An interesting take on Beethoven's violin concerto

[Victor Roman]

Am curious what the members here think of this. Recently I noticed a slight change in the YouTube comments in the sense that harsh criticism is to be seen more often.  In the past everything was "great".  I saw some comments characterizing this version as nothing less than horrible. Personally, I found it interesting to listen to, though not that interesting to make it to the end. The soloist is very talented and the orchestra performed well enough. 

[matesic]

A few years ago Pekka Kuusisto was interviewed on BBC radio and finished with a performance of the Chaconne. My reaction was that it lacked the reverence you'd usually expect and can sometimes seem excessive. But I wouldn't want to hear that performance again.

[iNeedAnswers]

I do like when artists come up with a new concept of a piece, that is consistent and makes sense through not only a few passages but the whole piece. I think, he did manage it here. Playful airy lightness in Beethovens violin concerto, it kind of works. I did enjoy listening to it (minus this piccolo flute at about 13.30 that was beyond horrible and a few other minor hiccups). However, I think listening to it one time is enough for me and overall I clearly prefer the more common interpretation. 

I got to add, I really don't like this Guadagnini in anything but the lower registers. It kind of misses the base to its sound. 

[Arbos]

He plays a Strad now I think, from Tarisio. I liked his playing and the use of multiple ossia passages, also his bow vibrato. With a sound that airy I often wonder how it sounds in the hall.

[iNeedAnswers]

In this case it seems I dislike the Strad. He does play it airy, but even in the other passages it sounds not like my preferences. 

Comparing it to the other instruments, like the oboe, give a good idea how the violin actually sounds, I think.

[GoPractice]

The ticket price matters, but interesting and I would certainly be hungry for a discussion and a meal after the performance.

First off, Mahler Chamber Orchestra is a bit of an oxymoron, though we might start with Death and the Maiden... so a twist before hearing the first note.

If there is a trend toward Post- Modern performances, this would be a start? It encapsulates so much of what we have be taught over the years, but at times melody driven, sometimes as the narrative, refined and jelled. A walk through Budapest? Paris? Brixton? What captures the eye/ ear as we walk the stones of the 21st century?

As a performance, there is integrity but highly surprising that the conductor appears to manages a ensemble + soloist so well. The individual players do lovely pairings with the solo violin.

Op61. Is this an anti- hero performance? This is a great period for Beethoven, if unplayable for so many of us if we were to rock it? How many have come out with singed sleeves playing the 1st of the 1st mvmt of the Op74 " Harp " quartet and not thought how great ( and an a- hole ) Beethoven is? But even at slower tempi, rounding 3rd base is wonderful. There is a tendency to out hero each other. Lest we forget, Beethoven is not from the establishment.

The beginning of the 2nd mvmt must be a narrative. The opening is intimate, almost halting. Some might find it pretentious. The ensemble is wonderful, fully supporting. We hear a soloist speaking. The ensemble almost disappears. It is audio magic. 30+ on stage, to one+. Much more intimate.

Kuusisto's bow work is fantastic. Of course a different texture at times, but the upper work is something I love to hear. Living, organic, breathing, sweet. 

The 3rd mvmt sounds way more like a dance, that it could be. If the great Kreutzer and Auer refused 1st shots at the most famous concertos, how would the alternates have played the works? The somber minor section with the bagpipes and the bassoon are lovely. The fiddle cadenza is in so much of the people's spirit if we were to enter whimsy and candor reminding us of who Beethoven was or wanted to be. 

Having heard over 50 live Beethovens including a teacher's and rival teacher's performances, most of them being similar, this one was fun. It did not feel competitive. There are bow whips, crunches and angst but beauty, however one might measure it?

I was at several rehearsals ( as an observer ) this week where one was a commission ( so world premier ) and the other a local premier. Listening to new music lacks a checklist, at first, as the listener knows virtually nothing as the music unfolds. Depending on knowledge, the structure may reveal itself, while like many Mahler works, we do not know what lies past the dark forest. It was a fresh reading of the Beethoven, and thanks to the heads up, it was enjoyed, twists and turns and all.

[David Rosales]

Patricia Kopatchinskaja is another artist who swims against the current in her interpretations. Between the two, I think Patricia has the more interesting interpretation. 

 

 

[Stephen Fine]

I love that Kopatchinskaja Beethoven so much.  She's my current violin ideal.

 

Before Kopatchinskaja's, my favorite Beethoven was Viktoria Mullova's recording with John Eliot Gardiner.  It's not as 'out there' but it makes a similar point.

[iNeedAnswers]

I have to been quite a few Kopatchinskaja concertos. I do prefer her interpretation of non orchestral pieces, like some of her piano sonata interpretations, but she always delivers something quite interesting for sure.

[Victor Roman]

15 hours ago, GoPractice said:

The 3rd mvmt sounds way more like a dance

Maybe because it is a dance. A Dutch dance in 8th.

[Victor Roman]

12 hours ago, Stephen Fine said:

I love that Kopatchinskaja Beethoven so much.  She's my current violin ideal.

What's wrong with Oistrakh ? Too good ? I notice how younger generations favor exhibitionism instead of quality. Must be the pop music.

Beyoncé, maybe ?

[iNeedAnswers]

As your statement is rather provoking, I allow myself a similar provoking answer:

What used to be a jaw dropping performance only a hand full of players were able to deliver is what students now present in their performances to apply for conservatory, allowing musicians to concentrate very early on finding their own interpretations instead of learning to just play the piece. This necessarily results in bigger diversity. So in short provoking fashion, as you ended your post, because players today are much better, maybe?

[Stephen Fine]

3 hours ago, Victor Roman said:

What's wrong with Oistrakh ? Too good ? I notice how younger generations favor exhibitionism instead of quality. Must be the pop music.

Beyoncé, maybe ?

The new Beyonce album is fabulous and thought provoking.  And the one before that.  And the one before that.  She is a master of multiple styles with impressive vocal range and control.  And she's a dancer.  And she's a video artist.

Oistrakh is another favorite of mine.  I really admired him when I was a teenager and my taste wasn't developed yet.  I was even more partial to Grumiaux, Milstein, and Heifetz.  And I still go back to them.  I make my students listen to them...  but I went to music schools where many of the student violinists could play passable impressions of Oistrakh's Beethoven, that is to say, straightforward and perfect.  I've seen enough of that, and I don't think it resonates with audiences as much as what Kopatchinskaja is doing.

I think you mistake expression for exhibitionism.

[VicM]

1 hour ago, Stephen Fine said:

I went to music schools where many of the student violinists could play passable impressions of Oistrakh's Beethoven

Was that Moscow Conservatory ?    

A statement that shows competent you are. Interesting that nobody who's somebody in Classical Music ever made such an absurd statement.

[iNeedAnswers]

Got to love this ad hominem. Makes it a bit hard to take you serious, though. 
To add something more productive as well:
I got a couple of Beethoven's I really like, but I think my favorite is Hilary Hahn's interpretation. The way she holds the phrases is just amazing, her bow control gives me chills. 

[Altgeiger]

I haven't seen this much passion here since Kevin Huang! I love it. Since I just finished listening to Kreisler's Beethoven again, you all can guess which side of this divide I land on. There are many fine players right now, and some of them are also fine musicians, but their technical advancement doesn't imply that they will ever develop maturity as musicians. Many of them do not. It's not their fault; imagine the advantage of being surrounded by a culture that valued and understood great music like Vienna in 1900. We don't have that now, anywhere in the world, and I wonder if we ever will again. 

I will refrain from comment on Beyoncé Knowles 

[GoPractice]

3 hours ago, VicM said:

Was that Moscow Conservatory ?    

A statement that shows competent you are. Interesting that nobody who's somebody in Classical Music ever made such an absurd statement.

You could be more specific about the criticisms.

There is a power to certain level of playing that resonates to many young musicians. I am recently battling that with a conductor who prefers the longer compressed lines of power playing.

As for technique, there are plenty of students that have the chops to play the Beethoven but not the musical insight.

I think it is easier to mimic Heifetz and Oistrakh because they produce iconic products. When we mimic with intent, it becomes a parody. I could have sent 3 students to the great stages with more powerful instruments as high schoolers just to play the notes. Two won concerto competitions with romantic works. Young performers do get bit of a " pass " when it comes to musical knowledge. When it comes to Beethoven, it might have have been Ms Hahn, but she definitely offered something else. Something many of us older middle aged guys still sometimes ponder about. 

Some of us made fun of the fictional player Ron Leonard Rose because cello playing was transitional.

Would you be more specific? I am not sure many of us aspire to be someone in classical music. I appreciate it with admiration but it has not solved the worlds problems yet. I used to ponder if Beethoven would have wanted that.

[Stephen Fine]

 

5 hours ago, VicM said:

Was that Moscow Conservatory ?    

A statement that shows competent you are. Interesting that nobody who's somebody in Classical Music ever made such an absurd statement.

I mean, I'm not anonymous.  My CV is public.  I'm talking about colleagues at the Shepherd School, the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, and SUNY Stony Brook.  I am extremely fortunate to be friends with extraordinary musicians with exciting careers.

Only a couple of my friends have chops like Oistrakh, but if we extend the list to include people who just attended school at the same time as me... it really is quite a few violinists.  At the best music schools, geniuses are all over the place. For the most part, it's a matter of personality and opportunity that defines who becomes successful and who fizzles out.

I feel like the example of Newton and Leibniz is usually instructive.  They make it clear how important being in the right time at the right place is.  Yes, they were geniuses, but they discovered calculus because it was time.

Oistrakh had the career he had because of circumstances far beyond his genius, personality, and charisma.  He's a fabulous player.  Shockingly good.  But not to my taste these days.

Kopatchinskaja makes an effort to understand Beethoven's intentions in a way that the old generation never would've thought to do.  

[matesic]

As far as I'm concerned there are just so many ways a great musical work can be diced, spiced and cooked ("interpreted") before it starts to sound not like itself but a dog's dinner, recycled. To my ears both PK and PK sound like they're striving for originality, possibly even notoriety, rather than truthfulness.

[Victor Roman]

5 hours ago, matesic said:

As far as I'm concerned there are just so many ways a great musical work can be diced, spiced and cooked ("interpreted") before it starts to sound not like itself but a dog's dinner, recycled. To my ears both PK and PK sound like they're striving for originality, possibly even notoriety, rather than truthfulness.

Could not possibly agree more. And also, think like this : nobody does it on the piano or with an orchestra. They'd be laughed out of the hall. An argument would be that Beethoven surely knew better than the two PK's and if he wanted the soloists to "improvise" he would have said so. He did not and besides, Beethoven seems to have  been a stickler for people playing what he wrote. And another and perhaps a definitive argument would be that the kind of improvisation the two PK's are indulging in does NOT work within the harmonic intent of the composer. The standard for some two Centuries was that the artist should be truthful to the composer's intentions and one can but hope this will continue. I want to listen to Beethoven's ideas not to the two KP's. Nothing wrong that they have their audiences and they make a living, though : that was not my point i.e. I am NOT criticizing the audience. And anyway, again, this seems ( to me ) to be a detour confined to violin : no sane aspiring piano player or Conductor would contemplate that sort of nonsense.  Bottom line is that the two under discussion think ( I doubt they do...) Beethoven needs their assistance. That's incompetent narcissism. 

[Victor Roman]

19 hours ago, Stephen Fine said:

Oistrakh is another favorite of mine.I really admired him when I was a teenager and my taste wasn't developed yet.

You mean that as your taste developed you thought less of Oistrakh ?

[Victor Roman]

19 hours ago, Stephen Fine said:

I went to music schools where many of the student violinists could play passable impressions of Oistrakh's Beethoven, that is to say, straightforward and perfect.  I've seen enough of that

I have NEVER in my entire career of some 50 years heard anybody who could produce a "passable" impression of Oistrakh. And I know nobody who did. I do not doubt that there might be young players who could imitate Oistrakh for a few bars. Let them try do Oistrakh in something they never heard before with Oistrakh, in front of an orchestra and for half an hour or more. Quite a few actors can produce excellent imitations of other actors, personalities etc. That does not make them John Gielgud or Anthony Hopkins. That makes them very limited, cheap entertainers.

[Stephen Fine]

On 4/17/2024 at 9:29 AM, Victor Roman said:

You mean that as your taste developed you thought less of Oistrakh ?

No.  I still regard Oistrakh as a master, one of the great soloists of the 20th century.  But I now think more highly of others.  I was never an Oistrakh man anyway, I preferred Heifetz and Milstein out of that generation.

On 4/17/2024 at 9:49 AM, Victor Roman said:

I have NEVER in my entire career of some 50 years heard anybody who could produce a "passable" impression of Oistrakh. And I know nobody who did. I do not doubt that there might be young players who could imitate Oistrakh for a few bars. Let them try do Oistrakh in something they never heard before with Oistrakh, in front of an orchestra and for half an hour or more. Quite a few actors can produce excellent imitations of other actors, personalities etc. That does not make them John Gielgud or Anthony Hopkins. That makes them very limited, cheap entertainers.

I think you are willfully misinterpreting what I mean by "passable impression."

I don't want to tear down one of your heroes, but I don't really believe in the idea of singular greatness.  There are violinists who are better than the rest, but I've found that they show up with some regularity if you're in the business for a while.  Considering your 50 year career, it sounds like you just maintain a pantheon in your brain of untouchable players who no one lives up to.  That's fine.  Maybe you're right.  But keep in mind that the placebo effect is very powerful.  That halo atop Oistrakh's head only exists in your imagination.

What has your 50 year career involved?  Did you ever hear Oistrakh live up close?

[Stephen Fine]

On 4/17/2024 at 3:20 AM, matesic said:

As far as I'm concerned there are just so many ways a great musical work can be diced, spiced and cooked ("interpreted") before it starts to sound not like itself but a dog's dinner, recycled. To my ears both PK and PK sound like they're striving for originality, possibly even notoriety, rather than truthfulness.

I can understand Kopatchinskaja coming across the way.  To my ears she runs all the way up to the line of bad taste, toes the line, but never crosses it.  And considering what a tightrope walk performing violin is, I can't get enough of it.  It's so exciting--her level of technical control is breathtaking.

Given what we know about use of rubato in the 19th century, I think she's closer to what Beethoven was thinking than those with modern conservative taste might imagine.

[iNeedAnswers]

She did some chamber music performances in this area and I got the chance to talk with her quite long, almost three hours, after one of those concerts.

While it might be weird some time, I strongly believe she does not do things differently just to be different, and she also has a good understanding of other, also the iconic, performances. I was actually surprised about how well informed she is (although we talked about the Kreutzer Sonata, not a violin concerto). 

For me personally, she does a better job at finding own interpretations as for example Julia Fischer, who is closer to "the standard", but her changes feel forced and/or childish for me mostly. Of course, I know that other people can perceive both things very differently. 

I am not a super fan of Kopatchinskaja, I do prefer other players like Hahn, sometimes Vengerov (depends, he does also do weird stuff from time to time) and even F.P. Zimmermann in general, but I still consider her one of the more hidden gens of her generation. 

Comparing between generations is a bit hard, I do love some things by both Oistrakhs, Heifetz and others from that generation, but I also feel that some people put them on pedestals where they don't belong. They were the greats in their generation, but others came after them.