Post by p***@hotmail.comI'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Bronislaw Hubermann
performance available on Music & Arts (CD-1122) with Artur Rodzinski
leading the New York Philharmonic on January 23, 1944. Hubermann was
very much a one of a kind and like it or not there is a point of view,
something that can't be said for many of those mentioned. In 1896 the
fourteen year old Hubermann performed the concerto in the composer's
presence. At the end of the Finale, Brahms embraced the young boy
saying, "You should not have played so beautifully; you are a genius,
my son!"
Even without knowing this distinguished historical trivia (which I do),
I'd possibly find the Huberman version the "best", violin-wise (the
accompaniment is not bad either but not the best imaginable), of all
I've heard. Suffice it to say that I believe Huberman's rendition of
Brahms' Concerto to be five classes above his Beethoven Concerto
versions. I also have an Enescu version which has a lot in common with
Huberman in terms of phrasing, tempo-choices and ardent commitment, but
Enescu was at the time (1950) in worse shape than Huberman in 1944.
Huberman is on best behavior here - inspiration, freedom, intimacy with
the music, the richest imaginable inflections, with no "oddities".
I disagree with esteemed Alan Cooper about a zillion of satisfactory
stereo recordings existing. I haven't heard any, and I heard many. Of
course there are plethoras of recordings in which all the notes are
played at the correct pitch, but I for one am not happy with them. I
like this concerto very much and I heard a lot of recordings of it. Few
of them stand up close musical scrutiny. I will give an example: the
ample violin quasi-cadenza at the beginning of the 1st movement,
obviously inspired by Beethoven's own violin entrance in the 1st
movement of his concerto (an extended D Major-preparing dominant
cadence in Beethoven's case, a more harmonically developed but similar
in function D Major-preparing cadence in Brahms' concerto). This moment
represents the closest to an *improvisation* one gets in this
magisterial composition. The orchestra intones preparatory,
diminished-sevenths-harmonized, distorted elements from the main, D
Major theme, while the violin jumps all over the four strings in
Gypsy-like embelishments, "irrational" metrical divisions employed.
When the thematic material in the orchestral background sounds awfully
muted and the figuration in the violin part sounds awfully measured and
square, too much "in your face" (even the excellent Oistrakh does that
and I'm picking on him *because* he is so good), all in all *too
secure/predictable*, as opposed to improvisationally "embracing" the
thematic divinations in the orchestra, the quasi-spontaneous sublimity
of the subsequent blossoming of the main theme in the violin ("D F# D
B A" etc.) is half lost. It's not only a matter of violin playing and
it's not only a matter of conducting. The two have to both meet with
each other and with the composer's mind.
Another pet complain: the dramatic minor theme played by violin in
chords. The theme has so many dotted rhythms that it often sounds (even
in Oistrakh's magisterial hands) as a monument to stubbornness and
self-centered generic Brahmsian "drama".
(The tam....... ta-tam....... ta-tam....... ta-tam.......
ta-tam........ element.)
What I like to hear there, through dynamic differentiation and larger
perspective, is the great "aspiring élan" of a theme spread over more
than one octave, a theme endowed with a personality going much beyond
the catchy rhythmical profile. (Many of this specifically "dotted
Brahms themes", in other pieces as well, are having their guts exposed
in interpretation, while having their wings cut, if one may use
mixed[-up] metaphors.)
All the positive effects coming from a perfect conductor-soloist
marriage happen to the highest degree, I believe, in the
Krebbers/Mengelberg version. Krebbers wasn't the greatest violinist who
ever lived (intonation suffers here and there, in the live recording we
are talking about), but he shows himself to be able to collaborate in
an ideally musicianly matter with the much older Mengelberg. (I was
surprised to find the one Menuhin-Furtwangler collaboration I know much
less satisfying than their outstanding Beethoven Concerto.)
Perhaps in less ideal a combination, I'd also recommend though as very
highly satisfactory the Szigeti/Harty version, the Kreisler/Barbirolli
version (it has better orchestral playing, even if the older Leo
Blech's Berlinese orchestra has more of a touchingly unassuming 19th
century tone to it), the already mentioned Huberman version (the violin
playing is out of this world), as well as perhaps Milstein/de Sabata
(less perfect than the cheaply available EMI but more intense and
musically penetrating). Enescu's and Adolf Busch's (only the latter is
available, on Arbiter) would be fascinating for the historical
recordings collector and they're musically valuable but rather flawed
technically.
regards,
SG
P.S. Lena, take a break from your Oistrakh. There's a whole world out
there. ( :