Customer Reviews

Prokofiev: Violin Concertos 1 & 2; Sonata for Solo Violin

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Shaham brings his customary good-natured, sweet-voiced interpretations to the two violin concertos of Prokofiev. He is technically impeccable (though there are a few, like Dmitri Sitkovetsky, who are able to bring even greater clarity to the passagework), and musically astute. Those for whom Shaham is a first choice in violinists, and are seeking a recording of these concertos, can purchase this CD without second thoughts. However, for others, this CD should not be a first choice in this repertoire, unless one has their heart set on buying this specific repertoire on a single disc.

The first concerto, alternatively lyrical and demonic, is probably best served on modern recordings by Maxim Vengerov, who also has the advantage of superb accompaniment at the hands of Rostropovich; Vengerov brings fire and passion to the concerto, at the expense of some clarity. Cho-Liang Lin and D. Sitkovetsky, both (like Shaham) former Dorothy Delay pupils, interpret this concerto in a way quite similar to Shaham's, and are also reasonable alternatives (Sitkovetsky's in particular for its sterling clarity and super-budget price). However, there are three very fine historical recordings that trump the modern ones.

One is Nathan Milstein's studio recording (there's also a broadcast recording, interpretively quite similar, but the performance is marred by some noticeable moments of the soloist being lagged by the orchestra); Milstein brings his usual grace and sense of classical proportion to the work, in a recording which is probably a first choice. Another is David Oistrakh's recording; Oistrakh was a champion of this concerto, and he plays what is probably the most identifiably "Russian" interpretation. The final recording is Joseph Szigeti's, interpretively quite distinct from anything else on record and well worth listening to.

In the second concerto, the competition is stiffer -- most of the major violinists of the 20th century recorded this work. Milstein must be mentioned again. Heifetz, too, brings his considerable virtuosity to this concerto (he did not, unfortunately, record the first). Shaham's lyrical playing serves him particularly well in the second movement of this concerto, though.

The inclusion of the solo sonata is a nice bonus, but probably shouldn't influence your purchasing decision much.

Without question, Gil Shaham is one of our finest young violinists. Here he plays with his usual lyrical sweetness and splendid technical skill. Yet I concur with a previous reviewer that the finest recent recording of Prokofiev's 1st violin concerto is Maxim Vengerov's, since he demonstrates far more passion than Shaham (Vengerov's performance of the 2nd violin concerto is almost as fine.). Unfortunately, both performances are on two separate Teldec recordings with Rostropovich conducting the London Symphony Orchestra, so Shaham's interpretations might be preferable to those interested in getting both concerti on one CD. Speaking of conducting, Previn shows he is an admirable accompanist to Shaham, and is as astute interpreter of Prokofiev's music as Rostropovich. The sound quality is absolutely superb; it's slightly better than the Vengerov/Rostropovich Teldec CDs.

Prokofiev's violin concertos are among the greatest and most immediately likeable pieces of music written this century. This is by far the best recording I have heard of them. The sound is beautiful and Gil Shaham achieves a remarkable degree of emotional clarity. He obviously truly understands and loves these pieces. Tears are brought to my eyes every time I hear this CD.

Although I personally dislike discussions on whether one recording is definitive or not, this question is an apt one in this case. Would this CD be on my desert-island-pack (where I can only have 5... hmm... alright ten CD's)? Well, it would be in the running for these concertos in terms of a contemporary rendition, but I would still have to opt for the usual suspects (Oistrakh, Milstein, Szigeti, etc...).
This brings us to another aspect of Mr. Shaham's playing: Although it is beautiful and technically impeccable fiddling, his playing does not have the distinctive mark that violinists of the past did. It is unfair to single out Mr. Shaham with this accusation, as it can be leveled at almost any violinist alive, but since Gil Shaham is considered the scion of violinists these days, I suppose more is expected of him. What it boils down to is that I will always go to his recordings if I want technically perfect, if occasionally soulfully devoid playing, such that I can form my own opinions of the piece without being burdened by too personal an intepretation.
Nonetheless, this CD rates 5 stars for its clarity, beauty, and the inclusion of the oft-maligned Solo Sonata.

This is one of my favorite recordings of these brilliant concertos, and I have a difficult time imagining anyone being dissapointed by them. Soloist, conductor, and orchestra all have great synergy; Shaham's playing is simply magnificent here, and I don't think overly sentimental or sappy (though I'm sure a few may disagree), acheiving wonderful texture throughout-- his prodigious technique makes this difficult music really shine.

When I first heard it, I was with high expectations. I was definitely not disapointed. Shaham took control of both Prokofiev concertos and created textures that painted a vivid picture of Prokofiev's vision. This is "the recording", hey, maybe even better than Milstein's legendary recordings?

First of all, Prokofiev's two violin concertos clearly belong among the great violin concertos ever written. Second, I would be very surprised if the accounts recorded here with Gil Shaham and Andre Previn were ever significantly bettered. Of course, as with all great masterpieces theirs are not the final words, or at least not the only final words, but these performances are nevertheless absolutely unmissable. Not only do these accounts have a magical, crystalline beauty to them, as well as an almost aching warmth, there is - marvelously enough - still plenty of fire and intensity and urgency here. Not the least commendable is the absolutely astounding attunement between soloist and orchestra, with the result that the music is always wonderfully phrased and unfolds naturally, even inevitably, building tremendous power in the process.

It is hard to find particular highlights, for these accounts grip the listener from the very opening bars of the first concerto, where Previn elicits some of the most wonderful, tentative textures from the London Symphony Orchestra, creating a breathtaking background from which the solo violin emerges with magnificent tonal warmth. The scherzo movement becomes a deeply engaging, wonderfully performed dialogue and the finale is as expressive as any, leading up to a stupendous final climax. The second concerto is possibly even better; darker in character than its predecessor, this work lends itself perfectly to Previn's and Shaham's superbly nuanced and almost harrowingly substantial treatment - all the way up to the grotesqueries of the capricious, devilish finale.

As a bonus we get a very engaging performance of the late solo violin sonata - a rather carefree, energetic and ebullient work; not a masterpiece like the concertos, perhaps, but eminently enjoyable and rewarding in its own right. The recorded sound is splendid throughout, perfectly balanced and full-bodied, rich and clear. In short, this is a marvelous release, urgently recommended.

Prokofiev's two Violin Concertos have now established a firm position among the mainstream repertoire, if the number of recordings, and their interpretive excellence, are to be a pointer. Shaham and Previn's version, recorded in 1995, takes part among the very best ones. Shaham plays with fine purity of tone, great technical ease (resulting in an almost too slick rendition of the 2nd Concerto's finale), and he responds both to the pouring lyricism of both Concertos and to their more whimsical and scherzando aspects. In the first Concerto, I've heard more impressive and striking responses to some of Prokofiev's instrumental details (the first movement's pizzicatos at 5:40, the second movement's whistling glissandos at 2:01 and ensuing sul ponticello at 2:17), but in a way this speaks in favor of Shaham: he plays very naturally and never tries to catch your attention with instrumental tricks. In the 2nd Concerto in particular, his luminous tone and simplicity of phrasing produce a superb slow movement. His tempos are generally within the norm (and I'll define the norm here as the dozen of other recordings I've heard of these compositions), a little more spacious than the norm in the 1st Concerto's finale - which can easily take it.

Nonetheless, something bothered me in the first movement of the 2nd Concerto and I couldn't quite put my finger on it, so I went back to Heifetz and his first and seminal recording, made with Koussevitsky in 1937 (Heifetz Plays Strauss (Violin Sonata op. 18), Sibelius (Violin Concerto), Prokofiev (Violin Concerto 2)). Heifetz takes the first, lyrical melody at a slightly faster tempo - and though I understand that it must be tempting to milk it out (and Shaham does rather less than so many others after Heifetz), ultimately it is Heifetz, I feel, who is right: Shaham's transitions to the more dynamic and scherzando passages are more abrupt, less organic (starting with the "POCO piu mosso", at 1:05 in Shaham's reading - and I underline the "poco", which he doesn't really observe), his more pronounced tempo shifts give too much an impression of stop and go, of a movement made of small sections pasted one after the other, slow, fast, slow, fast. Giving too much break when the lyrical motive returns, Shaham is also led to apply unprescribed accelerations to keep the music's character when Prokofiev goes from quarter or eighth-notes to sixteenth notes, such as at 2:44 or 4:01 - in my experience a customary sign that there is something in the architecture and tempo relationship that the musician didn't quite get.

But whatever my reservations, this HAS become the standard approach, so I guess I can't really blame it on Shaham: his is an excellent and tasteful rendition of this (in my opinion, flawed) approach. One requirement of an excellent recording of Prokofiev's Concertos is for the subtle orchestral filigree to come out clearly and vividly - a team effort from conductor, orchestra and sound engineer. I tend to be biased against André Previn, viewing him as a bland, uninspiring conductor. But here, twenty years after his excellent recording of these same two pieces with Kyung-Wha Chung and the same London Symphony Orchestra (Prokofiev: Violin Concertos 1 & 2; Stravinsky: Violin Concerto), I find him again excellent. Yes, all those orchestral details come out clearly but also in a natural sonic perspective, without artificially jumping at you. OK, if I wanted to be picky, I'd say that in the first Concerto's second movement the tuba at 2:10 could belch more, and in the finale the important bassoon part is hardly discernible. It doesn't matter much in view of the many qualities of these versions - my reservations with the Second notwithstanding. Nobody will go wrong with them, and the rarely recorded Sonata for Solo Violin is a welcome bonus, if not as substantial as the Violin Concerto of Stravinsky, which completes the CD reissue of Chung and Previn's earlier recording of Prokofiev.

And a post-script for those who, viewing Prokofiev as an instinctive rather than a cerebral composer, would be tempted to raise an eyebrow at the thought that the composer HAD a mind for architecture and tempo relationship: both the first and second movement of his 2nd Concerto bear the same opening metronome mark: 108 (to the quarter-note and to the eighth-note respectively), while the third movement has 72 to the dotted half-note (equivalent to 216 to the quarter-note, eg double of 108). Furthermore, the opening section of the first movement contains exactly 108 quarter-notes (27 bars in 4/4 time signature), meaning that, played exactly at metronome, it would last 60 seconds (Heifetz takes 55, Shaham 65), while the opening section of the second movement contains 216 quarter notes (18 measures at 12/8), which would require 120 seconds if played at metronome (at 1:47 Heifetz is markedly faster, Shaham is about spot on at 2:03). I doubt that these arithmetical correspondences are mere coincidence, and even if violinists don't strictly observe the metronome marks, they should try and respect the tempo relationship, I think.

I know it is heresy to say so, but neither this recording of the 1st concerto nor Vengerov's with Rostropovich are the best. I have a version with Igor Oistrakh on violin and Gennady Rozhdestvensky conducting, which I think is clearly superior. Oistrakh and Rozhdestvensky have captured the spirit of the piece, the intensity, playfulness, lyricism and beauty, perfectly. Shaham's version is better than the Vengerov, but there seems to be something missing in it. It sounds muted and lacks the emotional intensity of the Oistrakh version. Nevertheless, Prokofiev's 1st violin concerto is by far the best violin concerto ever and this recording is still very good. The 2nd violin concerto is not as good as the 1st, but it is still one of the best. If you can find the Oistrakh recording of the 1st concerto get it, but if not this is still a very good CD.

I've loved Shaham since the first time I heard him; this recording lives up to my expectations and then some. He should be better known by the general public; he is one of our greatest violinists. Bravo