Sunday 22 March 2009

Interesting, and enjoyable, today listening to early recordings of short pieces played by Fritz Kreisler. The first batch dates from 1904 (when Kreisler was 29) and the second batch from 1911 (aged 36). We can admire Kreisler's seductive tone (even through the swish and pops of the early acoutic recordings) but it is sense of rubato, his style, his incredibly versatile bowing, and his extraordinary trills that really make their mark. Not to mention his legendary double stops, where each voice is given its due and the intonation is always exactly precise. One understands why Kreisler was hailed as the Emperor of the Violin (and why Heifetz was so fascinated by his playing). What a contrast the sound of Kreisler must have been to audiences accustomed to the drier and less lascivious sound of the 19th century violinists (and compare, for example, Jan Kubelik). Kreisler's sound is 100% unique, and also 100% Viennese. They don't make violinists like this any more, alas. And listening to Kreisler playing Kreisler back in 1911, one understands why Heifetz, who recorded pratically anything that was good for the violin, went somewhat light when it came to recording Kreisler pieces. Fritz Kreisler was simply sans pareil.

Continuing with the golden oldies, my current reading of a biography of Sergei Rachmaninov had me listening to his piano playing. Rachmaninov was one of the great pianists of the twentieth century, along with Cortot, Fischer and Richter. A shame that, because of the times and his unsettled abode, he was not able to record more. Ended the evening with Rachmaninov's second symphony; the1955 mono recording by Kurt Sanderling and the Leningrad Philharmonic (kindly supplied by Lee) is indeed a classic of the twentieth century. And I love the music.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pity about the cuts in the Rach Sym 2 - but it is a red-blooded passionate from Sanderling!

Harry Collier said...

Many people decry cuts, and they are now very unfashionable indeed. Personally, I think some cuts can be advantageous in some works. I can never understand the re-instatement in the Tchaikovsky violin concerto of some repetitious passages in the orchestral part that used to be cut by everyone but now are not. They are just marking-time passages!
I don't mind Sanderling's cuts in the Rachmaninov second as performed here; it's already a pretty long symphony, for its material.

Anonymous said...

Agreed on the Tch VC, but Vieuxtemps VC 5 cuts (Heifetz), Rach Sym 2 (Sanderling), Bruch Scot Fantasy (Heifetz), Wieniawski VC 1 (Rabin) are all slightly destructive to the whole work - the modulations just don't sound out correctly!

Harry Collier said...

Yes, cuts and cuts. The one I hate most is in the finale of the first Paganini violin concerto. In the old days, the Paganini was cut ruthlessly, as were the orchestral parts of the two Wieniawski violin concertos and the fourth and fifth Vieuxtemps violin concertos. Made them into mere violin display vehicles, but they are all more than that.