Bach's violin partitas

Hello all. I got some new versions: Holloway's, Shröder's and - this was totally unknown to me, Marc Lubotski's.

Shröder I did not like (I could not listen to the whole cycle - it never really engaged my attention); Holloway too bland but rather nice; Lubotki's I found rather good, very beautiful violin sound, very good sense of structure.

What do you think?

 

Hi RdS, I have the Lubotsky on my Brilliant Classics Bach box and enjoy it very much. I also have Richard Tognetti's (Australian violinist) double CD which I love, however I heard Rachael Podger's Ciaccona on the radio recently and she is now on my wish list! This is one of my favourite Bach works, especially Partita No. 2, beautiful to listen to on those long nights when sleep won't come!

 

I'm no expert one these (come to think of it, I'm no expert on anything), but I have the Rachel Podger set, which I like very much. Nice recording too.

 

I know the Podger version very well, and like it very much. In fact, it is the 'period' version to date that I really like. I have Swallfish's version - rather unconvincing if well recorded and well played; the Hughet version - a total disappointment, but she seems to like what is being played, and these two.

I also have most of the 'modern' violin ones.

What strikes me is that most 'modern' version ones are actually much better played; some violinists say that a baroque violin is much harder to play, but I think it also has to do with the lack of true technical challenges most baroque violinists face (Biber and some other works apart) contrary to what a 'modern' soloist must muster in order to make himself accepted as a soloist.

That said, Holloway, although not perfect pitch, is most always a very inspired interpreter, and his chaconne is very convincing.

Lubotski convinced me because of the entire naturalness of his playing and the absolute beauty of the sound of his violin.

I do not intend to raise the 'period' versus 'non-period' debate, but I must say that even if I almost only care for very old music indeed nowadays, I feel most 'period' musicians phrase too short, with too many interruptions of musical flow. Now his can be admitted in other musicians, but in Bach flow is of the absolute essence, even in his violin solos.

That is precisely what disqualifies Hughett's version (every turn is phrased independently of the whole) and Wallfish (the fact that everything is accented makes the piece structureless). Shröder also suffers from this (and by tuning problems). The only 'period' version that really integrates short phrases into meaningful wholes is Podger's. Holloway's suffers a little from that, but is quite poetic nevertheless. The ultimate test is the fugue from the 3rd partita: I have not yet listened to it by Holloway. His Ciaconna (another such test) is convincing.

Thank you for your replies.

 

Holloway is convincing, beautiful sound too, rather reverberated (I quite like that); the 3rd fugue is quite good.

It is amazing how many good records there are around!!

 

How about the Ingrid Matthews version (which I have)?

 

Nice to see, that you are still alive, Bat.
I don't know Matthew's version, but if you tell me, why you got it, I might change that situation.

 

Listening to Holloway again made me see how beautiful and noble his version is. Certainly one of the most impressive period versions.

 

Dear pe-zulu:

Exactly: noble, well bred, not ego-centered performance, true to music and in extremely good taste. Excellent, really.

I wonder how professional critics took it (I ceased buying CD magazines: they are expensive and are not really helpful). Any cues?

 

Someone in the net raved about it and I downloaded it from emusic. It is a period version.

 

Haven't got the faintest idea, since I cancelled my subscriptions to a number of CD magazines several years ago, and I don't miss them.

 

What do you think of it ? Recommendable? Do you know any other period version for comparation e.g. Podger, Brookes, Schmitt, Walfish, Holloway, van Dael .. ?

 

I will report soon (?) if I like it. I have also Kantorow's non-period version.

 

Nobody mentioned Sigiswald Kuijken's 1st or 2nd recording. Why?

 

Dear Masolino.

Well, I have both. First one I think is good in details, but lacks overall structure (the ciaconne, for example, is poor) and has some problems (his intonation is not quite perfect).

Second one was better, but I do not know why the interpretation did not tell me much. I have to listen to it again. Thank you for mentioning it.

 

Ups, forgot him, maybe because I didn't listen to him lately. Hovewer relistening to the greater part of his first set (I never acquired the second, reading that it is very similar to the first except for more reverberation), reveals a smooth flowing euphonic and generally introvert approach, and I don't think, Kuijken has got more problems with intonation than most of his contenders. Some of his agogics are a bit distressing to my ears, - yes at most in the chaconne, but on the other hand his treatment of the triple and quadruple part sections is very good, and does not interrupt the rhythm in the way, we hear so often elsewhere.
So among the period performances, I know (I still wait for Bat's comments on Matthews), I would put Kuijken on a shared second position with Lucy van Dael, - Podger being my first choice.

 

I listened to the first record of Kuijken's second set. For my taste, there is too much stress on 'good' notes and not enough flow.

I know I must begin to be annoying with this question of 'flow', but I like vocal renderings of music; I like rather long phrases. If this is romanticism so be it.

 

You'll like Grumiaux then ... I read all the time time that I should prefer Milstein, I don't. Listening to the Chaconne played by Grumiaux makes me lie on the floor, stare at the ceiling and think about heaven and hell, love and hate, and ultimately about the immense beauty of the piece.

 

Baroque violins are very difficult to play. Firstly there's the question of the gut strings, these often create false harmonics, so the harmonics of a note aren't always true. They also aren't as taught as modern strings, so it is easier to 'bend the note' out of tune. They also tend to have stumpy fat necks (the violins not the players ) This makes playing the double stops very difficult as the strings are further apart and it's harder to get the fingers in exactly the right place. It is this that really gives many baroque interpretations that strange out of tuneness.

Myself I love many interpretations of the pieces, I don't think there's any right answer here. Heifitz, Mintz, Perlman, Milstein (1973) have all got places in my collection along with Szigeti (one of my favourite fiddlers) and Enescu. I must try also to get hold of the Julia Fischer recordings, I've heard nothing but good of these, and she sounds like a precoscious talent. I'm not a lover of 'authentic' performances, it always seems a slightly odd practice to try and recreate something you can't conclusively do, a bit like the Victorians giving all the dinosaurs exciting coloured skins, and putting them in all sorts of odd positions

 

I have both and actually think the second is more different from the first than they are similar. Yes sound pickup is not as close in the second one as in the first one, but I like the idea of being able to listen to his performance at some distance - it is more relaxing to my ears, and paradoxically, I can actually concentrate better on his music making. I also detect more "flow" of the music in the newer version, in contrast to what others seem to have reported here so far. Perhaps as a combination of all the factors above, I recommend getting Kuijken's second recording as an "improvement" over the first.
I haven't heard the Podger set.