thirteenthsteph

Well, there's still Kavakos' Brahms for me.

It's an excellent performance. I'm still attached to the Menuhin versions both of the Concerto and the Romances despite his faults... Same with the Brahms.

@Carl Stross I will listen to Grumiaux's interpretation again and come back to you. Which version do you recommend?

I also have a bow which is marked not 'A.' but 'Fransis Bone', yes, with an s. I always assumed that it's probably a fake name stamped on it, right?

Well, perhaps the top soloists of the past did not necessarily work for money, but I can't imagine that the majority of the more run-of-the-mill soloists back then, on whom cash didn't rain so easily, were somehow more virtuous than they are nowadays. Maybe people tend to be more analytical and detail-oriented now than they used to... maybe. Also, classical music seems to be appreciated by less of the population whereas it used to be more widespread, or even expected of someone to listen to it back then (? I don't know, you tell me), but the people who do listen to it surely form the audiences, don't they? Although, I suppose if something is more common in society, people tend to discuss it more and are expected to have sophisticated opinions on it whereas now these groups of discussion are in many cases an audience of one, talking to themselves or on forums like this.

@John_London I am not convinced either, that's why I mostly started talking about style and expressive slides etc. Maybe they used a more expressive tuning with some notes being flatter or sharper for effect (?) but I wouldn't consider them out of tune in general.

I imagine you mean that very slight variation both in tuning and timing gives depth to the sound, as long as it's not noticeable as something off?

I can understand a change in style and soloists in those days playing perhaps more freely with more expressive slides etc. resulting in occasional out-of-tuneness, but did Furtwängler or Karajan (or many others) tolerate even slight, brief, out-of-tuneness in their orchestras? Were those orchestras sub-par, considering playing in tune with each other is a must in an orchestra?

Definitely, but I still can't pinpoint it exactly...

I see. Maybe a more mechanical accuracy is required nowadays?

I can understand that the rest makes the instrument more accessible, but in what way would you say musical/soloistic/orchestral standards have changed in the 21st century? Would a Milstein not be up to standard nowadays? Genuinely asking, not trying to make a point.

I guess we see it differently; going along with the car analogy, you might equate it to the airbag whereas one might think of it as driving an ambulance instead of a regular car. Anyway, this is not getting anywhere, it's, as always, turning into one side basically saying the other is insecure and in need of a crutch or basically creationists mindless sheep adhering dogmatically to irrational beliefs.

When the thumb loses contact and the fingers slide (I assume) up the fingerboard, doesn't the violin start to drop? Or do you lock it in place with the jaw?

Yeah, he doesn't raise it like most violinists of his period, and playing like this, I think, is rather comfortable because the lower rib edge slightly touches the middle of the chest which supports the violin a bit(?). At least that's what happens when I try to imitate it and what it looks like in the video, but there's no actual contact of the back with his body. Then again supposedly he could play Caprice No. 5 with the violin on his hip... I think the main point, for me, is how he could play so well at such an old age. Achieving that is the goal... If you can do it with a rest, fine; I chose without, as it brought me pain. Both have advantages and disadvantages, as you say; 'take your pick'.

Well, it's very possible I'm doing something wrong, as shifting that high, on the viola no less, is something that rarely happens. Could you demonstrate somehow, or explain?