Joseph Szigeti, violinist
Hello friends,
I purchased another CD of the Bach Sonatas and Partitas for violin. The violinist is Joseph Szigeti, and it sounds like spahgetti to me!! Horrible!!! I had to play it in different CDs to see if there was something wrong with the cd!!! Anyone knows about this violinist?
I apreciate all musicians and the effort they put towards the love of music. In my book there are good musicians and great musicians! But there is something wrong with this recording or is it the violinist?
Best regards,
Peter
Replies (57)
Greetings,
Ricci commnented on Szigeti in a Strad interview about twenty years ago. he said the guy would just not have an accepotable sound by today"s standards. But Ricci was very respectful towrads Szigeti (he thought he was a profoundly wise musician) and the context was more a critique of what Ricci called the "cellophane wrapped' contest players of today.
I have heard violnists divided into players that have sound and those that have 'tone' with Szigeti being the classic example of the former and Heifetz the latter. Szigeti does take a lot of getting used to and I think it might be true that his recordings of the Bach are not the place to start . Compared toMilstein, Szeryng and a slew of others they can sound too rough to be worth the bother unless you are ready for it.
Listen to his last recording of the Brahms and then a presntation set that has lots of sonatas and the prokoviev .
One you get used to it you realise that this guy just thought and thought his way deepr into the music which is why so many players went to him to learn even when they had super techniques already.
I recently bought his cd of the Mozart sonatas and the opening few ars of k301 actually brought a lump to my throat, they were s delicately times and eloquent. Very few violnists have ever got close to him at what he did on the fiddle. But if you want a great sound go elsewhere. By the way, his intonation was awesome. A phenominally acute ear.
Cheers,
Buri
I am not a big fan of Szigeti. But I have to say I have some of his early encore recordings from 1908-1913 on Biddulph Label that I think are excellent!. His tone is beautiful. Some of the pieces he plays are .... Bach: Prelude in E, Handel Largo in B Minor, Schubert: Ave Maria, Mozart: Minuet in D and The Bee!! to name a few. For some reason the sound quality of the older recordings bring out the personal sound of the performer more, Don't know it could be my ears!.
If you are saying the Sonatas and Partitas aren't beautiful, it's definately the recording...try Nathan Mistein's rendition. It's unbelievable.
i know lots of really excellent violinists who often turn to szigeti recordings for guidance on interpretation.
I have mixed feelings about Szigeti. As a teenager I loved his playing of the Brahms sonatas and a few other works. However, I was disappointed with a set of his live Beethoven sonatas.
I think that he had less technical equipment than some other players, but indeed was an intellectual and expressed ideas that others did not. Take your pick, but I go for Heifetz, Kogan, Rabin et al.
Greetings,
David, the idea of less technical euqipment is quite interesting. In many ways it is not true at all. For example, his intonation was consistently better than a great many of today`s hot shot players (as well of thos e of yesterday) and his ability to produce extraordinary nuances that nobody else even thought of was a kind of technique way beyond what mere mortal players could do. But I think Flesch put it rather well in the Art of Violin Playing whhen he said Szigeti was an demonstration of how all the technique in the world is irrelevent without a guiding musical ideal - that Szigeti`s idela was so strong he produced fantastic art with what is, er technically speaking, a defective bow arm,
Cheers,
Buri
It seems like there is a consensus here about Szigeti's Bach. But I beg to differ. Szigeti's interpretation of Bach was, if I may be so brave, a mark of genius. Granted, he did not have the luscious tone or a very outwardly emotional presence, but the greatness of Szigeti really makes those things unimportant. His strength has always been his clarity. Perhaps not clarity in the sense of getting every note to show up, but rather clarity in the sense of conveying a message. If you listen to his Beethoven concerto with Bruno Walter you'll see what I mean.
I listened to some of Szigeti's Bach (Including the Chaconne), but couldn't bring myself to listen to all of it. Too much rubato, or something, the rhythms seemed like they were completely out of proportion. I though the tone sounded fine - goo execution of the techinical difficulties. But it definitely didn't appeal to me as a whole.
To each his own! Each of the great players had his pieces de resistance and others that perhaps were not their forte. For example, I don't much like Heifetz' Melodie of Gluck because he treats it too harshly - it is a delicate work that others carry off better (e.g. Szeryng).
Thus, Szigeti will be remembered for Bach, certain of the Beethoven sonatas, Brahms etc, but not for his Paganini Caprices.
Stephen - I don't want to split hairs about who or who did not have the greatest technique. Of course, players like Szigeti, Perlman, Oistrakh, Elman etc all had (or have) great technique by normal standards. However, in my opinion, a particular strength of Kogan and Heifetz (and one or two others such as Milstein and Rabin) is the ability to do almost anything at breakneck speed and with complete accuracy. Naturally, there is more to musicianship than mere pyrotechnics but, within this purely technical arena, they have just slightly more than the others, including Szigeti. I guess that this facility, partly the result of natural muscular coordination and partly the result of intense training, comes in especially useful in handling the bravura works of Paganini, Sarasate, Vieuxtemps etc, but it also carries over into their overall music making - which is why I love their playing the most!
i'm glad you mention kogan, because it seems he is passed over quite often, when in fact, IMO he was one of the greatest violinist of that era
Joseph Szigeti is my FAVORITE violinist. He is the musician i strive to be like. who cares about all the others, for me, i think he was usch a genius. he could've picked any other instrument and been just as famous, for an instrument is just a vehicle for making music. i know a lot of people dont like him. you hear his mendelssohn and there are flaws in it technically....but my god, its unbelievable the kinds of colors and soft and dark sounds and characteristics he could get out of a piece. i have his boxed set called "Violin". its awesome,especially his Beethoven Violin Concerto which at first (i have to admit this) i didnt really care for only b/c i didnt see what was so great about it except that Beethoven composed it. But after i heard his recording, oh my god, it was like a whole new piece! im sorry for those who don't like him..i think he was the most amazing musician ever.I hope by the time im a professional i think at least 1/100 of how great he thought. there's a great quote by him on how hard he worked:
"The more you practice like a beginner, the more improvement you make."
this makes a lot of sense in terms of interpreation. i take his advice. i frequently spend about a half an hour on one measure of the Bloch Suite im working on...its still nowhere near where it should be, but that takes time. well anyway, through him as my role model(as well as Glenn Gould and William Primrose as role models of mine too) it gives me hope to be a great musician.personally, id rather be known for musicianship than virtuosity.
I second Chris.
The one time that I heard Joseph Szigeti (in the 1950s) he was already in his late sixties. He was considered the stylistically most modern violinist at that time and I remember that the program was also quite modern for the time: Bartok duo concertante, an Ernest Bloch sonata etc. His technique was adequate for the difficulty of that particular program however his vibrato was quite slow throughout. As one of his encores he played Fritz Kreisler’s Liebeslied and for a few minutes he transformed his playing into an old fashioned style which was probably used when he was a young violinist.
The man was adaptable as far as style was concerned and he had the good taste to be able to determine the true intent of the pieces he was playing as far as phrasing and articulation were concerned. He finished off with a crystal clear rendition of the Bach Preludio in E major.
Ted Kruzich
Violinist Kyung-Wha Chung is Joseph Szigeti's pupil.
She also studied under Gallamian in Julliard before.
She commented a lot about them in her interviews, but The most impressive one is...
"Gallamian gave me the bowing, Szigeti gave me music itself."
You mentioned that your recording of Szigeti sounded like spaghetti. He actually looked rather spaghetti-ish, but without the sauce.(What he drank in his spare time was his own business.) By the time Szigeti recorded the Bach sonatas in their entirety his vibrato was rather wobbly. WHO CARES? (His recordings from the 30's make that evident.) His tone was also rather astringent at times. That's good. Listen to him speak. He is making statements, individualized, clear, committed statements with every phrase. There was good, very good reason why he was so highly respected by his peers. Your choice of purchasing his Bach was not an accident; it was guided by the spirit of music to help you break through to your next level of understanding, which I can also sell to you for three easy payments of $14.98, which, if you send within the next 20 minutes, will come with a recording of Bach himself playing Biber while actually wearing a bib made by Biber. This is valued at $209.00, but is yours for free! But that's not all! You will also receive, free of charge a gut string INTENTIONALLY popped by Paganini himself during a performance in London. This is sehr gut gut, und is normally valued at -- don't even ask! Szigeti was a wonderful performer of his teacher's (Hubay) works as well, and could get under the skin of the music like no one else. You did not make a mistake in your purchase. Hold onto it; as you listen to other interpretations over the years you will come to appreciate Szigeti's power and courage. Or your money back. So call today. Not collect.
his musicality is awe inspiring at times, listen to his recordings with bartok.
I wish he'd recorded Bartok's solo sonata or his 2nd vln concerto. I also wish for a Davy Crockett set for Christmas. (The one I got in 1955 broke.)
I want that Alan ate to!
Well, to be honest, Peter, there could be something wrong with your CD, but I doubt it. The only time I heard a Szigeti recording (the Bach sonatas and Partitas recorded for Vanguard) I thought he sounded terrible. Sound, phrasing, rhythm -
Putting it my way
But nicely
It was not precisely
My cup of tea.
And I'm not that crazy about Kyung-Wha Chung, either...
Ah, yes Joseph! But how many violinists, respected by his peers as Szigeti was, would be able to make a recording with terrible sound, phrasing AND rhythm? I mean, I know I could, but nobody respects my playing except my deaf sister-in-law. In other words, my dear international friends, were conductors like Walter and Klemperer so blinded by the spotlights shining on Szigeti's bald pate that they were hypnotized into thinking the man was a great musician or is it possible that we might not be able to hear in his playing what they did? And is that a rhetorical question? And if not, why not? Answers will be graded on a curve.
All right, Alan ;) :
Sound - it was a '50's mono recording. Vanguard's monos tend to be quite truthful, especially when only protraying one or two instruments and not a whole orchestra. I heard it on an Lp, so perhaps that added to the overall scratchiness; but as someone with a large Lp collection, I'm used to that when I listen to a record. Szigeti's sound, as I heard it, was edgy and rough - extremely so when compared to other reocrdings by contemporary violinists.
Rhythm and Phrasing - The chaconne, as my example piece, seemed to have little rhythm - by that I mean, it didn't feel like a cohesive whole connected with an underlying rhythmic pulse. Certain passages were blocky and disjointed, especially so at measures 24,56, one pasage in the 120's,and certainly at the lead back into the theme at 248. There are others too. It almost seemed as though in seeking to emphasize the bass notes Szigeti used extensive rubato which distorted certain pasages beyond my taste.
Perhaps it's because I'm a spare-time percussionist that I like a little stricter rhythm in a piece :) .
And, by the way, it makes no difference to me what Klemperer or Walter thought of Szigeti. That has nothing to do with the opinion I form of him through a recording, which, as most people know, is a half-deceptive method of evaluating a performer anyway. Perhaps Szigeti was different in a live situation.
This is simply "my take" on Szigeti, and isn't intended to offend anybody or start any arguments. Some more discussion, though...
Szigeti was one of the first violinists I listened to on record, because of his reputation as a "thinking musician" and his association with Bartok. His unaccompanied Bach was the set I first bought and digested, and I also got hold of his late (he called them "posthumous") recordings of the Prokofiev sonatas, the Brahms concerto, and others. Then I got hold of his old recordings, transferred to LP. At that time, I loved his playing, but really hadn't listened very critically, nor compared him to other greats.
Now I find his playing difficult to listen to. In the case of the later recordings, much of the difficulty is clearly due to the collapse of his technique due to aging. The early recordings are from 78s, and therefore have sonic limitations that make them difficult to compare to modern recordings. But I have to admit to myself that, even in the early recordings, he has significant violinistic eccentricities, which might easily be categorized as weaknesses. His slow, wide vibrato inteferes with the focus of his pitch. His bow emphasis tends to be overdone, resulting in crunches and uneven tone. He just doesn't have a conventionally "beautiful" sound.
Sometimes, his "musicality before violinism" approach works well, as in the live recital with Bartok at the Library of Congress in 1940. But more often, it seems to me overdone and, ironically, ultimately "unmusical". I've regretfully removed him from my list of favorite violinists to listen to, although I still have high regard for him as a musician.
Joseph Szigeti was one of the greatest violinists of the twentieth century. Anyone who doesn't appreciate his playing just doesn't understand the violin. He had impeccable, crisp bowing technique and a gorgeous sound. He could play anything. We all have a right to our own tastes, to be sure, and Szigeti's playing may not be everyones cup of tea, but to say he didn't play well, is to display ones ignorance. As for his style, it came out of his era. He was born in 1892, before widely distributed recordings or radio could "homogenize" style as it has today. There was a time when one could close ones eyes and guess who was playing: Heifetz, Francescatti, Menuhin, etc. Not today. They all sound so much alike, with ubiquitous vibrato, often hiding flaws in intonation. Szigeti's intonation was perfect! The man played in tune. And he used vibrato as an ornament, which is what it is supposed to be, not a steroid for enhancing an otherwise mediocre sound! Go ahead and like whomever you choose, but if you fail to listen intelligently and appreciatively to Szigeti, you are really missing something.
I think this is a great subject and I would like to thank that created this thread :)
I heard Szigeti for the first time 2 years ago. It was the Chaconne and I couldn't stand it. The sound sounded so "tough" and agressive and it sounded grossly out of tune for my taste. I also disagreed with his phrasing and with his tempos.
Then 2 years passed in which I developed a lot as a musician and violinist. Recently I listened to that same recording and I was completely shocked. His intonation was so consistent and so expressive, it was just so CORRECT it amazed me. Aside from that the way he does what he wants and isn't afraid to make odd choices in order to create different "scenes" in his music is purely genius. The way he goes most of the time exactly with the line of the music (stronger and a bit faster as it gets higher and the opposite) except for specific places where he chooses to make different choices. The way he uses different techniques in order to paint the piece in his colors and his perfect legato... I could go on and on and I am sure that if I will continue to improve in 2 years I will hear so much more.
Some violinists are great in attracting evereyone immediately like kogan or kavakos. And some require a certain understanding to enjoy.
If I might say one last thing, to a lesser extent Heifetz is a simmilar phenomenon. He is so perfect and brilliant that it is hard to say he is a bad violinist. But understanding his true music is something that comes with experience and every time I get a little better I enjoy finding more layers in his playing which where hidden to me before.
I am starting to appreciate Szigeti's playing more and more each time I listen to him. I recently purchased a DVD on Joseph Szigeti called The Art Of Joseph Szigeti. All the pieces Szigeti plays on the dvd were from the 1950's early 60's. In spite of Szigeti's age, I still enjoyed the dvd. His vibrato is slower than some of his colleauge's ,but his playing has alot of warmth and color to it.
Szigeti's fascinating book (from Dover) is a worthwhile possession...lots of intriguing thoughts on violin playing as well as memorable reminiscences of early 20th century players and programming...Not all his ideas are universal...his specified technique and very personal fingering concepts are worthy of consideration...His diction and grammar are old school and a joy to read.
Some of his late recordings certainly lack the intonation he'd displayed in early years...he was a Bartok specialist and championed all of dear Bela's output.
He was a champion of Bartok's music, as well as a friend and fellow emigre. Strangely enough, though, he never recorded the Bartok concerto (so-called #2), and as far as I know, didn't play it. Ditto for the solo sonata. His inclusion of Bartok in his repertoire was selective.
Wow, is this ever an old thread.
Anyway, I have recently fallen hopelessly in love with Szigeti after reading his book about three times in a row. The only recording of his that I have so far is his recital with Bartok (my favorite pianist by the way) and to all you people who say he is a lousy violinist I say go jump in the lake. For those who say he had poor technique, well, I hear only one mistake on that live recording--his bow seems to take on a mind of its own and decides to scratch out one measure of the last mvt of Debussy. One measure, that's it. Live recording, stuff happens. He was human, big freaking deal.
And only people who think that perfect technique is the highest goal of a violinist, I would like to direct your attention to the first mvt of Debussy on that same recording. I have never before or since heard a violin sound more like a living being. One spot in particular (I can't tell you measure number, I've never played this sonata) literally took my breath away. Joska's violin sounded like a human voice! I listened to that track three more times just for that one spot. :)
So call me crazy, but I think MUSIC is more important than pure technique. Now I'm saving up for that 4-disc box set of Szigeti recordings--unfortunately orchestra season is over, so there goes my one source of income. Looks like I'll be washing a few windows this summer. :)
yeah, that was a really incoherent post. I've been going around in circles on my damn Bach partita and my brain is fried.
Why in the world did Bruno Monsaigneon speed up Szigeti's "L'Abeille" (The Bee) on "Art of the Violin"?
That's not an A=440 HZ. Szigeti's performance is sped up to the point where A is almost Bb. The Heifetz clip of the Tchaikovsky is the same way too, as if Heifetz needed to be sped up. Nearly the entire "David Oistrakh Artist of the People" video that Monsaigneon also made is sped up, though there's enough real-time stuff in there to see enough of the cool things Oistrakh was doing in real time. Leonid Kogan's "Interpretations" is also speeded up unnecessarily, and there are quite a few studio recordings that have been speeded up too.
It's evident that Bruno Monsaigneon is a great filmmaker, and yet he does this speeding up thing through the two violin films he made. That's the only complaint I have of the two fantastic violin films he made that I'm aware of.
The speeding up of the video gives the wrong impression of Szigeti. If you slow down the video to the point where the A=440 HZ, Szigeti has a relaxed and unhurried version of that song that still has all the tension that a real life bee does/induces. He wouldn't look as jerky and uncomfortable as he did on video either, and his voice would be deeper of course. Szigeti didn't need to be sped up to impress people.
I have a big beef with this practice of speeding violinists up on video and audio, particularly since players like Szigeti and Heifetz and Oistrakh and Kogan are too good at A=440 HZ to be "improved" by speeding them up unnaturally.
I kinda assumed the older recordings were often sharp or sped up because the recording equipment wasn't so great. It seems like a lot of old films were sharp.
They sped up the Szigeti scene to fix Jack Benny's comedic timing. Badaboom.
Ha! I never actually noticed that. His voice did sound pretty silly and high-pitched though.
I have quite a few of his recordings and they are fine. However, all of his recordings are done with older technology and sound quite worn out. I have a lot of his recordings because after he passed away I was able to obtain his other violin, an Alfred Vidoudez from his family through Pierre Vidoudez in Geneva. Although it was made in 1919 it is still opening up soundwise. It's developing an older sound quite rapidly now.
Whaaaaaaaat?! You have Joska's violin?!?!?!
I've not heard Szigeti's Bach recordings from the 50's, but I'm impressed by Biddulph's reissue of the Bach sonatas (1&3?) from the 30's when his technique was still very secure.
I second the view that his playing gave great clarity to the polyphonic writing of Bach.
Before anyone passes judgment, I also believe that one must listen to the Congress library recital of Szigeti with Bartok on the piano. Such electricity....
Try not to be discouraged by less than ideal recorded sound. Anyway good recorded sound of the violin is hard to come by, even in the latest recordings.
As an aside, according to his writing, Szigeti himself places the utmost importance in intonation as the bedrock of any good violin playing.
yep. His intonation was -fantastic-
Szigeti's late Bach Solo Sonatas are for me by far the most interesting recordings of these works. Their are so many subtle details that show his complete understanding. There are other technically more flawless renditions, but most lack his fantasy and conviction. You don't have to agree with everything he does (I, for example, don't like fact that he introduces the themes of the fugues always in forte-especially in the c-major)
Nevertheless, his interpretations are always stimulating.
By the 50s when he made his complete Bach set, his technique was more or less shot.
But his recordings of the g-minor and a-minor from the 30s were incredible, along with the Debussy Sonata, the Bach d-minor (adapted from the keyboard concerto), the Prokofiev #1,and many others. His recordings with Bartok of Contrasts and the Kreutzer Sonata are espectially moving.
For an interesting glimpse of his best and what would later become his worst qualities, look on Youtube for his performance of Schubert's "The Bee." Impeccable phrasing and intonation, in spite of a truly weird bow arm.
In the visual arts, time is not an issue. An Egyptian relief done 3,000 years ago is as immediately perceived today as it was 3,000 years ago. We can appreciate that art in its historical context.
But no one living ever heard Paganini. However, we're doing a little better.
We are living in a truly interesting era in which we can actually listen to violinists recorded over the past 110 years or so. Times and styles do change, especially over a century. It is very difficult to appreciate a violinist like Szigeti when our standard today is Hahn and Ennes and Bell and Kavakos and Perlman.
It helps if you like history and can learn to shift (pardon the pun) one's point of view, and in that way to widen one's appreciation for a variety of styles and eras. It helps if you like the historical aspect of violin playing.
I studied myself with a brilliant student of Joseph Szigeti who told me many times that Szigeti had to be heard in the concert hall, not on recording. His vibrato was much faster during live performances and his sound was suited for large concert halls ( not to be "canned".) All great violinists and collegues (including Milstein) were very respectful towards him. He was a great musician and highly educated person, like Enesco and Kreisler.
I just re-acquainted myself by listening to some of Szigeti's Bach S&P performances. They are indeed eccentric, a little on the choppy side, lacking in a certain suaveness one comes to expect these days, and with a wavering tempo and vibrato that is characteristic of him. And the style certainly isn't "baroque" by anyone's definition. It is certainly different, and I can see where it is easy to dismiss it as peculiar and idiosyncratically tailored to the individual characteristics of this violinist.
However, what incredibe focus, genuineness, emotionality, uniqueness of voice, and immediacy of impact. It's like hearing this wonderful music through a different point of view, a different (pardon the visual analogy) set of eyes. If you're willing to hear it from Szigeti's point of view, it really is incredibly compelling.
I'm a big fan of his live recording with Bartok at the piano:
Beethoven "kreutzer"
Bartok Rhapsody #1
Debussy Sonata
Bartok 2nd Sonata
1940 Library of Congress Recording
Sorry, but "anyone knows about this violinist...?" referring to Szigeti is one of the most ignorant questions (at least for a violin forum) I've ever read in my life... I would recommend to buy (and practice, tough+useful stuff...) the arrangement of Scriabin's "etude in thirds" and also to read the foreword... Or to listen to the arranger himself (or in the lack of his recording, M. Rabin does the job pretty good also, maybe even better...) in this work or in Ravel's Sonata, Prokofiev #1, or many other works before talking such nonsense...
BTW (& completely off topic...) Hartmut, what gives? Long time no see...
Greetings,
Claudio, i understand your feelings exactly but please don`t be so hard on people. It`s just the way the world is now. Check out Laurie`s interview with ASM. The latter talks about a talented 15 year old violinist who difn`t know who Milstein was!
But even nearly thirty years ago at a venerable music institute I remember seeing a poster in a music store window noting the passing of Heifetz. I felt strongly thast soemthign important and menaingful had just passed. Hard to explain how sad I felt. But when I talked about to people in college I found even then young violnists who did not know who Heifetz was.
Yoiu think they ever heard of Huberman let alone experienced his recordings?
Cheers,
Buri
Dear Buri (beg your pardon Mr. Brivati...) you're completely right and I apologize! BTW I couldn't understand the fuzz about ASM (At this time I liked more Dylana Jenson who DID know who Milstein was... And still do, great player!) and can't do it now also...And hope Huberman is doing so well and "playing" so often in Japan as actually in the rainforest...
Hi Peter,
I have this recording as well. There are 3 things you need to consider when listening to Szgeti's Bach in my opinion: 1) His age at the time of recording, 2) The performance practice during his lifetime, 3) The way they were recorded. If I recall he was at the tale end of his career when he recorded these and people like Heifetz and Oistrakh were dominating the classical music scene. Concerning the style of his Bach, he was prominent violin player during the same time as Kreisler and Elman. I have many of his recordings including the Beethoven and Tartini Violin Concertos. To our modern ears many of the techniques and elements in their playing seem foreign to us, therefore we (I use that word loosely) classify them as wrong or terrible. I personaly listen to all of the older recordings from a historical perspective and see how it influences my interpretations of pieces.
Best Wishes,
Gerome
Greetings,
Gerome, you`re point is well taken but In my opinion it is slightly more complicated in Szigeti`s case. Certainly in Bach modern research has changed the way we think about and play Bach even if w reject any notion of authenticity nd stick with our young Menuhin recordings. However, I find in Szigeti`s case that at least some of what he does cannot be classified so easily as an old vs. new dichotomy. He was such an original and deep thinker a great dela of what he had to say and some of the kinds of tehcnique he used are as modern a s anyhting going around currently.
Cheers,
Buri
Buri,
I agree. Szigeti definitely had his own take on basically everything he played. He definitely was an individual.
-Gerome
I think Szigeti was one of the greatest violinst of our last generation, particularly not only as a violinist but mostly as a musician, his sound is really fine and always so expressive, the phrasing speak really to the audience....I do not know about the Solo Sonatas, but he plays the Bach Concertos beautifully. He has a very solid technique but this doesn't appear as the most important thing to him, the music instead is in the first place.
I used to have Szigeti's Bach set, which I bought because I'd never heard him but had heard how great he was. It was horribly out of tune and scratchy, and maybe it was me but I couldn't get anything out of it musically either. I later heard that he made one wonderful Bach recording and one bad one (when he was old)... I guess this was the bad one.
So yeah -- without taking anything away from his other achievements, this is (in my worthless opinion) a terrible recording.
Szigeti was my teacher's teacher. I guess that makes me his violin grand-daughter of sorts. I did a little informal study of him. He was Hubay's student, so it was particularly interesting to listen to Szigeti's rendition of his famous teacher's works. I won't state any of my own opinions here except to say you should listen to a few other things. Here's a sample:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BUY55Onzkc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k40Wka-044
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9liUfFkhIs
To my ear, these are very different than this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0aiiNHvYg
Interesting isn't it?
About 2 years ago, while channel surfing one night I came upon the ARTS channel, the one that showcases classical music, ballet, etc. Well I happened upon Szigeti playing something - I forget exactly what it was - and was almost in shock at his playing. He sounded scratchy, and his tone was horrible. Now to be fair, he was quite old, and undoubtedly past his prime. It would be far more worthwhile to listen to him as a young man to get a better assessment of his playing. If I remember he was once called 'The Elder Statesman of the Violin', which may or may not count for something.
Does anyone know if Szigeti studied with anyone after Hubay?
Yehudi Menuhin comments at length about Szigeti in his own memoirs:
George Enescu was a Romanian composer, violinist, pianist, conducting and teacher, preeminent musician of the 20th century, one of the greatest performers of his time....
he was the most cultivated violinist I have ever known but while Enesco was a force of nature, Szigeti, slender, small, anxious, was a beautifully fashioned piece of porcelain, a priceless Sèvres vase. Curiously for a Hungarian, from whom one expects wild, energetic, spontaneous qualities, Szigeti travelled even farther up a one-way road of deliberate intellectualism. A young accompanist who worked with Szigeti told me that two hours concentration wouldn't get them beyond the first three bars of a sonata--so much analysis and ratiocination went into his practice ... A similar persnicketiness marked his adjudication. Shortly before he died in 1973, he was a member of our jury at the City of London Carl Flesch Concours ... I was struck not only by the sharpness of his intellect but also by what seemed to me the perversity of his opinions. Some particular aspect of a competitor's playing would hold his attention, and he would take violent issue with it, to the exclusion of everything else. For him a violinist was made or broken, a prize awarded or withheld, on details that to me scarcely mattered.
Thanks, Anton, for your comment about Szigeti's playing of the Beethoven Concerto .... I heard it only a few times many years ago, and had forgotten that it was Walter who conducted it. Among many great interpretations of this concerto, Szigeti's stands out for its wonderful clarity, both tonally and in phrasing. Despite Flesch's criticism of Szigeti's technical defects, ( and no doubt Flesch is concerned about the sort of problems students could encounter through trying to emulate Szigeti, without sufficiently considering his strengths and weaknesses), I was in awe of his wonderful detache ... the only other artist I have heard of equal perfection in playing detache in this concerto was Denes Kovacs.
Cheers,
Kevin
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
International Violin Competition of Indianapolis
Violinist.com Holiday Gift Guide
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Subscribe
Laurie's Books
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine
April 11, 2004 at 06:21 AM · Szigeti was one of the most prominent figures of violin playing. I don't know much about his Bach, but I do know that he was well known for interpretations. His playing was a bit controversial, and there were people who adored his playing and people who despised it. I guess you fall more into the latter, which is not wrong or anything.