# David Oistrakh vs Jascha Heifetz



## zelenka (Feb 8, 2018)

I know this might be considered as just another flame war or pointless comparison, but I strongly believe that Heifetz is very overrated and Oistrakh is the greatest violinist of all time. I don't think that there is a single favorite recording of any major violin work and done by Heifetz but on the other hand Oistrakh has the best recordings for every major violin concerto not to mention his great chamber music performances.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Huberman and Kreisler were better than both of them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

You are totally wrong about Heifetz imo in that he was in some ways a pioneer of progressive violin playing. However, Oistrakh was a wonderful player too in a different way. Pointless comparing them - like comparing excellence with excellence.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

disagree with OP re Heifetz...fabulous artist, justly famous and highly respected...Oisttrakh was a great artist as well....Heifetz and Oistrakh are probably my 2 favorite violinists, tho they performed with widely different approaches to the art. both superb artists...


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

This was the argument that raged in the 20th century -- what is better, the artist or the technician, warmth (some call it humanity) or perfection. This argument raged everywhere, especially after the advent of literalism in the postwar era.

To me people reacted to Heifetz the same way people reacted to Karajan -- adoration or dismissal. People reacted to Oistrakh the same way they reacted to Bruno Walter -- with warmth and love, if their/his way was their cup of tea.

I don't see how anyone could possibly say either Heifetz or Oistrakh were overrated; they were leading players in their time extraordinarily well represented on recordings.

I thought Heifetz's sound and timbre unique among fiddlers similar to Rostropovich on the cello. There was no mistaking his playing or confusing it with anyone else. I didn't hear that distinction in Oistrakh.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

larold said:


> This was the argument that raged in the 20th century -- what is better, the artist or the technician, warmth (some call it humanity) or perfection. This argument raged everywhere, especially after the advent of literalism in the postwar era.
> 
> *To me people reacted to Heifetz the same way people reacted to Karajan *-- adoration or dismissal. People reacted to Oistrakh the same way they reacted to Bruno Walter -- with warmth and love, if their/his way was their cup of tea.
> 
> ...


The tall poppy syndrome. Must be cut down. For someone to earn as much as Heifetz he must be suspect. Of course, he didn't endear himself by being a pretty ghastly misanthrope.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Both were great violinists, but Heifetz was more flashy -I'll go with Oistrakh.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

People sometimes reacted negatively to Heifetz because he was too perfect and lacked warmth. Oistrakh was all about warmth. But it is incorrect to say Heifetz was not a top choice in major works. He was and remains the standard in the Sibelius concerto. He also left wonderful recordings of the Glazunov, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, and others. Some works suit some personalities better than others.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> People sometimes reacted negatively to Heifetz because he was too perfect and lacked warmth. Oistrakh was all about warmth. But it is incorrect to say Heifetz was not a top choice in major works. He was and remains the standard in the Sibelius concerto.


That's not set in concrete. My preference is Ginette Neveu.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> That's not set in concrete. My preference is Ginette Neveu.


Excellent version. Others would even nominate Oistrakh.

It's all opinion. I would say that of all the major concertos, Sibelius is the one most associated with Heifetz and vice versa. In this case I agree with the majority.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Huberman and Kreisler were better than both of them.


I remain more interested in the contest between King Kong and Godzilla.

The music (by self-taught composer Akira Ifukube) isn't so bad, either!


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

I have to go with Heifetz because I like his Mozart concertos much more than Oistrakh's.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I sometimes feel a slickness in Heifetz, a too-easy, super-sweet perfection and an all-purpose glamour that leaves me without a sense of a human individual under the surface. I do find him matchless in a few works, notably the Bruch G-minor concerto and the Scottish Fantasy, both works by a composer whose music is sweetly melodious and somewhat less than profound. In most repertoire I prefer other people, but don't know how I'd rate Oistrakh in the scheme of things. Very high, certainly.

The comparison someone made between Heifetz and Karajan is interesting. Another perfectionist who doesn't usually warm my heart.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I don't relate Heifetz with Karajan at all
...if I were to equate Heifetz' approach to those of prominent conductors I would probably name Toscanini or Reiner....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> I don't relate Heifetz with Karajan at all
> ...if I were to equate Heifetz' approach to those of prominent conductors I would probably name Toscanini or Reiner....


I associate Toscanini and Reiner with rhythmic clarity and precision. Certainly Heifetz's perfectionism lends itself to this comparison.

But it is also absolutely true that both Heifetz and Karajan shared the same aesthetic with regard to sound. They never made an ugly sound. The very idea abhorred them. This is why they are both accused of putting their own vanity above the music.

By contrast Huberman could make the most abrasive - one might even say ugly - tones when it fit the emotion he was conveying. A clear example is Huberman's angry, strident playing in the tempestuous first movement of Beethoven's Kreutzer sonata with Ignaz Friedman, a recording many including myself consider one of the greatest ever made.

This is why both Heifetz *and* Karajan were IMO poor interpreters of Beethoven. You cannot interpret Beethoven correctly if you put beauty of tone above all else. Mozart yes, but not Beethoven. For Beethoven's music, you need interpreters who are willing to put emotional communication above beauty of tone and precision. Interpreters like Furtwangler, Klemperer, Schnabel, Edwin Fischer, Adolf Busch, and Huberman.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I associate Toscanini and Reiner with rhythmic clarity and precision. Certainly Heifetz's perfectionism lends itself to this comparison.
> 
> But it is also absolutely true that both Heifetz and Karajan shared the same aesthetic with regard to sound. They never made an ugly sound. The very idea abhorred them. This is why they are both accused of putting their own vanity above the music.
> 
> ...


I certainly don't think you are lustening to the same Geifetz as I am. Or Jarajan. His 1963 set of Beethoven wax a revelation to the music industry. The Heifetz version of the Beethoven violin concerto is one of the great performances. Interesting that it was progressive in the sense that many artists now realise that Heifetz tempi were far nearer to Beethoven's markings than the usual sleepy manner in which the concerto was performed. Afraid I am completely in disagreement with you on this . What's more I rather suspect Beethoven would've been as well


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Afraid I am completely in disagreement with you on this . What's more I rather suspect Beethoven would've been as well


The character of Beethoven's composition and the stories of his own piano playing suggest not.

Karajan's 1963 Beethoven cycle was a marketing tsunami, no doubt. He had at his disposal the best of everything. But his own conducting did not allow for the essential Beethovenian element of freedom. Everything was smooth and controlled.

Marketing and publicity do not make a recording great. A conscientious number of us know the difference between what is forced down our throats and what has true artistic merit.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The character of Beethoven's composition and the stories of his own piano playing suggest not.
> 
> Karajan's 1963 Beethoven cycle was a marketing tsunami, no doubt. He had at his disposal the best of everything. But his own conducting did not allow for the essential Beethovenian element of freedom. Everything was smooth and controlled.
> 
> Marketing and publicity do not make a recording great. *A conscientious number of us know the difference between what is forced down our throats and what has true artistic merit.*


I can't believe anyone would make a statement like that on this forum. I realise you enjoy the past rather than the present age of music making but please - that doesn't make you more 'conscientious' nor a greater judge of artistic merit than the rest of us!

Unfortunately your view would not be shared by Beethoven who had a liking for fast speeds in his works. Hence the unrealistic metronome markings. Both Karajan and Heifetz do at least try to carry out his intentions.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I can't believe anyone would make a statement like that on this forum. I realise you enjoy the past rather than the present age of music making but please - that doesn't make you more 'conscientious' nor a greater judge of artistic merit than the rest of us!
> 
> Unfortunately your view would not be shared by Beethoven who had a liking for fast speeds in his works. Hence the unrealistic metronome markings. Both Karajan and Heifetz do at least try to carry out his intentions.


Beethoven was romantic. He was experimental. He was emotional. He was free.

Karajan was the opposite. He was manicured. He was controlled. He was disciplined.

This is what made Furtwangler the ideal Beethoven interpreter. Restless, searching, free from the binds of pedantic precision. Quoting Maria Callas, "To me, he WAS Beethoven."

The same qualities also existed in Klemperer.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But it is also absolutely true that both Heifetz and Karajan shared the same aesthetic with regard to sound. They never made an ugly sound.


I don't recall hearing a lot of ugly sounds from Oistrakh, either.



> You cannot interpret Beethoven correctly if you put beauty of tone above all else. Mozart yes, but not Beethoven.


Views like this are why we're subjected to so much dull, charmless, boring Mozart. Mozart needs to be played like early Beethoven.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> Views like this are why we're subjected to so much dull, charmless, boring Mozart. Mozart needs to be played like early Beethoven.


Fair enough. My favorite Mozart recordings happen to be Furtwängler's Don Giovanni and Symphony No 40, and Edwin Fischer and Artur Schnabel's piano concertos. All Beethoven specialists.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

wkasimer said:


> *I don't recall hearing a lot of ugly sounds from Oistrakh, either. *
> 
> Views like this are why we're subjected to so much dull, charmless, boring Mozart. Mozart needs to be played like early Beethoven.


Interesting that Perlman doesn't make many either!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Interesting that Perlman doesn't make many either!


Both Perlman and Oistrakh communicate vulnerability, heart, and struggle in their playing. Heifetz to my ear does not. He wanted to be seen as perfect and superhuman. This is what is missing for me in the Heifetz/Reiner Brahms concerto. Where is the struggle? Where is the human face behind the playing? I don't think Heifetz wanted that. He wanted to be seen as strong, unsentimental, and effortlessly beautiful. It impresses, but does it move?

Again, the comparison with Karajan is apt.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Beethoven was romantic. He was experimental. He was emotional. He was free.
> 
> Karajan was the opposite. He was manicured. He was controlled. He was disciplined.
> 
> ...


You obviously like the age where orchestral playing wasn't of the standard that it is today and you somehow think that lack of precision is romantic. You seem to think that having the notes played in tune how the composer wrote them and wanted them is 'pedantic precision.' 
And 'Romantic' is the last phrase are used to describe Klempere's Beethoven. Or his Brahms or Mahler. He us very classical in his approach. And I do have quite a few Klemperer recordings. His approach to Beethoven is classical together with slow tempi. Romantic? I don't think so. it is a nostalgic image of the past


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Both Perlman and Oistrakh communicate vulnerability, heart, and struggle in their playing. Heifetz to my ear does not. He wanted to be seen as perfect and superhuman. This is what is missing for me in the Heifetz/Reiner Brahms concerto. Where is the struggle? Where is the human face behind the playing? I don't think Heifetz wanted that. He wanted to be seen as strong, unsentimental, and effortlessly beautiful. It impresses, but does it move?
> 
> Again, the comparison with Karajan is apt.


There is plenty of humanity in the Heifetz / Reiner. Because they play it so well at the tempo Brahms set does not mean a lack of humanity. It certainly moves me. Should there be a struggle? I think that is some romantic idea you have got with the accretions that have been laid on this concerto over the years epwhich Heifetz blows away. Thankfulky I am not stuck in one mode of interpretation and can enjoy many different interpretations of the music . However I can't stand the sentimental sort which portray Brahms as an old bore. It is interesting that Backhouse who knew Brahms played his music faster than we are accustomed too often these days. I believe the last thing Brahms is wanted was his music stuck in a sentimental mush.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> You obviously like the age where orchestral playing wasn't of the standard that it is today and you somehow think that lack of precision is romantic. You seem to think that having the notes played in tune how the composer wrote them and wanted them is 'pedantic precision.'
> And 'Romantic' is the last phrase are used to describe Klempere's Beethoven. Or his Brahms or Mahler. He us very classical in his approach. And I do have quite a few Klemperer recordings. His approach to Beethoven is classical together with slow tempi. Romantic? I don't think so. it is a nostalgic image of the past


Klemperer was not concerned with precision. The orchestra had to listen to each other as if they were a large chamber group. The point is that they were not controlled the way they were with Karajan.

It is not nostalgia my friend. That is your rationalization for people having different opinions than your own.

Listen to their Beethoven 9ths.

With Furtwängler you hear the spirit of the music come out. You hear the anger of the first two movements, the peace and calm of the adagio, and the yearning for freedom in the finale. You hear the light coming out of the darkness.

Klemperer is less spiritually edifying - some of his transitions are abrupt and ill-conceived - but the spirit and freedom of the music come through, especially in the choral finale.

With Karajan everything is kept under a tight lid, especially in '63. You can tell he is seeking perfection and beauty. But you don't hear the spirit of the music, at least I don't. Above all you don't get a sense of freedom.

Fricsay and Bernstein conducted excellent 9ths, better than Karajan's. It is interesting that Fricsay did not use a baton.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Klemperer was not concerned with precision. The orchestra had to listen to each other as if they were a large chamber group. The point is that they were not controlled the way they were with Karajan.
> 
> It is not nostalgia my friend. *That is your rationalization for people having different opinions than your own.
> *
> ...


So I suppose what you say is not your rationalisation for people having different opinions to you?

I must confess that what you hear is not what I hear . I have the Furtwangler 9th from Bayreuth and scratch my head to wonder what all the fuss is about . It was a performance that did not come off that night. In fact the conductor himself was very disappointed with it . Walter Legge rubbed it in by telling Furtwangler after, "A good performance, but not as good as it might have been." I came to the Bayreuth performance with high hopes but I'm afraid I was disappointed.
I don't know what you mean that the Klemperer us 'less spiritually edifying.' By the time he recorded it with the Philharmonia his bed had become rather slow and the climb up to joy is pretty exhausting and hard work . But the performance is nothing but interesting .
Your description of the Karajan is completely wrong to me. Certainly keeping a tight lid on things is certainly not what comes across. And I reckon that to have the notes played as Beethoven marked them is quite a good thing. I do not think sloppy playing is to be admired . The tremendous virtuosity of the BPO playing certainly took people's breath away and people compare it with Toscanini . Of course that's why you probably don't like it . Certainly the choral finale of the 1977 version is electrifying, quite the opposite of what you say. In fact to say he keeps a tight lid on it is quite mystifying to me .
I do wonder if your antipathy springs from the fact that Furtwangler hated HvK with an almost pathological hatred and out of loyalty you feel you must do too?

However I have just realised that this is a site full comparing two violinists not two conductors and I've been sidetracked. Obviously we had better continue this on another thread and not this one. My apologies to TC members for being sidetracked!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I do wonder if your antipathy springs from the fact that Furtwangler hated HvK with an almost pathological hatred and out of loyalty you feel you must do too?


There you are doing it again! Would you please at least have the decency and respect to take my opinions for the reasons I state rather than inventing a rationalization? I'm not the only one with this opinion you know. You can't blame it all on Furtwängler's hatred of HvK, the details of which I frankly don't know much about. I hear what I hear when I listen to Karajan. I have no inherent bias or reason to have a different opinion than yours. Likewise, your inability to appreciate Furtwängler is based on what you hear. (though you ought to at least hear the 1942 before passing final judgment)

I take your opinions at face value. I don't invent explanations for them. It would be nice if you could respect others the same way.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There you are doing it again! Would you please at least have the decency and respect to take my opinions for the reasons I state rather than inventing a rationalization? I'm not the only one with this opinion you know. You can't blame it all on Furtwängler's hatred of HvK, the details of which I frankly don't know much about. I hear what I hear when I listen to Karajan. I have no inherent bias or reason to have a different opinion than yours. Likewise, your inability to appreciate Furtwängler is based on what you hear. (though you ought to at least hear the 1942 before passing final judgment)
> 
> I take your opinions at face value. I don't invent explanations for them. It would be nice if you could respect others the same way.


As I said, the thread is dedicated to two violinists so please out of respect for fellow TC members continue this elsewhere.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> There is plenty of humanity in the Heifetz / Reiner. Because they play it so well at the tempo Brahms set does not mean a lack of humanity. It certainly moves me. Should there be a struggle? I think that is some romantic idea you have got with the accretions that have been laid on this concerto over the years epwhich Heifetz blows away. Thankfulky I am not stuck in one mode of interpretation and can enjoy many different interpretations of the music . However I can't stand the sentimental sort which portray Brahms as an old bore. It is interesting that Backhouse who knew Brahms played his music faster than we are accustomed too often these days. I believe the last thing Brahms is wanted was his music stuck in a sentimental mush.


Again with the the tempo canard. My absolute favorite version of the Brahms concerto is Huberman's, which is just as fast as Heifetz. How does that fit your theory? Instead of inventing alternate rationalizations can you at least take my comments at face value? When I hear Huberman I hear soul, the same soul that brought Brahms to tears himself in 1896. I don't hear that with Heifetz, and it is not because of the blasted tempo!


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I don't know what you mean that the Klemperer us 'less spiritually edifying.' By the time he recorded it with the Philharmonia his bed had become rather slow and the climb up to joy is pretty exhausting and hard work . But the performance is nothing but interesting .


David, have you heard Klemperer's live recording from around the same time as the EMI commercial one?:









The live recording has much more intensity, and is actually better recorded. An essential 9th.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Again with the the tempo canard. My absolute favorite version of the Brahms concerto is Huberman's, which is just as fast as Heifetz. How does that fit your theory? Instead of inventing alternate rationalizations can you at least take my comments at face value? When I hear Huberman I hear soul, the same soul that brought Brahms to tears himself in 1896. I don't hear that with Heifetz, and it is not because of the blasted tempo!


Why when someone disagrees with you do you use phrases like 'inventing alternate rationalizations', whatever they might be? Just say you disagree . Much better.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

wkasimer said:


> David, have you heard Klemperer's live recording from around the same time as the EMI commercial one?:
> 
> View attachment 112634
> 
> ...


Not heard this one but I know the critics basically made your point. But we are talking violinists so I don't want to take up space!


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You cannot interpret Beethoven correctly if you put beauty of tone above all else. Mozart yes, but not Beethoven. For Beethoven's music, you need interpreters who are willing to put emotional communication above beauty of tone and precision.


I kept thinking about this statement yesterday, listening to some Beethoven and Mozart. And I came to the conclusion that it's exactly the opposite. Beethoven wrote much of the passion, drama, and angst right into the music, and a performance that pays attention to the score, without necessarily "coloring outside the lines" is still enjoyable. My shelf is full of Beethoven symphony recordings by the likes of Masur, Blomstedt, Mackerras, and Jansons. They may not plumb the depths or offer any new and original insights into Beethoven, but they're still satisfying. On the other hand, when I listen to technically perfect Mozart from the same conductors, or instrumentalists like Uchida or Perlman, I just want to nod off and go to sleep.

And I much prefer Karajan's Beethoven to his Mozart.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Why when someone disagrees with you do you use phrases like 'inventing alternate rationalizations', whatever they might be? Just say you disagree . Much better.


Because you are twisting my position. You are putting words in my mouth that I never said and inventing your own rationalizations for my opinion. Just say you hear the music differently than I do. Much better.

Let me ask you for the umpteenth time, if my opinion of Heifetz is based purely on his ability to play at a fast tempo as you state, then why do I favor Huberman, Busch, and Milstein, who play the Brahms concerto at just as fast a tempo as Heifetz? Maybe you could take my words at face value that it is the musical quality of the playing - not the tempo - that forms the basis of my opinion????


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *Because you are twisting my position. You are putting words in my mouth that I never said and inventing your own rationalizations for my opinion.* Just say you hear the music differently than I do. Much better.
> 
> Let me ask you for the umpteenth time, if my opinion of Heifetz is based purely on his ability to play at a fast tempo as you state, then why do I favor Huberman, Busch, and Milstein, who play the Brahms concerto at just as fast a tempo as Heifetz? Maybe you could take my words at face value that it is the musical quality of the playing - not the tempo - that forms the basis of my opinion????


Sorry but what is the point of trying to have a polite discussion when you every time make unwarranted accusations like these.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> David, have you heard Klemperer's live recording from around the same time as the EMI commercial one?:
> 
> View attachment 112634
> 
> ...


Yes, and this one as well, even more intense in the final movement. These are the two to which I was referring. As with Furtwangler, Klemp's Beethoven is best heard live as opposed to studio.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but what is the point of trying to have a polite discussion when you every time make unwarranted accusations like these.


Unwarranted? Did you not insinuate that I dislike Karajan because of his feud with Furtwangler? Did you not claim that I made the simplistic argument that slow tempos make the music more profound? Did you not claim that I said fast tempos mean one lacks humanity?

In all these situations you are avoiding my actual arguments by substituting false rationale. Again, if what you say is true, then why would Huberman be my favorite recording of the Brahms when he plays it just as fast as Heifetz?

There is a term for what you are doing:

A *straw man* is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

*Strawman Fallacy* - Substituting a person's actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I am beginning to think that we need guidelines on how to discuss such issues without the thread descending into acrimony. So many thread on standard repertoire are being spoiled by assertions made strongly that x or y were totally without merit (where x and y are both among the greats of the past) and waiting for a bull to charge the red cloth. It is tiresome. And despite all the strong advocacy none of those threads ends up helping me decide if there are any great performances that I might have missed.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But it is also absolutely true that both Heifetz and Karajan shared the same aesthetic with regard to sound. They never made an ugly sound. ....


I don't equate Heifetz and Karajan in any way, musically, or soundwise....Heifetz played extremely expressively, with a wonderful pallette of sound, articulation, bowing , etc....He was not concerned with making everything sound "nice" and smooth, a la HvK. He could really play rough if he so chose - try his Sibelius VC with Hendl/CSO - the opening of mvt III - Heifetz digs in with great intensity - and the ascending scale passages are played "_con molto feroce_" - he's digging in with a hard-edged bite, that HvK would never have advocated...Heifetz just devours it, whereas many violinists tiptoe thru rather tentatively, just content with getting the notes out.......similar passages occur in VCs of Prokofieff, Glazounoff, and even Beethoven. With Heifetz, tho - there is always that intensely centered sound - like a laser beam - that projected with such purity, regardless of the bowing, articulation or dynamic....in this regard, I compare him to such great wind instrumentalists as Harold Gomberg [ob/NYPO] and Adolph Herseth [tpt CSO]...all of these great musicians always project the center of the tone - bulls-eye, right thru the heart...fast/slow, long/short, staccato/legato - these guys just nail it right thru the center...



> I associate Toscanini and Reiner with rhythmic clarity and precision. Certainly Heifetz's perfectionism lends itself to this comparison..


Agreed, but I totally reject the premise that "literalists" - such as Toscanini or Reiner - were cold, expressionless, or machine-like in their emphasis on rhythmic accuracy and precision - yes, they certainly emphasized these qualities, but their conducting was marvelously expressive, elastic, and filled with expressive nuance, without the excessive rhythmic distortions, taffy-pulling and mannerisms of the "Romantic" style conductors....
Listen to Toscanini - Tristan Prelude and Love-Death with [NBC '52] - really magnificent - with a long-flowing, ever building line to the climax, wonderful control, with exquisite _subito piano a tempo_ and a positively orgasmic release, best I've ever heard it...or his 1953 Manfred Symphony with NBC - the 2nd theme of mvt II...this is simply beautiful, expressive playing - there is a suppleness, a flexibility, a finely nuanced phrasing that is extraordinary - when I listen to this, I usually spin the disc back 2 or 3 times to re-hear it, it is so beautifully and expressively played.
Reiner also conducted with great beauty and expression - try his Gershwin "Bess, You is My Woman Now" [PittsSO/1945] - just drips with _espressivo_, really lush, almost, but not quite "_schmaltzy_".....or much later - the "Pantomime" from Falla's "El Amor Brujo" [CSO 1963] - superb!! the rubato, the nuance of phrasing, really achingly exquisite....
Rhythmic precision and accuracy in no way preclude passionate and expressive music-making....

I agree that HvK is not convincing in Beethoven - the monotone approach - smooth, round, legato, etc - but I'm not so crazy about Furtwangler either.
I find Toscanini, Reiner and Szell to be far more effective - their often hard-driven rhythmic intensity and attention to long line phrasing and musical flow works better, for me....


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I am beginning to think that we need guidelines on how to discuss such issues without the thread descending into acrimony.


Nah, people just need to take themselves a little less seriously. Don't express opinions as though they're holy writ, don't make gross generalizations, don't assume evil motives, and don't take offense when someone disagrees with your opinion.

It's really not hard, but you sometimes need a thick skin to participate in public forums.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> I don't equate Heifetz and Karajan in any way, musically, or soundwise....Heifetz played extremely expressively, with a wonderful pallette of sound, articulation, bowing , etc....He was not concerned with making everything sound "nice" and smooth, a la HvK. He could really play rough if he so chose - try his Sibelius VC with Hendl/CSO - the opening of mvt III - Heifetz digs in with great intensity - and the ascending scale passages are played "_con molto feroce_" - he's digging in with a hard-edged bite, that HvK would never have advocated...Heifetz just devours it, whereas many violinists tiptoe thru rather tentatively, just content with getting the notes out.......similar passages occur in VCs of Prokofieff, Glazounoff, and even Beethoven. With Heifetz, tho - there is always that intensely centered sound - like a laser beam - that projected with such purity, regardless of the bowing, articulation or dynamic....in this regard, I compare him to such great wind instrumentalists as Harold Gomberg [ob/NYPO] and Adolph Herseth [tpt CSO]...all of these great musicians always project the center of the tone - bulls-eye, right thru the heart...fast/slow, long/short, staccato/legato - these guys just nail it right thru the center...
> 
> Agreed, but I totally reject the premise that "literalists" - such as Toscanini or Reiner - were cold, expressionless, or machine-like in their emphasis on rhythmic accuracy and precision - yes, they certainly emphasized these qualities, but their conducting was marvelously expressive, elastic, and filled with expressive nuance, without the excessive rhythmic distortions, taffy-pulling and mannerisms of the "Romantic" style conductors....
> Listen to Toscanini - Tristan Prelude and Love-Death with [NBC '52] - really magnificent - with a long-flowing, ever building line to the climax, wonderful control, with exquisite _subito piano a tempo_ and a positively orgasmic release, best I've ever heard it...or his 1953 Manfred Symphony with NBC - the 2nd theme of mvt II...this is simply beautiful, expressive playing - there is a suppleness, a flexibility, a finely nuanced phrasing that is extraordinary - when I listen to this, I usually spin the disc back 2 or 3 times to re-hear it, it is so beautifully and expressively played.
> ...


I am not denying that Heifetz had a great, centered tone. But it's like driving a shiny, beautiful car. I am more concerned with the destination, i.e. the composer and the spirit of the music.

I appreciate Toscanini, Reiner, and Szell. You knew what you were getting. But with Furtwangler everything flowed from the composer. He was imposing nothing upon the music. The spirit of the music was his guide, sometimes leading to wildly different performances. Of course not everyone sees it this way, but I and many, many others most certainly do.

Furtwangler was the spiritualist, the philosopher. So were Huberman, Kreisler, Busch, Casals, E. Fischer, Cortot, and Schnabel. That appeals to people like me for whom music is about much more than pitches, tones, and rhythms.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> Nah, people just need to take themselves a little less seriously. Don't express opinions as though they're holy writ, don't make gross generalizations, don't assume evil motives, and don't take offense when someone disagrees with your opinion.
> 
> It's really not hard, but you sometimes need a thick skin to participate in public forums.


I discuss for one reason, to unearth truth. I don't care about myself, per se. If someone convinces me of a different opinion, great. I am all the wiser for it.

Some people get on these forums and act like cavemen trying to club one another over the head to "win" a debate. The most common way to do this is mischaracterize what the "opponent" is saying in order to dismiss the argument. I will call people out for that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

It’s interesting, my two favorite recordings of Rossini’s overtures and Respighi’s tone poems are Toscanini’s and Reiners. There are certain composers where certain approaches work better than others. I think the German Romantic era is best served by Furtwängler. He personifies it. Beecham was great in music that was sunnier and more elegant. I think Karajan was well-suited to Richard Strauss. And for Czech repertoire give me Talich.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Marketing and publicity do not make a recording great. A conscientious number of us know the difference between what is forced down our throats and what has true artistic merit. _

Here's overstatement if there ever was. "A conscientious number of us" usually means people that think the same as me.

"Forced down our throats" is a cliché I usually hear in politics, not art. Rather sad to hear it in this forum.

Marketing never made a great artist and it didn't in the case of anyone mentioned here; they all did so on their own.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

larold said:


> "A conscientious number of us" usually means people that think the same as me.


No, it means people who think for themselves and don't simply follow the mob or the latest fashion.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_No, it means people who think for themselves and don't simply follow the mob or the latest fashion. _

That's what adults do; teens follow peer group.

In terms of classical music if a discriminating person hears about something said to be good and tries it for themselves and agrees, how is that not being conscientious? Because that is how about 98 percent of classical music is sold.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

If I may briefly haul this meandering thread back to its original topic, I don't really go for these A vs. B questions. Both Heifetz and Oistrakh were brilliant violinists, and we are fortunate to have such a legacy of recordings from them to argue over. Personally (and this can only ever be personal) I favour Oistrakh's readings of the great concerti, in part for the warmth of his playing to which others have referred, but also for his skill in keeping the overall shape of a piece whilst developing individual phrases. There is a continuity and logic to Oistrakh's playing that I don't always hear in other violinists. The brilliance of the parts never subjugate the whole.
And on that pretentious phrase, thank you and goodnight.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

larold said:


> _No, it means people who think for themselves and don't simply follow the mob or the latest fashion. _
> 
> That's what adults do; teens follow peer group.
> 
> In terms of classical music if a discriminating person hears about something said to be good and tries it for themselves and agrees, how is that not being conscientious? Because that is how about 98 percent of classical music is sold.


Did I say popularity and artistic merit are mutual exclusive? I said popularity does not automatically translate into artistic merit.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I am not denying that Heifetz had a great, centered tone. But it's like driving a shiny, beautiful car. I am more concerned with the destination, i.e. the composer and the spirit of the music.


I find Heifetz' destination consistently convincing and satisfying, at times electrifying...



> I appreciate Toscanini, Reiner, and Szell. You knew what you were getting. But with Furtwangler everything flowed from the composer. He was imposing nothing upon the music.


I guess we hear it differently - I think Furtwangler imposed himself on the music, consistently, and sometimes, distractingly so...I don't hear Beethoven so much, I hear Furtwangler's twisting of it...



> Furtwangler was the spiritualist, the philosopher. So were Huberman, Kreisler, Busch, Casals, E. Fischer, Cortot, and Schnabel.


that was the romantic style of performance, of music-making, which was so prevalent at one time...when I first started getting into classical music, I was a huge Furtwangler fan - so deep, so "cosmic" so heavy.....then, so portentous.....I found that other approaches worked better for me, not so ponderous - not so distorted....that not every harmonic half note in Beethoven, Brahms or Bruckner was imbued with some sort of cosmic significance...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> I find Heifetz' destination consistently convincing and satisfying, at times electrifying...


There is no denying that he was at times electrifying. It depends what you are looking for.



> I guess we hear it differently - I think Furtwangler imposed himself on the music, consistently, and sometimes, distractingly so...I don't hear Beethoven so much, I hear Furtwangler's twisting of it...


He was not twisting it. He was interpreting it, and for the most part interpreting it correctly IMO. His are the most idiomatic of German Romantic repertoire recordings, just as Talich is the most idiomatic of Czech orchestral music recordings. I don't believe simply performing Romantic Era compositions in strict note-perfect form does the music justice. It's not accurate, paradoxically.



> that was the romantic style of performance, of music-making, which was so prevalent at one time...when I first started getting into classical music, I was a huge Furtwangler fan - so deep, so "cosmic" so heavy.....then, so portentous.....I found that other approaches worked better for me, not so ponderous - not so distorted....that not every harmonic half note in Beethoven, Brahms or Bruckner was imbued with some sort of cosmic significance...


It depends on the repertoire. Furtwangler was perfect for Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner and Wagner. Toscanini was perfect for Respighi, Rossini, and Verdi.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is no denying that he was at times electrifying. It depends what you are looking for.
> 
> He was not twisting it. He was interpreting it, and for the most part interpreting it correctly IMO. His are the most idiomatic of German Romantic repertoire recordings, just as Talich is the most idiomatic of Czech orchestral music recordings. I don't believe simply performing Romantic Era compositions in strict note-perfect form does the music justice. It's not accurate, paradoxically.
> 
> It depends on the repertoire. *Furtwangler was perfect for Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner and Wagner. *Toscanini was perfect for Respighi, Rossini, and Verdi.


No conductor was ever perfect in any repertoire


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> No conductor was ever perfect in any repertoire


Perfectly _suited_ in terms of his personality, temperament, and what he valued musically. It perfectly suited the German Romantic tradition.

Of course he was not perfect in the strict sense. None of his recordings were the same. They all illuminated something different.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He was not twisting it. He was interpreting it,


your _interpreting_ is my _twisting_.....fine by me.



> and for the most part interpreting it correctly IMO.


utterly subjective, of course. 



> I don't believe simply performing Romantic Era compositions in strict note-perfect form does the music justice.


No conductor that I favor does anything like that....they do generally try to stick to the score, however.



> It's not accurate, paradoxically.


distracting taffy-pulling of tempo, huge disruptions in musical flow, and sloppy execution are not accurate, IMO.



> Furtwangler was perfect for Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner and Wagner.


for you, maybe...I find others far more convincing.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It perfectly suited the German Romantic tradition.


Maybe the music is better served, sounds better, in something other than "German Romantic tradition".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> distracting taffy-pulling of tempo, huge disruptions in musical flow, and sloppy execution are not accurate, IMO.


For the most part what he did sounded perfectly natural to me, save for a few exceptions like the closing bars of the Beethoven 9th. But the transitions he made followed the logic of the harmonic progressions. Other interpretations, like Toscanini for example, sound unnatural to my ear. The metronomic, driven tempo twists the music more than Furtwangler ever could.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The metronomic, driven tempo twists the music more than Furtwangler ever could.


I don't hear Toscanini, Reiner, Weingartner, Szell as "metronomic" - there is suppleness, flexibility in the phrasing. Stravinsky's conducting I hear as metronomic, at the expense of expressive, flexible phrasing. He is nothing like Toscanini, Reiner, etc....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> I don't hear Toscanini, Reiner, Weingartner, Szell as "metronomic" - there is suppleness, flexibility in the phrasing. Stravinsky's conducting I hear as metronomic, at the expense of expressive, flexible phrasing. He is nothing like Toscanini, Reiner, etc....


It's funny, I just happened to have Reiner's Beethoven 9th in my ear right as I read your post, exactly at the second statement of the fanfare music towards the end of the adagio. Reiner makes nothing out of it. He just blows straight through it like there is no significance to it at all. No slow down or anything. Completely different from the live Furtwangler and Klemperer. Perfect example of how NOT to play German Romantic repertoire.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Reiner's Beethoven 9th is the greatest I've ever heard....far superior to the messes Furtwangler made of it, trainwrecks and all..the laborious, ponderous tempo-pulling of WF just doesn't cut it with me....Klemperer's is pretty good, but too slow, esp the scherzo....
...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> Reiner's Beethoven 9th is the greatest I've ever heard


Straight-laced and boring. But we are all entitled to our opinions. :tiphat:



Heck148 said:


> far superior to the messes Furtwangler made of it, trainwrecks and all..the laborious, ponderous tempo-pulling of WF just doesn't cut it with me


Mesmerizing, dramatic, spiritually fulfilling...I have no doubt LvB would be the first to stand up and applaud...were he alive..and were he not deaf...



Heck148 said:


> Klemperer's is pretty good, but too slow, esp the scherzo


Klemperer's is one of the few to make real music out of the scherzo as opposed to the boring, repetitive, skippy renditions from Karajan, et.al.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Straight-laced and boring. But we are all entitled to our opinions.


if you think Reiner's LvB #9 is strait-laced and boring - you should call 911, have your vital signs checked, or go on life support!! Are you still alive??!! :lol::lol:



> Mesmerizing, dramatic, spiritually fulfilling


not to me, it's rather a sloppy, ponderous, pretentious mess...I think LvB would have been utterly thrilled to hear Reiner, Toscanini, Solti, Szell, etc perform his work.



> Klemperer's is one of the few to make real music out of the scherzo as opposed to the boring, repetitive, skippy renditions from Karajan, et.al.


OK is just too slow - too much time elapses between notes - one has to lengthen the notes to avoid the silly "popcorn-popping" effect of the excessively separated notes...but lengthening the notes undoes the scherzo effect - it loses the bouncy, boisterous effect of the movement....no, there are times when a tempo is just too slow, or too fast, for the movement to work in the indicated style...
but, hey - enjoy your Furtwangler, I know you love his style....it just doesn't work for me any more...it used to....


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

Write my name down on the list of Oistrakh&Furtwängler team please. :tiphat:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> if you think Reiner's LvB #9 is strait-laced and boring - you should call 911, have your vital signs checked, or go on life support!! Are you still alive??!! :lol::lol:
> 
> not to me, it's rather a sloppy, ponderous, pretentious mess...I think LvB would have been utterly thrilled to hear Reiner, Toscanini, Solti, Szell, etc perform his work.
> 
> ...


I also like Reiner's over Furwangler. But Solti's is my favourite, the recording ambience and range does it for me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I assume people have heard Furtwängler’s 1942 recording? Not that the others are slouches, but this was definitely his tautest reading and the most dramatic one I know.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Did I say popularity and artistic merit are mutual exclusive? I said popularity does not automatically translate into artistic merit._

You wrote, "Marketing and publicity do not make a recording great" and went on about how discriminating listeners know differently, as if to say millions were fooled by marketing and just going along with the crowd. This was in reference to comments on Karajan's 1963 Beethoven.

Napoleon once said history was lies agreed upon.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

larold said:


> _Did I say popularity and artistic merit are mutual exclusive? *I said popularity does not automatically translate into artistic merit.*_
> 
> You wrote, "*Marketing and publicity do not make a recording great*" and went on about how discriminating listeners know differently, as if to say millions were fooled by marketing and just going along with the crowd. This was in reference to comments on Karajan's 1963 Beethoven.
> 
> Napoleon once said history was lies agreed upon.


Again, does that make them mutually exclusive? I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Both my original point and my subsequent statement state the same thing.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm still laughing at the 'skippy' (the bush kangaroo?) Karajan, comment. Reiner's 9th may not be my favourite 9th but it is a damn fine one. It certainly outshines any of Furtwangler's, IMO. As far as the famous 'Nazi Ninth' (not my tag, btw) is concerned, the recording is near unlistenable (not surprising as its from 1942) but even getting past that the first movement is painfully slow, orchestral balances are dodgy and ensemble playing is shaky, to say the least. Dramatic it may be but dramatic does not equal good. Over-wrought may be a better description. The Bayreuth 9th is (or certainly seems) even slower in the first movement (it reminds me of a certain Mr. Cobra) and Furtwangler never sounds like he has control of the orchestra. I like Lucerne but for me Furty and Beethoven are not the perfect match. I'd place a great many ninths before any of Furtwangler's.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Merl said:


> Furtwangler never sounds like he has control of the orchestra.


That's not his aim.

We all have different tastes. I have an old friend who described to me the first time he heard Furtwangler's DG 5th on LP. He said he was so excited that he was jumping up and down. "I always knew the way Toscanini did it was wrong!", he remarked. What Furtwangler does spoke to him.

What I and many others hear in the music is what Furtwangler provides. Others are more concerned with sound quality and/or precision. Some consider fast tempos to be essential to their enjoyment. Others like, like me, see Furtwangler and Klemperer's approach as allowing the drama to unfold.

I listened to the Reiner all the way through after having surveyed over a dozen recordings over the past week. I just report what I hear. It was a no-nonsense, straight-laced reading. Did not move me like Furtwangler, Klemperer, or Fricsay.

Incidentally, I listened to Bernstein's final recording last night. I am sure this will upset many, but I found it to be a good reading despite the slow tempos. The emotion was dripping. Not my favorite, but I prefer it to the conventional, suave, slick Karajan '63 (though thankfully in '76 he did cut loose a little bit more).

My only request is this: Admit what your personal preference is and leave it at that. Don't pretend to have special authority that trumps others' opinions. I actually like hearing different people's opinions.

And for all I just said about Reiner, I still have it on my shelf along with several Toscanini's and two Solti's. There is always something to gain by hearing different approaches.

I love hearing the Margaret Hillis-trained Chicago Symphony Chorus. I had the pleasure of singing in a Brahms Requiem under Hillis when I was just 19.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Speed only concerns me if I don't feel like there's any forward momentum. So, for example I'm happy to listen to Asahina, Klemperer or Sanderling's 9ths (even though I do think that Klemperer drags a little at the beginning) and enjoy them. Sometimes taking the first movement too fast causes problems for me too as it doesn't allow too much differentiation between that and the 2nd movement (a mistake that Dausgaard and Norrington make). What I do like iny Beethoven, though, is propulsion and a certain snappiness to ensemble playing and that's where Furtwangler, Van Kempen, Kegel and a host of others fall down. It's not about speed, it's about incisiveness. I hear that in Skrowaczewski, Mackerras and a host of other conductors (and yes, Karajan) who make the music sharp, focused and moving forward. Like you said, we all hear different things but those 9th performances I come back to are tight, powerful and keep up the momentum. For me Furtwangler doesn't do that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Merl said:


> but those 9th performances I come back to are tight, powerful and keep up the momentum. For me Furtwangler doesn't do that.


It's all contextual. Furtwangler opens the 9th with a sense of mystery. He enters slowly. He doesn't seek to enter with a bang as others do. He lets the drama unfold. But I disagree that there is a lack of momentum. If that were the case so many people would not be transfixed as I am. Furtwangler's gift is his flexibility, his ability to follow the twists and turns of the music. It doesn't simply stay at one basic, slow tempo, which is what sometimes cripples Klemperer's recordings.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Reiner's LvB 9 builds so perfectly, the finale is simply non pareil....the execution, and the balance between 5he main elements - orchestra, soloists, chorus - is remarkable...the orchestra playing is phenomenal, they just nail everything....the big choral/orchestra sections are thrilling, with amazing clarity...Reiner always had a keen sense of the drama - the ups, downs, climaxes, respites....this talent is abundantly evident....Toscanini and Solti had this sense, also, and their recordings are very good, but Reiner sorts it out, and puts it back together better than anyone else I've heard.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

OT: I'm strictly on the fence regarding Oistrakh and Heifetz. Both had some excellent moments but hey, what do I know? If you could hear my guitar playing you'd understand. Anyone who can play Happy Birthday on a violin impresses me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> Reiner's LvB 9 builds so perfectly, the finale is simply non pareil....the execution, and the balance between 5he main elements - orchestra, soloists, chorus - is remarkable...the orchestra playing is phenomenal, they just nail everything....the big choral/orchestra sections are thrilling, with amazing clarity...Reiner always had a keen sense of the drama - the ups, downs, climaxes, respites....this talent is abundantly evident....Toscanini and Solti had this sense, also, and their recordings are very good, but Reiner sorts it out, and puts it back together better than anyone else I've heard.


I have provided a response to this under the Beethoven symphony thread, where it belongs.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Merl said:


> OT: I'm strictly on the fence regarding Oistrakh and Heifetz. Both had some excellent moments but hey, what do I know? If you could hear my guitar playing you'd understand. Anyone who can play Happy Birthday on a violin impresses me.


I certainly would not like to separate them. Two artists one can enjoy with very different styles. Aren't we lucky to be able to enjoy both!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Merl said:


> OT: I'm strictly on the fence regarding Oistrakh and Heifetz. Both had some excellent moments but hey, what do I know? If you could hear my guitar playing you'd understand. Anyone who can play Happy Birthday on a violin impresses me.


both great artists....different approaches, but both hugely successful...


----------



## Oistrakh The King (12 mo ago)

Pyotr said:


> I have to go with Heifetz because I like his Mozart concertos much more than Oistrakh's.


I remember that Heifetz only played Mozart violin concertos 4-5, but David Oistrakh did all five. They both did Sinfonia Concertante, but Oistrakh performed the Concertone K. 190 with his son and Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. Sometimes I even see Oistrakh's recording of Mozart violin concerto No. 7, which is still under suspicion of not a Mozart piece. I like it quite much, though!


----------



## Oistrakh The King (12 mo ago)

wkasimer said:


> I don't recall hearing a lot of ugly sounds from Oistrakh, either.


Oistrakh is my favorite but I have to say he does worse on details than Heifetz. In his recording of Mozart violin concerto No.3 Andante with Berlin Philharmonic, he even played a note half-step lower, though the tempo is slow.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Oistrakh in the Beethoven Concerto beats any Heifetz recording. J.H. always sounds bored


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Love them both, but I haven't heard any other violinists that ensorcell me like Heifetz does. Though I understand the criticism of his cleanness, facility, and emphasis on beauty, I rarely find that it detracts from my appreciation of the music and typically tends to increase it. Of course I might prefer other violinists in certain pieces, but that's true of all players in any repertoire.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

Oistrakh The King said:


> I remember that Heifetz only played Mozart violin concertos 4-5, but David Oistrakh did all five. They both did Sinfonia Concertante, but Oistrakh performed the Concertone K. 190 with his son and Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. Sometimes I even see Oistrakh's recording of Mozart violin concerto No. 7, which is still under suspicion of not a Mozart piece. I like it quite much, though!


What`s with all these Mozart VCs and stuff recently. Is there a new Mozart movie or something?


----------



## Oistrakh The King (12 mo ago)

Highwayman said:


> What`s with all these Mozart VCs and stuff recently. Is there a new Mozart movie or something?


No. I just have a box of Oistrakh CDs so I know his performance of Mozart violin concertos pretty well!


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Oistrakh The King said:


> No. I just have a box of Oistrakh CDs so I know his performance of Mozart violin concertos pretty well!


I remember Oistrakh did tons of research on Mozart's life just for recording his VCs. I highly doubt whether other violinists will take Mozart VCs as important, so Oistrakh's Mozart recordings definitely should be superior.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Excellent version. Others would even nominate Oistrakh.
> 
> It's all opinion. I would say that of all the major concertos, Sibelius is the one most associated with Heifetz and vice versa. In this case I agree with the majority.


I do prefer Oistrach in the Sibelius, by a decent margin. As a matter of fact, probably my favorite Sibelius concerto recording by any violinist.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Heifetz or Oistrakh:

It depends upon the composer, the quality of the recording, and what you like.

I like concert violin players who have a warm and full tone: Isaac Stern, Zino Francescatti, and Cho-Liang Lin.

I think that Oistrakh is a very passionate, sad, and soulfully "Russian" player; while Heifetz is more of dazzling, and pyrotechnical. Oistrakh's recordings of the Sibelius concerto is very Russian and soulful, as if Tchaikovsky composed it. Heifetz take on the same concerto is more muscular and musical. Again, it depends on what you like.

The recording of the Shostakovich _Violin Concerto_ that Oistrakh made with Dimitri Mitropoulos can't be beat.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Oistrakh for me. I like Heifetz in some works, but in this match-up, it is Oistrakh for me by a very wide margin.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

This is where pitting one vs the other in competition crosses the line. I love both of those musicians for different reasons. They're individual, but that doesn't make one better than the other. Horowitz vs Rubinstein, Tureck vs Schiff...it doesn't really make much sense.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Heifetz for me. Partly because for all the repertoire violin concerti I listened to his recordings as my first recording and now I have all these amazing moments where he just plays so wonderfully dramatic. I have never heard the soloist entry in the Brahms vc played as passionately as Heifetz but I admit I haven’t listened to as many recordings as others have. I agree with Brahmsianhorn that his recording of the Sibelius concerto is unmatched and I might add the Mendelssohn. I don’t agree with Brahmsianhorn about Karajan’s Beethoven. On the whole I like Kleiber the most, but the first movement of the 5th symphony by Karajan 63’ is unmatched IMO and I would say Kleiber is more controlled than Karajan there


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Two exceptional, wonderful violinists. My choice would be not to choose between them, although Oistrakh is my 'go-to' for Concerto recordings. His virtuosity never showed, never up-staged the music. And the fluidity of his phrasing.
Other great violinists are available, of course. Delighted to see Ginette Neveu getting a mention.


----------



## Wigmar (7 mo ago)

zelenka said:


> I know this might be considered as just another flame war or pointless comparison, but I strongly believe that Heifetz is very overrated and Oistrakh is the greatest violinist of all time. I don't think that there is a single favorite recording of any major violin work and done by Heifetz but on the other hand Oistrakh has the best recordings for every major violin concerto not to mention his great chamber music performances.


Listening to both playing the same work, as 
e.g. Mozart's 5th violin concerto, Heifetz is technically brillant and plays with much ease, though his rendition does not touch me, whereas listening to Oistrakh, his playing touches me. So I generally prefer him to Heifetz. There are many Oistrakh discs in my collection and rather few with Heifetz


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

It’s largely preference. They have a very different style so I’m glad they are both so technically flawless so we can enjoy both interpretations. I prefer Heifetz but that’s just because I prefer intensity over lyricalness. Not to say Heifetz wasn’t lyrical or that Oistrakh wasn’t intense but Heifetz is definitely less lyrical and more intense than Oistrakh


----------



## Wigmar (7 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> It’s largely preference. They have a very different style so I’m glad they are both so technically flawless so we can enjoy both interpretations. I prefer Heifetz but that’s just because I prefer intensity over lyricalness. Not to say Heifetz wasn’t lyrical or that Oistrakh wasn’t intense but Heifetz is definitely less lyrical and more intense than Oistrakh


And I also think it depends on the work in question. I have the 1952 recordings of Bach's sonatas & partitas, and here I prefer Heifetz.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Wigmar said:


> And I also think it depends on the work in question. I have the 1952 recordings of Bach's sonatas & partitas, and here I prefer Heifetz.


Well, that's a pretty easy choice, since Oistrakh didn't record the S&P's.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

wkasimer said:


> Well, that's a pretty easy choice, since Oistrakh didn't record the S&P's.


If I had to pick I do actually prefer oistrakh in Dvorak’s violin concerto


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

That's again easy because Heifetz didn't play the Dvorak, or did he?  (FWIW Suk owns the Dvorak cto)
Heifetz recorded more music I care for and I often prefer his "lean and mean" style but he is sometimes extreme and usually too dominant vs. chamber partners. For whatever reason (partly that I am only moderately interested in many of the "great" (mostly romantic) violin concertos) I don't have so many Oistrakh recordings. But he made a few that are close to definitive, e.g. Prokofiev and Shostakovich concerti as well as some sonatas, esp. with Richter (Franck, Shostakovich, Brahms 1+2, Prokofiev (not with Richter)). Although I value some with Heifetz highly, I am not sure I'd call anything as essential as that best dozen by Oistrakh. Maybe the three trios with Feuermann and Rubinstein and both recordings of Brahms' double (once w/ Feuermann, once w/ Piatigorsky) but they are all a bit "left field" and thus maybe not first recommendations.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Kreisler jr said:


> That's again easy because Heifetz didn't play the Dvorak, or did he?  (FWIW Suk owns the Dvorak cto)
> Heifetz recorded more music I care for and I often prefer his "lean and mean" style but he is sometimes extreme and usually too dominant vs. chamber partners. For whatever reason (partly that I am only moderately interested in many of the "great" (mostly romantic) violin concertos) I don't have so many Oistrakh recordings. But he made a few that are close to definitive, e.g. Prokofiev and Shostakovich concerti as well as some sonatas, esp. with Richter (Franck, Shostakovich, Brahms 1+2, Prokofiev). Although I value some with Heifetz highly, I am not sure I'd call anything as essential as that best dozen by Oistrakh. Maybe the three trios with Feuermann and Rubinstein and both recordings of Brahms' double (once w/ Feuermann, once w/ Piatigorsky) but they are all a bit "left field" and thus maybe not first recommendations.


If we’re talking violin concertos. Heifetz is essential in Sibelius, Mendelssohn, Bruch, Tchaikovsky, Brahms and Beethoven. The orchestral playing is always top notch as well, I have never heard the orchestral parts better than in Heifetz’s recordings. For that matter I have never heard the solo violin part played better than Heifetz as well so IMO they are essential


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> Well, that's a pretty easy choice, since Oistrakh didn't record the S&P's.


Oistrakh recorded the first sonata. Certainly a great recording.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Yes, I h


EvaBaron said:


> If we’re talking violin concertos. Heifetz is essential in Sibelius, Mendelssohn, Bruch, Tchaikovsky, Brahms and Beethoven. The orchestral playing is always top notch as well, I have never heard the orchestral parts better than in Heifetz’s recordings. For that matter I have never heard the solo violin part played better than Heifetz as well so IMO they are essential


I have all of these (2 each in some cases) and generally would recommend them as well but this repertoire has been recorded literally hundreds of times by virtually all great violinists, and often in better sound (although I agree that the transparency of the ~1950s Heifetz recordings is often remarkable), so I would hesitate to call them essential. The Brahms double is almost always played too slowly, so the fast and lean recordings by Heifetz (unfortunately the one with Feuermann in rather historical sound) are more special to me.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Kreisler jr said:


> Yes, I h
> 
> I have all of these (2 each in some cases) and generally would recommend them as well but this repertoire has been recorded literally hundreds of times by virtually all great violinists, and often in better sound (although I agree that the transparency of the ~1950s Heifetz recordings is often remarkable), so I would hesitate to call them essential. The Brahms double is almost always played too slowly, so the fast and lean recordings by Heifetz (unfortunately the one with Feuermann in rather historical sound) are more special to me.


Yes but no one quite plays like Heifetz. I really agree with his faster tempi. Sometimes it’s extreme and a bit slower would work, but when you take the Beethoven violin concerto 1st movement at 25 minutes like Oistrakh it just loses momentum. The structure of the work is lost. I’d definitely rather listen to sometimes a bit too fast to often too slow. Btw the markings Beethoven wrote clearly state it shouldn’t be played as slow as 25 minutes


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

And this is true for most modern violin soloists as well as the other old school ones. Maybe except HIP performances which I don’t really like often because of the sound of the instruments.


----------

