Opinions sought on the works of Jascha Heifetz.

Seán · Post by **Seán** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:37 am

The foillowing box set is available on amazon.fr, I wonder if my good friends on CMG have any strong feelings one way or another on the performances on this set, I am thinking of buying it so your thoughts will be very welcome. To my mind it looks very impressive indeed:

http://www.amazon.fr/Jascha-Heifetz-int ... rvi_cart_1

John F · Post by **John F** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:45 am

If you care about the violin and don't already know Heifetz's playing well, this is probably as good an introduction as you'll find. He recorded all of these concertos more than once, and generally the earlier versions appeal to me more than the stereo remakes, but since I'm not that great a Heifetz fan, you can discount that.

Fergus · Post by **Fergus** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:25 am

Seán, anything that I have with Jasch Heifetz on it has always been impressive

Donaldopato · Post by **Donaldopato** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:34 am

Looks like a great intro to this prolific artist's recorded legacy. No doubt Heifetz was one of the greatest of violinists and his recordings are often very special and well done. Not everyone likes the admittedly old fashioned mannerisms and style of playing, but I find it interesting and not at all over done.

This is a great bargain, and I would not mind a copy myself. Unfortunately postage to the US from France almost doubles the price. I will wait to see if it comes out here.

Addendum: I did find it here, regular Amazon had it even higher than from France as did most other outlets. But I ordered a copy from Amazon via Movie Mars.

maestrob · Post by **maestrob** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:46 am

Heifetz was one of if not the most disciplined violinist in the world, with astonishing technique. His later recordings are very straightforward with little rubato: Heifetz let the music speak for itself without embellishment. I grew up with his stereo recordings, and they remain favored listening even now.

Heifetz was so concentrated on his playing that he grew frustrated teaching students who were not so similarly obsessed, or so I've heard.

Highly recommended. These were considered definitive performances when they were issued, and remain so today, IMHO.

CharmNewton · Post by **CharmNewton** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:04 am

This set is a very good introduction to the work of Jascha Heifetz. He is one of my favorite violinists.

John

stenka razin · Post by **stenka razin** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:42 am

Sean, the Heifetz box is a winner. I have loved his beautiful performances of the classics since I was a boy. He is the Emperor of 20th century violinists. Enthusiastically recommended, my friend.

slofstra · Post by **slofstra** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:27 pm

I would buy a single CD, preferably a cheap one, and see if you like it first. I had a Heifetz given to me, and I was pleasantly surprised at the quality. But when it comes to the core repertoire I'd sooner keep up with James Ehnes. And I still have a big box of Oistrakh I've barely touched.

Post by **Lance** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:56 pm

Heifetz was a master violinist of the highest order. Whether one considered his tone quality gold or silver, he will undoubtedly remain among the most famous violinists ever. Fortunately, his career can be documented from the earliest time to the end of his life in solos, concertos, chamber music, and whatever else. I have the original Heifetz Edition on RCA, and I'm not sure if it has been reissued since or just parts of it are available. But if you can hold out for the complete edition (some day), it will be one of the finest treasures in your CD collection, just as the Artur Rubinstein Collection stands (that one going for $3,000/USD these days). Some also considered Heifetz a "cold" violinist, but like all artists, he was extraordinary in nearly everything he did. Nobody does 100% with everything. His concertos are model performances and are paradigms. Long after his passing, Heifetz ranks at the top. Other will come and go, but Heifetz will remain.

Seán wrote:The foillowing box set is available on amazon.fr, I wonder if my good friends on CMG have any strong feelings one way or another on the performances on this set, I am thinking of buying it so your thoughts will be very welcome. To my mind it looks very impressive indeed:

http://www.amazon.fr/Jascha-Heifetz-int ... rvi_cart_1

Seán · Post by **Seán** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:38 pm

Thanks for all of the feedback, I've decided to get the set.

Donaldopato · Post by **Donaldopato** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:51 pm

And I as well!

Heck148 · Post by **Heck148** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:43 pm

Lance wrote:Heifetz was a master violinist of the highest order.....
Some also considered Heifetz a "cold" violinist, but like all artists, he was extraordinary in nearly everything he did. .... Long after his passing, Heifetz ranks at the top. Other will come and go, but Heifetz will remain.

yup, good appraisal of Heifetz - the quintessential, the stereotype virtuoso violinist...everybody has hear dof him...and deservedly so.

I've never understood the "cold" designation as applied to Heifetz [same for Reiner in the conducting field] technical precision, artistic mastery and intensity is not cold, it is anything but. overall, he is my favorite violinists, tho many are truly great. I believe Heifetz to be one of those true geniuses, who simply rise above the rest, on a consistent basis.

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:27 pm

Not my cup of tea, really don't like the sound he makes...

Heck148 · Post by **Heck148** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:30 pm

Chalkperson wrote:Not my cup of tea, really don't like the sound he makes...

I love how he drills thru the center of every note - every pitch - it doesn't natter how fast or slow it is - he bulls-eyes the notes with stunning virtuosity. I love the fire and intensity of his music-making.

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:19 pm

Heck148 wrote:
Chalkperson wrote:Not my cup of tea, really don't like the sound he makes...
I love how he drills thru the center of every note - every pitch - it doesn't natter how fast or slow it is - he bulls-eyes the notes with stunning virtuosity. I love the fire and intensity of his music-making.

That's pretty much exactly why I don't enjoy him, or Horowitz...

John F · Post by **John F** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:47 pm

For me, there's no faulting Heifetz's tone, that and his infallible technique were his claim to fame. What has kept me from being a fan is that for me, his playing is supremely violinistic but not so satisfying musically. Passion is not lacking, not at all - his face was stonily inexpressive but his playing certainly wasn't - but there's a sameness to it regardless of the repertory, from Tchaikovsky and Korngold to Bach and Beethoven.

So Heifetz's recordings often take their musical profile from his collaborators rather than Heifetz himself. Beethoven with Toscanini, Brahms with Koussevitzky or Reiner, Sibelius with Beecham, piano trios with Artur Rubinstein and Emanuel Feuermann - these I return to from time to time and continue to get something from. Not so the sonata recordings with Brooks Smith or Emanuel Bay at the piano, who come across as Heifetz's accompanists rather than full partners. And not so with concertos recorded with lesser conductors, such as Malcolm Sargent and Walter Hendl, who are certainly more than competent in support of Heifetz but don't take charge.

Post by **Lance** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:17 pm

I can relate to some of what John Francis states. However, among the "lesser known" conductors rests an incredible gem, the Max Bruch “Scottish Fantasy” w/Sir Malcom Sargent. That recording and David Oistrakh's (for Decca/London) are probably the two finest recordings of the work ever made, at least IMHO. Do you recall that recording, John?

John F wrote:For me, there's no faulting Heifetz's tone, that and his infallible technique were his claim to fame. What has kept me from being a fan is that for me, his playing is supremely violinistic but not so satisfying musically. Passion is not lacking, not at all - his face was stonily inexpressive but his playing certainly wasn't - but there's a sameness to it regardless of the repertory, from Tchaikovsky and Korngold to Bach and Beethoven.

So Heifetz's recordings often take their musical profile from his collaborators rather than Heifetz himself. Beethoven with Toscanini, Brahms with Koussevitzky or Reiner, Sibelius with Beecham, piano trios with Artur Rubinstein and Emanuel Feuermann - these I return to from time to time and continue to get something from. Not so the sonata recordings with Brooks Smith or Emanuel Bay at the piano, who come across as Heifetz's accompanists rather than full partners. And not so with concertos recorded with lesser conductors, such as Malcolm Sargent and Walter Hendl, who are certainly more than competent in support of Heifetz but don't take charge.

John F · Post by **John F** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:52 pm

The Scottish Fantasy is essentially light music and was composed for that most violinistic of violinists, Pablo de Sarasate, so it suits Heifetz down to the ground. I like his way with it very much, probably more than anyone else's, and Malcolm Sargent is a good conductor of it. But the Fantasy isn't part of my regular musical diet.

I've just now learned that the premiere wasn't given by Sarasate but by Joachim, that most serious of 19th century violinists and Brahms's friend and collaborator. Bruch conducted and said that Joachim ruined the performance. I can well imagine that Joseph Szigeti or Adolf Busch, if they ever played the Scottish Fantasy, might have ruined it too. But when we're talking about Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms, it's them I want to hear, not Heifetz.

Heck148 · Post by **Heck148** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:25 pm

John F wrote:For m...there's a sameness to it regardless of the repertory, from Tchaikovsky and Korngold to Bach and Beethoven.

I find that true of many soloists - not just violinist and pianists - they have a certain personality, a certain approach which is often readily identifiable - I dom't have a problem with it.

Malcolm Sargent and Walter Hendl, who are certainly more than competent in support of Heifetz but don't take charge.

Heifetz was very glad to record and to perform with Hendl - in fact Hendl [a fine pianist] often accompanied him on his solo recital tours...Hendl, in a rare show of modesty, asked Heifetz why he didn't get Gerald Moore, Brooks Smith, or one of the really heavy-duty accompanists - Heifetz told him that he [Hendl] followed him the best, and understood his rhythmic and expressive nuances better than anyone else...

John F · Post by **John F** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:06 am

Heck148 wrote:
John F wrote:For me there's a sameness to it regardless of the repertory, from Tchaikovsky and Korngold to Bach and Beethoven.
I find that true of many soloists - not just violinist and pianists - they have a certain personality, a certain approach which is often readily identifiable - I don't have a problem with it.

That's not quite what I meant by a sameness of approach to repertory ranging from Bach to Tchaikovsky and beyond. David Oistrakh, whom Lance mentioned, had an interpretive style and sound of his own, but he did not play Bach in essentially the same way he played Shostakovich. It's not about historically informed performance, of course, but about grasping the character of the music and finding interpretive ideas consistent with that character to convey it to listeners. Much as I may admire Heifetz's violinistic brilliance, I don't hear this kind of interpretive insight into much of the music he recorded.

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:24 am

Lance wrote:I can relate to some of what John Francis states. However, among the "lesser known" conductors rests an incredible gem, the Max Bruch “Scottish Fantasy” w/Sir Malcom Sargent. That recording and David Oistrakh's (for Decca/London) are probably the two finest recordings of the work ever made, at least IMHO. Do you recall that recording, John?

Are you really suggesting that Heifitz even comes close to Oistrakh in this work, Heifitz just plays the notes as written, Oistrakh makes the notes on the page into music...

Post by **Lance** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:38 am

Yes, I make the suggestion, of course, without apology, just good classical ears and a musical heart! You will note that Heifetz and Oistrakh are mentioned simultaneously in the same breath. If you love this particular piece of music, you will float away in rapture listening to either of these performances. They are classic!

Chalkperson wrote:
Lance wrote:I can relate to some of what John Francis states. However, among the "lesser known" conductors rests an incredible gem, the Max Bruch “Scottish Fantasy” w/Sir Malcom Sargent. That recording and David Oistrakh's (for Decca/London) are probably the two finest recordings of the work ever made, at least IMHO. Do you recall that recording, John?
Are you really suggesting that Heifitz even comes close to Oistrakh in this work, Heifitz just plays the notes as written, Oistrakh makes the notes on the page into music...

Heck148 · Post by **Heck148** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:41 am

John F wrote:David Oistrakh, whom Lance mentioned, had an interpretive style and sound of his own, but he did not play Bach in essentially the same way he played Shostakovich.

but with Oistrakh [one of my favorites], the tone, and the approach are readily identifiable. same with Heifetz - same with Harold Gomberg[ob], or Adolph Herseth[tpt], or Ray Still[ob], some other super artists... [/quote]

musically speaking - I don't find Heifetz' phrasing in Bach to be much at all like the way he plays Brahms, Beethoven or Sibelius...

John F · Post by **John F** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:27 am

So we disagree - not for the first time.

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:47 am

Heifitz (High Fits from now on) played everything his way, Oistrakh played it the Composers way, IMHO, of course...

Heck148 · Post by **Heck148** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:28 am

Chalkperson wrote:Heifitz (High Fits from now on) played everything his way, Oistrakh played it the Composers way, IMHO, of course...

Heifetz and Oistrakh are probably my two favorite violinists...

they sound very different, and offer differing views on interpretation - but both fabulous artists.

maestrob · Post by **maestrob** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:54 am

Heck148 wrote: Heifetz and Oistrakh are probably my two favorite violinists...
they sound very different, and offer differing views on interpretation - but both fabulous artists.

Yep!

My own ears tell me that both were great artists. Heifetz had more tempo discipline here and there, while Oistrakh used more rubato (judiciously), but both move me with their playing.

IcedNote · Post by **IcedNote** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:21 pm

As some of you know, I'm still not at a place where I can collect recordings by different performers and whatnot. That being said, yesterday I listened to Heifetz/Chicago SO perform Sibelius's Violin Concerto and quite enjoyed it.

-G

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:23 pm

maestrob wrote:Heifetz had more tempo discipline here and there, while Oistrakh used more rubato (judiciously), but both move me with their playing.

High Fits moves me too, I get up and turn the CD player off...

erato · Post by **erato** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:45 pm

What; no remote? Considering all the stuff you do not like, you must be very fit indeed!

CharmNewton · Post by **CharmNewton** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:34 pm

erato wrote:What; no remote? Considering all the stuff you do not like, you must be very fit indeed!

LOL!

John

Post by **Lance** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Double LOL!

CharmNewton wrote:
erato wrote:What; no remote? Considering all the stuff you do not like, you must be very fit indeed!
LOL!

John

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:44 am

erato wrote:What; no remote? Considering all the stuff you do not like, you must be very fit indeed!

Unfortunately, you cannot remove a disc from the tray and replace it with something better without human movement, i'm still making comparisons between the Digital Lens DAC and the Original RBCD, if I were not still testing I could easily do anything by remote...as we use an iPad for it I could even start a new Thread, What Chalkperson is NOT listening to today, I could go on for months without ever leaving my chair...the point is that i'm a discerning listener, a sponge that absorbs a ton of Music and Musicians and then releases only the top few gems, suffocating the mediocre without mercy...

IcedNote · Post by **IcedNote** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:17 am

Chalkperson wrote:the point is that i'm a discerning listener, a sponge that absorbs a ton of Music and Musicians and then releases only the top few gems, suffocating the mediocre without mercy...

Remind me not to share my work with you...

-G

Seán · Post by **Seán** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:29 am

IcedNote wrote:
Chalkperson wrote:the point is that i'm a discerning listener, a sponge that absorbs a ton of Music and Musicians and then releases only the top few gems, suffocating the mediocre without mercy...
Remind me not to share my work with you...

-G

ah but he is such a pleasant chap too.

Heck148 · Post by **Heck148** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:26 am

IcedNote wrote:yesterday I listened to Heifetz/Chicago SO perform Sibelius's Violin Concerto and quite enjoyed it.

wonderful recording...I love how Heifetz just nails the opening of mvt III. this is tough, and I've heard alot of violinists tiptoe thru it....Heifetz just eats it up, makes it sound easy...

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:50 pm

IcedNote wrote:
Chalkperson wrote:the point is that i'm a discerning listener, a sponge that absorbs a ton of Music and Musicians and then releases only the top few gems, suffocating the mediocre without mercy...
Remind me not to share my work with you...

I seriously doubt your work would qualify as mediocre...I was really talking about Recordings, Conductors, Instrumentalists and Robert Schumann...

MaestroDJS · Post by **MaestroDJS** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:11 am

maestrob wrote:Heifetz was so concentrated on his playing that he grew frustrated teaching students who were not so similarly obsessed, or so I've heard.

I've heard that too, and the films of his master classes seem to bear that out. It's interesting to contrast this with a remark by the teenage Heifetz, so apparently he wasn't like that in his youth:

Violin Mastery: Talks with Master Violinists and Teachers, by Frederick H. Martens, 1919

Frederick H. Martens wrote:On concluding our interview Mr. Heifetz made a remark which is worth repeating, and which many a music lover who is plus royaliste que le roi might do well to remember: "After all," he said, "much as I love music, I cannot help feeling that music is not the only thing in life. I really cannot imagine anything more terrible than always to hear, think and make music! There is so much else to know and appreciate; and I feel that the more I learn and know of other things the better artist I will be!"

slofstra · Post by **slofstra** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 2:19 pm

Chalkperson wrote:
erato wrote:What; no remote? Considering all the stuff you do not like, you must be very fit indeed!
Unfortunately, you cannot remove a disc from the tray and replace it with something better without human movement, i'm still making comparisons between the Digital Lens DAC and the Original RBCD, if I were not still testing I could easily do anything by remote...as we use an iPad for it I could even start a new Thread, What Chalkperson is NOT listening to today, I could go on for months without ever leaving my chair...the point is that i'm a discerning listener, a sponge that absorbs a ton of Music and Musicians and then releases only the top few gems, suffocating the mediocre without mercy...

I'm with you, chalkie. There is simply far more music available than any single person can absorb, and you have to pick your spots. And you are always willing to re-test your assumptions by trying a second time. The difficulty is distinguishing that which we've superceded and put behind us, versus music we have not mastered yet. Nothing I hate worse though, than being taken for the latter, when it's really the former.

Also, as new performers enter the public consciousness we are bound to lose some older ones.

Seán · Post by **Seán** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:16 pm

Chalkperson wrote:
IcedNote wrote:
Chalkperson wrote:the point is that i'm a discerning listener, a sponge that absorbs a ton of Music and Musicians and then releases only the top few gems, suffocating the mediocre without mercy...
Remind me not to share my work with you...
I seriously doubt your work would qualify as mediocre...I was really talking about Recordings, Conductors, Instrumentalists and Robert Schumann...

You never miss an opportunity chalkie.

MaestroDJS · Post by **MaestroDJS** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:24 pm

slofstra wrote:I'm with you, chalkie. There is simply far more music available than any single person can absorb, and you have to pick your spots. And you are always willing to re-test your assumptions by trying a second time. The difficulty is distinguishing that which we've superceded and put behind us, versus music we have not mastered yet. Nothing I hate worse though, than being taken for the latter, when it's really the former.

Also, as new performers enter the public consciousness we are bound to lose some older ones.

Well said. That reminds me of pianist and scholar Arthur Loesser (1894-1969) who presented a piano recital at Town Hall in New York in 1967 entitled "Sic Transit Gloria Mundi" or "Thus Passes the Glory of the World", devoted to lesser-known (and obviously Loesser-known

) composers. In his notes to the CD reissue of this recital, he describes a similar conundrum.

Arthur Loesser wrote:The works of many composers, highly admired and enjoyed by their own generation and that immediately following, have become neglected or entirely forgotten by later times. The obsolescence is often deserved; but sometimes it is not warranted by the nature of the music itself. To some extent the persistence of past creations produces a crowding, a traffic problem. Worthy, interesting, attractive works must be set aside to make time for new ones that rightfully demand attention. Moreover, fashions, tastes and ideals change with the generations, though not necessarily for the better. Those of us who have lived a good while fancy we may derive wisdom from having seen many things both come and go.

A few composers of the past have been canonized by general consent, are called "great," and their works recognized as "classics." Their exaltation to sainthood colors all their creations, and we continue to contemplate some of their least thoughts, even their noddings, with respect. But those who have failed to achieve beatification despite their talent, their craft, and the joy they gave to their contemporaries, are not so fortunate. They too have at times brought forth stirring utterances, happy ideas and ingenious constructions, not always inferior to some of those of the "great," — but, alas, they remain disregarded.

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:26 pm

MaestroDJS wrote:
slofstra wrote:I'm with you, chalkie. There is simply far more music available than any single person can absorb, and you have to pick your spots. And you are always willing to re-test your assumptions by trying a second time. The difficulty is distinguishing that which we've superceded and put behind us, versus music we have not mastered yet. Nothing I hate worse though, than being taken for the latter, when it's really the former.

Also, as new performers enter the public consciousness we are bound to lose some older ones.
Well said. That reminds me of pianist and scholar Arthur Loesser (1894-1969) who presented a piano recital at Town Hall in New York in 1967 entitled "Sic Transit Gloria Mundi" or "Thus Passes the Glory of the World", devoted to lesser-known (and obviously Loesser-known ) composers. In his notes to the CD reissue of this recital, he describes a similar conundrum.
Arthur Loesser wrote:The works of many composers, highly admired and enjoyed by their own generation and that immediately following, have become neglected or entirely forgotten by later times. The obsolescence is often deserved; but sometimes it is not warranted by the nature of the music itself. To some extent the persistence of past creations produces a crowding, a traffic problem. Worthy, interesting, attractive works must be set aside to make time for new ones that rightfully demand attention. Moreover, fashions, tastes and ideals change with the generations, though not necessarily for the better. Those of us who have lived a good while fancy we may derive wisdom from having seen many things both come and go.

A few composers of the past have been canonized by general consent, are called "great," and their works recognized as "classics." Their exaltation to sainthood colors all their creations, and we continue to contemplate some of their least thoughts, even their noddings, with respect. But those who have failed to achieve beatification despite their talent, their craft, and the joy they gave to their contemporaries, are not so fortunate. They too have at times brought forth stirring utterances, happy ideas and ingenious constructions, not always inferior to some of those of the "great," — but, alas, they remain disregarded.

I happen to really enjoy Loesser's Well Tempered Clavier, available on DoReMi...

Who is online