From: tan@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (David Tan,Box 219 Baker Lab,54810,2720402)
Subject: Re: Brahms violin concerto (summary)
Originator: tan@msc2.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:54:14 GMT

From article <1992Nov18.161245.11594@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, by velde2@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Francois Velde):

[ ... ]
> 
> Which brings a question: is there any DDD version (aside from the 
> spurious Neveu recording) that measures up to these giants? This is
> for those of us who came to age in the CD age, and haven't the fervor
> to sift through the noise of a re-mastered 78 for that divine sound.
> 
> Which brings another question: why do netters prefer the older versions?
> Are there no good violinists around anymore, or is there some built-in
> bias? For example, were those the first versions you heard?
> 
1st question:  I don't think that it's a matter of fervor:  each performance
is unique, and if some of the greatest are on less than great recordings,
that's just the way it is.  One listens for the performance, not the 
recording; and one is thankful that such a recording exists.  I don't
know of any truly great DDD versions of this piece, and don't much care.
If one exists, I'd like very much to hear it, but the fact that it is DDD is
not relevant.

2nd question:  I think that much of it is simply the great winnowing effect
of time.  Pedestrian performances (and I'm sure there were many) fall by the
wayside, while great performances continue to be sought (and bought, there's
the rub.)  From our perspective, we can only see those old performances
which survive.  Fifty years from now, I'll bet that 98+% of the recordings
made in the last 5 years will have been forgotten.

I think that another reason that older versions keep coming up is that people
tend to stick with what they like.  If money is limited, and one is given a
choice between a Heifetz and a newcomer (and say one is a Heifetz fan), one
will in all probability stick with the Heifetz.  It's not easy to establish
a new name, and brilliance is only a requirement, not a guarantee.

We shouldn't discount luck, either, especially in violinists.  One of the
great violinists of the turn of the century was the Hungarian Leopold Auer.
Auer founded a violin school that drew the best and brightest of the young
talent in Russia, and four of his students--Efren Zimbalist, Mischa Elman,
Nathan Milstein, and, of course, the man some call the "King of Violinists,"
Jascha Heifetz--would come to be known among the greats of this century.
Auer was lucky to have, among his many students, four of such stature; they
were lucky to have such a talented teacher; and most of all, we are lucky to
have everything work out as they did.  There is no reason to think that
talent is smoothly and evenly distributed in time; it's just as likely that
talent may be bunched and lumped unevenly in time, and sometimes, it's just
a matter of chance.

Going back to the Brahms for a bit, there are three recordings I can't live
without.  The Neveu is one (and possibly the greatest), the Heifetz/Reiner
mentioned is another, and the Milstein/(forget, can look up) is the third.
I hadn't mentioned either the Heifetz or the Milstein--a lofty, monumental
and imposing reading by the way--because I don't consider them "passionate"
in the romantic sense (they are quite impassioned performances, btw.), but
they certainly merit the effort.


Dave