As someone who played violin (albeit not very good!), I love Heifetz. I could never understand the charge he lacked passion. I find so many of his concerto recordings to be so exciting and full of tension. I’m thinking especially if his Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Beethoven concertos. His chamber works are unique-I don’t know if his chamber works of Brahms, Dvorak, etc are my top picks but they are played a with lots of electricity. He was also great advocate for new music and light music.
No question about it. Heifetz was the greatest violinist of the previous century and upped the game for violinists everywhere. Was he also the greatest musician who played the violin? That's another question entirely. One could argue that Grumiaux is more sensitive, Szeryng probes more deeply, Oistrakh is warmer, etc. etc. But for my money I award Heifetz highest ranking as musician, too. He had an that rare ability to project the "essence" of whatever piece he was playing, passionately, but objectively. One often underappreciated aspect of his recorded legacy were the many superb chamber music outings with friends and associates. Yes, one could criticize them for being "showcases" for the great violinist (and the microphone placements often bear that out); but at their finest these collaterations communicate that same "intensity without undue subjectivity" that characterized the violinist's solo recordings. Dave: if you have had the patience to read this far, I have a suggestion for a new series. Why not prepare a new series of offerings to he Angry God Cancrizans? Viz., "If I could choose one recording by artist X, it would have to be Y." If I could choose just one recording by Glenn Gould, it would have to be -- his disc of selections from the virginal music of Byrd and Gibbons (that was Gould]s favorite among his recordings as well) Just an idea, but it could generate a lot of interesting feedback from your viewers.
My grandparents held Heifetz in awe. It was joked about on TV, and Perlman called him "God's violinist," but he really was something else. He's still my favorite violinist and reference point for all others.
Actually the insider video plus this talk make me eager to hear what you’re going to say about Horowitz, given rough contemporanity and reputation. Not clear Horowitz changed piano playing in the same way, but as far as I know a rather more volatile character who is still revered by pianists not so much for technical reasons but because of the emotional intensity… An artist on the verge of a nervous breakdown but he could still do marvellous “controlled “ things people ke scarlatti etc. Again, ten recordings would be rather difficult, but the contrast is fascinating with Heifetz, and it’s such a shame that that Carnegie Hall big box seems to have disappeared:-( I have it though, and it’s quite fascinating:-)
Reminds me of the Jim Svejda story about how, as a young English Horn player at music camp, he was trying to impress a lovely young violinist. She wanted to play him some Heifetz. He said “so he’s like the Mitch Miller of the violin”! She was not impressed. To be fair, before he did the sing alongs, Miller played a mean English Horn.
I can see debates over who was better or greatest coming. I see these same arguments when it comes to rock/pop guitarists and athletes. To weed out all the personal perspectives and perceptions, it simply comes down to who was more influential? Who sent everyone back to the practice room or provoked a higher standard? While greatness can be relative to one's personal preference, influence is something we can actually gauge. For instance, there is no denying how Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods are the three most influential athletes of their sports. Their impact on both sport and society is undeniable. The same can actually be said about Heifetz. I was fortunate to speak with those who lived long enough to see his impact and there was no denying such in their minds. "Heifetzian, for a time, was a synonym for perfection. I remember writers using the term in old music rags from the 40s and 50s. So, while we can make reasonable arguments for whom we personally believe to be better, when it comes down to the impact they made, there were few musical asteroids who made the impact on the world of classical music in the 20th century than Jascha Heifetz.
Btw- Speaking with many older people, the second name that was mentioned with great frequency was Fritz Kreisler. While Heifetz was noted for his monster technique, it was Kreisler's musicality, charm and ability to entertain that drove his popularity. I just wished we could move past such debates and just enjoy these performers for what each brought to the table. Of course, most of it is who tickles our ear personally. So, that being said...there really is no "greatest".
I'll put my request in to add cellists to this type of conversation! Which for my money would be Starker as the closest we have to Heifetz, in terms of a well-known, consistent excellent and game-changing discography. One might argue in favor of Feuermann, but unfortunately his career was cut short and the recordings we do have are from a lesser sound quality. Starker's artistry is unique and his technique helped usher in what he called "21st century cello playing".
The problem with audiences viewing soloists perform like athletic events is that if everyone now must do a Yja Wang Composer marathon, or talented pianists who can't be as athletic but can provide anEmil Gilelssound, so to say, are intimidated by their agents to try and...catch up, i m not sure if the level is heightened like this....
I also prefer Grumiaux to Heifetz, and by no small margin. I also find unremitting sameness of passion to be unattractive. Elgar called Albert Sammons the only violinist [of the day] who was not only a finer player, but with a completely natural range of expressive capacity compared with Heifetz.. For me Heifetz is always fascinating, and equally frustrating! Best wishes from George
What did Elgar know? Let me be clear: I believe the "unremitting sameness of passion" accusation leveled against Heifetz to be complete BS. I just wanted to counter the notion that his playing was cold or lacking in warmth. That was never true.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I rather suspect Elgar knew a thing or two about music and expression, but I still like your reply. I always enjoy your videos, and am grateful for your forthright views. Best wishes from George.
@@georgejohnson1498 Elgar knew how to compose-. When it came to expression, whatever that may be, he didn't know anything more than the rest of us. No composer did. He simply had his preferences, but we shouldn't confuse them with special "insights."
@@DavesClassicalGuide I did not quite answer this point well. Elgar thought Heifetz was TOO emotional. As the composer said to Fred Gaisberg, the HMV record producer, "He does not know how weep except on his sleeve." Elgar preferred to hint at the sadness rather than gulp at it. Best wishes from George
Thanks!
Thank you!
As someone who played violin (albeit not very good!), I love Heifetz. I could never understand the charge he lacked passion. I find so many of his concerto recordings to be so exciting and full of tension. I’m thinking especially if his Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Beethoven concertos. His chamber works are unique-I don’t know if his chamber works of Brahms, Dvorak, etc are my top picks but they are played a with lots of electricity. He was also great advocate for new music and light music.
No question about it. Heifetz was the greatest violinist of the previous century and upped the game for violinists everywhere. Was he also the greatest musician who played the violin? That's another question entirely. One could argue that Grumiaux is more sensitive, Szeryng probes more deeply, Oistrakh is warmer, etc. etc. But for my money I award Heifetz highest ranking as musician, too. He had an that rare ability to project the "essence" of whatever piece he was playing, passionately, but objectively. One often underappreciated aspect of his recorded legacy were the many superb chamber music outings with friends and associates. Yes, one could criticize them for being "showcases" for the great violinist (and the microphone placements often bear that out); but at their finest these collaterations communicate that same "intensity without undue subjectivity" that characterized the violinist's solo recordings. Dave: if you have had the patience to read this far, I have a suggestion for a new series. Why not prepare a new series of offerings to he Angry God Cancrizans? Viz., "If I could choose one recording by artist X, it would have to be Y." If I could choose just one recording by Glenn Gould, it would have to be -- his disc of selections from the virginal music of Byrd and Gibbons (that was Gould]s favorite among his recordings as well) Just an idea, but it could generate a lot of interesting feedback from your viewers.
I plan to do that too, but only after we do the composers, if Cancrizans makes it necessary. Thanks for the suggestion (you're not the only one).
My grandparents held Heifetz in awe. It was joked about on TV, and Perlman called him "God's violinist," but he really was something else. He's still my favorite violinist and reference point for all others.
Actually the insider video plus this talk make me eager to hear what you’re going to say about Horowitz, given rough contemporanity and reputation. Not clear Horowitz changed piano playing in the same way, but as far as I know a rather more volatile character who is still revered by pianists not so much for technical reasons but because of the emotional intensity… An artist on the verge of a nervous breakdown but he could still do marvellous “controlled “ things people ke scarlatti etc. Again, ten recordings would be rather difficult, but the contrast is fascinating with Heifetz, and it’s such a shame that that Carnegie Hall big box seems to have disappeared:-( I have it though, and it’s quite fascinating:-)
Great intelligent video David. I believe Andrés Segovia would qualify in the guitar section of your exercise.
Reminds me of the Jim Svejda story about how, as a young English Horn player at music camp, he was trying to impress a lovely young violinist. She wanted to play him some Heifetz. He said “so he’s like the Mitch Miller of the violin”! She was not impressed. To be fair, before he did the sing alongs, Miller played a mean English Horn.
Since you mentioned him as one of your personal favorites, would you consider making a top 10 list for Grumiaux as well?
Sure.
I approve of this request.
I can see debates over who was better or greatest coming. I see these same arguments when it comes to rock/pop guitarists and athletes. To weed out all the personal perspectives and perceptions, it simply comes down to who was more influential?
Who sent everyone back to the practice room or provoked a higher standard? While greatness can be relative to one's personal preference, influence is something we can actually gauge. For instance, there is no denying how Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods are the three most influential athletes of their sports. Their impact on both sport and society is undeniable. The same can actually be said about Heifetz. I was fortunate to speak with those who lived long enough to see his impact and there was no denying such in their minds. "Heifetzian, for a time, was a synonym for perfection. I remember writers using the term in old music rags from the 40s and 50s. So, while we can make reasonable arguments for whom we personally believe to be better, when it comes down to the impact they made, there were few musical asteroids who made the impact on the world of classical music in the 20th century than Jascha Heifetz.
Btw- Speaking with many older people, the second name that was mentioned with great frequency was Fritz Kreisler. While Heifetz was noted for his monster technique, it was Kreisler's musicality, charm and ability to entertain that drove his popularity.
I just wished we could move past such debates and just enjoy these performers for what each brought to the table. Of course, most of it is who tickles our ear personally. So, that being said...there really is no "greatest".
I'll put my request in to add cellists to this type of conversation! Which for my money would be Starker as the closest we have to Heifetz, in terms of a well-known, consistent excellent and game-changing discography. One might argue in favor of Feuermann, but unfortunately his career was cut short and the recordings we do have are from a lesser sound quality. Starker's artistry is unique and his technique helped usher in what he called "21st century cello playing".
David you didn't mention Rachmaninoff or Josef Hofmann as pianists. How do you rate each of them historically?
They were very great pianists, obviously!
You either do Florence Foster Jenkins or this series isn't legit!
Querido David, por favor haz Arrau. Un abrazo.
Por supuesto.
Of course in the viola world we have William Primrose 🙂
The problem with audiences viewing soloists perform like athletic events is that if everyone now must do a Yja Wang Composer marathon, or talented pianists who can't be as athletic but can provide anEmil Gilelssound, so to say, are intimidated by their agents to try and...catch up, i m not sure if the level is heightened like this....
For cello, Pablo Casals.
I was just about to suggest his name. You beat me to it.
I also prefer Grumiaux to Heifetz, and by no small margin. I also find unremitting sameness of passion to be unattractive.
Elgar called Albert Sammons the only violinist [of the day] who was not only a finer player, but with a completely natural range of expressive capacity compared with Heifetz..
For me Heifetz is always fascinating, and equally frustrating!
Best wishes from George
What did Elgar know? Let me be clear: I believe the "unremitting sameness of passion" accusation leveled against Heifetz to be complete BS. I just wanted to counter the notion that his playing was cold or lacking in warmth. That was never true.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I rather suspect Elgar knew a thing or two about music and expression, but I still like your reply.
I always enjoy your videos, and am grateful for your forthright views.
Best wishes from George.
@@georgejohnson1498 Elgar knew how to compose-. When it came to expression, whatever that may be, he didn't know anything more than the rest of us. No composer did. He simply had his preferences, but we shouldn't confuse them with special "insights."
@@DavesClassicalGuide
I did not quite answer this point well. Elgar thought Heifetz was TOO emotional. As the composer said to Fred Gaisberg, the HMV record producer, "He does not know how weep except on his sleeve."
Elgar preferred to hint at the sadness rather than gulp at it.
Best wishes from George
@@georgejohnson1498 Of course. He was British. Just proves my point.