The Greatest Violinist of the 20th Century Was...

[Holden]

Thin (adjective): somewhat feeble, shrill, and lacking in resonance.
Scratchy (adjective): causing or liable to cause a slight grating noise.
Squeaky (adjective): squeaking; tending to squeak.

Ah yes, I see how your additional 5 months of GMG membership qualify you to your opinion, but not me to mine.  How silly of me.   

Indeed, one does wonder.  "Silk underwear music" makes me think of Barry White.   

I'm surprised that you hear Heifetz in that way and wonder who you would say has a far superior violin tone to him. I have recordings from a number of the top ranked violinists and Heifetz' tone is at least the equal of any others (to my ears). What I do wonder is - what specific recordings have you heard that give you this view and could you share those with us.

[Harry Collier]

I have recordings from a number of the top ranked violinists and Heifetz' tone is at least the equal of any others (to my ears).

Yes, Heifetz's tone was subtle. He was the master of an incredible palette of tonal colouring -- more than any other violinist. Too many violinists since have cultivated a smooth, rich tone without Heifetz's colouring genius.

[val]

Not Jasha Heifetz.

It depends on the reportory.

Francescatti and Grumiaux in Mozart and Beethoven Concertos, MIlstein in Bach Sonatas and Partitas, David Oistrakh in Brahms and Prokofiev Concertos, Heifetz in Tchaikovsky, Gertler in Bartok, Suk in Dvorak, Alban Berg and in Brahms Sonatas, Kremer in Franck and Schumann Sonatas, Perlman in Mendelssohn Concerto. And Kreisler in ... Kreisler.

[Larry Rinkel]

Heifetz was the greatest violinist of the 20th century; ask any violinist! And Kreisler was the Emperor of the Violin when Heifetz was the King. But Kreisler turned 50 in 1925, so his best playing belongs to an earlier era.

Anyone who doesn't agree with the general admiration of Heifetz: buy the recent remastering of the Bruch 1st concerto, Bruch Scottish Fantasia and the 5th Vieuxtemps violin concerto and just listen to the playing! No violinist on earth can play the slow movement of the Vieuxtemps with the finesse and colour that Heifetz brings to it.

If the above was meant as a rebuke to silly old me, my post above simply quoted, without endorsing, excerpts from Virgil Thomson's famous review of a Heifetz performance in 1940. The full text is easily found on the Internet if you query "thomson heifetz silk underwear music," and if anything Thomson (who loved skewering what he considered inflated reputations like those of Heifetz and Toscanini) would say your remarks above simply prove his point.

As the URL giving the complete article is kind of long, this one offers some of the choicest passages:

http://blogs.ocregister.com/mangan/archives/2006/05/from_the_archives_silk_underwe_1.html

[George]

Anyone who doesn't agree with the general admiration of Heifetz: buy the recent remastering of the Bruch 1st concerto, Bruch Scottish Fantasia and the 5th Vieuxtemps violin concerto and just listen to the playing! No violinist on earth can play the slow movement of the Vieuxtemps with the finesse and colour that Heifetz brings to it.

As I have none of these works, I've added this to my wishlist.

[m_gigena]

Anyone who doesn't agree with the general admiration of Heifetz: buy the recent remastering of the Bruch 1st concerto, Bruch Scottish Fantasia and the 5th Vieuxtemps violin concerto and just listen to the playing! No violinist on earth can play the slow movement of the Vieuxtemps with the finesse and colour that Heifetz brings to it.

Chausson's Poème will teach them.

Ah yes, I see how your additional 5 months of GMG membership qualify you to your opinion, but not me to mine.  How silly of me.   

Name:     Harry Collier
Posts:    865 (0.799 per day)
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    October 11, 2004, 09:48:28 AM
Last Active:    June 07, 2007, 06:15:51 PM

[DavidW]

Kreisler is the greatest imo.

[Renfield]

Well, it looks like I've been a member for far too little to be given the liberty of disagreeing about Heifetz being the greatest violinist of the 20th century, so I'll just hold my opinion to myself.

(In other words, I was going to reply, but this whole "I am registered for X, you are registered for Y, X>Y, hence my opinion matters more" argument just ruined my mood for it. Feh!)

[dtwilbanks]

Well, it looks like I've been a member for far too little to be given the liberty of disagreeing about Heifetz being the greatest violinist of the 20th century, so I'll just hold my opinion to myself.

(In other words, I was going to reply, but this whole "I am registered for X, you are registered for Y, X>Y, hence my opinion matters more" argument just ruined my mood for it. Feh!)

Let it slide and give us your opinion, please.

[Que]

Let it slide and give us your opinion, please.

Agreed. I already said myself that Heifetz wasn't THE greatest violinist (of the 20th century) - fortunately here is no such thing!  (Would be quite boring)
As for the criticism on Heifetz - I do understand where it comes from.
For whatever the reason, Heifetz' tone "hardened" in the '50s, along with increasing rigidity in his playing. That is why I generally prefer his earlier recordings

Q

[dtwilbanks]

He actually seems to be holding his own here at GMG.

[Que]

He actually seems to be holding his own here at GMG.

Naturally, he indeed was one of the very greatest!

Q

[dirkronk]

Heifetz was the greatest violinist of the 20th century; ask any violinist! And Kreisler was the Emperor of the Violin when Heifetz was the King. But Kreisler turned 50 in 1925, so his best playing belongs to an earlier era.

Thank you, Harry--both for being succinct yet firm about the pro-Heifetz view AND for being first to mention Kreisler, who certainly deserves a place high in the pantheon. When I first saw this thread the other day, I found it astonishing that no one had yet named that worthy violinist who, like his occasional sonata partner Rachmaninoff, left the world dramatically richer in repertoire and established with his skills a high bar for all subsequent challengers to clear.

With regard to Heifetz, I find myself a somewhat reticent defender of his position at the top of the 20th century fiddler heap, but I do get there if only as a process of elimination.

First, there is a field of superb violinists from which to choose. Many of these have been listed already. To make a judicious choice, I think it's only fair to hear the contenders at the height of their powers and in a fairly wide range of repertoire. For better or worse, this rather lets out some of the older but surely worthy names: Kreisler, Enescu, Szigeti, Elman, Busch, Huberman, Kulenkampff, Zimbalist, Kubelik et al. It also lets out those whose obvious artistry was cut short by early death or failing health: Neveu, Rabin and Hassid, for example. I also discount those like Krebbers, Martzy, Morin and others, whose skill sometimes makes one's jaw drop or causes tears to form, but whose careers were perhaps too confined to allow a full flowering before a worldwide public. To my ears, Grumiaux, Milstein and Oistrakh must be considered on or near the same level with Heifetz. Francescatti, Kogan, Suk, perhaps Schneiderhan, the younger Stern, the younger Szeryng, and several others aren't all that far behind. Next I'd list Ferras, Szymon Goldberg, the noteperfect but seldom (for me) engaging Perlman, and a number of others. Kremer I admire (though if anyone has a "typical" thin tone, it seems to me that he does), but I place him with somewhat younger violinists whose careers continue today...and away from "20th century greatest" contention.

Still, for me, Oistrakh is the only serious challenger among violinists who have left us a broad range of examples of their work. And while I find "King David's" tonal richness most appealing in many pieces, he left a number of recordings in which I find that tone somehow less than convincing or (in a few cases) his commitment to the music itself seeming to flag. I've never been as impressed by his Bach violin/keyboard sonatas, for example, as I am by Suk in the same repertoire. And his set of Beethoven violin/piano sonatas with Oborin, though critically acclaimed by many, impresses me far less than Grumiaux and Haskil in these pieces. Still, there is no arguing his greatness, and a list of Oistrakh's recordings I DO love would go on for pages. His intonation was a wonder, but let us remember that he died too comparatively young for loss of ear to become a problem. (Szigeti, Enescu and--notably--Menuhin went through declines in technique or intonation and yet continued to perform, in some cases to their embarrassment.)

By comparison, however, Heifetz astounds from the very beginning of his recording career in 1917 until the very end (the early '70s IIRC). His attack was fearless, his projection strong, his intonation so effortless and utterly dead-on as to stupefy reason. His whole presentation was so assured that it was easy to begin expecting perfection as a matter of course--and perhaps be overly critical of even the slightest perceived lapse. Personally, I think this is part of what's happening when some people level charges of "coldness," "mechanical perfection" and similar complaints. Don't misunderstand, it's not that I think people aren't expressing what they truly hear--just that I don't hear the lack of emotion that they claim is endemic with Heifetz. What I DO hear...and I think Holden is hinting at this in his post...are a number of instances of recording transfers that are so poorly done, almost raw really, that they exacerbate the perception of thin tone; this is true not only in certain digital transfers (some early RCA compilations of shorter pieces and the early MCA transfers of Heifetz's Gershwin are CD examples of this), but even in a number of analog LP transfers from years ago. By and large, however, I have collected recordings in transfers that DO allow me to hear the subtleties in Heifetz. And though he's not my first choice in all repertoire, he is generally reliable in all pieces, a slam-dunk in some, and should NEVER be counted out. Example: while his complete Bach sonatas and partitas don't do it for me--give me Milstein or pre-DGG Szeryng in these--his second partita alone is close to perfect and lacks nothing in emotional charge (my opinion, remember; YMMV). As to maintenance of his amazing skills, it was only in his last recorded live performances (from a 2-LP set released by US Columbia, rather than his more usual label RCA) that I heard any lapses whatsoever in his intonation, and even those weren't ones that would bother me much in almost any other violinist.

Thus, at the end of this exhausting process, I find myself agreeing with the pro-Heifetz camp. I hope I've made it clear that this is hardly idol-worship, and that I'm not about to give up my allegiance to other violinists in pieces where they obviously (for me) rule. But I also cannot deny the greatness I hear in so much of Heifetz's work.

With apologies to all who've lasted to this point, I offer...

Cheers,

Dirk

[carlos]

It's true that Heifetz's recording career began in USA
in 1917, but he had made some in Russia in 1911,Only
6 short pieces found until now (but it can be more,
unknown). Doremi has published it.

[Harry Collier]

If the above was meant as a rebuke to silly old me, my post above simply quoted, without endorsing, excerpts from Virgil Thomson's famous review of a Heifetz performance in 1940. The full text is easily found on the Internet if you query "thomson heifetz silk underwear music," and if anything Thomson (who loved skewering what he considered inflated reputations like those of Heifetz and Toscanini) would say your remarks above simply prove his point.

Thomson was, I think, criticising Heifetz's musicianship, not his violin playing. The reason I don't put Heifetz's unaccompanied Bach at the top of my listening list is because, like Thomson in his review, I find I am seduced by Heifetz' playing rather than by the music he is playing. To my mind, Heifetz was easily the greatest violinist of the twentieth century. However, his interpretations are open to more controversy.

[dirkronk]

It's true that Heifetz's recording career began in USA
in 1917, but he had made some in Russia in 1911,Only
6 short pieces found until now (but it can be more,
unknown). Doremi has published it.

Thanks for the heads-up, carlos. I wasn't aware of the earlier recordings. I have several of the RCA Heifetz Edition sets from the LP era, and the earliest examples there were from 1917. I'll keep my eyes open in case those earlier Russian recordings ever show up in my neighborhood.


Dirk

[Haffner]

Heifetz is very great.

But I like Menuhin and Perlman better. Menuhin often has phenomenal tone, inho.

[Peregrine]

Heifetz for me definitely.

I find transcendental qualities in his playing and technique that just push him above the greatness of others - ala Richter/other pianists.

'We might as well break our fiddles across our knee's!' Said the great Kreisler after hearing a young Heifetz playing. Love that!

[Tyson]

I'm not sure about "greatest", but the one I find the most consistently satisfying is Francescatti.  Only disappointment is his Brahms with Mitropoulos, which given their respective temperaments and recorded legacy I expected to be a SCORCHER, but it was slow and dull.  I have high hopes for his recording with Bernstein though.

My wife (a psychologist, of sorts), exposed me to an interesting theory about how people react to music - head, heart, or gut.  She asked me when I listen to music where to I "feel" it.  For me it is a pretty cerebral experience, so I'm a head person.  For others, they feel it in their heart or their gut, and thus have different preferences for how music is played. 

[Keemun]

I'm surprised that you hear Heifetz in that way and wonder who you would say has a far superior violin tone to him. I have recordings from a number of the top ranked violinists and Heifetz' tone is at least the equal of any others (to my ears). What I do wonder is - what specific recordings have you heard that give you this view and could you share those with us.

I'll admit it, I was a bit harsh in my criticism of Heifetz last week.  (And a bit of a smarta** in response to the criticism I received for it.  )  I still would not vote him the greatest.  As for tone, two that I generally like better are Kogan and Oistrakh.  I'll have to listen to some of the more obscure names mentioned to see if I like them even better.