Yehudi Menuhin

[barney]

I haven't seen this discussed here, though that may be my vision (as my wife says when I ask her where my socks are, or something is in the fridge), but Warner has released its collection of Yehudi Menuhin on 80 CDs and 11 DVDs. I've been sent the 80 CDs when, with all the fickleness of the human species, what I really wanted was the 11 DVDs.
Someone said here some time ago (JohnF?) that he admired Menuhin until about the end of WWII. My wife, a violinist, doesn't like him, thinking he had a sloppy technique and sometimes lazy interpretation.
What do my CMG confreres think of Menuhin, as a violinist and a conductor, and even as a humanist, as his career developed?

[John F]

Menuhin was an admirable man, but for me he wasn't a compelling musician.

Your wife may be hearing the same things I do in Menuhin's playing - not so much interpretation as technique. It's hard to describe, but when playing successive notes with the second an interval below or above the first, he doesn't articulate cleanly; there's a very slight glide down or up from the first note before the second note begins. This makes no interpretive point, it's just a mannerism and sounds quite involuntary; whether it's defective technique or just a kind of left-hand laziness, I couldn't say. A downward glide happens in the first theme of the Mendelssohn concerto in this recording of the early 1950s (ca. 0:27), an upward glide later in the first movement (1:35):



It wouldn't bother me if Menuhin's interpretations were striking in their own right; I love Fritz Kreisler's playing, though his articulation includes more audible portamentos than we're used to in post-Heifetz violinism. But to my ears, and I certainly haven't listened to 80 CDs' worth, Menuhin's musicianship is honest but not particularly individual or inspired. I've gotten some of his concerto recordings but mainly for the conductor - Furtwängler in the Mendelssohn. Others may differ, of course.

[barney]

Thank you very much John, for a detailed and clear answer. Actually I do agree. And I think he was most admired before the 1950s, possibly because that sort of style was more common - the extremely clear articulation of a Heifetz seemed not to matter for some other musicians (think for example Cortot). Now, partly as a result of the importance of international competitions, we have moved to the opposite extreme, where perfect accuracy seems to matter more than musical soul, as it were.

Was it just youthful energy that fired Menuhin up before the end of World War II? There is no work in the repertoire (so far) in which Menuhin is my first choice. But I haven't listened yet to the historic recordings, the first Elgar violin concerto for example. Have you heard enough Menuhin, John )I haven't) to think his style changed at all over his long career? He did fall down somewhat in public estimation of his playing in the 1960s and 1970s, do you not think?

Lance, I would love your view (and those of other members of this esteemed forum).

[John F]

I haven't listened that closely to many of Menuhin's recordings, so I couldn't say. But maybe I should. He recorded Mozart and Bach concertos in the 1930s with his teacher George Enescu conducting and these have been spoken well of. After the War, he was the soloist in Furtwängler's studio recordings of major concertos, at least partly because almost alone he courageously spoke up in defense of Furtwängler against charges of supporting the Nazi regime. Some of those recordings are very fine, Menuhin's technical mannerisms apart, though perhaps that's mainly because of the conductor; they include the Bartok concerto, which I'm sure was instigated by Menuhin rather than Furtwängler (and EMI).

If I've heard any recording of Menuhin playing later than the early '60s, I don't remember it. In 1961 he played the Bartok concerto with Ferenc Fricsay in the Vienna Festival Weeks as part of an all-Bartok program, which I was lucky enough to hear, and a recital with his sister Hephzibah, which I remember as boring from beginning to end. Maybe Menuhin depended on his partners to infuse his own playing with that something extra.

I don't know when it was that Menuhin stopped recording as a violinist and became mainly or exclusively a conductor, notably at the Bath Festival. It may have been in the mid-60s.

[maestrob]

Sorry, gents, but I haven't paid much attention to Menuhin either: my inclinations lay elsewhere. I do have and appreciate his (overly) famous recording of the Elgar, which was restored using vinyl pressings roughly 20 years ago, and it's quite good. I also have an example of his conducting some rare Vaughan-Williams pieces (including a concerto for two pianos) which is quite good. Fact is, I've never had the inclination to explore his output in any depth: perhaps I should, when I have the time.

[Holden Fourth]

I'm another who hasn't found Menihin to be compelling. I've got other violinists (Grumiaux, early Heifetz, Milstein, etc) whose recordings I go to first.

[Lance]

Interesting that Barney has Menuhin up as a post whilst I am in the throes of preparing three individual radio broadcasts.

Here, we have "the most recorded violinist" in the world who gave concerts and recorded right up to the end of his life, albeit as a conductor mostly during his latter years. His recordings have sold well and they continually are being re-released as evidenced by the mega-box Centennial Edition from Warner Classics. Personally, I probably have over 90% of his huge recorded legacy, mostly thanks to compact discs now, but even during the LP era, I was very interested in his art. His background in studies with important violinists also is important in judging his career. He worked with among the very best.

Generally, with well-known performing artists, I listen with great interest to their interpretations to find their individuality within the performances. True, when we speak of violinists within the 78-rpm electric- and Long Play eras, few would become such stars as Kreisler, Heifetz, Milstein, Oistrakh, and a handful of others. Still, being a child prodigy, he proved himself early on and became one of the "hot" stars of his earliest period. By the mid-1950s, he began to experience technical problems that have been well explained, especially in the new Warner's centennial boxed set. But his repertoire was all-embracing and beside solo compositions, there was much concerto and chamber work, with a few steps in the "crossover" direction. I think Menuhin was a sensitive man and artist. He may have not brought the fire of a Heifetz to the fore, however, he was a most accomplished musician. And yes, I have basked in joy at many of his recordings. Others, like any artist, were not always completely memorable. His playing covered Baroque right through all the periods and into the twentieth century. If we seek out other violinists, such as Arthur Grumiaux, whom I can never find fault with, and Ruggiero Ricci amongst many others, whose virtuosic work was extraordinary, I still hold Menuhin in the highest esteem. And his popularity among concert-goers was exceptional, as well as those who collected his recordings with zest, and hence the recordings kept coming.

Not sure if this answers the question about Menuhin's "greatness" as a performing artist, but we can say his career is well documented and represented, and like other artists, only time will tell just how much esteem in his work will continue.

[barney]

Thanks, Lance - a very thoughtful response. I didn't know he was the most recorded violinisit - is that in the notes in the box?
Like you and Holden Fourth, I esteem Grumiaux very, very highly - perhaps at the top, closely followed by Oistrakh, Heifetz, Perlman and a couple of others. Grumiaux is so often my first choice in a work. I love him from Bach to Beethoven to Stravinsky, in miniatures, encores, and the great concerti. I never really explored Menuhin much. I found him fairly idiosyncratic and technically a bit wobbly. John has elaborated on this.
Anyway, there is no short cut - I will have to do some listening now.
Thanks again to all who commented in this thread.

[Lance]

It is my pleasure. Like most everything in life, we all have our likes and dislikes, and they are all valid from our points of view, and how much musicality and training we have had in our own lives. Music for me remains the finest of the fine arts, and as such, some people love Kandinsky, others hate him in the visual arts world. Me? I can't find much to enjoy in his work though I constantly look. In music, that is the same for me: give me music from the Baroque period, into the Classical, and well into the Romantic period up to the 1940s or so (to include Rachmaninoff). Beyond that, the interest wanes for the most part, though I never give up on any of it. We all learn day-to-day and discover and rediscover elements we may have overlooked previously. However, music performance can be heard in myriad ways, tone, technique, interpretation, etc., et al. to make it appeal or unappealing to us for certain reasons. Often, too, those who were child prodigies are sometimes viewed with disdain later on, and they frequently have tough lives to continue as music-makers.

As for Arthur Grumiaux, indeed, one of my very favorites. His legacy on discs is magnificent, to use a hackneyed word, especially his collaborations with Clara Haskil in Mozart and Beethoven.

[absinthe]

I confess to quite liking his playing in the sweet, lyrical repertoire. I have yet to hear another playing Lalo's Symphonie Espagnol as "nicely" (thought the Saint Saens Havanaise on the B side is a little over-sweet for me). I love his interpretations of the Mendelssohn concerti and what he recorded of Paganini's concertos showed he was technically up to it. I have the Mendelssohn on vinyl which I've gone back to of late.
He didn't seem to pass as well on the Berg concerto. And I was never quite happy with his Elgar.

However, compared to some other violinists he's more listenable - the scratcher Ruggiero Ricci for instance who seems to have turned bowing and scraping into an art; Midori who's technically a whizz but none too artistic. However, I'm buried in an earlier era and haven't kept up with recent violinists. Nicola Benedetti sounds quite nice. Doesn't look at all bad either!

[John F]

Midori who's technically a whizz but none too artistic.

I wonder what you can possibly mean by "none too artistic." I'd say the opposite. Vivid in my memory is a performance of the Berg concerto she gave with the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra and Hugh Wolff that was probably the most beautiful and moving I've ever heard. (Why didn't she record it? Ask Sony-Classical.) And the first time I heard her, playing Mozart's 4th concerto at Mostly Mozart in her teens, the way she played Kreisler's 1st movement concerto made it seem as if she was improvising it on the spot. And her repertoire as she's grown older has become the most far-reaching this side of Gidon Kremer. My kind of violinist.

[maestrob]

Yes, I'll stand up for Midori as well. The fact that she's moved away from standard repertoire over the past 10 years or so simply tells me that she's an intelligent artist who's ready to jump outside the box. Her recordings of older repertoire, from Mendelssohn to Poulenc are deeply thought through and not shallow at all.

[mikealdren]

Thanks, Lance - a very thoughtful response. I didn't know he was the most recorded violinisit - is that in the notes in the box?
Like you and Holden Fourth, I esteem Grumiaux very, very highly - perhaps at the top, closely followed by Oistrakh, Heifetz, Perlman and a couple of others. Grumiaux is so often my first choice in a work.

I too love Grumiaux, his elegance in the classical repertoire is fabulous but, or me, he doesn't compare with Oistrakh or Heifetz in the later romantic repertoire. He's right at the top but not in all repertoire. I place Hilary Hahn in a similar place, a superb musician but not in Elgar, Sibelius etc.

Mike

[barney]

Thanks, Lance - a very thoughtful response. I didn't know he was the most recorded violinisit - is that in the notes in the box?
Like you and Holden Fourth, I esteem Grumiaux very, very highly - perhaps at the top, closely followed by Oistrakh, Heifetz, Perlman and a couple of others. Grumiaux is so often my first choice in a work.

I too love Grumiaux, his elegance in the classical repertoire is fabulous but, or me, he doesn't compare with Oistrakh or Heifetz in the later romantic repertoire. He's right at the top but not in all repertoire. I place Hilary Hahn in a similar place, a superb musician but not in Elgar, Sibelius etc.

Mike

Tend to agree about Hahn. She's done some lovely concerts in Australia.

[absinthe]

Midori who's technically a whizz but none too artistic.

I wonder what you can possibly mean by "none too artistic." I'd say the opposite. Vivid in my memory is a performance of the Berg concerto she gave with the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra and Hugh Wolff that was probably the most beautiful and moving I've ever heard. (Why didn't she record it? Ask Sony-Classical.) And the first time I heard her, playing Mozart's 4th concerto at Mostly Mozart in her teens, the way she played Kreisler's 1st movement concerto made it seem as if she was improvising it on the spot. And her repertoire as she's grown older has become the most far-reaching this side of Gidon Kremer. My kind of violinist.

Possibly. I gave up on her about the time I joined this forum after a few recordings (her live presence may be different, I don't know). It was her bravura, technically competent performance of the Paganini Caprices that just seemed to lack a deeper, perhaps even emotional understanding. Perhaps I was expecting too much of Paganini, one of those who had to create a repertoire to show his genius.

And there's also the time issue. Now working from home longer I tend to have the record player going. Whether I can find anything of hers more recent I don't know. I've gone back to vinyl.

But you know me, I'm always ready to give things a go. Interesting to see what she did with the Berg. She'd better be good!

> unfortunately a brief check shows there's nothing about. I could have been interested in the Dvorak. I'll get in touch with my Japanese buddy.

[John F]

You're judging a violinist's artistic quality based on the Paganini Caprices? Amazing. Some of Midori's recordings that I've heard have been somewhat disappointing compared with her concert performances, especially the concertos with Zubin Mehta as the conductor. But not this performance of the Prokofiev first concerto with Mariss Jansons, which is more like it. Right from the beginning, the dynamics of the first theme are more subtle and communicative (I think) than you'll hear from most of today's violinists, while the grotesqueries of the scherzo are not prettified. In places the solo violin accompanies the orchestra, as in the bass tuba solo in the finale, and Midori balances her dynamics accordingly, rather than hogging the spotlight all the time as so many do. You may not like it, of course, but at least this is representative of what makes Midori different.

[maestrob]

I have Midori's recordings with Mehta, and they are rather cold and heartless, but I blame Mehta as that was his style during his tumultuous period with the philharmonic. Not my cuppa. At the time, Midori was a very young artist, and she would have been heavily influenced my Mehta who was many years her senior. Unfortunate. Her later recording of the Mendelssohn sparkles with a depth of wit that touches me, and may be the finest recording of the work I own.

JohnF: The Prokofiev is stunning: I wish it were available commercially. Thank-you.

[hassid]

IMO, from 1928 to more or less 1945, Lord Menuhin was one of the best violinists alive. I love all his young recordings. If you listen to his Ravel's Avodah and it don't move you to tears, yot're deaf, or don´t have a pinch of sentitivity.

[maestrob]

IMO, from 1928 to more or less 1945, Lord Menuhin was one of the best violinists alive. I love all his young recordings. If you listen to his Ravel's Avodah and it don't move you to tears, yot're deaf, or don´t have a pinch of sentitivity.

Thanks, hassid: I'll have to investigate that. So many discs to buy.......

[barney]

IMO, from 1928 to more or less 1945, Lord Menuhin was one of the best violinists alive. I love all his young recordings. If you listen to his Ravel's Avodah and it don't move you to tears, yot're deaf, or don´t have a pinch of sentitivity.

Thanks. This is the impression I somehow have also, probably more from reading than listening.The really interesting question for me is, what changed? Why wasn't that true also from 1945 to his death. Was it just the emergence of violinists like Oistrakh, or did Menuhin's own playing change? Was it because Menuhin got more into his humanitarian activities and conducting?

[John F]

Who knows? Menuhin's memoirs probably don't tell; Humphrey Burton's biography might, but I haven't read it. One possibility is that Menuhin's broadening musical interests took him away from the standard solo violin repertoire, and as far as I know, he didn't play much chamber music. Those interests included conducting orchestral music; playing jazz with Stephane Grappelli; and even playing classical Indian music with Ravi Shankar, no doubt an offshoot of his practice of yoga beginning in the 1950s.

Hey, maybe that's it: yoga and other circumstances in his life brought him too much inner peace for his own good. Something similar happened with Colin Davis, I think. During the 1980s, at the end of his Covent Garden tenure and while he was with the Bavarian Radio Orchestra, some of the fire went out of his conducting; compare his two recordings of Stravinsky's "Oedipus Rex." The contentment of a happy remarriage, and perhaps the different ambience of London and Munich, might have had something to do with it. I thought his return to London and the LSO coincided with a rekindlng, not the anger of his younger years but of passion. Or maybe not; all this is just my impression.

[barney]

In the end, that's what music-listening is: impression.

[hassid]

I think about 1945 he begun to suffer physical problems in the back and arms, and his bowing and intonation became unsure. By the 60s, he was finished. But I repeat: his young recordings are marvel IMHO.