind Beethoven and Mendelssohn.


You'll be happy to learn that Nathan Milstein wholeheartedly agreed with you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The first movement does indeed outshine the other two...as it does in the Beethoven and Mendelssohn as well. I don't see this as a reason to put it behind those two. I actually think the Brahms has the best final movement of the three, but in each case the first movement contains the "meat."


----------



## wkasimer

fluteman said:


> You'll be happy to learn that Nathan Milstein wholeheartedly agreed with you.


That may be so, but he liked it well enough to make at least three excellent commercial recordings, and based on what I've been able to find, he performed it quite often.

Milstein's recordings with Steinberg and Fistoulari are among my favorites.


----------



## larold

_Kennedy / Tennstedt - not without interest but the first movement is too slow. _

After having seen the Kennedy-Tennstedt video I bought their concerto performance way back when. It has remained my favorite for the reason you cite -- slowness. For me it gives me more to love - more than any other performance. This is in league with the "philosophical" Brahms of the 4th symphony, not the "youthful" Brahms of the 1st symphony.

I like Kennedy's Beethoven too though the odd cadenza requires patience and tolerance.


----------



## zelenka

there is nothing like this interpretation


----------



## DavidA

zelenka said:


> there is nothing like this interpretation


Really good I'd say too!


----------



## DavidA

larold said:


> _Kennedy / Tennstedt - not without interest but the first movement is too slow. _
> 
> After having seen the Kennedy-Tennstedt video I bought their concerto performance way back when. It has remained my favorite for the reason you cite -- slowness. For me it gives me more to love - more than any other performance. This is in league with the "philosophical" Brahms of the 4th symphony, not the "youthful" Brahms of the 1st symphony.
> 
> I like Kennedy's Beethoven too though the odd cadenza requires patience and tolerance.


Brahms needs to move forward. The first movement is an allegro non troppo not an andante as so often taken. Brahms' reputation as an old bore came from people playing his stuff too slowly, well below the intended markings


----------



## DaveM

zelenka said:


> there is nothing like this interpretation


Yes, a top tier performance and the production is wonderful: broad soundstage and ambience. A Brahms work like this demands stereo which is why I generally don't listen to monaural versions.


----------



## Pyotr

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh boy, how long do you guys have?  This is my favorite work.
> ............
> Here is the full list. Happy listening!
> 
> 1.	Bronislaw Huberman/Artur Rodzinski (Pristine, Music & Arts) *****
> ......
> 163.	Joseph Szigeti/Herbert Menges (Philips, Mercury) **


Wow. That's some list!

I listened to the Huberman/Rodzinski a few times over the past few days, and even though I consider it fantastic, I still prefer the Perlman/ Oistrakh/ Szeryng versions :

-The most demanding part for the soloist starts around the three minute mark. He doesn't play it as well as the other three I mentioned IMO. He tends to "fade out" the way I've noticed that some soloists do when I've attended live performances of the work.

-The audio volume of the soloist as compared to the orchestra is too low, especially in the third movement, which might be due to the fact that it's a live version compared to Szeryng's studio-recorded Monteux / London Symphony recording. Szeryng's version is so clear that it seems like the violin is in the same room with you.

-In the 1st movement, Huberman, like Heifetz, plays some of my favorite parts too fast , including at the 4:56 & 11:57 marks(maybe this is the way Brahms wrote it), but Perlman/ Oistrakh/ Szeryng seem to savor every note like fine wine, Huberman/ Heifetz seem to be anxious to get it over with. The first movement is over three minutes shorter than Szeryng's.

I like all three movements the same. The second movement is a relaxing respite from the exhilarating, roller-coaster ride of the first; the third movement really rocks. I would say that the second movement is underrated but since this work is at the top of the Recommended String Concerti TC Top Recommended List, it's hard to label it as such.


----------



## PlaySalieri

fluteman said:


> You'll be happy to learn that Nathan Milstein wholeheartedly agreed with you.


Milstein agrees with me there - but he also dismissed Mozart's violin concertos as "real violin concertos"

Brahms also agrees with me - he himself referred to the 2nd mvt as a "miserable adagio"

I count it as one of the great missed opportunities in classical music that Brahms composed such an unbalanced work. The 1st mvt is epic - and the last 2 mvts just seem trivial and irrelevant to me.


----------



## Enthusiast

stomanek said:


> Brahms also agrees with me - he himself referred to the 2nd mvt as a "miserable adagio"
> 
> I count it as one of the great missed opportunities in classical music that Brahms composed such an unbalanced work. The 1st mvt is epic - and the last 2 mvts just seem trivial and irrelevant to me.


But wasn't there something of a pattern in Romantic violin concertos to have all the weighty music in the first movement and give much less attention to the other two movements?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

It’s a pity because Brahms’s piano concertos are strong in every movement. The adagios of both are glorious. Is it possibly due to his relative comfort with solo piano writing?

I do like the gypsy feel of the finale, but the adagio is admittedly on the bland side. Incidentally, Huberman gives a wonderful performance of the adagio, another mark in this recording’s favor and an interpretation that received the composer’s own blessing. Menuhin/Furtwängler are also quite wonderful in this movement, no doubt owing to the conductor’s great interpretive skill.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Pyotr said:


> Wow. That's some list!
> 
> I listened to the Huberman/Rodzinski a few times over the past few days, and even though I consider it fantastic, I still prefer the Perlman/ Oistrakh/ Szeryng versions :
> 
> -The most demanding part for the soloist starts around the three minute mark. He doesn't play it as well as the other three I mentioned IMO. He tends to "fade out" the way I've noticed that some soloists do when I've attended live performances of the work.
> 
> -The audio volume of the soloist as compared to the orchestra is too low, especially in the third movement, which might be due to the fact that it's a live version compared to Szeryng's studio-recorded Monteux / London Symphony recording. Szeryng's version is so clear that it seems like the violin is in the same room with you.
> 
> -In the 1st movement, Huberman, like Heifetz, plays some of my favorite parts too fast , including at the 4:56 & 11:57 marks(maybe this is the way Brahms wrote it), but Perlman/ Oistrakh/ Szeryng seem to savor every note like fine wine, Huberman/ Heifetz seem to be anxious to get it over with. The first movement is over three minutes shorter than Szeryng's.
> 
> I like all three movements the same. The second movement is a relaxing respite from the exhilarating, roller-coaster ride of the first; the third movement really rocks. I would say that the second movement is underrated but since this work is at the top of the Recommended String Concerti TC Top Recommended List, it's hard to label it as such.


Have you heard Krebbers/Haitink? I have a feeling you would like it. A desert island disc for me.


----------



## DavidA

I think everyone ought to hear the fair Julia Fischer's version which is very fine indeed to give you an idea that not every great violinist is dead!


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> I think everyone ought to hear the fair Julia Fischer's version which is very fine indeed to give you an idea that not every great violinist is dead!


She gave a stunning performance of the work with the Boston SO a few years back.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> She gave a stunning performance of the work with the Boston SO a few years back.


The recording comes with an equally good performance of the double concerto.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I think everyone ought to hear the fair Julia Fischer's version which is very fine indeed to give you an idea that not every great violinist is dead!


Good recording, but I much prefer Jansen/Pappano


----------



## DaveM

DavidA said:


> I think everyone ought to hear the fair Julia Fischer's version which is very fine indeed to give you an idea that not every great violinist is dead!


Just listened to part of the Brahms on YouTube. She is excellent. Who says a female violinist can't play like a man!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DaveM said:


> Just listened to part of the Brahms on YouTube. She is excellent. Who says a female violinist can't play like a man!


Great female interpreters of the Brahms have always been plentiful, beginning with Neveu, Morini, Martzy, and De Vito and continuing with Mutter, Fischer, and Jansen.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

This is a survey I copied a few years ago from another forum. Informative and quite a bit humorous:

Harry Collier:
I promised (threatened?) some time back to list my recordings of the Brahms violin concerto, with comments. I got to know this concerto (probably too well) in the 1950s with the recording by David Oistrakh (with Franz Konwitschny – a recording I still have). In those days, the choice in the local record stores was either Oistrakh, Johanna Martzy, or Gioconda de Vito. I chose Oistrakh (probably preferred the cover, or it was in stock the day I went off to buy with my accumulated pocket money).

Caveats and Background

1. I only comment below on recordings I possess. 2. I omit comments on off-air performances, since most people cannot obtain them. 3. After over 50 years of listening to the Brahms violin concerto, I am no longer terribly interested in the concerto per se (I've heard it too often, and know it too well); my focus is firmly on the violin playing. 4. I know that in the 1880s and 90s the soloist and orchestral string section would have used gut strings (that easily go out of tune) and would have eschewed vibrato except on specific occasions. Be that as it may, I am not fond of out-of-tune string playing with no vibrato so historical reconstruction here would leave me cold. 5. Pretty well every violinist who appears on a commercial recording can play this concerto note perfect, in-tune, and at a traditional tempo. I am only interested in the “apart from the accuracy and playing the notes” side of things. 6. I have disregarded recording quality (except where it might impact my overall feelings). 6. The recordings below are in alphabetical order, by violinist. I have starred the recordings I particularly like; almost everyone deserves one or more stars, but I am mean and just gives stars where I particularly feel like it.

1.Rachel Barton (Chicago SO, Carlos Kalmar, 2002). Good, middle-of-the-road performance (coupled with an excellent Joachim concerto). Orchestral contribution is a bit side-of-the-road, however.
2. Adolf Busch (1943, with Steinberg and NY SO, or 1951 with Münch and Basel Orchestra). The 1951 performance is too late in Busch's career (it was his last ever public performance). The 1943 recording ***, however, is something else. Busch takes less than 19 minutes over the first movement, and leaves that old sluggard, Jascha Heifetz, standing in the dust. As usual, Busch focuses attention on the music: specifically, the music of the North German composer Johannes Brahms. The soloist never draws attention to his technique, his lovely sound, his beautiful bowing, his resonant violin; Musik ist Alles. Recommended to all lovers of the Brahms violin concerto.
3. Evgeny Bushkov, with Brussels Orchestra conducted by A Rabbari (1994). Nothing special.
4. Christian Ferras: 1954 with Vienna Phil under Schuricht ***, or 1964 with Berlin Phil under Karajan **. The 1964 with Karajan is good, but in 1954 Ferras was only 21 years old and was playing at 110% to make his mark on the world. The violin is balanced rather close, but the young Ferras plays like a god. A recording for all lovers of fine violin playing (and of Brahms).
5. Bronislav Gimpel (with Grüber and Berlin SO, 1955). Good, fluent, but not really competitive in such a crowded field.
6. Evgeny Grach ** (Kondrashin, Moscow State Philharmonic, 1961). Grach gets two stars for giving a good, tough, Russian performance that fully illustrates the strength of the Russian violin school.
7. Arthur Grumiaux (1958 with van Beinum and Concertgebouw, or 1971 with Colin Davis and the Philharnonia). ** for Grumiaux in this concerto (because there are bigger, tougher vioinists around in this big, tough concerto, so he doesn't get three). Of the two versions here, I prefer the earlier version with van Beinum.
8. Jascha Heifetz. (1935 with Toscanini, 1939 with Koussevitzky, 1945 with Kleiber – first movement missing – 1951 with Szell, and 1955 with Reiner). This was very much Heifetz's concerto. I give *** to the Szell version, ** to Koussevitzky, and *** to Reiner. Of the batch, I'll take the live 1951 performance with Szell with me to my desert island, since Heifetz always played at 110% in the concerto hall and his live recordings invariably have a slight edge on his studio ones.
9. Leonid Kogan (1958 with Monteux in Boston, 1959 with Kondrashin and the Philharmonia, 1967 with Kondrashin and the Moscow Philharmonic). ** to the Boston version, and *** to the Philharmonia version. This concerto fits Kogan (and Heifetz) like a glove.
10. Andrei Korsakov (Belgian Radio Orchestra under Defossez, 1971). Tough, virtuoso playing, but the field is too competitive to spend time with mere muscle.
11. Fritz Kreisler (1927 with Blech in Berlin ***, or 1936 with Barbirolli and the LPO **). In the 20th century, Heifetz was the King of the Violinists; but Kreisler was the Emperor. If you want to admire the Emperor in full flight, go for the 1927 with Blech. At 52 years old in 1927, Kreisler was just past his prime; but the playing is irresistible and comes from another age.
12. Gidon Kremer (Harnoncourt, Concertgebouw, 1996). For members of Kremer's family and any fans he has. Too dry and colourless for my taste.
13. Georg Kulenkampff (1936, with Schmidt-Isserstedt and Berlin Phil) ** Like Kreisler, playing from another age. What Brahms must have sounded like before the big, tough Russians got their hands on it. As in the Beethoven concerto, Kulenkampff's playing comes as welcome spring water on a hot day.
14. Susanne Lautenbach (Innsbruck SO, Wagner, 1964).* Another classical approach from the Austro-German school. Came out on one of those “book and record” deals, with a 10” LP.
15. Johanna Martzy (1954 with Kletzki and Philhamonia **, 1964 with Wand and Stuttgart Radio SO). Famous in its day, and still worth hearing now for Matzy's rock-steady trajectory through the three movements. Big tone, a bit too controlled, however, so no third star.
16. Yehudi Menuhin (Lucerne Festival, Furtwängler, 1949). I have never liked this, since the three different transfers I have tried all have annoying distortions in the violin sound.
17. Nathan Milstein (1950 with Monteux and NY Phil, 1950 with de Sabata and NY Phil **, 1960 with Fistoulari and Philharmonia, 1963 with Kertesz and ORTF orchestra, 1974 with Jochum and Vienna Philharmonic). I give ** to the performance with de Sabata where, for once, Milstein is less his usual unruffled self and actually puts some energy into his playing. All the Milstein performances of this work are, however, well worth hearing, and no one will go wrong with any of them.
18. Mincho Minchev (Bulgarian Radio Orchestra, Stevanov, 1990). Pretty tough stuff; Brahms sounds a real he-man, here.
19. Erica Morini (1952 with Walter and NY Phil, 1956 with Rodzinski and RPO). I prefer the 1956 performance; Morini is an acquired taste (a bit like Greek retsina) but I like her classical style of playing, so *.
20. Viktoria Mullova (Berlin Phil, Abbado, 1992). Recorded live in Japan. The first two movements are excellent, but Mullova sounds tired when the finale arrived (perhaps a strenuous late night with Claudio before the concert?) A 2005 off-air recording with Mark Elder is better.
21. Anne-Sophie Mutter (NY Phil, Kurt Masur, 1997). ** I am not a fan of Ms Mutter. But this is a very personal and emotional performance of this concerto, which I greatly welcome. So, no doubt to her great surprise, Anne-Sophie gets two stars from me (if I were 20 years older, she might even marry me).
22. Ginette Neveu (1946 with Dobrowen and Philharmonia, 1948 with Schmidt-Isserstedt and North German Radio orchestra *** and 1949 with Dorati and Hague Orchestra **). The Brahms concerto suited Neveu and she plays it with her usual fire, passion and brooding tone. The Hamburg performance with Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt is particularly good.
23. Riccardo Odnoposoff (Frankfurt Opera orchestra, Bamberger, 1961). An “A” class violinist, but the other members of the team are “C” class and the performance doesn't really emerge in this very competitive field.
24. David Oistrakh (1954 with Saxon State orchestra under Konwitschny, 1960 with French Radio orchestra under Klemperer, 1963 with Moscow Philharmonic under Kondrashin). I cut my teeth on the 1954 version and still prefer it to the others. “Where is Mr Oistrakh?” a visitor to the Paris sessions asked Klemperer. “In Moskau, I hope” was Klemperer's laconic reply, which sums up this mismatch. The Moscow version is dependable and predictable – very Oistrakhian traits.
25. Michael Rabin (1967, Chicago SO, Kubelik). ** A sad memento for lovers of Rabin's playing and his attempted re-surfacing in the late 1960s. Rabin sounds like Rabin and it brings tears to your eyes. And, for a great showman-violinist, he plays a thoroughly musical performance of the Brahms concerto.
26. Ossy Renardy (1948, Münch and Concertgebouw, **). Quite astonishingly good sound for 1948 ... and from 78s, to boot (Michael Dutton transfers). A pleasant, lyrical performance by the 28 year old Renardy. Gets one star for being a lovely performance, and another for recording / transfer achievement.
27. Ruggiero Ricci (Del Mar, Sinfonia of London, 1991). Interesting only for the interesting collection of cadenzas that fills out the CD (a superb idea).
28. Isaac Stern (1951, Beecham RPO, *). Interesting to hear the young Isaac back in the days when he still practised his scales and when he was struggling to make his name. In those days, before he became a media star and discovered close-miking producers from Nashville and Hollywood, he could give a convincing and lyrical traversal of the Brahms concerto. Nothing hits you between the eyes, but it's friendly and comfortable, and very well played.
29. Henryk Szeryng (LSO, Monteux, 1958). ** Justly famous. A classical account but, for my money, Szeryng just doesn't have the personality or distinctiveness to be memorable in the same way as Heifetz, Kogan, de Vito, Kreisler, et al.
30. Joseph Szigeti (1928 with Halle and Harty **, 1945 with Ormandy and Philadelphia). All lovers of violin playing should hear the 1928 Szigeti; classical playing from another age. By 1945, Szigeti's playing had gone way down hill, and we are fortunate to have him in 1928 when still in his prime.
31. Viktor Tretyakov (State Academic Orchestra, Jansons). Another muscular Russian.
32. Gioconda de Vito (van Kempen, Berlin Opera House Orchestra, 1941, ***, Furtwängler, RAI Orchestra Torino, 1952, Rudolf Schwarz, Philharmonia, 1953 **). De Vito's dark, brooding sound suits the Brahms exceptionally well, and she became something of a Bach specialist. The 1941 Berlin performance (and recording) is especially fine.
33. Takayoshi.Wanami (Leaper, 1992, LPO). I remember this as a good, middle-of-the road reading. Nothing more.
34. Endre Wolf, (Collins, Sinfonia of London, 1958). Good; but aren't they all? The field is just too competitive.
35. Efrem Zimbalist (Boston SO, Koussevitzky, 1946). Zimbalist's playing is never my cup of tea; too anonymous, too pale, lacks sparkle and adrenalin. But very pretty and accurate.
36. For the sake of completion, off-air I have: Sarah Chang, James Ehnes, Isabelle Faust, Zino Francescatti, Philippe Hirschhorn, Janine Jansen, Leonidas Kavakos, Viktoria Mullova, Vadim Repin (x2), Oscar Shumsky. Faust is particularly good (I also heard the concert live).

Desert Island

I suspect I'd hesitate so much I'd end up on my desert island without a Brahms Violin Concerto. But, at the last moment, I'd grab Busch (1943). Or Neveu (Hamburg). Or de Vito (1941). Couldn't leave Jascha behind, so Heifetz and Szell (1951). And I'd have to have Ferras (1954). And what about Kreisler, Kulenkampff and Szigeti? It's a tough world out there. For the young newbie, go for Anne-Sophie Mutter back in 1997; DDDD sound, pretty girl, and two big, round eyes, or whatever; but memorable. And, I know; I haven't mentioned Monty Python, Hilary Hahn, Sergeant Bilko .. and only Adolf Busch, not George. But enough is enough; there are too many good things out there.


----------



## Enthusiast

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Great female interpreters of the Brahms have always been plentiful, beginning with Neveu, Morini, Martzy, and De Vito and continuing with Mutter, Fischer, and Jansen.


I must confess to being very skeptical of those who get marketed as if they were glamour models. Mutter I never liked so much. She is too sweet for my tastes but her album covers are also a huge reason not to buy! There are so many of others these days who choose to go the glamour way ... and you end up thinking there are hardly any male violinists these days. It is not that many of the glamorous players are not very talented - many of them are very talented indeed - but it seems we get more excited by the glamour than the really best musicians.

One of the best of the "younger" set of female violinists is surely Isabelle Faust. Her records tend not to be showy but she seems a very complete and mature musician who has produced numerous accounts of great works that seem to gently reinvent what we can find in them and that are deeply satisfying even on often repeated hearings. She was never marketed for her looks or her youth. I am not alone in recognising her greatness (she _is _very popular) but she is rarely mentioned on this site. I wonder why. And there are many other fine violinists who we seem to hear less of simply because they avoid trading on their looks.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> I must confess to being very skeptical of those who get marketed as if they were glamour models. Mutter I never liked so much. She is too sweet for my tastes but *her album covers are also a huge reason not to buy! There are so many of others these days who choose to go the glamour way* ... and you end up thinking there are hardly any male violinists these days. It is not that many of the glamorous players are not very talented - many of them are very talented indeed - but it seems we get more excited by the glamour than the really best musicians.
> 
> One of the best of the "younger" set of female violinists is surely Isabelle Faust. Her records tend not to be showy but she seems a very complete and mature musician who has produced numerous accounts of great works that seem to gently reinvent what we can find in them and that are deeply satisfying even on often repeated hearings. She was never marketed for her looks or her youth. I am not alone in recognising her greatness (she _is _very popular) but she is rarely mentioned on this site. I wonder why. And there are many other fine violinists who we seem to hear less of simply because they avoid trading on their looks.


I cannot at all blame musicians for marketing in an attractive fashion, especially if they are attractive. After all, male performers have done this ever since the beginning of the recording industry, though possibly not overtly. Top me having glamorous female on the front cover is not a reason not to buy - it's whether the performance matches up to the glamour.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^ Well, if they want to be taken seriously .... . But it is the ones who are as good or better but get left behind because they don't take that route (mostly men but a good few female violinists, too) that we lose. And when I see so many fans ignoring some of the best seemingly because they prefer to get their music with a pretty face (and, ideally, a trim and voluptuously posed body) I tend to feel that they may not be a reliable source of advice. That is just me but it seems that a large part of this forum falls for the glamour approach to marketing.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Mutter’s recording with Masur is the real deal, intense and personal. Some on here may not like it, but I think it is fantastic.


----------



## fluteman

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Have you heard Krebbers/Haitink? I have a feeling you would like it. A desert island disc for me.


One thing that the Krebbers version has in common with Huberman's is that neither one has nearly the technical facility of the Heifetz / Oistrakh / Milstein triumvirate. Krebbers struggles to get through some of the tougher passages. But once you have your fill of spectacular technical virtuosity it can be refreshing to go back to less polished versions and enjoy what they have to offer. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, if you listen to no cellist but Yo-Yo Ma long enough, eventually you want to return to the less technically accomplished, but musically compelling in her own way, Jacqueline du Pre.



Enthusiast said:


> ^^ Well, if they want to be taken seriously .... . But it is the ones who are as good or better but get left behind because they don't take that route (mostly men but a good few female violinists, too) that we lose. And when I see so many fans ignoring some of the best seemingly because they prefer to get their music with a pretty face (and, ideally, a trim and voluptuously posed body) I tend to feel that they may not be a reliable source of advice. That is just me but it seems that a large part of this forum falls for the glamour approach to marketing.


I grew up listening to classical music on the radio, so fortunately, I never knew if the performers were sexy babes. Nowadays that seems to be the most important thing for all genres of music, so it's no surprise to see that trend in the classical realm. Alas.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fluteman said:


> One thing that the Krebbers version has in common with Huberman's is that neither one has nearly the technical facility of the Heifetz / Oistrakh / Milstein triumvirate. Krebbers struggles to get through some of the tougher passages. But once you have your fill of spectacular technical virtuosity it can be refreshing to go back to less polished versions and enjoy what they have to offer. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, if you listen to no cellist but Yo-Yo Ma long enough, eventually you want to return to the less technically accomplished, but musically compelling in her own way, Jacqueline du Pre.


Have you heard Huberman's Tchaikovsky? I don't think he was lacking at all in technical virtuosity. His Brahms is actually one of the fastest first movements on record, though it was late in his career and came after an accident that had damaged his hand. I will say that Huberman was definitely a violinist who eschewed virtuosity for virtuosity's sake, a sort of violinist version of Furtwanger compared to Heifetz's Toscanini, if you will. Some would call him spontaneous, others would call him sloppy. I am firmly in the former camp.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> ^^ Well, if they want to be taken seriously .... . But it is the ones who are as good or better but get left behind because they don't take that route (mostly men but a good few female violinists, too) that we lose. And when I see so many fans ignoring some of the best seemingly because they prefer to get their music with a pretty face (and, ideally, a trim and voluptuously posed body) I tend to feel that they may not be a reliable source of advice. That is just me but it seems that a *large part of this forum falls for the glamour approach to marketing.*


No we don't. Because I enjoy Fischer's Brahms doesn't mean I do so because of her good looks.


----------



## fluteman

Enthusiast said:


> ^^ Well, if they want to be taken seriously .... . But it is the ones who are as good or better but get left behind because they don't take that route (mostly men but a good few female violinists, too) that we lose. And when I see so many fans ignoring some of the best seemingly because they prefer to get their music with a pretty face (and, ideally, a trim and voluptuously posed body) I tend to feel that they may not be a reliable source of advice. That is just me but it seems that a large part of this forum falls for the glamour approach to marketing.


Yes, but I think that's in large part because the glamorous stars like Julia Fischer and Yuja Wang are the ones who have been on the stage in the world's major concert halls for the past few years, (and yes, there have been glamorous male stars on the stage too), and that in turn sells records, or CDs, or downloads. In time, the glamorous stars get old and younger glamorous stars take their place on stage. Ultimately, their records of the Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky concertos must compete on equal terms with all the records of the same music made by all of the other stars back to the beginning of recording, or at least, the beginning of reasonably high fidelity recording circa (in my opinion) 1950.

Hilary Hahn has wisely recorded music by contemporary composers, a lot of it written for or even commissioned by her. Wise, because not only is she especially adept at performing this music, she is establishing a legacy that can never be erased by younger glamorous stars, or by Heifetz, Oistrakh and Milstein. It will be hard for anyone to ever argue she was just another pretty girl.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I made a list once of recordings that seem to be the most acclaimed (so not my opinion). Very closely resembles Trout's list:
> 
> David Oistrakh/Otto Klemperer (EMI)
> Jascha Heifetz /Fritz Reiner (RCA)
> David Oistrakh/George Szell (EMI)
> Henryk Szeryng/Pierre Monteux (RCA, JVC)
> Nathan Milstein/Anatole Fistoulari (EMI, Praga)
> David Oistrakh/Franz Konwitschny (DG, Profil, Ds Classics)
> Nathan Milstein/William Steinberg (EMI)
> Arthur Grumiaux/Eduard van Beinum (Philips, Regis)
> Itzhak Perlman/Carlo Maria Giulini (EMI)
> Anne-Sophie Mutter/Herbert von Karajan (DG)
> Ginette Neveu/Issay Dobrowen (Dutton, EMI)


So I decided to go back and relisten to this list of "acclaimed" Brahms violin concerto recordings, and the results were interesting.

No change in my opinion of Heifetz/Reiner, especially when compared side-by-side with the others. It is mechanical, detached, and simply does not bring one into the heart of the Brahms concerto the way others do. I don't know whether this was due to studio conditions or Reiner or what, because his earlier recordings were much better.

I did however have a change of heart on Oistrakh/Klemperer. I believe I have some 13 Oistrakh Brahms concerto recordings, and comparing them all can be quite a chore. Oistrakh is generally a big-boned, extroverted interpeter of this concerto. So when you come upon the relatively subdued Klemperer it just doesn't sound like the Oistrakh we are used to. I have heard that they were considered mismatched. But I have come to realize that the mismatch actually works rather well for the Brahms. (Another example is the Heifetz/Stokowski Sibelius, opposite temperaments producing infectious results) Oistrakh/Klemperer produces a fairly ideal balance between the drama and the warmth of this concerto. So I would have to call this my favorite studio Oistrakh, followed by the more extrovert Szell and then the Konwitschny. (and don't forget the 1952 Kondrashin)

The other violinist with many multiple versions to choose among is Milstein. Both the Fistoulari and the Steinberg have their merits. I just feel Milstein is more inspired in the later Fistoulari, which has also the bonus of better sound. Like Heifetz, Milstein favors fast speeds but there is more nuance and elegance. Milstein is a pretty ideal interpreter of this concerto.

I tend to lump Szeryng and Grumiaux together, fairly or not. Their two best versions were actually recorded in the same year. Both in my opinion remain good but not great versions. There is poetry if not quite the flair of other versions.

Perlman/Giulini is another matter. This is a great recording. The first movement really plumbs the emotional depths, the adagio is searching, and the finale offers all the spirit you could ask for. Among modern versions, this is a step better than the above versions and is *almost* my favorite modern recording of the work...(see below)

Neveu/Dobrowen is the oldest version I included here. Recorded in 1946, the sound is quite good in the Dutton transfer. Artistically it is about even with the Perlman, with plenty of searching artistry and flair. A reference version.

Mutter/Karajan was easily the worst of this bunch. Bland, faceless, by-the-numbers. Maybe the previous poster is correct that the choice of Mutter to record with Karajan was more based on marketability (e.g. looks) than artistry. This is a clear example of a recording getting by on name recognition rather than actual merit. I originally rated it 3 1/2 stars but will be knocking it down a half star. (Mutter/Masur is much better. There Mutter is more searching and spontaneous if a bit idiosyncratic.)

I must end now by going back to another modern version which is the exact opposite of Mutter/Karajan. Krebbers/Haitink deserves to be considered among the greatest modern versions of this work. It is a shame people overlook it merely because Krebbers is not a household name. Krebbers plays this piece as if it were written for him. He is authoritative and commanding, knowing exactly what he wants. Not only does he milk every bit of emotion out of the formidable first movement, but he makes real music of the supposedly inferior second and third. This is the modern recording to savor, even above all the more famous names above. And just to prove this is not an obscure opinion, several past issues of the Penguin Guide list Krebbers/Haitink as their first choice in this work. I had this at 4 1/2 stars before, but I was so bowled over on the rehearing that a 5th star is now in order.

And let's not forget that Krebbers' authority in this work comes from experience. There is a live recording available of him 30 years previous with Mengelberg, as well as a Philips issue a decade earlier with Hein Jordans. So this recording was no accident. Krebbers knew the Brahms through and through. Incidentally, Krebbers also made wonderful recordings for Philips of the Beethoven concerto and the Bach Double Concerto (with Grumiaux), not to mention his sweetly seductive solo contribution to Kondrashin's reference version of Scheherazade.

So, to sum up, I recommend four primary versions of the Brahms violin concerto for those seeking a modern recording:

Krebbers/Haitink
Perlman/Giulini
Oistrakh/Klemperer
Milstein/Fistoulari

In addition, there are four historic versions that are essential listening:

Huberman/Rodzinski
Kreisler/Blech
Heifetz/Koussevitzky
Szigeti/Harty

Of course for lovers of his concerto like myself you cannot get enough, and there are several others I would recommend hearing beginning with Busch, Neveu, Zimbalist, etc.


----------



## science

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I made a list once of recordings that seem to be the most acclaimed (so not my opinion). Very closely resembles Trout's list:
> 
> David Oistrakh/Otto Klemperer (EMI)
> Jascha Heifetz /Fritz Reiner (RCA)
> David Oistrakh/George Szell (EMI)
> Henryk Szeryng/Pierre Monteux (RCA, JVC)
> Nathan Milstein/Anatole Fistoulari (EMI, Praga)
> David Oistrakh/Franz Konwitschny (DG, Profil, Ds Classics)
> Nathan Milstein/William Steinberg (EMI)
> Arthur Grumiaux/Eduard van Beinum (Philips, Regis)
> Itzhak Perlman/Carlo Maria Giulini (EMI)
> Anne-Sophie Mutter/Herbert von Karajan (DG)
> Ginette Neveu/Issay Dobrowen (Dutton, EMI)


It is interesting to see how much overlap there is. I'm surprised Perlman/Giulini didn't make Trout's top 10. I don't mean that he did his work wrong, I mean I'm surprised at the results. I'd've guessed Perlman/Giulini would be more popular.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So I decided to go back and relisten to this list of "acclaimed" Brahms violin concerto recordings, and the results were interesting.
> 
> No change in my opinion of *Heifetz/Reiner*, especially when compared side-by-side with the others. It is mechanical, detached, and simply does not bring one into the heart of the Brahms concerto the way others do. I don't know whether this was due to studio conditions or Reiner or what, because his earlier recordings were much better.
> 
> I did however have a change of heart on *Oistrakh/Klemperer. *I believe I have some 13 Oistrakh Brahms concerto recordings, and comparing them all can be quite a chore. Oistrakh is generally a big-boned, extroverted interpeter of this concerto. So when you come upon the relatively subdued Klemperer it just doesn't sound like the Oistrakh we are used to. I have heard that they were considered mismatched. But I have come to realize that the mismatch actually works rather well for the Brahms. (Another example is the Heifetz/Stokowski Sibelius, opposite temperaments producing infectious results) Oistrakh/Klemperer produces a fairly ideal balance between the drama and the warmth of this concerto. So I would have to call this my favorite studio Oistrakh, followed by the more extrovert Szell and then the Konwitschny. (and don't forget the 1952 Kondrashin)
> 
> The other violinist with many multiple versions to choose among is Milstein. Both the Fistoulari and the Steinberg have their merits. I just feel Milstein is more inspired in the later Fistoulari, which has also the bonus of better sound. Like Heifetz, Milstein favors fast speeds but there is more nuance and elegance. Milstein is a pretty ideal interpreter of this concerto.
> 
> I tend to lump Szeryng and Grumiaux together, fairly or not. Their two best versions were actually recorded in the same year. Both in my opinion remain good but not great versions. There is poetry if not quite the flair of other versions.
> 
> *Perlman/Giulini* is another matter. This is a great recording. The first movement really plumbs the emotional depths, the adagio is searching, and the finale offers all the spirit you could ask for. Among modern versions, this is a step better than the above versions and is *almost* my favorite modern recording of the work...(see below)
> 
> Neveu/Dobrowen is the oldest version I included here. Recorded in 1946, the sound is quite good in the Dutton transfer. Artistically it is about even with the Perlman, with plenty of searching artistry and flair. A reference version.
> 
> Mutter/Karajan was easily the worst of this bunch. Bland, faceless, by-the-numbers. Maybe the previous poster is correct that the choice of Mutter to record with Karajan was more based on marketability (e.g. looks) than artistry. This is a clear example of a recording getting by on name recognition rather than actual merit. I originally rated it 3 1/2 stars but will be knocking it down a half star. (Mutter/Masur is much better. There Mutter is more searching and spontaneous if a bit idiosyncratic.)
> 
> I must end now by going back to another modern version which is the exact opposite of Mutter/Karajan. Krebbers/Haitink deserves to be considered among the greatest modern versions of this work. It is a shame people overlook it merely because Krebbers is not a household name. Krebbers plays this piece as if it were written for him. He is authoritative and commanding, knowing exactly what he wants. Not only does he milk every bit of emotion out of the formidable first movement, but he makes real music of the supposedly inferior second and third. This is the modern recording to savor, even above all the more famous names above. And just to prove this is not an obscure opinion, several past issues of the Penguin Guide list Krebbers/Haitink as their first choice in this work. I had this at 4 1/2 stars before, but I was so bowled over on the rehearing that a 5th star is now in order.
> 
> And let's not forget that Krebbers' authority in this work comes from experience. There is a live recording available of him 30 years previous with Mengelberg, as well as a Philips issue a decade earlier with Hein Jordans. So this recording was no accident. Krebbers knew the Brahms through and through. Incidentally, Krebbers also made wonderful recordings for Philips of the Beethoven concerto and the Bach Double Concerto (with Grumiaux), not to mention his sweetly seductive solo contribution to Kondrashin's reference version of Scheherazade.
> 
> So, to sum up, I recommend four primary versions of the Brahms violin concerto for those seeking a modern recording:
> 
> Krebbers/Haitink
> Perlman/Giulini
> Oistrakh/Klemperer
> Milstein/Fistoulari
> 
> In addition, there are four historic versions that are essential listening:
> 
> Huberman/Rodzinski
> Kreisler/Blech
> Heifetz/Koussevitzky
> Szigeti/Harty
> 
> Of course for lovers of his concerto like myself you cannot get enough, and there are several others I would recommend hearing beginning with Busch, Neveu, Zimbalist, etc.


I think once again you are mixing up profundity with slowness. You are also missing something that Brahms put into his concerto and that is drama, which is exactly what Heifetz / Reiner provides. The tempo is allegro non troppo not andante, which is how some interpreters take it in the interests of 'profundity' However, each to his own. To write it off as 'mechanical, detached' - I wonder what you are listening to.

The Oistrakh / Klemperer is absolutely superb. One of the greatest violinists and a conductor who did not sentimentalise Brahms. He keeps the thing going.

Pearlman / Giulini has some incomparable fiddling but to me weighed down by leaden tempi, especially in the first movement. Brahms should not be taken too slowly.

If you want the best of both worlds in a modern recording try Julia Fischer. The fact she is good looking does not affect her playing!


----------



## fluteman

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So I decided to go back and relisten to this list of "acclaimed" Brahms violin concerto recordings, and the results were interesting.
> 
> No change in my opinion of Heifetz/Reiner, especially when compared side-by-side with the others. It is mechanical, detached, and simply does not bring one into the heart of the Brahms concerto the way others do. I don't know whether this was due to studio conditions or Reiner or what, because his earlier recordings were much better.
> 
> I did however have a change of heart on Oistrakh/Klemperer. I believe I have some 13 Oistrakh Brahms concerto recordings, and comparing them all can be quite a chore. Oistrakh is generally a big-boned, extroverted interpeter of this concerto. So when you come upon the relatively subdued Klemperer it just doesn't sound like the Oistrakh we are used to. I have heard that they were considered mismatched. But I have come to realize that the mismatch actually works rather well for the Brahms. (Another example is the Heifetz/Stokowski Sibelius, opposite temperaments producing infectious results) Oistrakh/Klemperer produces a fairly ideal balance between the drama and the warmth of this concerto. So I would have to call this my favorite studio Oistrakh, followed by the more extrovert Szell and then the Konwitschny. (and don't forget the 1952 Kondrashin)
> 
> The other violinist with many multiple versions to choose among is Milstein. Both the Fistoulari and the Steinberg have their merits. I just feel Milstein is more inspired in the later Fistoulari, which has also the bonus of better sound. Like Heifetz, Milstein favors fast speeds but there is more nuance and elegance. Milstein is a pretty ideal interpreter of this concerto.
> 
> I tend to lump Szeryng and Grumiaux together, fairly or not. Their two best versions were actually recorded in the same year. Both in my opinion remain good but not great versions. There is poetry if not quite the flair of other versions.
> 
> Perlman/Giulini is another matter. This is a great recording. The first movement really plumbs the emotional depths, the adagio is searching, and the finale offers all the spirit you could ask for. Among modern versions, this is a step better than the above versions and is *almost* my favorite modern recording of the work...(see below)
> 
> Neveu/Dobrowen is the oldest version I included here. Recorded in 1946, the sound is quite good in the Dutton transfer. Artistically it is about even with the Perlman, with plenty of searching artistry and flair. A reference version.
> 
> Mutter/Karajan was easily the worst of this bunch. Bland, faceless, by-the-numbers. Maybe the previous poster is correct that the choice of Mutter to record with Karajan was more based on marketability (e.g. looks) than artistry. This is a clear example of a recording getting by on name recognition rather than actual merit. I originally rated it 3 1/2 stars but will be knocking it down a half star. (Mutter/Masur is much better. There Mutter is more searching and spontaneous if a bit idiosyncratic.)
> 
> I must end now by going back to another modern version which is the exact opposite of Mutter/Karajan. Krebbers/Haitink deserves to be considered among the greatest modern versions of this work. It is a shame people overlook it merely because Krebbers is not a household name. Krebbers plays this piece as if it were written for him. He is authoritative and commanding, knowing exactly what he wants. Not only does he milk every bit of emotion out of the formidable first movement, but he makes real music of the supposedly inferior second and third. This is the modern recording to savor, even above all the more famous names above. And just to prove this is not an obscure opinion, several past issues of the Penguin Guide list Krebbers/Haitink as their first choice in this work. I had this at 4 1/2 stars before, but I was so bowled over on the rehearing that a 5th star is now in order.
> 
> And let's not forget that Krebbers' authority in this work comes from experience. There is a live recording available of him 30 years previous with Mengelberg, as well as a Philips issue a decade earlier with Hein Jordans. So this recording was no accident. Krebbers knew the Brahms through and through. Incidentally, Krebbers also made wonderful recordings for Philips of the Beethoven concerto and the Bach Double Concerto (with Grumiaux), not to mention his sweetly seductive solo contribution to Kondrashin's reference version of Scheherazade.
> 
> So, to sum up, I recommend four primary versions of the Brahms violin concerto for those seeking a modern recording:
> 
> Krebbers/Haitink
> Perlman/Giulini
> Oistrakh/Klemperer
> Milstein/Fistoulari
> 
> In addition, there are four historic versions that are essential listening:
> 
> Huberman/Rodzinski
> Kreisler/Blech
> Heifetz/Koussevitzky
> Szigeti/Harty
> 
> Of course for lovers of his concerto like myself you cannot get enough, and there are several others I would recommend hearing beginning with Busch, Neveu, Zimbalist, etc.


Very good analysis. I own all of your top four and so have listened to all of them numerous times. The only real difference I have with you is purely a matter of individual taste. That is, since Milstein is always Milstein and managed to consistently play at the highest level throughout his career, I most often listen to his final Brahms VC, with Jocum and the VPO on DG, as the sound quality is vastly better in my opinion than in his earlier recordings. And sound quality really matters in music like this.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fluteman said:


> Very good analysis. I own all of your top four and so have listened to all of them numerous times. The only real difference I have with you is purely a matter of individual taste. That is, since Milstein is always Milstein and managed to consistently play at the highest level throughout his career, I most often listen to his final Brahms VC, with Jocum and the VPO on DG, as the sound quality is vastly better in my opinion than in his earlier recordings. And sound quality really matters in music like this.


I will have to give Milstein/Jochum another spin. It is a very warm reading if memory serves.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I think once again you are mixing up profundity with slowness. You are also missing something that Brahms put into his concerto and that is drama, which is exactly what Heifetz / Reiner provides. The tempo is allegro non troppo not andante, which is how some interpreters take it in the interests of 'profundity' However, each to his own. To write it off as 'mechanical, detached' - I wonder what you are listening to.
> 
> The Oistrakh / Klemperer is absolutely superb. One of the greatest violinists and a conductor who did not sentimentalise Brahms. He keeps the thing going.
> 
> Pearlman / Giulini has some incomparable fiddling but to me weighed down by leaden tempi, especially in the first movement. Brahms should not be taken too slowly.
> 
> If you want the best of both worlds in a modern recording try Julia Fischer. The fact she is good looking does not affect her playing!


My dear sir, if I am mixing slowness with profundity as you claim, why would my top choice out of all recordings of this concerto be Huberman/Rodzinski, which clocks in a first movement at just under 19 minutes, the same speed as Heifetz/Reiner? And why would I likewise highly rate the Milstein recordings which go only 19 1/2 minutes? Or Busch/Steinberg, another version under 19 minutes?

I await your answer.

Could it be, as I stated in the St Matthew Passion thread, that tempo alone does not determine interest? I have never said slowness equals profundity. I am glad that I can appreciate a variety of approaches. To quote your words, "variety is the spice of life."

But the reality is it is YOU who are stating explicitly that music MUST be played fast to create drama. That is rubbish.

And by the way, if you believe this to be the case, how can you possibly like Oistrakh/Klemperer, which clocks in at 22:36? Doesn't this recording lack drama according to your simplistic criteria?


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> The Oistrakh / Klemperer is absolutely superb. One of the greatest violinists and a conductor who did not sentimentalise Brahms. He keeps the thing going.


Absolutely. This is my favorite of Oistrakh's many recordings of the work. The ones with Szell and Konwitschny aren't bad, either.



> Perlman / Giulini has some incomparable fiddling but to me weighed down by leaden tempi, especially in the first movement. Brahms should not be taken too slowly.


Perlman is superb technically, but so are most violinists who've tackled the Brahms. And although Perlman clearly has plenty of personality - he's very engaging in interviews - his playing, to me, is rather anonymous. Agree about the tempi; Giulini preferred slow tempi in Brahms generally, and while they often work in the symphonies, they don't for the concerto.

BTW, if you want drama in the Brahms concerto, try Leonid Kogan!


----------



## fluteman

wkasimer;1581253
BTW said:


> Indeed. As a youngster, I had the privilege of attending a Kogan recital in Carnegie Hall, sitting in the first row, no less.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Gave Julia Fischer a listen tonight. I remember back when it came out over a decade ago I purchased it having heard good things, adding it to my collection of a mere 20 or so recordings. It’s definitely a very good recording, very similar to the Perlman/Giulini which is ironic considering some of the comments made about that recording.

I’m surprised not to see it ranked higher on my list, but then I look at the others and realize what a ridiculous plethora of recordings of this great work there really are! It’s practically endless.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Gave Julia Fischer a listen tonight. I remember back when it came out over a decade ago I purchased it having heard good things, adding it to my collection of a mere 20 or so recordings. It's definitely a very good recording, *very similar to the Perlman/Giulini* which is ironic considering some of the comments made about that recording.
> 
> I'm surprised not to see it ranked higher on my list, but then I look at the others and realize what a ridiculous plethora of recordings of this great work there really are! It's practically endless.


Glad you liked the Fischer. To me there is a need of momentum in the Perlman / Giulini which is found in Fischer's recording. Kreizberg keeps the thing on the move.


----------



## Guest

hi brahmsianhorn,
we have locked horns before on brahms 3rd symphony, but i have to admit your incredible list of one of our all-time favourite violin concerto is dead on; god (heifetz) gets 5 stars and some of the younger performers like jansen, faust etc.. also get some good notes; my question is : what do you expect from a violinist today to beat all the versions you have listed; i personally consider that we have a different knowledge, vision of these works from the past and that today's interpretations could go beyond the composer's intentions;


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

marc bollansee said:


> hi brahmsianhorn,
> we have locked horns before on brahms 3rd symphony, but i have to admit your incredible list of one of our all-time favourite violin concerto is dead on; god (heifetz) gets 5 stars and some of the younger performers like jansen, faust etc.. also get some good notes; my question is : what do you expect from a violinist today to beat all the versions you have listed; i personally consider that we have a different knowledge, vision of these works from the past and that today's interpretations could go beyond the composer's intentions;


I don't think it is about interpretation. I like a variety myself. For example in the Brahms 3rd I favor Furtwangler and Weingartner, who are very different from one another.

What is missing today is personality. Perhaps it comes from shouldering the weight of the past. Performers are more careful and self-conscious. Instead of asserting a unique vision of a work, performers are careful not to offend others. Everyone is concerned over "correct" interpretation. We are all saying and doing the same things to get along, and it all becomes very bland.

What is needed today is for someone to break the mold. But corporate executives don't look for that. They want the safe and conventional. The low risk.

I work in the classical music industry. Conformity and fads rule the day.


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> No we don't. Because I enjoy Fischer's Brahms doesn't mean I do so because of her good looks.


Well, I didn't name you so you didn't need to stand up! But, seriously, it is a trend I am decrying rather than specific cases. I am quite prepared to believe that Ms Fischer's Brahms is first rate! And, of course, there are quite a few excellent recordings from today's more comely soloists and many more recordings that are quite good and perfectly serviceable ... but not exceptional. The thing that worries me, though, is what happened to the performers who don't get marketed for their looks? There have been some truly exceptional ones that don't get mentioned here so often. Isabelle Faust is an example I gave earlier. She has given us one of the most interesting/satisfying/fresh/excellent recordings of the Brahms and two of the Beethoven, for example. I could understand some listeners not liking them - after all they do say something distinctive and also she is not of the showy virtuoso school that some expect in Romantic repertoire - but that is another matter.


----------



## Enthusiast

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What is missing today is personality.


Really? That isn't what I am hearing. There is a lot of ordinary and bland, of course, but that was always the case. But there are also plenty of relatively recent accounts that seem to me to be filled with "personality". It may be more introverted - more about communicating music rather than performing music, if you will - and performing fashions have certainly changed. Yes, you can listen to some of the few pre-1945 performances that are still worth hearing and marvel but you also hear the performing fashion of the time ... and, I anyway, can get too much of that.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What is missing today is personality. Perhaps it comes from shouldering the weight of the past. Performers are more careful and self-conscious. Instead of asserting a unique vision of a work, performers are careful not to offend others. Everyone is concerned over "correct" interpretation. We are all saying and doing the same things to get along, and it all becomes very bland.


This is a pretty gross generatlization that I don't think holds up to scrutiny.

Back in the day - when most of your favored recordings were made - a recording was an *event*. Recordings were expensive to make and expensive to buy, so the people who recorded were the best musicians. Your average Kapellmeister didn't make many recordings, and if he did, over the past fifty or so years, no one is interested in reissuing them for posterity. The violinists who made records were Heifetz, Kreisler, Szigeti, Milstein, and a few others - violinists with distinctive personalities. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of other violinists, who you'd probably dismiss if you ever heard them, didn't make records, or if they did, they're buried in libraries or landfills, gathering dust.

In 2019, *everyone* records. There isn't a cellist of any repute who hasn't recorded the Bach suites, sometimes multiple times. Nor is there a violinist who hasn't recorded the Brahms concerto, or a conductor who hasn't recorded all or most of Beethoven's symphonies. Some,, perhaps most of these are as eminently forgettable as the forgotten recordings from the so-called "Golden Age". But there are certainly a few that compare favorably with those of the past. It's just that they're harder to find because of the vast quantity of recordings and broadcasts available to all of us.

So as a result, what we hear from the first half of the century is the absolute cream, carefully selected over a long span of time. It's simply no reasonable to compare 100 years of recorded history to the present, a single point in time.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> But there are certainly a few that compare favorably with those of the past.


Well I haven't heard them, and it is not for lack of searching. Don't get me wrong. I am a performer myself and I go to concerts. But when I compare to the greats of the past, the difference is palpable.

Maybe it is simply a matter of their having been closer in time to the composers themselves, lending itself to a certain idiomatic quality of a tradition being passed down. Society has changed. We are in a fast-paced, sound bite era.

There was more formality in the old days, before the advent of hashtags and emojis. People took care to express themselves and think deeply. Perhaps the slower pace of life allowed it.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What is missing today is personality......Performers are more careful and self-conscious. Instead of asserting a unique vision of a work, performers are careful not to offend others. Everyone is concerned over "correct" interpretation. We are all saying and doing the same things to get along, and it all becomes very bland.


I tend to agree - certainly the orchestra audition process encourages this sort of approach - in preliminary rounds - don't do anything outrageous, don't p*ss anyone off, color strictly between the lines...play with a generic style "Bb" sound that will not turn any committee members off...audition candidates begin to develop a "one sound fits all" style, designed to sound pleasant to everyone....it's not until later rounds, with conductor, that the surviving candidates can let loose and be really expressive...
it did not used to be that way - conductors heard specific players that they wanted in their orchestras, because they liked the sound, style, phrasing, etc, and thought those musicians would fit right into their concept of orchestral sound and ensemble....was it fair?? probably not, but it certainly produced terrific results, and preserved the definite personality of different orchestras.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I tend to agree - certainly the orchestra audition process encourages this sort of approach - in preliminary rounds - don't do anything outrageous, don't p*ss anyone off, color strictly between the lines...play with a generic style "Bb" sound that will not turn any committee members off...audition candidates begin to develop a "one sound fits all" style, designed to sound pleasant to everyone....it's not until later rounds, with conductor, that the surviving candidates can let loose and be really expressive...
> it did not used to be that way - conductors heard specific players that they wanted in their orchestras, because they liked the sound, style, phrasing, etc, and thought those musicians would fit right into their concept of orchestral sound and ensemble....was it fair?? probably not, but it certainly produced terrific results, and preserved the definite personality of different orchestras.


I think the whole point of art is to bring out one's unique personality, not to quash it. As a performer who went to music school 20 years ago, I feel like the latter is what I was encouraged to do. I sing in many chamber-sized choirs where the goal is to produce the same faceless sound. A friend of mine remarked that it is like making a recipe where all the ingredients taste the same.

Part of the fun of debating Furtwangler vs Toscanini vs Klemperer vs Reiner, etc. is that they all had unique personalities that were reflected in their music-making. I honestly believe that most of the conductors I come across today are trying to imitate each other. The goal is to be liked and accepted, not to blaze an individual trail.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think the whole point of art is to bring out one's unique personality, not to quash it.


Ah, but that is the paradox of playing in an orchestra!! one wants to be a unique individual artist, do your own thing.....and it is possible to a large extent, in the right situation....but conformity is forced upon us constantly - section balance, unity, phrasing, articulation....we all want to be independent soloists, but the discipline requires a large helping of conformity and suppression of our own individual expression.....of course, as orchestral soloists, you have the opportunity for self-expression, [unless you're playing for some ultra-control freak.....you know who I've got in mind, I'm sure :lol:]



> Part of the fun of debating Furtwangler vs Toscanini vs Klemperer vs Reiner, etc. is that they all had unique personalities that were reflected in their music-making.


Yes, for sure - towering personalities, all....able to convince some 80-90 _soloist wannabees_ that their way is THE way!!



> I honestly believe that most of the conductors I come across today are trying to imitate each other. The goal is to be liked and accepted, not to blaze an individual trail.


you may be right. tho I've heard some very good concerts in recent years, conducted extremely well....If they were imitating someone, they had very fine models!!


----------



## Xaltotun

I have a very fond memory of the first time I heard it, which was live. Pori Sinfonietta was playing in the Temple Square Church in Helsinki (a modern church with very strange and original architecture). I don't remember the name of the soloist - an asian lady - but she tore through the part with fire and passion I have rarely witnessed. Almost from the first notes of the solo part, a couple of threads snapped from her bow... which seemed very fitting. I was holding my breath, it was like standing on the edge of a knife.

I have listened to a number of recordings, and the usual flaw that I find is that there is too much striving for beauty. To me this work must not be excessively beautiful, there has to be drama and even a pinch of harshness and ugliness for it to reach it's maximum potential. 

Mutter / Masur is my favourite thus far.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Xaltotun said:


> I have a very fond memory of the first time I heard it, which was live. Pori Sinfonietta was playing in the Temple Square Church in Helsinki (a modern church with very strange and original architecture). I don't remember the name of the soloist - an asian lady - but she tore through the part with fire and passion I have rarely witnessed. Almost from the first notes of the solo part, a couple of threads snapped from her bow... which seemed very fitting. I was holding my breath, it was like standing on the edge of a knife.
> 
> I have listened to a number of recordings, and the usual flaw that I find is that there is too much striving for beauty. To me this work must not be excessively beautiful, there has to be drama and even a pinch of harshness and ugliness for it to reach it's maximum potential.
> 
> Mutter / Masur is my favourite thus far.


At the 11:06 mark of Erica Morini's live NY performance with Bruno Walter, you can hear her string break. For a couple of seconds you don't hear her anymore. Then she re-enters, having been handed a violin by concertmaster John Corigliano, father of the composer!


----------



## Guest

hi enthusiast, 
i join you in your enthousiasm for isabelle faust, because all of her records show her class and she also chooses great colleagues for her chamber adventures. she is one of the reasons why we should believe in the future of classical music. I collect all her recordings.
Her partnership with melnikov is particularly remarkable. there are other outstanding female violists like elsa grether who is a great interpreter of french music. carolin widmann is another one, but she she is more into modern and contemporary music, although she loves schumann.check them out.


----------



## Guest

hi brahmsianhorn,
i do not listen to old versions any more, because i look for a new vision of an existing masterpiece; i have the versions by faust, hahn, jansen, fischer, capuçon; if they do not break the mould what is needed to do that; i also believe you need to have a 
progressive orchestra and conductor in order to break the mould; looking forward to your comment


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

marc bollansee said:


> hi brahmsianhorn,
> i do not listen to old versions any more, because i look for a new vision of an existing masterpiece; i have the versions by faust, hahn, jansen, fischer, capuçon; if they do not break the mould what is needed to do that; i also believe you need to have a
> progressive orchestra and conductor in order to break the mould; looking forward to your comment


Define progressive


----------



## Guest

because of his personality, brahms' music is a bit heavy sometimes and also not as dynamic as i would like it to be; so in his case a progressive orchestra and conductor would cut off the fat; the soloist would be extremely dynamic; kopatchinskaja would be my ideal; i have heard her in bartok and she really makes a difference in terms of dynamics; the conductor should be young; probably nelsons: his symphonies with the boston SO were excellent


----------



## DavidA

marc bollansee said:


> because of his personality, brahms' music is a bit heavy sometimes and also not as dynamic as i would like it to be; so in his case a progressive orchestra and conductor would cut off the fat; the soloist would be extremely dynamic; kopatchinskaja would be my ideal; i have heard her in bartok and she really makes a difference in terms of dynamics; the conductor should be young; probably nelsons: his symphonies with the boston SO were excellent


One problem with Brahms is when people play him too slowly he becomes an old bore. The great interpreters of the violin concerto set relatively brisk speeds.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Faster does not mean better. Whether at a fast speed or a slow speed you need musicality to sustain interest.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> One problem with Brahms is when people play him too slowly he becomes an old bore. The great interpreters of the violin concerto set relatively brisk speeds.


Huberman's version is played very fast and is among the greatest versions, and the same can be said of Perlman/Giulini, which is among the slowest versions. It is about musicality, not tempo.

Also, variety is the spice of life. Isn't that your favorite saying? :lol:


----------



## Josquin13

Most underrated, IMO:

Uto Ughi, Philharmonia Orchestra, Wolfgang Sawallisch (my favorite digital era recording of the concerto): https://www.amazon.it/Brahms-Bruch-Conc-Violino-Uto-Ughi/dp/B001UW5KKC
Salvatore Accardo, Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra, Kurt Masur (Accardo's violin playing is remarkable, IMO): 



Arthur Grumiaux, Concertgebouw Orchestra, Eduard Van Beinum: 




Also very good:

Maxim Vengerov, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Daniel Barenboim: 



Lisa Batiashvili, Staatskapelle Dresden, Christian Thielemann (although I'm not entirely crazy about Thielemann's conducting): 




My top favorites of the stereo era:

--David Oistrakh's two EMI recordings, with conductors George Szell and Otto Klemperer. During the days of the LP, I preferred the Szell recording--for Oistakh's remarkable violin playing, but over the years, my preference has changed to Oistrakh/Klemperer, as I've come to see Klemperer as the more imaginative Brahms conductor: 









--Nathan Milstein's various accounts are essential too, (1) with William Steinberg & the Pittsburgh S.O.: 



 , (2) live with Anatole Fistoulari & the Philharmonia (1960): 



, (3) the later 1974 DG studio recording with Eugen Jochum--one of my favorite Brahms conductors: 



, and (4) Milstein's live account with Pierre Monteux and the Concertgebouw (Monteux was a great Brahms conductor live, & more interesting than most): 




--I also like the passionate warmth of Yehudi Menuhin's interpretation, with Rudolf Kempe & the Berlin Philharmonic, despite Menuhin's occasional intonation lapses: 



. In comparison, I can find Heifetz cold, and slightly aloof.

My historical picks: Bronislaw Hubermann, Adolf Busch, and Yehudi Menuhin (with Furtwangler):


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Josquin13 said:


> In comparison, I can find Heifetz cold, and slightly aloof.


How dare you express such an opinion! You obviously either think slow, ponderous tempos make music profound, or you resent Heifetz for being so great (tall poppy syndrome).

It couldn't be something you actually hear when listening!


----------



## ccar

_"Dear young colleagues of the up-and-coming generation, please have the courage to be yourselves, to take risks and not be copies of your recordings or of others" (Ivry Gitlis)
_
I must confess I've always been moved by the unique artistry of Ivry Gitlis. He is one of those musicians where an extraordinary boldness of phrasing and inflection gives a constant illusion of freedom and improvisation and by the end a rare sense of rediscovery of a musical piece. He left us many recordings but until recently his take of the Brahms concerto was not easily available. After so many wonderful performances already listed it may be interesting to explore this 1980 live recording - if you want a quick sample fasten your seatbelts and just try the last movement (at 30:25)

https://www.thsiam.com/ivryg/HoE7SahWzpI.html


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I listened to Huberman’s Adagio the other night and shed a tear. Then I shed another as I realized Brahms had the same exact reaction when he heard Huberman play the concerto as a 13-year-old. I defy anyone who claims to stand by the composer’s intentions to lecture others about misplaced sentimentality.

Brahms biographer Max Kalbeck:

“As soon as Brahms heard the sound of the violin, he pricked up his ears, during the Andante he wiped his eyes, and after the Finale he went into the green room, embraced the young fellow, and stroked his cheeks. When Huberman complained that the public applauded after the cadenza, breaking into the lovely Cantilena, Brahms replied, ‘You should not have played the cadenza so beautifully.’ ”


----------



## Larkenfield

ccar said:


> _"Dear young colleagues of the up-and-coming generation, please have the courage to be yourselves, to take risks and not be copies of your recordings or of others" (Ivry Gitlis)
> _


Good quote. I heard his entire Brahms performance the other day and felt that he lived up to it in every way by being very much himself. It was one of the most ferocious I've heard and not in a bad way, though I was a bit worn out by the end. He could be sensitive and tender too and I was glad to have heard his unique performance even with its occasional gruffness. I felt he played all-out and held nothing back. I hope other violinists take his advice and make this great concerto their own.


----------



## DaveM

Larkenfield said:


> Good quote. I heard his entire Brahms performance the other day and felt that he lived up to it in every way by being very much himself. It was one of the most ferocious I've heard and not in a bad way, though I was a bit worn out by the end. He could be sensitive and tender too and I was glad to have heard his unique performance even with its occasional gruffness. I felt he played all-out and held nothing back. I hope other violinists take his advice and make this great Concerto their own.


By coincidence, I just started a thread inspired by hearing a recording of the Gitlis Paganini Concerto #1.

Paganini Violin Concerto #1: Another Look


----------



## Pyotr

ccar said:


> _"Dear young colleagues of the up-and-coming generation, please have the courage to be yourselves, to take risks and not be copies of your recordings or of others" (Ivry Gitlis)
> _
> I must confess I've always been moved by the unique artistry of Ivry Gitlis. He is one of those musicians where an extraordinary boldness of phrasing and inflection gives a constant illusion of freedom and improvisation and by the end a rare sense of rediscovery of a musical piece. He left us many recordings but until recently his take of the Brahms concerto was not easily available. After so many wonderful performances already listed it may be interesting to explore this 1980 live recording - if you want a quick sample fasten your seatbelts and just try the last movement (at 30:25)
> 
> https://www.thsiam.com/ivryg/HoE7SahWzpI.html


Ivry Gitlis is one of my favorite soloists. Thanks for posting this. Funny, it's not in his catalog on Wikipedia. Hey, Brahmsianhorn, do we have the 164th here?

Mr. Gitlis is still with us and living in Paris (the last I heard).


----------



## DaveM

ccar said:


> _"Dear young colleagues of the up-and-coming generation, please have the courage to be yourselves, to take risks and not be copies of your recordings or of others" (Ivry Gitlis)
> _
> I must confess I've always been moved by the unique artistry of Ivry Gitlis. He is one of those musicians where an extraordinary boldness of phrasing and inflection gives a constant illusion of freedom and improvisation and by the end a rare sense of rediscovery of a musical piece. He left us many recordings but until recently his take of the Brahms concerto was not easily available. After so many wonderful performances already listed it may be interesting to explore this 1980 live recording - if you want a quick sample fasten your seatbelts and just try the last movement (at 30:25)
> 
> https://www.thsiam.com/ivryg/HoE7SahWzpI.html


That link didn't work for me, but I think this is the same recording:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Pyotr said:


> Ivry Gitlis is one of my favorite soloists. Thanks for posting this. Funny, it's not in his catalog on Wikipedia. Hey, Brahmsianhorn, do we have the 164th here?
> 
> Mr. Gitlis is still with us and living in Paris (the last I heard).
> 
> View attachment 113138


Didn't even know it existed. I'll have to check it out!


----------



## BachIsBest

DavidA said:


> One problem with Brahms is when people play him too slowly he becomes an old bore. The great interpreters of the violin concerto set relatively brisk speeds.


"If you think you're boring your audience, go slower not faster."
-Gustav Mahler


----------



## DavidA

BachIsBest said:


> "If you think you're boring your audience, go slower not faster."
> -Gustav Mahler


An ironic comment. I doubt whether he applied it mechanically across the board. Brahms himself played his own works briskly, apparently. He probably knew even better than Mahler how they should go.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh boy, how long do you guys have?  This is my favorite work. I have 163 recordings of it. Yes you read that correctly. Just over half of these are on CD and the rest downloaded. Yeah, I'm pretty nuts for the piece. It all started 26 years ago when I had a front row seat to hear Joshua Bell, and I was hooked. It is the dark, searching quality of the first movement that most gets me.


You're crazy man! 

I'm not really into Brahms but I think his violin concerto really kicks ***!! I started listening to it quite recently and I'm proud to say I'm the owner of *ONE* recording! New York Philharmonic with Zubin Mehta and Isaac Stern (1979). I really love the sound of the violin here, very powerful, a bit like Itzhak Perlmans' sound on Beethovens Kreutzer Sonata. This concerto really digs in all the things a violin has to offer!

I really should check Perlman's recording!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I just discovered a week ago a video on YouTube of Perlman in the 70s playing it with Lawrence Foster! Haven't listened to it yet, but it will be interesting to hear another version with Perlman at what you'd assume are slightly faster tempos than with Giulini. Unfortunately I find his version with Barenboim fairly stale.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^^^^
So it is another wonderful reading from Perlman in his prime. The third movement is especially well done. Maybe not quite as searching in the first as in his famous recording with Giulini, but certainly more involved than in the later Barenboim rendition.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> An ironic comment. I doubt whether he applied it mechanically across the board. Brahms himself played his own works briskly, apparently. He probably knew even better than Mahler how they should go.


If you are in a hurry, it means you are worried about trying to get to your next destination. You are not being present. You are worried about the passage of time, about other obligations.

If you stop being in a hurry and instead focus 100% on where you are, then you are being entirely present and thus creating genuine interest in what you are saying and true emotional connection. Nothing else going on in the world interferes with the absolute dedication to the music.

Does Mahler's statement really not make sense to you? It is entirely logical.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If you are in a hurry, it means you are worried about trying to get to your next destination. You are not being present. You are worried about the passage of time, about other obligations.
> 
> If you stop being in a hurry and instead focus 100% on where you are, then you are being entirely present and thus creating genuine interest in what you are saying and true emotional connection. Nothing else going on in the world interferes with the absolute dedication to the music.
> 
> Does Mahler's statement really not make sense to you? It is entirely logical.


Yes but we are talking about Brahms not Mahler, if you note! Dawdling through Brahms ought to be made illegal.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Yes but we are talking about Brahms not Mahler, if you note! Dawdling through Brahms ought to be made illegal.


If it is dawdling, then it is not being played in a committed fashion. Again, you can still be connected and interesting at a fast tempo. Huberman is my favorite version and he played the first movement just as fast as Heifeitz. But Perlman/Giulini is also among the greatest.

My point is and has always been that fast simply for the sake of fast is boring. Mahler obviously agrees.

Brahms cried when he heard Huberman play his concerto. I doubt he would have cried at the mechanical Heifetz/Reiner. It is not enough just to play fast. You have to play with dedication, heart, and connection to every note.


----------



## flamencosketches

Been meaning to get into this work—I just got another recording of it, Perlman/Giulini/Chicago, EMI/the GROC reissue. I ordered it on the strength of the great Beethoven VC from this soloist/conductor team, & managed to find it for three dollars shipped, couldn't pass it up, though I haven't heard the whole thing. I also have the Hahn/Marriner/ASMF which I'm not crazy about (though I love the Stravinsky it's paired with) and I now see that I have Oistrakh/Konwitschny/Staatskapelle Dresden which I'm excited to hear as I love the SKD, and the Tchaikovsky VC on the same disc is quite good. 

Seems the Brahms VC was a signature work for Oistrakh and he's recorded it several times. Is there any recording of his generally regarded as the greatest? I see there's a Szell/Cleveland which sounds like a must-hear. How on earth he ended up recording it with Klemperer and the French Radiodiffusion Orchestra is a mystery to me but I expect it's also good. Klemperer is my favorite Brahms conductor. 

Who's been listening to the Brahms VC lately? Today is Brahms's birthday, give it a listen later.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If it is dawdling, then it is not being played in a committed fashion. Again, you can still be connected and interesting at a fast tempo. Huberman is my favorite version and he played the first movement just as fast as Heifeitz. But Perlman/Giulini is also among the greatest.
> 
> My point is and has always been that fast simply for the sake of fast is boring. Mahler obviously agrees.
> 
> _Brahms cried when he heard Huberman play his concerto. I doubt he would have cried at the mechanical Heifetz/Reiner. It is not enough just to play fast. You have to play with dedication, heart, and connection to every note_.


I note you can even make objective statements about what a dead man would or would not have done! :lol:


----------



## wkasimer

flamencosketches said:


> Seems the Brahms VC was a signature work for Oistrakh and he's recorded it several times. Is there any recording of his generally regarded as the greatest? I see there's a Szell/Cleveland which sounds like a must-hear. How on earth he ended up recording it with Klemperer and the French Radiodiffusion Orchestra is a mystery to me but I expect it's also good. Klemperer is my favorite Brahms conductor.


I think that all of Oistrakh's recordings of the work are top-notch, but I prefer the one with Klemperer, partly for the conducting, but also the recording balance is more to my taste.



> Who's been listening to the Brahms VC lately? Today is Brahms's birthday, give it a listen later.


I listen to it at least once a week. Yesterday was Milstein/Steinberg, and I've got Kreisler's first recording waiting in the wings, and Huberman via Spotify. And if I can find it in the stacks of stuff, I'll listen to Oistrakh/Klemperer, too.


----------



## flamencosketches

wkasimer said:


> I think that all of Oistrakh's recordings of the work are top-notch, but I prefer the one with Klemperer, partly for the conducting, but also the recording balance is more to my taste.
> 
> I listen to it at least once a week. Yesterday was Milstein/Steinberg, and I've got Kreisler's first recording waiting in the wings, and Huberman via Spotify. And if I can find it in the stacks of stuff, I'll listen to Oistrakh/Klemperer, too.


A lifelong favorite of yours, eh? I think it is growing on me. I don't like it as much as either of the piano concertos, but there is some really beautiful writing for the violin. I just finished the Perlman/Giulini/Chicago, definitely my new favorite of the three in my library. Very good performance, and just as good as the Perlman/Giulini/Philharmonia Beethoven VC which I also greatly admire.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> Seems the Brahms VC was a signature work for Oistrakh and he's recorded it several times. Is there any recording of his generally regarded as the greatest? I see there's a Szell/Cleveland which sounds like a must-hear. How on earth he ended up recording it with Klemperer and the French Radiodiffusion Orchestra is a mystery to me but I expect it's also good. Klemperer is my favorite Brahms conductor.
> 
> Who's been listening to the Brahms VC lately? Today is Brahms's birthday, give it a listen later.


Oistrakh/Klemperer is an absolutely lovely performance that I think you will love - I'm not as big on the Szell. A couple others that have been favorites of mine since my first days as a Brahmsian have been Francescatti/Bernstein and Perlman/Giulini; though I have not heard too many different versions. I do tend to prefer it at more natural, magisterial tempi because it's definitely not a scintillating virtuoso display. I always get the sensation that Brahms envisioned a folk fiddler improvising around the fire at night while telling stories, and I think that sort of poetic storytelling needs to come through especially in the first movement.

As far as my answers to the OP, the Brahms VC is my favorite such concerto along with the Sibelius. I'm not a big fan of violin concerti normally (don't like the sound of the solo instrument especially in the high registers) but Brahms's rhapsodic, gypsy-like writing is irresistible and gets me every time. The initial entrance of the violin must be the most arresting, heart-stopping such moment in the entire concerto repertory. Unlike some I think the Adagio is lovely and the finale is one of the few times Brahms let his hair down and allowed himself to have some fun.


----------



## flamencosketches

^Do people not like the adagio...? I find it quite beautiful. The finale of this reminds me of the finale to the Sibelius VC, upbeat, bouncy, rather lighthearted, to counterbalance the hugely expansive first movement. 

The Perlman/Giulini really is damn good. As much as I enjoy Szell's conducting, I'll seek out the Klemperer Oistrakh first.


----------



## Knorf

DavidA said:


> I note you can even make objective statements about what a dead man would or would not have done! :lol:


That thread arguing about objectivity in art should give up. Brahmsianhorn: he's got it figured out. We're lucky he's here to teach us.

By the way, I also adore Heifetz's Brahms. Not the only way, clearly, but one of the greats. I know our Master Arbiter of Music thinks it's not good. But I've always had a recusant streak a mile wide.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> ^Do people not like the adagio...? I find it quite beautiful.


Apparently Brahms himself called it a "miserable adagio" and it became somewhat infamous among haughty virtuoso violinists who refused to play it because "the oboe has the only real melody."


----------



## DavidA

Knorf said:


> That thread arguing about objectivity in art should give up. Brahmsianhorn: he's got it figured out. We're lucky he's here to teach us.
> 
> By the way, I also adore Heifetz's Brahms. Not the only way, clearly, but one the greats. I know our Master Arbiter of Music thinks it's not good. But I've always had a recusant streak a mile wide.


It really is an allegro non tropical first movement. I enjoy Oistrach and Fischer and Mutter too. In my objective opinion of course! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Just having a listen to good old Brahms as it's the old boy's birthday. With Heifetz and Reiner of course. 

I found this review of the original 1955 recording from Andrew Porter:
"Heifetz's magnificent reading of the Brahms Violin Concerto has been put on disc most successfully. When the names of the other interpreters available read like a roll of drums, there is perhaps no call for a critic to put his finger on one version and call that the 'best'. But next time someone writes to me asking which set of the work to buy, I shall have little hesitation in answering: Heifetz."

Totally objective of course! :tiphat:


----------



## Knorf

DavidA said:


> Totally objective of course! :tiphat:


Ja, freilich!

I sometimes joke that I like Reiner the best when he's accompanying Heifetz.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I'll add this: If you haven't heard Krebbers/Haitink, you haven't really heard the Brahms Violin Concerto


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'll add this: If you haven't heard Krebbers/Haitink, you haven't really heard the Brahms Violin Concerto




Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.


Really, is it my opinion? I had no idea. I only have 163 versions loaded onto my iphone. Have you heard Krebbers/Haitink? Feel free to give your opinion on it if you have.


----------



## flamencosketches

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Really, is it my opinion? I had no idea. I only have 163 versions loaded onto my iphone. Have you heard Krebbers/Haitink? Feel free to give your opinion on it if you have.


So what you've said is that you could listen through to 162 of them and never hear the Brahms VC once...?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I note you can even make objective statements about what a dead man would or would not have done! :lol:


It's amazing the things that you and your buddy find amusing as you seek ways to slam people you don't agree with. I was basing my statement on the Mahler quote from the previous page. What was controversial about what I said? Nothing, except that you and your pal apparently feel threatened by it. So now I cannot express an opinion because it means I am implying my opinion is fact? That's a real nice way to internet bully someone you don't agree with.

I know times are tough with coronavirus, but can't we all grow up a little?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

flamencosketches said:


> So what you've said is that you could listen through to 162 of them and never hear the Brahms VC once...?


It's a figure of speech. What I'm saying is that Krebbers/Haitink uniquely captures the spirit of the concerto and should be heard by anyone who likes the piece, that's all. As much as I love Huberman/Rodzinski, the Krebbers is my desert island choice if you include sound quality in the mix.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Really, is it my opinion? I had no idea. I only have 163 versions loaded onto my iphone. Have you heard Krebbers/Haitink? Feel free to give your opinion on it if you have.


Yes and no we don't want your opinion on 163 versions


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's amazing the things that you and your buddy find amusing as you seek ways to slam people you don't agree with. I was basing my statement on the Mahler quote from the previous page. What was controversial about what I said? Nothing, except that you and your pal apparently feel threatened by it. So now I cannot express an opinion because it means I am implying my opinion is fact? That's a real nice way to internet bully someone you don't agree with.
> 
> I know times are tough with coronavirus, but can't we all grow up a little?


Why on earth should I feel threatened by you, my old salt? About growing up you need to take your own advice when it comes to maturing into argument. Perhaps no-one has taught you but in print you have to watch the way things come over.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...What I'm saying is that Krebbers/Haitink uniquely captures the spirit of the concerto and should be heard by anyone who likes the piece, that's all...


How about try saying just that? ETA: I for one am far more likely to give that recording a try (if I hadn't already) if you had put it like this, instead of how you did.

It amuses me greatly you think you're somehow being bullied.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> How about try saying just that? ETA: I for one am far more likely to give that recording a try (if I hadn't already) if you had put it like this, instead of how you did.
> 
> It amuses me greatly you think you're somehow being bullied.


If you haven't heard the Krebbers/Haitink, then you haven't really heard the Brahms violin concerto. That's my opinion, and if you have a problem with it I don't give a Karajan.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Yes and no we don't want your opinion on 163 versions


See, statements like that just make me more likely to give my opinions. :tiphat:


----------



## Knorf

Incidentally, I don't know DavidA from David, King of Israel. He's just someone whose writing I've encountered and enjoyed on this Forum, and with whom apparently I share an agreement about disliking certain kinds of unproductive posting styles.

I've heard it said that to really listen, you have to be willing to be changed by the other person. It doesn't mean you _will_ be changed, just that you're willing to be.

In Internet discussion terms, where it is very difficult or impossible to discern tone, it behooves one to conscientiously use language that demonstrates such willingness. Number one, you might learn something new to your own benefit. Number two, it might help you forge a valuable bond with another person, precipitating a further, productive exchange of ideas. Number three, it's just good manners.

When engaging with someone on the Internet, if I perceive that the other person is merely determined to win an argument, receive praise only for their own opinion, or cannot or will not admit that there might be another angle to consider, it quickly becomes apparent that continuing to engage with that person is totally pointless.

If one is not willing to change their opinions about recordings of Classical music, and learn something new, that person is clearly going to be frustrated over and over. (When the other kids stand up to a bully, it is common for the bully to then present themselves as the victim. And then the bully learns nothing and keeps bullying.)

Disclaimer: I am not claiming I am an expert at productive Internet posting, only that I do reflect on what I post, and I do put forth the effort. For instance, I have already begun reconsidering recordings that I had previously dismissed, because of what I've read here, from people with whom I was having a disagreement. Heck148, in particular, as persuaded me to revisit Reiner's recordings of Richard Strauss. I haven't done so, yet, but I will. Becca has persuaded me to reconsider Barbirolli's Mahler. Etc.

Peace and prosperity to you all. In the end, we all share a wonderful thing: a passion for Classical music, something that is sadly all too rare nowadays.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Incidentally, I don't know DavidA from David, King of Israel. He's just someone whose writing I've encountered and enjoyed on this Forum, and with whom apparently I share an agreement about disliking certain kinds of unproductive posting styles.
> 
> I've heard it said that to really listen, you have to be willing to be changed by the other person. It doesn't mean you _will_ be changed, just that you're willing to be.
> 
> In Internet discussion terms, where it is very difficult or impossible to discern tone, it behooves one to conscientiously use language that demonstrates such willingness. Number one, you might learn something new to your own benefit. Number two, it might help you forge a valuable bond with another person, precipitating a further, productive exchange of ideas. Number three, it's just good manners.
> 
> When engaging with someone on the Internet, if I perceive that the other person is merely determined to win an argument, receive praise only for their own opinion, or cannot or will not admit that there might be another angle to consider, it quickly becomes apparent that continuing to engage with that person is totally pointless.
> 
> If one is not willing to change their opinions about recordings of Classical music, and learn something new, that person is clearly going to be frustrated over and over. (When the other kids stand up to a bully, it is common for the bully to then present themselves as the victim. And then the bully learns nothing and keeps bullying.)
> 
> Disclaimer: I am not claiming I am an expert at productive Internet posting, only that I do reflect on what I post, and I do put forth the effort. For instance, I have already begun reconsidering recordings that I had previously dismissed, because of what I've read here, from people with whom I was having a disagreement. Heck148, in particular, as persuaded me to revisit Reiner's recordings of Richard Strauss. I haven't done so, yet, but I will. Becca has persuaded me to reconsider Barbirolli's Mahler. Etc.
> 
> Peace and prosperity to you all. In the end, we all share a wonderful thing: a passion for Classical music, something that is sadly all too rare nowadays.


This is absolute BS. I am completely open to any opinion and willing to change my mind on anything and learn from others. That's the whole reason I post here!!! The reality is you don't like my opinions and so that is why you get personal. Read your post and look in the mirror.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is absolute BS. I am completely open to any opinion and willing to change my mind on anything and learn from others. That's the whole reason I post here!!! The reality is you don't like my opinions and so that is why you get personal. Read your post and look in the mirror.


Sadly that reply somewhat demonstrates Knorf'spoint.


----------



## DaveM

Geez guys, give the guy a break. It’s a pretty impressive list. So what if he has a fixed preference and doesn’t express it perfectly. It’s not as if he’s the first around here.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Sadly that reply somewhat demonstrates Knorf'spoint.


Good grief, I know what's inside my own mind. But if I disagree with someone saying I'm not open to others' opinions that proves his point? Might as well throw me underwater to prove if I'm a witch. If I come up for air you've then proved yourself correct. Congrats.

Mind you when I call this internet bullying, I don't mean effectively so. More of the clownish variety.


----------



## Rogerx

Boris Belkin (violin)-London Symphony Orchestra- Iván Fischer is still one of my favorites also Itzhak Perlman -Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Carlo Maria Giulini.
Recently I bought :Jack Liebeck (violin), BBC Symphony Orchestra, Andrew Gourlay.
Right in my top ten.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's a figure of speech. What I'm saying is that Krebbers/Haitink uniquely captures the spirit of the concerto and should be heard by anyone who likes the piece, that's all. As much as I love Huberman/Rodzinski, the Krebbers is my desert island choice if you include sound quality in the mix.


I went to my shelf last night to find Krebbers/Haitink - I remembered liking it, but it's been a few years - and I couldn't find it, which means that it's buried in one of the many piles of unfiled CD's littering my home and office. Rather than spend hours looking for it, I ordered a new copy from a reliable Amazon reseller (Orpheus - highly recommended) and played Krebbers/Mengelberg instead.

Listening to Auclair/van Otterloo at the moment.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Good grief, I know what's inside my own mind. But if I disagree with someone saying I'm not open to others' opinions that proves his point? Might as well throw me underwater to prove if I'm a witch. If I come up for air you've then proved yourself correct. Congrats.
> 
> Mind you when I call this internet bullying, I don't mean effectively so. More of the clownish variety.


Come on, stop name calling!


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> I went to my shelf last night to find Krebbers/Haitink - I remembered liking it, but it's been a few years - and I couldn't find it, which means that it's buried in one of the many piles of unfiled CD's littering my home and office. Rather than spend hours looking for it, I ordered a new copy from a reliable Amazon reseller (Orpheus - highly recommended) and played Krebbers/Mengelberg instead.
> 
> Listening to Auclair/van Otterloo at the moment.


Krebbers became concertmaster of the Concertgebouw Orchestra in 1962. His recording of the Brahms with Megelberg was made in 1942 in Nazi occupied Holland. During the Second World War, Krebbers became a member of the Nederlandse Kultuurkamer, under the control of the Third Reich. This subsequently led to a 2-year ban on performances by him after the war. Of course, after the war the Dutch disowned Megelberg


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> I went to my shelf last night to find Krebbers/Haitink - I remembered liking it, but it's been a few years - and I couldn't find it, which means that it's buried in one of the many piles of unfiled CD's littering my home and office. Rather than spend hours looking for it, I ordered a new copy from a reliable Amazon reseller (Orpheus - highly recommended) and played Krebbers/Mengelberg instead.
> 
> Listening to Auclair/van Otterloo at the moment.


Didn't you once say you were familiar with the David Nadien? I might be imagining that


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Didn't you once say you were familiar with the David Nadien? I might be imagining that


No, I think that I did mention his recording of the Brahms - I picked up a bunch of his recordings a couple of years ago from Berkshire Record Outlet. I do like his Brahms concerto recording a great deal, although I suspect that it wouldn't be a top choice for many people due to the sound and the orchestra. Nadien's playing, though, is superb.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> No, I think that I did mention his recording of the Brahms - I picked up a bunch of his recordings a couple of years ago from Berkshire Record Outlet. I do like his Brahms concerto recording a great deal, although I suspect that it wouldn't be a top choice for many people due to the sound and the orchestra. Nadien's playing, though, is superb.


I'll give it a listen. Glad I remembered that correctly. According to a certain someone I never listen to anybody....


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'll give it a listen. Glad I remembered that correctly. According to a certain someone I never listen to anybody....


It's number 130 on your list...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> It's number 130 on your list...


Yes, it's in my phone sandwiched in between Szeryng/Haitink and Krebbers/Haitink, so I'm guessing it was recorded in 1973 unless I filed it wrong


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh boy, how long do you guys have?  This is my favorite work. I have 163 recordings of it. Yes you read that correctly. Just over half of these are on CD and the rest downloaded. Yeah, I'm pretty nuts for the piece. It all started 26 years ago when I had a front row seat to hear Joshua Bell, and I was hooked. It is the dark, searching quality of the first movement that most gets me.
> 
> As far as recordings go, let me start by saying I am NOT a big fan of the famous Heifetz/Reiner version. I remember reading the reviews in the mid-90s and excitedly purchasing it, only to be sorely disappointed. Heifetz and Reiner toss it off as a showpiece, which it is not. I must hear struggle and heart to like a Brahms VC recording. Ironically enough, Heifetz's earlier account with Koussevitzky is one of my absolute favorites. In that recording I hear true poetry.
> 
> Admittedly biased as I am, I do not think there is another piece in all of the classical music repertoire that has been as lucky on disc as this one. I believe it is THE work to demonstrate your chops as a violinist, even more than the Beethoven. And sure enough, there are literally dozens of GREAT readings from every violinist imaginable.
> 
> It is hard to round down, but I would have to say the following are the most essential renditions for everyone to hear once:
> 
> Bronislaw Huberman/Artur Rodzinski (Pristine, Music & Arts)
> Fritz Kreisler/Leo Blech (Naxos, Music & Arts, Biddulph, Pearl)
> Jascha Heifetz/Serge Koussevitzky (RCA, Naxos, IDIS)
> Joseph Szigeti/Sir Hamilton Harty (EMI, Naxos)
> Adolf Busch/Hans Münch (Guild, Music & Arts, Arbiter)
> Ginette Neveu/Roger Desormière (Tahra, SWR)
> Efrem Zimbalist/Serge Koussevitzky (Doremi, Pristine)
> Georg Kulenkampff/Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt (Dutton, Pearl)
> Christian Ferras/Rudolf Kempe (Archipel)
> Erica Morini/George Szell (Music & Arts)
> Itzhak Perlman/Carlo Maria Giulini (EMI)
> David Oistrakh/George Szell (EMI)
> Johanna Martzy/Paul Kletzki (Testament)
> Herman Krebbers/Bernard Haitink (Philips)
> Nathan Milstein/Anatole Fistoulari (Praga, EMI)
> Anne-Sophie Mutter/Kurt Masur (DG)


I've now heard all but two of these (I haven't heard Morini/Szell or Ferras/Kempe, but I've heard these violinists in other recordings of the work), and largely agree with you about these, although I do have a considerably higher opinion of some of the recordings fairly far down on your list (Szeryng/Monteux, and the various Milsteins and Kogans, as well as a couple of modern recordings like Tetzlaff's).

The one that mystifies me, though, is Perlman/Giulini, which I actively dislike. The first movement isn't merely too slow, it seems uninflected and lacks momentum. I know that this is a very, very popular recording, so maybe I'm just being perverse.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> I've now heard all but two of these (I haven't heard Morini/Szell or Ferras/Kempe, but I've heard these violinists in other recordings of the work), and largely agree with you about these, although I do have a considerably higher opinion of some of the recordings fairly far down on your list (Szeryng/Monteux, and the various Milsteins and Kogans, as well as a couple of modern recordings like Tetzlaff's).
> 
> The one that mystifies me, though, is Perlman/Giulini, which I actively dislike. The first movement isn't merely too slow, it seems uninflected and lacks momentum. I know that this is a very, very popular recording, so maybe I'm just being perverse.


I remember listening to cold, unfeeling Heifetz/Reiner in my dorm room in college and disiking it intensely, then popping in Perlman/Giulini to hear what true dark angst sounds like. Just the way I hear it.

I have never warmed to Szerying/Monteux or Grumiaux/Van Beinum nearly as much as others have, so I guess there are readings that mystify us all. Your feelings on Perlman/Giulini summarize mine on Rachel Barton Pine. I cannot hear what in the world anyone else does in that recording.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> I've now heard all but two of these (I haven't heard Morini/Szell or Ferras/Kempe, but I've heard these violinists in other recordings of the work), and largely agree with you about these, although I do have a considerably higher opinion of some of the recordings fairly far down on your list (Szeryng/Monteux, and the various Milsteins and Kogans, as well as a couple of modern recordings like Tetzlaff's).
> 
> The one that mystifies me, though, is Perlman/Giulini, which I actively dislike. *The first movement isn't merely too slow, it seems uninflected and lacks momentum.* I know that this is a very, very popular recording, so maybe I'm just being perverse.


To play Brahms too slowly is a mistake. Giulini had a habit of choosing funeral tempi towards the end of his career. Julia Fischer gives a good medium way. Really super.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I remember listening to cold, unfeeling Heifetz/Reiner in my dorm room in college and disiking it intensely, then popping in Perlman/Giulini to hear what true dark angst sounds like. Just the way I hear it.


I thought that you were exaggerating, but since I hadn't listened to Heifetz/Reiner in years, I listened to the first movement today, but that was all I could take. But I wouldn't call it "cold". The adjective that came to mind was "brutal".


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> Julia Fischer gives a good medium way. Really super.


She gave a lovely performance with Dutoit and the BSO a few years back, but I find her recording technically perfect and extremely bland. It's not the speed of the Heifetz that bothers me as much as the feeling that he's trying to saw the violin in half. And I don't mind slow, either, but the conductor and soloist need to do something with all that time, and there needs to be forward momentum.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

wkasimer said:


> I thought that you were exaggerating, but since I hadn't listened to Heifetz/Reiner in years, I listened to the first movement today, but that was all I could take. But I wouldn't call it "cold". The adjective that came to mind was "brutal".


That's how I feel about all the Heifetz stereo recordings. "Brutal" is exactly the word - the tone is so sheer and cutting and the violin is miked so close that it almost sounds like a computer. Perfect playing, but absolutely no expression. Of course just my opinion!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> That's how I feel about all the Heifetz stereo recordings. "Brutal" is exactly the word - the tone is so sheer and cutting and the violin is miked so close that it almost sounds like a computer. Perfect playing, but absolutely no expression. Of course just my opinion!


I feel like channeling Toscanini and yelling "Assassins!" at hearing this treatment of my beloved Brahms VC


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Listened to Perlman/Giulini a bit tonight and was reminded of the uniquely dark, introspective world it inhabits. I honestly never thought about the tempo much. It's noticeable in the orchestral introduction. But once Perlman enters I am captivated. It is his impassioned artistry which keeps me anticipating what comes next, so there is never the feeling of trudging along.

Also listened to Nadien. I found myself wishing I could just hear him without the orchestra. It definitely is a uniquely poetic version. I love the way he plays so quietly that it feels like he is barely brushing the notes. His first movement cadenza is the highlight of the performance. Not among the greatest but certainly worth hearing.


----------



## DavidA

Allegro Con Brio said:


> That's how I feel about all the Heifetz stereo recordings. "Brutal" is exactly the word - the tone is so sheer and cutting and the violin is miked so close that it almost sounds like a computer. Perfect playing, but absolutely no expression. Of course just my opinion!


Of course, it depends what you means by expression. There is of course lots of expression . Just that he takes allegro non troppo at its face value


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Listened to Perlman/Giulini a bit tonight and was reminded of *the uniquely dark, introspective world it inhabits*. I honestly never thought about the tempo much. It's noticeable in the orchestral introduction. But once Perlman enters I am captivated. It is his impassioned artistry which keeps me anticipating what comes next, so there is never the feeling of trudging along.
> 
> Also listened to Nadien. I found myself wishing I could just hear him without the orchestra. It definitely is a uniquely poetic version. I love the way he plays so quietly that it feels like he is barely brushing the notes. His first movement cadenza is the highlight of the performance. Not among the greatest but certainly worth hearing.


Does it? Your problem is that you have this dour view of Brahms


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Does it? Your problem is that you have this dour view of Brahms


Thanks, I'll work on that. I always thought my love for Brahms was based in a misguided view of his music.

Of course there are several other versions I like even better than Perlman, so maybe there is some hope for me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Egads! Look at this review I just found on Amazon. Another misguided soul who needs correction on how to interpret Brahms!

"Five stars for sound quality. Five stars for the Tchaikovsky, but only two stars for the Brahms.
I’ve listened to Perlman’s version virtually every day for the last five years, just before going to sleep. Its dreamy, sliding, falling atmosphere takes me to far off land. I thought I’d give another version a try so I bought this. Heifetz plays it too fast for my tastes. I’m not sure if it’s his “fault” or Reiner’s. Almost 3 minutes faster than most others. Perlman’s is much better IMO."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Another one! This one cannot even type. Lyricism in Brahms? What a sentimental weakling.

"In the concert of Brahms, find another recording. I recommend David Oistrakh, wich with Heifetz is the greatest violinist of the century. Oistrakh recorded several times this concert of Brahms, and is unbeatable!

Heifetz gave in Brahms's concert an excess of acceleration, and thus sacrifices the lyricism of Brahms that the work requires."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

"Heifetz's performance of Brahms concerto is, likewise, consummate. However, I have heard some violinists legitimately complain about the speed with which Mr. Heifetz plays; it doesn't feel entirely appropriate to the first movement of Brahms."

Show me these so-called violinists. They require correction.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

This person has no ears.

"Like reviewer cantabile I must take a minority position on this CD -- and indeed on most recordings by Heifetz. Yes the man was a spectacular virtuoso, but it seems to me that he was usually so busy playing fast and showing off his virtuosity that he paid little attention to artistry."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I may not sleep tonight reading such hideous reviews.

"Heifetz is an outstanding master of technique, as is exhibited in his performances of "show pieces" (such as wienawski and paganini caprices). However, his recordings are stripped of beauty and emotion. The best example of this is the 1st mvmt. of the brahms. The tempo is absurdly fast, and unlike almost everyone else he takes no time to enjoy some of the most beautiful parts of the movement."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Your problem, sir, is you have a dour view of Brahms (I stole that)

"I said in this review about a magical blending of pathos and lyricism. "pathos" and tragedy: some sections are really dramatic and should be played with the appropiate urgency, but there are moments where poetry is the centre of the passage. And that is where Reiner fails. For heifetz is one of the best violinists and is a great concerto artist, but fell in a wrong field. Reiner suffered from his eyes, did you know? And here he forgot his glasses. He couldnt read the score, namely the parts marked MA NON TROPPO!!!!!!! Where is the elegiac, autummnal quality that gives this concerto his fragance? please, Reiner spoils this best of the best concertos with that speed."


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> Does it? Your problem is that you have this dour view of Brahms


What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your problem, sir, is you have a dour view of Brahms (I stole that)
> 
> "I said in this review about a magical blending of pathos and lyricism. "pathos" and tragedy: some sections are really dramatic and should be played with the appropiate urgency, but there are moments where poetry is the centre of the passage. And that is where Reiner fails. For heifetz is one of the best violinists and is a great concerto artist, but fell in a wrong field. Reiner suffered from his eyes, did you know? And here he forgot his glasses. He couldnt read the score, namely the parts marked MA NON TROPPO!!!!!!! Where is the elegiac, autummnal quality that gives this concerto his fragance? please, Reiner spoils this best of the best concertos with that speed."


Not all of the blame belongs to Reiner - Heifetz was certainly a willing accomplice.


----------



## flamencosketches

Y'all are making me really want to hear the Heifetz/Reiner. It must be good if it's inspired such a strong reaction.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Not all of the blame belongs to Reiner - Heifetz was certainly a willing accomplice.


Sure, but on the other hand it is truly bizarre that Heifetz/Koussevitzky is one of my top 5 favorites! Heifetz did tend IMO to get more into autopilot mode later in his career. As for Reiner, he did a wonderful Brahms 1st piano concerto with Rubinstein around the same time. Even better is an earlier version with Serkin & Pittsburgh SO that is absolutely on fire.

As a 20-year-old I didn't think I had the "right" to not like a version hailed as a classic, so I kept listening to Heifetz/Reiner again and again thinking there was something I was missing. It's not terrible. There are just others IMO that tell more of the full story of the concerto as opposed to just the soloist.

I'd say the most critically acclaimed versions I've heard about in my lifetime - regardless of my personal reaction - have been:

Heifetz/Reiner
Oistrakh/Klemperer
Milstein/Fistoulari
Perlman/Giulini
Oistrakh/Szell
Neveu/Dobrowen
Oistrakh/Konwitschny
Milstein/Steinberg
Szeryng/Monteux
Kreisler/Blech
Szigeti/Harty
Grumiaux/Van Beinum
Menuhin/Furtwängler
Mutter/Masur


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^Trout’s list of recommended recordings back on page 1 seems to agree for the most part:

1.	Heifetz, Reiner (cond.), Chicago Symphony Orchestra	(1955)
2.	Oistrakh, Klemperer (cond.), French National Radio Orchestra (1958)
3.	Oistrakh, Szell (cond.), Cleveland Orchestra	(1969)
4.	Szeryng, Monteux (cond.), London Symphony Orchestra (1958)
5.	Neveu, Dobrowen (cond.), Philharmonia Orchestra (1946)
6.	Oistrakh, Konwitschny (cond.), Staatskapelle Dresden (1954)
7.	Hahn, Marriner (cond.), Academy of St. Martin in the Fields (2000)
8.	Milstein, Steinberg (cond.), Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra (1954)
9.	Szigeti, Harty (cond.), Hallé Orchestra	(1928)
10.	Mutter, Karajan (cond.), Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra	(1981)

Of the ones on that list my favorite might have to be the Szigeti/Harty, which despite the age of the recording is extremely beautiful.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> "Heifetz's performance of Brahms concerto is, likewise, consummate. However, I have heard some violinists legitimately complain about the speed with which Mr. Heifetz plays; it doesn't feel entirely appropriate to the first movement of Brahms."
> 
> Show me these so-called violinists. They require correction.


No doubt those violins object as they can't play it like Heifetz! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> What on earth are you talking about?


What you were talking about. Perlman'sslowness


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your problem, sir, is you have a dour view of Brahms (I stole that)
> 
> "I said in this review about a magical blending of pathos and lyricism. "pathos" and tragedy: some sections are really dramatic and should be played with the appropiate urgency, but there are moments where poetry is the centre of the passage. And that is where Reiner fails. For heifetz is one of the best violinists and is a great concerto artist, but fell in a wrong field. Reiner suffered from his eyes, did you know? And here he forgot his glasses. He couldnt read the score, namely the parts marked MA NON TROPPO!!!!!!! Where is the elegiac, autummnal quality that gives this concerto his fragance? please, Reiner spoils this best of the best concertos with that speed."


You have missed the fact it says Allegro non troppo not non troppo


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> No doubt those violins object as they can't play it like Heifetz! :lol:


Exactly! These so-called "artists" are just jealous


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> What you were talking about. Perlman'sslowness


Perlman can't play his way out of a paper bag. He probably complained to the recording engineer that his fingers hurt from playing too fast, so they slowed it down for him.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You have missed the fact it says Allegro non troppo not non troppo


I call misguided people like that Brahms Dourists


----------



## flamencosketches

The Oistrakh/Konwitschny/Dresden is damn good!! Wow! The sound ain't too bad either for 1954 mono, but I know of other recordings from 1954 which absolutely blow it out of the water. So consensus is that this is least of Oistrakh's three recordings...?! OK, I have to hear the others ASAP... Don't know why, but I think I may be becoming slightly obsessed with the Brahms VC. Oh, and I ordered the Heifetz/Reiner. I liked what I was hearing, and if this means that I'm a philistine who doesn't understand the work, then so be it...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

flamencosketches said:


> Oh, and I ordered the Heifetz/Reiner. I liked what I was hearing, and if this means that I'm a philistine who doesn't understand the work, then so be it...


Preference is preference. I never put down people due to a different preference from mine. That would be dour on my part.


----------



## wkasimer

flamencosketches said:


> The Oistrakh/Konwitschny/Dresden is damn good!! Wow! The sound ain't too bad either for 1954 mono, but I know of other recordings from 1954 which absolutely blow it out of the water. So consensus is that this is least of Oistrakh's three recordings...?!


I don't think that's a consensus at all. A lot of people love that Konwitschny recording.

BTW, there are a lot more than three Oistrakh recordings....


----------



## flamencosketches

wkasimer said:


> I don't think that's a consensus at all. A lot of people love that Konwitschny recording.
> 
> BTW, there are a lot more than three Oistrakh recordings....


I'm seeing that now. Would it be fair to say that it is (along with Szell/Cleveland & Klemperer/Radiodiffusion) among one of Oistrakh's three most popular recordings, or not even? Anyway I really enjoyed it.


----------



## DavidA

flamencosketches said:


> I'm seeing that now. Would it be fair to say that it is (along with Szell/Cleveland & Klemperer/Radiodiffusion) among one of Oistrakh's three most popular recordings, or not even? Anyway I really enjoyed it.


I've Oistrakh with Klemperer which is really goid.


----------



## wkasimer

flamencosketches said:


> I'm seeing that now. Would it be fair to say that it is (along with Szell/Cleveland & Klemperer/Radiodiffusion) among one of Oistrakh's three most popular recordings, or not even? Anyway I really enjoyed it.


They're certainly the best known, since they're the three commercial studio recordings that have been around and continuously available for decades. The others are live, harder to find, and generally don't sound as good.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

flamencosketches said:


> I'm seeing that now. Would it be fair to say that it is (along with Szell/Cleveland & Klemperer/Radiodiffusion) among one of Oistrakh's three most popular recordings, or not even? Anyway I really enjoyed it.


I have 13 Oistrakh's. IMO he is better live. Here is how I rank them:

1.	David Oistrakh/Otmar Nussio (Ermitage, Aura) *****
2.	David Oistrakh/Kirill Kondrashin (1963 rec.) (BBC) *****
3.	David Oistrakh/Otto Klemperer (EMI) *****
4.	David Oistrakh/George Szell (EMI) ****1/2
5.	David Oistrakh/Charles Bruck (INA) ****1/2
6.	David Oistrakh/Sir Malcolm Sargent (BBC) ****1/2
7.	David Oistrakh/Kirill Kondrashin (1952 rec.) (Melodiya, Omega, Urania, Moscow Studio) ****1/2
8.	David Oistrakh/Hermann Abendroth (Tahra, Scribendum) ****
9.	David Oistrakh/Franz Konwitschny (DG, Profil, Ds Classics) ****
10.	David Oistrakh/Antonio Pedrotti (Supraphon, Multisonic) ****
11.	David Oistrakh/Fritz Rieger (Archipel) ****
12.	David Oistrakh/Gennadi Rozhdestvensky (1966 rec.) (EMG, Leningrad Masters, Icone) ****
13.	David Oistrakh/Witold Rowicki (CD Accord) ***1/2


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

After the Klemperer, Szell, and Konwitschny versions, Oistrakh's best known is the 1952 studio with Kondrashin. It is more lithe Oistrakh than we are used to. A wonderful recording in pretty good sound. I know some people by swear by it.

All Oistrkakh's versions are great. Calling any of them the "least" is a misnomer.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> After the Klemperer, Szell, and Konwitschny versions, Oistrakh's best known is the 1952 studio with Kondrashin. It is more lithe Oistrakh than we are used to. A wonderful recording in pretty good sound. I know some people by swear by it.


It may just be the transfer that I have, but Oistrakh is so closely recorded that the sound is rather unpleasant. This is the version I have:









I'm listening to his version with Sargent (BBC label) right now, and finding that much more to my taste.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> It may just be the transfer that I have, but Oistrakh is so closely recorded that the sound is rather unpleasant. This is the version I have:
> 
> View attachment 135650
> 
> 
> I'm listening to his version with Sargent (BBC label) right now, and finding that much more to my taste.


Yes, that was my impression as well. The Omega issue has less clarity but better balance IIRC:


----------



## DaveM

The Brahms Violin Concerto was my introduction to classical music (other than Peter and the Wolf & Hansel & Gretel as a 3 year old) when, as a little guy, found a dusty 78rpm album of the Szigeti/Ormandy in the basement. A couple of years later while still in elementary school I finally found something close to the Szigeti in the Berl Senofsky on a non-stereo LP.

Over the years I've heard some excellent recordings of the Brahms, but the one that has moved me particularly lately is by Lisa Batiashvili. Her interpretation, tone and overall bow-control is exquisite. She's using the Joachim Strad that was the Violin used at the concerto's premiere, one of the most glorious violins I've ever heard. The ambience in the recorded concert hall is similar to the Concertgebouw:


----------



## wkasimer

Here's another opinion:


----------



## marlow

wkasimer said:


> Here's another opinion:


How does this guy manage to be so irritating?


----------



## wkasimer

marlow said:


> How does this guy manage to be so irritating?


Yeah, his delivery is annoying, but it's hard to argue with any of those choices.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I've said for a long time that Hurwitz is a hack who doesn't understand or hear differences in artistic nuance, and this video further proves it. He states at one point that it is a "secret" of the reviewing trade that there is not much difference between performances once they reach a certain technical level. Well, that may be so for a technicrat like Hurwitz, but not for the rest of us! He really is barely capable of commenting on anything other than intonation, balance and sound quality. No wonder he refers to people who hear beyond these rudimentary criteria as "delusional."

Pretty vanilla video. Biggest surprise is he didn't mention Szeryng/Monteux, which is surprising as he never fails to mention a Monteux recording when the opportunity arises. 

Also too bad he thinks it is too much work to know Milstein recorded a later EMI with Fistoulari. IMO it is a better performance in addition to being better recorded than the Steinberg.

The big omission is Perlman/Giulini, but that's not a big surprise since Hurwitz is more technical and not a "heart" guy.

I'm a "spirit of the work" type, and I 'm leaning more and more to rating Krebbers/Haitink the top version of all. He just nails it. It is obvious Krebbers had a long association with and understood the Brahms inside and out. Even the final movement, which can get tedious after multiple hearings, has a unique rhythmic inflection and sense of joy.

.


----------



## FrankinUsa

The Hurwitz Obsession rears it’s ugly head again.


----------



## Philidor

Hurwitz wrote a book on Shostakovich symphonies and concertos. Read his analysis of the first movement of the first symphony and compare to the score, and you get an idea what to think of his "reviews".

I would say that they are mixed. Sometimes they seem to hit the (my) truth, sometimes they are fully extraterritorial. You can roll the dice as well to get an idea about some recording.


----------



## marlow

For Brahms turn to Heifetz's early recording with Kousevitsky


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I've always enjoyed Grumiaux's way with this concerto, which reflects the tension in Brahms between his Classical and Romantic instincts. His recording with Davis is a good one but even better in my book is the one with van Beinum accompanying.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Pretty vanilla video. Biggest surprise is he didn't mention Szeryng/Monteux, which is surprising as he never fails to mention a Monteux recording when the opportunity arises.


Perhaps Hurwitz doesn't care much for Szeryng, or wanted to stick to recordings that are pretty easy to find. For some reason, the Szeryng/Monteux appears to be OOP - I think that the only US release on CD was in the RCA "Papillon" series, which features some pretty nasty sonics, as I recall.



> Also too bad he thinks it is too much work to know Milstein recorded a later EMI with Fistoulari. IMO it is a better performance in addition to being better recorded than the Steinberg.


As I'm sure that you're aware, there are about a dozen recordings of Milstein playing the Brahms concerto - did you really expect Hurwitz to discuss them all? If I find fault with Hurwitz in this video, it's that he gives rather short shrift to the contribution of the conductors.



> The big omission is Perlman/Giulini, but that's not a big surprise since Hurwitz is more technical and not a "heart" guy.


Well, he's not alone. I don't hear much "heart" in Perlman's Brahms, either. All I hear is a slow, bloated performance.


----------



## wkasimer

marlow said:


> View attachment 164165
> 
> 
> For Brahms turn to Heifetz's early recording with Kousevitsky


One of my favorite Heifetz discs.


----------



## EvaBaron

wkasimer said:


> Perhaps Hurwitz doesn't care much for Szeryng, or wanted to stick to recordings that are pretty easy to find. For some reason, the Szeryng/Monteux appears to be OOP - I think that the only US release was in the RCA "Papillon" series, which features some pretty nasty sonics, as I recall


 Hurwitz just posted a video (music chat) about Szeryng's recording of the Brahms violin concerto titled 'does Szerying's Brahms violin concerto really matter?'


----------



## wkasimer

EvaBaron said:


> Hurwitz just posted a video (music chat) about Szeryng's recording of the Brahms violin concerto titled 'does Szerying's Brahms violin concerto really matter?'


Hurwitz admits what's pretty obvious - he's really not making these videos for people who are aficionados of the works he covers. He's making them for people who might not be quite so familiar.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

In the comments yesterday the most mentioned omission was Szeryng/Monteux. Incidentally, it’s not one of my top recordings either (my list is on page one of the thread, though later on I made some changes). I was just surprised that he omitted it since the entire video was just a vanilla recitation of the most popular recordings with no in-depth description.

There were also a couple of mentions of Krebbers/Haitink.


----------



## marlow

wkasimer said:


> Perhaps Hurwitz doesn't care much for Szeryng, or wanted to stick to recordings that are pretty easy to find. For some reason, the Szeryng/Monteux appears to be OOP - I think that the only US release on CD was in the RCA "Papillon" series, which features some pretty nasty sonics, as I recall.
> 
> As I'm sure that you're aware, there are about a dozen recordings of Milstein playing the Brahms concerto - did you really expect Hurwitz to discuss them all? If I find fault with Hurwitz in this video, it's that he gives rather short shrift to the contribution of the conductors.
> 
> Well, he's not alone. I don't hear much "heart" in Perlman's Brahms, either. All I hear is a slow, bloated performance.


I always feel it's a mistake to play it too slowly. Same with the Beethoven. They are not meant to be played slowly

This one is good


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

There are many ways to skin a cat. The opening movement has a variety of moods. The Perlman/Giulini is beautiful.

Maybe we need a poll for this work.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I like Julia Fischer's recording too, but I find myself wishing she had a bigger tone here and there.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Pretty vanilla video. Biggest surprise is he didn't mention Szeryng/Monteux, which is surprising as he never fails to mention a Monteux recording when the opportunity arises.







Hmmm, somebody listening?



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've said for a long time that *Hurwitz is a hack who doesn't understand or hear differences in artistic nuance*, and this video further proves it. He states at one point that it is a "secret" of the reviewing trade that there is not much difference between performances once they reach a certain technical level. Well, that may be so for a technicrat like Hurwitz, but not for the rest of us! He really is barely capable of commenting on anything other than intonation, balance and sound quality. No wonder he refers to people who hear beyond these rudimentary criteria as "delusional."


9:28 of the video - "That's why I think these cultists, the Furtwangler people, the whatever people, are all crazy. because you're looking for teeny teeny tiny differences and you're tremendously exaggerating their value. *And I don't hear it.* I think you're simply being, you're hallucinating when you do that. You're making things up!"

Bwahahaha!

What did I just tell you??? What have I always said about Hurwitz? He doesn't understand artistic nuance. He has no idea what the difference is between this recording or that recording. He is a hack and a charlatan. He does these videos where he simply throws up well-known versions and acts as if he was the one who did the homework of deciphering what made them great. He has no clue outside of simple technical matters of intonation and sound quality.

But what is worse is that he literally believes that people who do hear the differences - which includes both the vast majority of professional critics as well as the casual listener - are making the differences up! What I have always wanted to confront Hurwitz with is how can people independently come to the same conclusions if they are making it up? According to your asinine theory, there should be no consensus choices at all. There should just be a random jungle of people making things up. Even accounting for differences in taste, you still end up with "factions" of consensus opinions, e.g. some people think the Perlman/Giulini displays spirit and heart, while others just hear it as slow and bloated. So a competent reviewer knows what the Perlman/Giulini offers artistically that is different from other versions and that some will like and some won't.

As to the question of whether Szeryng is necessary, for me personally the answer is not so much. But I personally rate him lower because like Grumiaux I think he is a little dull compared to other versions. Simply well-played and lyrical. But I absolutely respect and acknowledge that others hear it differently because they have different criteria than me. Not everyone values individuality. And yet I keep them both on my shelf because sometimes I want to hear the concerto that way. Or maybe I listen to Huberman for dramatic angst, or Krebbers for beautiful tone and songful connection, or Perlman/Giulini for the mysterious dark colors, or Heifetz/Reiner for just-the-facts cutting bravura, or Heifetz/Koussevitzky for unmatched poetic assurance, or Milstein/Fistoulari for fast and beautifully lyrical, etc.

The point is that these differences exist. Most of the classical music world knows this. But this egotistical charlatan denies it. And don't tell me he is speaking to the newbie audience. That is a crock. I have often played recordings for newbies and they can tell the differences. Hell, I have played several recordings of the Brahms violin concerto for my girlfriend of 6 months - who didn't know the piece at all before she met me much less the majority of the classical music canon - and she recently commented on one, "That was good, but I like Krebbers better." Similarly, I have played the Furtwangler 1942 Beethoven 9th for many people over the decades, the one Hurwitz thinks is no different from his other versions except being in poor sound, and even newbies to classical music hear the intensity and use the same adjectives to describe what they hear.

People are not all as stupid as David Hurwitz. You are speaking to yourself, David, not the actual classical music audience!



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Also too bad he thinks it is too much work to know Milstein recorded a later EMI with Fistoulari. IMO it is a better performance in addition to being better recorded than the Steinberg.


10:27 of the video - "I didn't leave it out because I don't know it. It's right here!" (shows Milstein box set)

And here we see the egotist at work. He is literally covering his tracks and lying here.

David, don't lie. You clearly did not leave it out on purpose. You stated in the other video that if you don't want the mono recording, "What you can find is his remake, which is every bit as fine. It's on Deutsche Grammophon with Eugen Jochum."

Clearly the insinuation was that the Jochum constitutes THE stereo alternative, which is false. The Fistoulari has been circulated on EMI in multiple issues with different couplings. It is not an obscure issue.

But you then said, "I mean, there may be even more than this. Who knows?"

Great, so you admit you don't know everything. So how can you come back the next day claiming you knew the Fistoulari exists but you left it out on purpose?

*This is the issue with Hurwitz in a nutshell.* He simultaneously wants to be seen as THE expert on classical music recordings while dismissing what he doesn't know as unnecessary and fodder for cultists.

You can't have it both ways. If you don't know the difference between acclaimed recordings, don't pretend like you are an expert. Just admit you are parroting received wisdom. If you don't believe it's important to be an actual, thorough expert on the recordings, don't come back the next day pretending you knew it all along and are still the grand expert above all others. You are not. Not even close.

He is a wannabe, a charlatan. And a dangerous one to the extent he tries to silence all other voices.

.


----------



## Philidor

Opening a thread on Hurwitz could be a pleasure and highly reward all participants.


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What did I just tell you??? What have I always said about Hurwitz? He doesn't understand artistic nuance. He has no idea what the difference is between this recording or that recording. He is a hack and a charlatan. He does these videos where he simply throws up well-known versions and acts as if he was the one who did the homework of deciphering what made them great. He has no clue outside of simple technical matters of intonation and sound quality.
> 
> But what is worse is that he literally believes that people who do hear the differences - which includes both the vast majority of professional critics as well as the casual listener - are making the differences up! What I have always wanted to confront Hurwitz with is how can people independently come to the same conclusions if they are making it up? According to your asinine theory, there should be no consensus choices at all. There should just be a random jungle of people making things up. Even accounting for differences in taste, you still end up with "factions" of consensus opinions, e.g. some people think the Perlman/Giulini displays spirit and heart, while others just hear it as slow and bloated. So a competent reviewer knows what the Perlman/Giulini offers artistically that is different from other versions and that some will like and some won't.


You are taking his statements grossly out of context. He was specifically talking about how almost every professional violinist can now play the Brahms violin concerto and that it isn't a technical challenge anymore. He wasn't talking about differences in emotional depth but about technical capabilities. He was specifically talking about the 3rd movement how some people make a big deal out of someone taking a millisecond longer to play a certain note than their reference recordings but the difference is very small since were talking about milliseconds. He often comments about aspects of a recording that are not technical. If I was up to it (and I might be if you keep denying it after reading this post), I will literally name examples with timestamps of his videos.
And he doesn't just throw up well known versions, that is just completely false. If you watch some of his videos you would know. For example his favourite recording of Mozart's 40th symphony (one of the most well known classical pieces) is Sandor Végh, I have literally never seen this performance mentioned in threads about this symphony or have never seen other critics mentioning it for that matter. You are grossly exaggerating in almost everything that you are saying. Doesn't seem like a very mature response


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Philidor said:


> Opening a thread on Hurwitz could be a pleasure and highly reward all participants.


Good suggestion. I copied my post there.


----------



## Malx

Philidor said:


> Opening a thread on Hurwitz could be a pleasure and highly reward all participants.


Sadly I don't think you are aware of what you have just suggested


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

EvaBaron said:


> You are taking his statements grossly out of context. He was specifically talking about how almost every professional violinist can now play the Brahms violin concerto and that it isn't a technical challenge anymore. He wasn't talking about differences in emotional depth but about technical capabilities. He was specifically talking about the 3rd movement how some people make a big deal out of someone taking a millisecond longer to play a certain note than their reference recordings but the difference is very small since were talking about milliseconds. He often comments about aspects of a recording that are not technical. If I was up to it (and I might be if you keep denying it after reading this post), I will literally name examples with timestamps of his videos.
> And he doesn't just throw up well known versions, that is just completely false. If you watch some of his videos you would know. For example his favourite recording of Mozart's 40th symphony (one of the most well known classical pieces) is Sandor Végh, I have literally never seen this performance mentioned in threads about this symphony or have never seen other critics mentioning it for that matter. You are grossly exaggerating in almost everything that you are saying. Doesn't seem like a very mature response


False. He was clearly saying that once you get to a point where everyone can play the concerto accurately, there is not much difference. His talking about the 3rd movement was a case in point. He thinks a mere technicality in playing a note longer is what we are talking about when we delineate between artistry.

Yes, he recommended the Vegh. He often saves one personal recommendation for the end ("However!...") after reciting commonly recommended versions. And they are usually dull, clinical recordings like that Vegh. That's his particular taste. He likes boring non-individual interpretations that emphasize clarity.


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> False. He was clearly saying that once you get to a point where everyone can play the concerto accurately, there is not much difference. His talking about the 3rd movement was a case in point. He thinks a mere technicality in playing a note longer is what we are talking about when we delineate between artistry.
> 
> Yes, he recommended the Vegh. He often saves one personal recommendation for the end ("However!...") after reciting commonly recommended versions. And they are usually dull, clinical recordings like that Vegh. That's his particular taste. He likes boring non-individual interpretations that emphasize clarity.


He also said that just because modern professional violinists can play it technically, doesn't mean they make a good recording of the concerto. Again you take something out of context. And here we go again with a insanely big generalisation: 'He likes boring non-individual interpretations that emphasize clarity'. Then why did he recommend Algerich for Rahhmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto? Algerich's recordings are many things and boring and non-individualistic they are not. And you might say that this is only one example: this is of the top of my head, if you want I can certainly name more examples if I watch 3 random repertoire video's of him. I just remembered another one, he recommends scherchen for Beethoven symphony 3 and 8. Again not boring and non-individualistic at all. I'm sorry but you are just completely wrong


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Again, he makes my points for me in the video. He thinks differences in artistic nuance are made up. He even states he doesn’t care for artists. They could all drop dead. He just wants faithful reproductions of the score. That’s the simplistic way he views music. I’ve observed this for years.


----------



## marlow

Philidor said:


> Opening a thread on Hurwitz could be a pleasure and highly reward all participants.


Highly irritate all who took part I would think.


----------



## wkasimer

Why does the term "idee fixe" keep popping into my head?


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Again, he makes my points for me in the video. He thinks differences in artistic nuance are made up. He even states he doesn't care for artists. They could all drop dead. He just wants faithful reproductions of the score. That's the simplistic way he views music. I've observed this for years.


He doesn't think differences in artistic nuances are made up at all, just read my last few posts. He has said multiple times he loves mackerras, Klemperer, szell and a hundred other conductors, pianists and violonists. I don't know where you get your information. If he only wanted faithful reproductions of the score why doesn't he like HIP at all? And btw, he really likes szell's new world symphony, a recording literally not faithful to the score because szell altered the score for his recording. I just really can't take you seriously anymore. You're just spewing ******** and ignoring my rebuttals


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

EvaBaron said:


> You're just spewing ******** and ignoring my rebuttals


I'm not ignoring your rebuttals. I'm disagreeing with them. I've been more on point in addressing your posts than you have with mine, where I directly quoted Hurwitz.


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm not ignoring your rebuttals. I'm disagreeing with them. I've been more on point in addressing your posts than you have with mine, where I directly quoted Hurwitz.


As I already said, you quote him completely out of context and then make something up of that quotation that is ********. Have you forgotten you saying that he only likes boring, non-individual recordings that are faithful to the score, that I directly disproved by naming recordings that are his favourite versions or that he strongly recommends that are not either boring, non-individual or faithful to the score?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

EvaBaron said:


> As I already said, you quote him completely out of context and then make something up of that quotation that is ********. Have you forgotten you saying that he only likes boring, non-individual recordings that are faithful to the score, that I directly disproved by naming recordings that are his favourite versions or that he strongly recommends that are not either boring, non-individual or faithful to the score?


No, because your example of a recording that he recommended apart from the commonly recommended choice - Vegh's Mozart 40 - is an example of what I am talking about. I've watched his videos a long time. When he is not simply repeating popular choices without any analysis of his own, when he does present his own view it is obvious he prefers recordings that are very plain, very clear, and not individual. I'm not going to take the time to debate each and every video.

Look, there is nothing to debate here. He makes it clear in his latest video what has been obvious for a long time - he thinks artistic nuance is a myth created by cultists. He sticks to "facts," which he defines as his own limited, simplistic accounting of intonation and sound quality. The guy is a dunce and a charlatan who puts down others without having a clue what he is talking about.


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, because your example of a recording that he recommended apart from the commonly recommended choice - Vegh's Mozart 40 - is an example of what I am talking about. I've watched his videos a long time. When he is not simply repeating popular choices without any analysis of his own, when he does present his own view it is obvious he prefers recordings that are very plain, very clear, and not individual. I'm not going to take the time to debate each and every video.
> 
> Look, there is nothing to debate here. He makes it clear in his latest video what has been obvious for a long time - he thinks artistic nuance is a myth created by cultists. He sticks to "facts," which he defines as his own limited, simplistic accounting of intonation and sound quality. The guy is a dunce and a charlatan who puts down others without having a clue what he is talking about.


1. Végh's 40th is not commonly recommended, again complete ********. It's not in trout's list, not in gramphone's, the listeners club, guardian and I haven't seen it anywhere on TC as well
2. 'Your example of a recording', I gave 4 examples, the other 3 are Scherchen, szell and Algerich, and they are not 'very plain, very clear and not individual'. Im just quoting you here. But I know you'll just ignore this because you know I'm right about this point. Btw, exactly what is wrong with having a 'very clear' recording, do you want yours to be full of buzz?


----------



## wkasimer

Animal the Drummer said:


> I like Julia Fischer's recording too, but I find myself wishing she had a bigger tone here and there.


A few years ago, she played the Brahms with the BSO with Dutoit conducting. While I must confess that there were times that I wanted her to let loose a bit more, I have never heard any violinist play with her level of sheer technical perfection. Every rhythm was perfect, as was her intonation - it's hard to appreciate how few string players have perfect intonation until you've heard someone who does, like Fischer.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

EvaBaron said:


> 1. Végh's 40th is not commonly recommended, again complete ********. It's not in trout's list, not in gramphone's, the listeners club, guardian and I haven't seen it anywhere on TC as well
> 2. 'Your example of a recording', I gave 4 examples, the other 3 are Scherchen, szell and Algerich, and they are not 'very plain, very clear and not individual'. Im just quoting you here. But I know you'll just ignore this because you know I'm right about this point. Btw, exactly what is wrong with having a 'very clear' recording, do you want yours to be full of buzz?


You obviously misunderstood me and are now making my points for me. I was saying when Hurwitz goes out on a limb and recommends something that he individually likes - something not commonly recommended - it is a boring recording like the Vegh Mozart 40. I have watched his videos a long time. He does not like subjectivity. He does not like artistry (He just made that absolutely clear in today's video). He likes simple clarity and fidelity to the score.


----------



## marlow

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You obviously misunderstood me and are now making my points for me. I was saying when Hurwitz goes out on a limb and recommends something that he individually likes - something not commonly recommended - it is a boring recording like the Vegh Mozart 40. I have watched his videos a long time. He does not like subjectivity. He does not like artistry (He just made that absolutely clear in today's video). He likes simple clarity and fidelity to the score.


Can I respectfully remind you that this thread is about Brahms' violin concerto!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

marlow said:


> Can I respectfully remind you that this thread is about Brahms' violin concerto!


Remind the other posters. I am the one who tried to move the discussion to the Hurwitz thread.


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You obviously misunderstood me and are now making my points for me. I was saying when Hurwitz goes out on a limb and recommends something that he individually likes - something not commonly recommended - it is a boring recording like the Vegh Mozart 40. I have watched his videos a long time. He does not like subjectivity. He does not like artistry (He just made that absolutely clear in today's video). He likes simple clarity and fidelity to the score.


I did misunderstand you and I'm sorry for that, but if he likes fidelity to the score so much why does he detest HIP and recommends slow German conductors for Beethoven when the metronome markings (score) say it should be played faster?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

EvaBaron said:


> I did misunderstand you and I'm sorry for that, but if he likes fidelity to the score so much why does he detest HIP and recommends slow German conductors for Beethoven when the metronome markings (score) say it should be played faster?


Because he doesn't like the sound of HIP. Now let's bring this discussion to the other thread. This thread is for the Brahms violin concerto.


----------



## EvaBaron

Going back to the subject matter, My first recording of this piece was Heifetz/Reiner and I didn’t have any reference and I just listened to Oistrakh/Klemperer and Brahmsionhorn, I now I get what you mean about Heifetz. Also just listened to Sibelius VC again Oistrakh (now with Ormandy) and again I imprinted on Heifetz (now with Hendl) and again I get what you mean. To my ears Heifetz has a noticeably better technique than Oistrakh, a good example of this is the coda of the first movement of Sibelius VC. Now I have reference it’s actually crazy how insanely perfect Heifetz’s technique is. But I find oistrakh to be way more beautiful and romantic and the orchestra is also that. Heifetz and also the orchestra play more intense and powerful which is very appealing to me. But apparently for many younger people that’s the case (I’m 17). So at least for the foreseeable future I will be sticking to Heifetz for my violin concertos because of the reasons listed above but I can see where you are coming from and I see why Heifetz might not appeal to everyone, especially older people.


----------



## Heck148

EvaBaron said:


> ....(I'm 17). So at least for the foreseeable future I will be sticking to Heifetz for my violin concertos because of the reasons listed above but I can see where you are coming from and I see why Heifetz might not appeal to everyone, especially older people.


I'm an old geezer, and I love Heifetz!! I love Oistrakh, too - different approaches, for sure, but both great artists....I don't like the Oistrakh/Ormandy Sibelius VC, but that's because of the sound - too distant - Oistrakh sounds remote, the orchestra sounds like it's offstage....at least the pressing I have....there is a video clip of Oistrakh playing Sibelius VC/mvt II - with Reiner/NYPO...it is really beautiful...big rich tone, _molto espressivo_...


----------



## EvaBaron

Heck148 said:


> I'm an old geezer, and I love Heifetz!! I love Oistrakh, too - different approaches, for sure, but both great artists....I don't like the Oistrakh/Ormandy Sibelius VC, but that's because of the sound - too distant - Oistrakh sounds remote, the orchestra sounds like it's offstage....at least the pressing I have....there is a video clip of Oistrakh playing Sibelius VC/mvt II - with Reiner/NYPO...it is really beautiful...big rich tone, _molto espressivo_...


Yes I'm also glad there are different approaches. And I have listened to different pressings and the sounds remains weird on the Sibelius VC from Oistrakh


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

EvaBaron said:


> Going back to the subject matter, My first recording of this piece was Heifetz/Reiner and I didn't have any reference and I just listened to Oistrakh/Klemperer and Brahmsionhorn, I now I get what you mean about Heifetz. Also just listened to Sibelius VC again Oistrakh (now with Ormandy) and again I imprinted on Heifetz (now with Hendl) and again I get what you mean. To my ears Heifetz has a noticeably better technique than Oistrakh, a good example of this is the coda of the first movement of Sibelius VC. Now I have reference it's actually crazy how insanely perfect Heifetz's technique is. But I find oistrakh to be way more beautiful and romantic and the orchestra is also that. Heifetz and also the orchestra play more intense and powerful which is very appealing to me. But apparently for many younger people that's the case (I'm 17). So at least for the foreseeable future I will be sticking to Heifetz for my violin concertos because of the reasons listed above but I can see where you are coming from and I see why Heifetz might not appeal to everyone, especially older people.


Try Milstein/Fistoulari. It's a very impressive version in all respects.


----------



## brunumb

wkasimer said:


> Why does the term "idee fixe" keep popping into my head?


Is that the musical equivalent of an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?


----------



## haziz

A fine work but not one of my favorites. I would rank the concertos by Bruch (all "four" of them), Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn, the Lalo Symphonie espagnole, a couple of concertos by Vieuxtemps and a couple by Vivaldi well ahead of the Brahms' violin concerto.

I probably have a few recordings of the concerto, but usually turn to the recordings by Rachel Barton or Perlman most of the time.


----------



## EvaBaron

haziz said:


> A fine work but not one of my favorites. I would rank the concertos by Bruch (all "four" of them), Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn, a couple by Vieuxtemps and a couple by Vivaldi well ahead of the Brahms' violin concerto.
> 
> I probably have a few recordings of the concerto, but usually turn to the recordings by Rachel Barton or Perlman most of the time.


Not Beethoven ahead but all the others are ahead?


----------



## haziz

EvaBaron said:


> Not Beethoven ahead but all the others are ahead?


No, not the Beethoven. I would rank the Beethoven about even with the Brahms, a fine work but not one of my favorites. Now when it comes to the Brahms piano concertos, I actually dislike them, but that would be a topic for another thread. I do however love Brhams' symphonies and a lot of his chamber music and solo piano works. I do adore his Hungarian Dances.


----------



## marlow

haziz said:


> No, not the Beethoven. I would rank the Beethoven about even with the Brahms, a fine work but not one of my favorites. Now when it comes to the Brahms piano concertos, I actually dislike them, but that would be a topic for another thread. I do however love Brhams' symphonies and a lot of his chamber music and solo piano works. I do adore his Hungarian Dances.


No accounting for our different tastes. I rank the Beethoven violin concerto as the greatest when played as the composer intended. Above Brahms. I also rate the Brahms piano concertos but not the symphonies.


----------



## EvaBaron

haziz said:


> No, not the Beethoven. I would rank the Beethoven about even with the Brahms, a fine work but not one of my favorites. Now when it comes to the Brahms piano concertos, I actually dislike them, but that would be a topic for another thread. I do however love Brhams' symphonies and a lot of his chamber music and solo piano works. I do adore his Hungarian Dances.


I don't know why but I absolutely love the Beethoven and I would say I admire the Brahms vc more than I love it for some reasons, because I do love his symphonies just like you


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

haziz said:


> No, not the Beethoven. I would rank the Beethoven about even with the Brahms, a fine work but not one of my favorites. Now when it comes to the Brahms piano concertos, I actually dislike them, but that would be a topic for another thread. I do however love Brhams' symphonies and a lot of his chamber music and solo piano works. I do adore his Hungarian Dances.


Interesting that you dislike his piano concertos, love his symphonies and adore the Hungarian Dances! I love all of Brahms' orchestral works (minus the Requiem and the earlier serenades) with his symphonies, two pianos concertos and violin concerto being among my very favourite works by any composer. The Hungarian Dances bore me to death, though (with the exception of the 1st one, which I find lovely but still it isn't music that keeps drawing me back).


----------



## Kreisler jr

Brahms and Beethoven are among the most "symphonic" concertos (for violin the Reger and Elgar are even more so) whereas many other 19th century concertos give the soloist more spotlight. I prefer Brahms but I can understand that people find his concertos too heavy or not sufficiently "concertizing". My overall 19th century favorite violin concertos are the Brahms and the Mendelssohn (that strikes a good balance between symphonic and virtuoso concerto style).


----------



## haziz

Kreisler jr said:


> Brahms and Beethoven are among the most "symphonic" concertos (for violin the Reger and Elgar are even more so) whereas many other 19th century concertos give the soloist more spotlight. I prefer Brahms but I can understand that people find his concertos too heavy or not sufficiently "concertizing". My overall 19th century favorite violin concertos are the Brahms and the Mendelssohn (that strikes a good balance between symphonic and virtuoso concerto style).


That is actually the problem. I find the Violin Concerto by Brahms to be fairly "heavy" and "thick". I do like it, but it is very far from lighting my fire, and I frankly rarely listen to it. Now when it comes to his two piano concertos, I find them to be long, rambling symphonies with piano obbligato, that I find actually unpleasant. Funny since I do find his symphonies proper quite pleasant and very enjoyable, although even they can sound a bit "dense" at times, depending to some extent on the individual recording.


----------



## haziz

All this talking about the Brahms Violin Concerto got me going. I have not listened to the concerto in probably a year. I probably played the Bruch concertos [ VC1 + Scottish Fantasy ], Sibelius and Tchaikovsky violin concertos tens of times in the same time frame. The 2nd and 3rd Bruch concertos, particularly the 2nd, probably got played 5-10 times each in the same time frame.

It made me dig out the Brahms VC by Perlman, the CSO and Giulini and am now giving it a spin.


----------



## wkasimer

haziz said:


> It made me dig out the Brahms VC by Perlman, the CSO and Giulini and am now giving it a spin.


No wonder you find it "heavy and thick". Try a different recording…


----------



## haziz

wkasimer said:


> No wonder you find it "heavy and thick". Try a different recording…


Any suggestions?


----------



## DaveM

haziz said:


> Any suggestions?


Yes, Lisa Batiashvili:


----------



## wkasimer

haziz said:


> Any suggestions?


To be honest - almost any other recording; the Perlman/Giulini is about the thickest, heaviest, and slowest on record.

Try one of Milstein's, either with Steinberg or Fistoulari, or Heifetz. Or the recent recording with Gil Shaham and The Knights.


----------



## DaveM

Btw, in the recording I reference above, Lisa Batiashvili is playing the Stradivarius violin used by Joachim at the premiere of the concerto. The tone of the violin is outstanding!

Also, rather than the usual Joachim cadenza, the Busoni (a sort of duet with bass drum) is used. It’s a nice change. I prefer hearing different cadenzas with the war horse concertos.


----------



## Roger Knox

Kreisler jr said:


> Brahms and Beethoven are among the most "symphonic" concertos (for violin the Reger and Elgar are even more so) whereas many other 19th century concertos give the soloist more spotlight.


Don't know how others feel, but I've come to the conclusion that it's pointless to compare symphonic concertos with soloists' virtuoso concertos. Both types have their merits. The Brahms may be the most outstanding violin concerto of all but Sarasate, one of the greatest violinists ever as a musician as well as a technician, wouldn't have anything to do with it. He asked why he should be standing off at the side of the stage while the orchestra has all the best tunes!


----------



## OCEANE

Roger Knox said:


> Don't know how others feel, but I've come to the conclusion that it's pointless to compare symphonic concertos with soloists' virtuoso concertos. Both types have their merits. The Brahms may be the most outstanding violin concerto of all but Sarasate, one of the greatest violinists ever as a musician as well as a technician, wouldn't have anything to do with it. He asked why he should be standing off at the side of the stage while the orchestra has all the best tunes!


Most of the time, I only tend to compare a composer's work at different stages such as Beethoven's Symphonies 1 to 9 but never compare his symphonies to his VC or PCs as they're apple and orange.

Being a music lover, I have my own rankings of music works such as Beethoven's VC comes first followed by Brahms and others. But it is crystal clear to me that my ranking does NOT necessarily mean that Beethoven's VC is not absolutely better than others from musical art perspectives as it's just my preference. I don't query others' preference or ranking.... Just let those professionals rank....


----------



## Roger Knox

OCEANE said:


> Being a music lover, I have my own rankings of music works such as Beethoven's VC comes first followed by Brahms and others. But it is crystal clear to me that my ranking does NOT necessarily mean that Beethoven's VC is not absolutely better than others from musical art perspectives as it's just my preference. I don't query others' preference or ranking.... Just let those professionals rank....


I agree with you about being aware of preferences. As I said both types of concertos have their merits. Some people just prefer the virtuoso or soloist's concerto to the symphonic concerto, in the same way that some prefer operetta to opera, or comic opera to grand opera. And vice-versa. The problem for me in this 17 pages of discussion about the Brahms is that the same points are made over and over again, and so often are really just about the distinction I mentioned.

Beethoven's and Brahms's VC's are both symphonic concertos, with much important material in the orchestra and significant soloist-orchestra interaction among other things. At the time they were written, many flashy virtuoso or soloist's concertos emphasizing dazzling technique and sentimental melodies were being composed, most of them forgotten today. In the larger picture Beethoven and Brahms were somewhat against the grain although now they are everywhere. Your preference for the Beethoven interests me. Even now it strikes me as unusual. And the Brahms when it appeared was called by some a concerto _against_ the violin so it was considered unusual too.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> To be honest - almost any other recording; the Perlman/Giulini is about the thickest, heaviest, and slowest on record.
> 
> Try one of Milstein's, either with Steinberg or Fistoulari, or Heifetz. Or the recent recording with Gil Shaham and The Knights.


The idea that you need to skim the surface of a great work to make it palatable is something I've never understood. What's the point then?

For those of us that love the Brahms VC, Perlman/Giulini is one of the great recordings.


----------



## Ethereality

This is the most German noise I've ever heard.

0:54 - 1:01




_Perlman/Giulini Mov 3_


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> This is the most German noise I've ever heard.


What do you think he's "saying" with that?


----------



## haziz

DaveM said:


> Yes, Lisa Batiashvili


Currently playing her recording.


----------



## marlow

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The idea that you need to skim the surface of a great work to make it palatable is something I've never understood. What's the point then?
> 
> For those of us that love the Brahms VC, Perlman/Giulini is one of the great recordings.


The problem is that the first movement marking is not Andante but Allegro non troppo - The idea that setting a speed in accordance with the composers wishes is 'skimming the surface' appears somewhat misplaced.


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The idea that you need to skim the surface of a great work to make it palatable is something I've never understood. What's the point then?
> 
> For those of us that love the Brahms VC, Perlman/Giulini is one of the great recordings.


I think 'for us' means you because what gives you the right to speak for everyone. Looking at Trout's list of recommended recordings and the reactions here except yours, it seems to be the opposite


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The idea that you need to skim the surface of a great work...


Nice strawman. Are you suggesting that Milstein and the others "skim the surface"?



> For those of us that love the Brahms VC, Perlman/Giulini is one of the great recordings.


Some of "us" who love the work think that the first movement should be something other than a bloated, lugubrious slog.


----------



## DaveM

In my experience, the Brahms and Beethoven violin concertos, like other great, iconic works, withstand all sorts of varying interpretations.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Nice strawman. Are you suggesting that Milstein and the others "skim the surface"?
> 
> .


Now who is using a straw man? Milstein is also one of my top choices as well as others who play it very fast.

My whole point is that I do not create a litmus test for tempo. Playing more slowly does not automatically make a piece boring unless you of a particular disposition I suppose.

The Perlman/Giulini is beautifully expressive, dynamic, and delves into the dark colors and depths of the first movement. By contrast I find the Rachel Barton Pine to be a slogfest not because of the tempo per se but due to the lifeless playing.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

EvaBaron said:


> I think 'for us' means you because what gives you the right to speak for everyone. Looking at Trout's list of recommended recordings and the reactions here except yours, it seems to be the opposite


I know this piece and its recording history very well. Perlman/Giulini has always been among the most acclaimed versions.


----------



## Kreisler jr

DaveM said:


> In my experience, the Brahms and Beethoven violin concertos, like other great, iconic works, withstand all sorts of varying interpretations.


I generally agree that many collectors who have heard dozens of interpretations tend to overestimate how a newbie will react to a piece in different recordings. I myself have only experienced very rarely that I strongly re-evaluated a piece after hearing a different recording. (And live experiences can be so special that they can work both ways.)
However, both Brahms' and Beethoven's violin concertos have such huge and especially in the latter case (for this composer) uncommonly lyrical first movements that any further expansion by slow tempi, insufficient contrasts and overlong cadenzas can be an additional obstacle for a new listener. (I have not heard the Perlman/Giulini, so cannot comment in this particular case)


----------



## marlow

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I know this piece and its recording history very well. Perlman/Giulini has always been among the most acclaimed versions.


I can never think why when his live version with Barenboim is better.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I know this piece and its recording history very well. Perlman/Giulini has always been among the most acclaimed versions.


According to some. Mortimer Frank wrote in Fanfare back in 1986:

"Musically the performance offers much to admire: Perlman's virtuoso control and command of tonal subtleties, Giulini's care in clarifying many orchestral strands that underscore the Classical unity of this music, and rock-steady rhythm that tightens structure even further. Yet for all of these admirable traits, the slow tempos favored by Perlman and Giulini (in a performance that lasts 43 minutes as against, say, the 36 minutes of the classic Szigeti-Harty collaboration) deprive the reading of momentum, direction, and dramatic contrasts. All too often, things seem to stand still when (even in the Adagio) they should be pressing forward. Admittedly, the work can stand this kind of breadth, and those who like their Brahms delivered in such fashion may well find this account attractive."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

marlow said:


> I can never think why when his live version with Barenboim is better.


I find that version uninspired


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> According to some. Mortimer Frank wrote in Fanfare back in 1986:
> 
> "Musically the performance offers much to admire: Perlman's virtuoso control and command of tonal subtleties, Giulini's care in clarifying many orchestral strands that underscore the Classical unity of this music, and rock-steady rhythm that tightens structure even further. Yet for all of these admirable traits, the slow tempos favored by Perlman and Giulini (in a performance that lasts 43 minutes as against, say, the 36 minutes of the classic Szigeti-Harty collaboration) deprive the reading of momentum, direction, and dramatic contrasts. All too often, things seem to stand still when (even in the Adagio) they should be pressing forward. Admittedly, the work can stand this kind of breadth, and those who like their Brahms delivered in such fashion may well find this account attractive."


It's not a question of "those who like their Brahms…" It's a question of whether you can bring off the slower tempo or not. Judging a performance strictly by tempo is amateurish.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not a question of "those who like their Brahms…" It's a question of whether you can bring off the slower tempo or not. Judging a performance strictly by tempo is amateurish.


Another strawman...


----------



## golfer72

I listened to it again the other day. Hadnt in awhile. I rank it below all his Symphonies' and Piano Concertos. Maybe equal to his Serenades. Just dont think its one of his best works.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not a question of "those who like their Brahms…" It's a question of whether you can bring off the slower tempo or not. Judging a performance strictly by tempo is amateurish.


Comparing overall net playing times seems even more amateurish to me. The choice of cadenza can make a difference of almost 2 min. in the first movement, I'd guess. (Even with one fiddler one finds considerable differences there are almost 4 min overall between Heifetz/Koussevitzky and Heifetz/Reiner, the latter being probably the fastest among well known recordings.)
It's also disingenious to pick Szigeti/Harty, one of the shorter/faster ones as reference to make 43 min. seem particular long. Another "classic" Ferras/Karajan is > 41 min, Ferras/Schuricht almost 40 min, both of Mutters >40. So 43 min. is long and slow but 36 min (it's actually 37) if amazon is correct for Szigeti is certainly not the average or median length of the piece (I'd guess more like 39 min).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Judging a performance strictly by tempo is amateurish.


Yea, even Hurwitz wouldn't do that.


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not a question of "those who like their Brahms…" It's a question of whether you can bring off the slower tempo or not. Judging a performance strictly by tempo is amateurish.


He doesn't just judge the performance by tempo, he also says many good things about the performance, but tempi is a pretty huge factor for me and for many others and while it might be well executed, sometimes slows tempi ends up really holding a performance down


----------



## wkasimer

EvaBaron said:


> He doesn't just judge the performance by tempo, he also says many good things about the performance, but tempi is a pretty huge factor for me and for many others and while it might be well executed, sometimes slows tempi ends up really holding a performance down


Some works tolerate slow tempi better than others, when they're in the hands of musicians who know how to maintain forward momentum at those slower tempi. I've heard exceedingly slow performances of certain orchestral works - for example, Schoenberg's Verklärte Nacht, Strauss' Metamorphosen, and slow movements of Mahler symphonies - and in the right hands, they are fabulous. But personally, I don't think that Brahms generally falls into that category, even in the hands of a great conductor like Giulini.


----------



## marlow

wkasimer said:


> Some works tolerate slow tempi better than others, when they're in the hands of musicians who know how to maintain forward momentum at those slower tempi. I've heard exceedingly slow performances of certain orchestral works - for example, Schoenberg's Verklärte Nacht, Strauss' Metamorphosen, and slow movements of Mahler symphonies - and in the right hands, they are fabulous. But personally, I don't think that Brahms generally falls into that category, even in the hands of a great conductor like Giulini.


The problem was by that time in his career Giulini was setting very slow tempi - his second Verdi Requiem is an example. It just about kills the Brahms concerto. He also recorded the Beethoven concerto with Pellman, which is again marred by the first movement being Andamte rather than allegro ma non troppo


----------



## EvaBaron

wkasimer said:


> Some works tolerate slow tempi better than others, when they're in the hands of musicians who know how to maintain forward momentum at those slower tempi. I've heard exceedingly slow performances of certain orchestral works - for example, Schoenberg's Verklärte Nacht, Strauss' Metamorphosen, and slow movements of Mahler symphonies - and in the right hands, they are fabulous. But personally, I don't think that Brahms generally falls into that category, even in the hands of a great conductor like Giulini.


I agree with you completely, between Beethoven symphonies, the 9th is well suited to a slow performance if handled correctly like you said (Fricsay), but the 4th isn't well suited to slow tempi, even in the hands of a great conductor. I would say overall most Beethoven symphonies favour a fast tempi


----------



## Heck148

wkasimer said:


> Some works tolerate slow tempi better than others, when they're in the hands of musicians who know how to maintain forward momentum at those slower tempi.


yes, for sure - a slow tempo can work very well if there is forward momentum, pulse....It''s a challenge for performers to make it happen...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> yes, for sure - a slow tempo can work very well if there is forward momentum, pulse....It''s a challenge for performers to make it happen...


It's in my opinion the ability to be flexible within a slow tempo. For example I find much of Celibidache unlistenable due to the lack of flexibility within his glacial tempos.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's in my opinion the ability to be flexible within a slow tempo. For example I find much of Celibidache unlistenable due to the lack of flexibility within his glacial tempos.


Yes, a static rigid slow rempo is awful...it becomes a battle of "sonic inertia" - a struggle to move from one note to the next....sure cure for insomnia...


----------



## mmsbls

Please discuss the thread topic without negative personal comments toward others. We may delete some posts.


----------



## marlow

I found this on YouTube. 1935. Talk about the wow factor! Two great musicians striking sparks!


----------



## wkasimer

marlow said:


> I can never think why when his live version with Barenboim is better.


I listened to the Perlman/Barenboim recording for the first time yesterday (found a copy in a $2.00 bin at a local store). I agree - Perlman sounds a lot more animated here than he does with Giulini.


----------



## marlow

wkasimer said:


> I listened to the Perlman/Barenboim recording for the first time yesterday (found a copy in a $2.00 bin at a local store). I agree - Perlman sounds a lot more animated here than he does with Giulini.


agreed! My version cost a lot less than $2.00!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I really wanted to like the Perlman/Barenboim. I remember when it came out - the Brahms VC was already my favorite work after seeing Joshua Bell perform it live - and I purchased not only the CD but the DVD as well.

It’s not a bad performance. I just never saw it as anything special compared to his more probing version with Giulini.


----------

