Time-wasting violinist composers

[Glazier]

On the radio recently I heard 2 hours of Fench violin concertos.

Of three concertos- Viotti 22 Vieuxtemps 4 and Saint Saens 3 - only the latter (the non-violinst) was good. The weird donkey braying effect in the Vieux was particularly strange.

Pianist composers can write good concertos for everything, but violinists are pretty patchy. Is it because they can't understand harmony?

[JimL]

Vieuxtemps 4 is a very entertaining work.  In what movement did you find the donkey-braying effect?  If you want a much more effective concerto by Vieuxtemps, try the 5th.  It's waay more eloquent than the 4th.  As for Viotti, well, the 22nd is one of his best, but he's really more a Classical, or at least proto-Romantic, than Romantic composer. 

[Peter1953]

What a weird title of this topic. VC 22 by the Italian violin virtuoso Viotti is a most wonderful work, full of beautiful, lyrical themes, an example of a late classical, early romantic concerto. VC 4 by the Belgian virtuoso Vieuxtemps is perhaps not his best concerto, but as Jim says, a very entertaining work. Indeed, his VC 5 is even better and has an unsurpassed gorgeous coda. The Frenchman Saint-Saëns, well, he wrote so many beautiful works, but he isn't an unsung composer IMHO.
Listening to these 3 VC's is nothing less than a most enjoyable pastime.

[Alan Howe]

All three are enjoyable works: Viotti VC22 late-classical, Vieuxtemps VC4 a Romantic virtuoso showpiece and Saint-Saens VC3 surely one of the greats of the repertoire - a much more substantial work by a composer of the first rank.

But Glazier makes a good point. The VCs by virtuoso violinists are very often vapid display pieces with little true substance. It is frustrating that the VCs by composers of much greater substance are not being recorded - Gernsheim, Reinhold Becker, Brüll, Draeseke, etc...

[Kriton]

Pianist composers can write good concertos for everything, but violinists are pretty patchy. Is it because they can't understand harmony?

LOL, I have to remember this one if I want to p*** certain people off!

But I have to go with what Glazier said, using Alan's words: very little substance in most of these virtuoso violin concertos. I had an interesting conversation with a young cellist last sunday, who was lamenting that the important cello repertoire isn't even 10% of what the violinists can choose from, to which I replied that at least it was ALL good stuff, whereas violinists have to play c**p 90% of the time...

I love violin concertos, but I tend to listen to late romantic ones only. The Gregoriano by Respighi, the Atterberg, the Götz, oh my, I have to stop here - there's so much beautiful melodic material and original composing in so many of them, which I don't find in Rode, Vieuxtemps or even most of Spohr concertos - whose symphonies I like much, much better. I'd like to throw it on orchestration as well, but that would be utterly unfair.

Funny thing, though, that most composers found the violin (after the piano) the best solo instrument to combine with the orchestra, because of its sound and range. They might have been confusing 'best' with 'easiest'... How much more original composing there is to be found in cello concertos! I like Dohnányi's approach to all this, leaving out all violins except for the soloist in his 2nd concerto!

Back to the accused virtuoso concertos; worthwhile in my opinion is Spohr's 8th, not only because of the form. Vieuxtemps may not be half-bad, but Viotti I try to avoid at any cost, since I made the mistake once of acquiring his complete (!) violin concertos...

[peter_conole]

Hi all

The problem with the Vieuxtemps violin concerto no 4 has nothing to do wih the quality of the music, or any over-emphasis on virtuoso display, or whatever. The composer was actually moving on and trying to be a bit more 'profound' in the work and mark himself out amid his contemporaries by producing something out of the ordinary. Remember, the concerto was composed in the 1840s. We can hardly expect the composer to produce violin concertante music on the scale of a Brahms or Bruch or Reinecke or Raff or (yes) Herzogenberg, et all, in that decade. And I am not criticising music of the era of Schumann and Berlioz - just trying to maintain perspective.

That is, producing a concertante work on such a grand scale - symphonic, with four rather varied movements, whilst also keeping his virtuoso craft skills up front - was not easy for Vieuxtemps and may have been beyond his ample musical means. The order of difficulty issue for the concerto may be the real problem - it is damnably difficult to play. I have several recordings and every soloist falls short. Nay, every soloist ultimately fails. And pro violinists have told me what a horror it is to play and have demonstrated why -  even worse than Joachim's Hungarian concerto, and not just because of the notorious scherzo. Heifetz came close (so the blurbs say) at breaking through the work's 'order of difficulty' issue, but he refused to go near it again. And that effort was way back in the 1930s - with a drastically reduced score which made things easier for him. The recording makes that obvious. Still a cracker, though.

This sort of issue has been been discussed ad infinitum many times in this forum and in its predecessor over the last few years. I can empathise with  Alan, Glazier and Kriton. Alan hits the nail on the head in regard to the core problem - so few of the really great violin concertos of the era  c1860-1900 have reached recorded form. I am truly grateful for anything I can get in the way of violin concertos composed in the 1800s - late classical (eg, Viotti, actually an 18th century composer, but whatever - he produced five in the early 1800s) to late romantic, such as Stojowski's recently recorded 1899 concerto.

The problem is that  - and this is not a joke - no more than about 170 violin concertos composed between the years 1800 to 1900 have ever reached recorded form. That is obscene. Something like 6000 or more violin concertos were composed in Europe during that period. And not by 'virtuoso display' clowns or amateurs. As Alan (and others) are well aware, we are in no position to be strongly judgemental about the 19th century violin concerto as a musical form yet. I will refrain from making  any provocative remarks about the possible over-supply of recorded violin concertos from other eras...

regards
Peter
,

[eschiss1]

I was going to insert what seems more and more an irrelevance about the piano (in Alfred Einstein's opinion actually more than mine, though I think he had a point) being a better foil to the orchestra than the violin anyway ("Mozart: His Character, His Work"), but I think Peter Conole hit the nail on the head very relevantly... (Someone get that nail some pain reliever, but seriously, quite right...)
Eric

[Glazier]

I seem to have touched a nerve. Thank you all for giving enlightening opinions and relevant facts.

Personally I'm a big fan of V, especially as I'm an amateur violist who has lived in Belgium and plays on a Belgian made instrument. I've played a cassete tape of the va son in my car to destruction over 20 years. How about the Duo Brillant (v va p /orc or v vc p/orc) - has it been recorded?

Next time I hear the VC4 I'll locate the offending pasage.

[JimL]

The order of difficulty issue for the concerto may be the real problem - it is damnably difficult to play. I have several recordings and every soloist falls short. Nay, every soloist ultimately fails. And pro violinists have told me what a horror it is to play and have demonstrated why -  even worse than Joachim's Hungarian concerto, and not just because of the notorious scherzo. Heifetz came close (so the blurbs say) at breaking through the work's 'order of difficulty' issue, but he refused to go near it again. And that effort was way back in the 1930s - with a drastically reduced score which made things easier for him. The recording makes that obvious. Still a cracker, though.

I don't know about that.  I have the Perlman/Martinon recording.  He acquits himself pretty well, technically in the 4th, regardless about how you may feel about his interpretation.  Of course, I'm not familiar with the score, so I can't tell if he's taking any shortcuts.

[edurban]

I'm a fan of Wieniawski 2, a fine work written by a great player for his own use.  It seems to me to be the equal of Scharwenka, Rubinstein, and many other pianist-written pf concertos. 

Poor Viotti (although technically not of our period), was a true pioneer in elevating the violin concerto above the drivelling level of most late 18th century concertos.  The tuttis of his late concertos are big, ambitious statements and in general there is a scope and seriousness found in few concertos of his contemporaries.  Not to be despised, even if the reach sometimes exceeds the grasp...

Berlioz, an exacting and articulate critic, praised Vieuxtemps 4 highly.

David

[JimL]

I'd like to put in a good word for Wieniawski 1, myself.  Quite an accomplishment for a lad of 18, and a work of some substance (although fiendishly difficult as well). 

[FBerwald]

As in any repertoire there are some bad apples which make it difficult to sit through an entire work (Not to mention painful).. but I think Max Bruch's concerted Violin works are wonderful atonements for the sins of the banal "Violin Concerto".

It could also be a matter of opinion for example (Here I apologise in advance if I 'touch a nerve') I find Brahms' Symphonies too thickly orchestrated (except the 2nd where the melodic content and pastoral atmosphere save the day!), 'I nearly got throttled by a Brahms fanatic once'.  I agree ( ...Some famous critic said this-..) all the four Schumann Symphonies can be condensed to make One GREAT Schumann Symphony. Structurally I like the Glazunov symphonies better than Tchaikovsky.  The Mendelssohn Piano concertos (ground breaking for their dispensing of the customary Orchestral exposition before the soloist entry ...) I find technically brilliant but lacking of the poetry of his other works the likes of the Violin concerto, Italian and Scottish Symphony, etc. Also I think Glenn Gould is HORRIBLE (He kills Bach!!!) and Marc-André Hamelin a Clinical Super Virtuoso lacking in poetry and feeling (Just on account of his Rubinstein 4th and Brahms 2nd(on Hyperion).............. just compare the latter with any of the other Great recordings)!!! There I've said it (and p****d a few people I think). I prefer the un-egoic playing of Murray Pariah, Joseph Banowetz, Brendel, Rubinstein, Hewitt. Again like I said, It's a matter of opinion.

The Vieuxtemps concertos I find a bit drab (except the beautiful 5th!!!), I rather like the concertos of Saint-Saens, Goldmark, Wieniawski (Jim, I too prefer the 1st!), Rubinstein, Glazunov, Bowen, Dayson, Barber, Joseph White, etc.

PS: I want to apologise again for the Glen Gould statement (I know some people go absolutely bananas for him!!!), but I cant help the way I feel about him after listening to Rosalind Turek and Andras Schiff!

[Glazier]

Excuse me sir, this vehicle doesn't belong on the sidewalk:

It could also be a matter of opinion for example (Here I apologise in advance if I 'touch a nerve') I find Brahms' Symphonies too thickly orchestrated (except the 2nd where the melodic content and pastoral atmosphere save the day!), 'I nearly got throttled by a Brahms fanatic once'.  I agree ( ...Some famous critic said this-..) all the four Schumann Symphonies can be condensed to make One GREAT Schumann Symphony. Structurally I like the Glazunov symphonies better than Tchaikovsky.  The Mendelssohn Piano concertos (ground breaking for their dispensing of the customary Orchestral exposition before the soloist entry ...) I find technically brilliant but lacking of the poetry of his other works the likes of the Violin concerto, Italian and Scottish Symphony, etc. Also I think Glenn Gould is HORRIBLE (He kills Bach!!!) and Marc-André Hamelin a Clinical Super Virtuoso lacking in poetry and feeling (Just on account of his Rubinstein 4th and Brahms 2nd(on Hyperion).............. just compare the latter with any of the other Great recordings)!!! There I've said it (and p****d a few people I think). I prefer the un-egoic playing of Murray Pariah, Joseph Banowetz, Brendel, Rubinstein, Hewitt. Again like I said, It's a matter of opinion.

!

the main road is violinist-written VCs. They'll be taking your license away soon.

[Alan Howe]

And just a reminder, Glazier - you aren't the Moderator!

Anyway, the main point here is that there is a large number of unrecorded VCs by unsung composers of real substance. I'd start with Gernsheim's two VCs...

[FBerwald]

Didn't Mahler write a Huge Violin concerto?? I remember reading about it somewhere!