A story circulated in England that at the recording session, Sargent and Heifetz came to the end of the work, and Sargent said that it hadn't been bad for a run-through and they would need to polish it a bit next day. Whereupon Heifetz announced that he had a booking in Paris to which he would need to travel next day, and there would be no polishing. So what you get here may well be a run-though. There is a whole volume of stories about Heifetz and Sargent (who didn't work together that much) of course. EMI, who made this recording, hadn't begun to think about modern recording technology in 1949.
Too heavy orchestration. Heifetz is playing with all his might to make the solo sound comes through. Heifetz performance is brilliant as usual. He made this work shine
Does anyone else think that the piece would get more performances if it rambled less, was about 15 minutes shorter and had a less banal theme in the last movement?
peter owen Im sorry but I dont think its banal at all.😂 For me every note is so meaningful. It’s truly a underrated masterpiece with this unbelievable length. Like a symphony with violin solo..I never heard it before! But I’m just falling in love when I first time hear it..
I guess, if you hear this music in terms of Brahms which, I think, isn't ideal. Though, there's nothing wrong with simply preferring Brahms over Elgar but this is a little like saying Beethoven wrote Mozart's violin concertos better or visa versa.
40:24 my favorite bit :)
A story circulated in England that at the recording session, Sargent and Heifetz came to the end of the work, and Sargent said that it hadn't been bad for a run-through and they would need to polish it a bit next day. Whereupon Heifetz announced that he had a booking in Paris to which he would need to travel next day, and there would be no polishing. So what you get here may well be a run-though. There is a whole volume of stories about Heifetz and Sargent (who didn't work together that much) of course. EMI, who made this recording, hadn't begun to think about modern recording technology in 1949.
Heifetz is the BEST
Brilliant performance by everyone. But this sounds like a 1930 recording, not 1949. I know that 1949 was before high-fidelity and LP's, but still...
Could the third movement be a homage to Gershwin's piano concerto in F? Especially its second movement
😳❤
This piano reduction is no substitute for the orchestral score. So much missed out.
in order to trace the tune it was fair enough
Indeed...
@@noahmoment yes, practical considerations are apparent
can anyone offer an analysis of the various themes timestamped?
Too heavy orchestration. Heifetz is playing with all his might to make the solo sound comes through.
Heifetz performance is brilliant as usual.
He made this work shine
30:16
Nice
A "gothical" lyric concert.
Does anyone else think that the piece would get more performances if it rambled less, was about 15 minutes shorter and had a less banal theme in the last movement?
peter owen Im sorry but I dont think its banal at all.😂 For me every note is so meaningful. It’s truly a underrated masterpiece with this unbelievable length. Like a symphony with violin solo..I never heard it before! But I’m just falling in love when I first time hear it..
It's very underrated
@@Balakirev_ i love it too !
banal ?...where's your emotion ?
There is a theme?
:-)
B
Brahms wrote this piece better
I guess, if you hear this music in terms of Brahms which, I think, isn't ideal. Though, there's nothing wrong with simply preferring Brahms over Elgar but this is a little like saying Beethoven wrote Mozart's violin concertos better or visa versa.
Well at least Elgar got more than one melody in his concerto
Well to each their own, I prefer this over the brahms
It is not a great concerto.. interesting, but many weaknesses, and repetitive motives all the time...