Search - Bela Bartok, Pierre Boulez, Chicago Symphony Orchestra :: Bartók: Violin Concerto No. 2; Rhapsodies Nos. 1 & 2

Lovely concerto, sparkling performance

R. Hutchinson | a world ruled by fossil fuels and fossil minds | 01/20/2002

(5 out of 5 stars)

"I have found Bartok's string quartets to be stunning, and likewise his piano concertos. What, then, of the Violin Concerto No. 2? Beautiful and compelling! The performance is superb. I haven't heard the earlier benchmark Menuhin or Stern recordings, but Shaham is supple and expressive, Boulez and the CSO are impeccable, and the recording quality is clear and warm. Do not be put off by the supposedly absent "peasant earthiness," or the implication that Boulez smooths over Bartok's "noisiness" -- I for one prefer the Takacs Quartet's gypsy interpretation of the string quartets. Listen in the second movement, and you will hear an ethereal Debussian passage with harp interrupted by dissonant sawing! Clearly an outbreak of earthy noisiness. Bartok should not be caricatured as "the Hungarian folk music" composer, his vision was far more encompassing! Having said that, the rhapsodies are marvelous as well, combining Hungarian gypsy and Romanian peasant melodies in a more urbane, commercial style than some of his earlier works, according to Paul Griffiths' liner notes.



I recently heard a 1995 recording of the second concerto by Thomas Zehetmair with Ivan Fischer leading the Budapest Festival Orchestra. Here's a comparison -- Shaham/Boulez/CSO is over 40 minutes long, while Zehetmair/Fischer/BFO is just over 35 minutes. The Zehetmair sounds very fast to me, but as it turns out Bartok's own timing marks indicate just 32 minutes. Shaham makes the work sound more Romantic by comparison, while Zehetmair's interpretation is more folk-inflected, with the violin leaping and cavorting very brightly. Shaham has a big, round tone, reminiscent of the great David Oistrakh, while Zehetmair's sound is sharper. DG's sound for Shaham/Boulez/CSO is much better, deeper and richer, while the Berlin Classics recording by comparison is thin. The Berlin Classics disc includes the posthumously numbered Concerto for Violin & Orchestra No. 1, an early work, instead of the Rhapsodies for Violin & Orchestra 1 & 2. Zehetmair (b. 1961) was 34 when he made the Bartok recording in 1995, while Gil Shaham (b. 1971) was 27 when he recorded with Boulez & the CSO in 1998.



There are currently recordings available by 21 violinists (according to Arkiv Music), but the Shaham and Zehetmair performances are two of the best, and I would still say if you could have only one, this Shaham/Boulez/CSO recording would be a great choice!



"

Shaham's Performance Is Exquisitely Rhapsodic

John Kwok | New York, NY USA | 11/21/2001

(5 out of 5 stars)

"This fine CD is my introduction to Gil Shaham's excellent violin playing. I'm stunned by the beautiful, warm tone he produces from his violin. Surely these are among the finest performances I have heard of Bartok's works for the violin and orchestra. Boulez leads a clinical, yet lyrical, performance of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra that is full rate, yet not quite as compelling as those I've heard with Boulez conducting the Cleveland and London Symphony orchestras in his Deutsche Grammophon recording of the Ravel Piano Concertos. Still, this is a minor criticism of what is otherwise a superb CD. Of course, the sound quality is absolutely impeccable, thanks to Deutsche Grammophon's state-of-the-art digital recording."

Shaham's Playing Is Impeccable

Trevor Gillespie | San Jose, California United States | 02/20/2001

(4 out of 5 stars)

"Gil Shaham plays his violin more cleanly than many violinists out there. And he doesn't sacrifice virtuosity or lyricism to get that beautiful tone. In this particular concerto (and two rhapsodys), Shaham turns in an incredible performance equaling the great recordings of the past in playing. This violin concerto hasn't gained the popularity of say a Brahms violin concerto, but it certainly has great moments within it. One of the problems of this recording is not Gil Shaham, but Pierre Boulez. The ending is problematic and it leaves you wondering how the piece could have ended like that. The way Boulez has the orchestra playing makes the listener think Bartok must have just gotten sick of writing at some point so, mid-sentence he just wrote a quick ending and made an end of the concerto. That being said, it's still a terrific recording. Both soloist and orchestra do a superb job playing."