Best interpretation of Bach's solo violin partitas and sonatas?
  • Geremia
    Posts: 261
    What is, in your opinions, the best interpretation of Bach's solo violin partitas and sonatas?

    I've heard Henryk Szeryng, Hilary Hahn, Perlman, Menuin, Heifetz, Kremer (in a church ☺), Tetztlaff, et al., but Sergiu Luca was the first to record them on a baroque violin in 1977, and his recording is very good. He doesn't over-interpret or rush through them like most, and the timbre of his barque violin (by Nicolo Amati, 1669, in Baroque disposition, with authentic fittings and bow), unlike a modern violin, is gentle and not so sharp. Very beautiful recording
  • Randolph Nichols
    Posts: 398
    Nathan Milstein.

    Perhaps the best concert performance I've ever heard was by Milstein, then age 75, in Boston's Symphony Hall. It included one of the partitas.
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    Well, although I'm a Heifetz man from way back when (in just about all the violin repertoire which I know), I well remember the amazement Sergiu Luca's Bach recording caused when it came out. Can't say it did much for me, but I was puzzled that Luca himself never subsequently enjoyed the headline-grabbing career which you would have expected from the sheer Harnoncourt-like succès de scandale he enjoyed with his Bach release.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    I concur with Milstein. Heifetz's Bach is uninspired, IMO.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    don't care for modern violin playing bach... no matter who it is. however, i do like st martin in the fields art of fugue.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    Well, Fretwork's AOF is better than St Martin-in-the-Fields'.

    As for the partitas, etc., I think (and this is admittedly a slippery issue!) that if one wants to hear Bach as he heard himself and with the sounds he conceived of, one would want to value the early instruments of Luca, et al. This is not at all (in the slightest!) to disparage the performances of great artists, all of whom do not use the instruments of Bach's environment and sound-world. All reveal the greatness of the music, of the master, and we are fortunate in that, living when we do, we can have both and all. We can, though, perhaps be honest enough to say (tenuously) that with the one we really are hearing Bach, and with the other we are hearing an artist. We needn't short-change either one.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    MJO...

    very nice! didn't know about Fretwork... thanks for the new light.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Authentic instruments definitely change what the listener hears. I have never really been fond of Mozart. I sat through music theory classes and understand the genius of his musical constructions. I just haven't been able to get past the thought that the music of his time period was prissy and affected, perhaps because most of it was composed under patronage for the nobility. If you work for them, you produce what they want to hear, I guess.

    Recently, I heard some of Mozart's work performed on a supposed Mozart era piano. It had a bit of a warm harpsichord sound and lacked the steely brilliance often heard when his work is played on a Steinway. A different sound altogether that changed my perceptions of his work.
    Thanked by 3francis M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,942
    You might want to compare the Milstein recordings (1954-56 in very highly regarded mono vs 1973 stereo) and then Arthur Grumiaux. It's a matter of taste, not merely musical but audiophile. My initial exposure was throught the Grumiaux, and I think one's first impressions tend to color preferences if one is musically inclined.

    I will further implede the linked discussion:

    http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30211
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    That was fun! I Just listened to the Milstein and Grumiaux excerpts, and it will take a far better ear than mine to tell the difference. : )

    It's very interesting what you say about Steinways, Charles W! I have an 1893 Steinway (Nov. 21 1893, to be exact) and always loved it particularly because the tone is mellow and round ---at least compared to modern pianos, but compared to a 17th c. piano, it might indeed sound brighter and harder.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I have found no two Steinways sound exactly alike, especially if there is a significant difference in dates of manufacture. I don't know if any videos exist, but if you get a chance to hear a "Mozart" piano, even a reproduction, you will be amazed at the sound difference.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Here is one you can listen to. If you have good speakers it helps.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9YvNOTkVrU
    Thanked by 2JulieColl CHGiffen
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Amazing, Charles. I love that "antique piano" sound.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I do, too. It seems a better fit with that music.
Add a Comment