DEBATE: Schumann Violin Concerto; Which one do you prefer?

[wmennisny]

Amongst these 2, for me it's clearly Menuhin. Kulenkampff has taken a tender, damaged and yet noble work and drained it of any energy it might have had. Menuhin has breathed life into it and there is a hopeful sound to his playing and yet he doesn't lose the pathos. Much richer tone too.

[agaphonus]

Meines Erachtens spielt der Deutsche viel innerlicher, meditativer, melancholischer dadurch atmosphärischer. Menuhin spielt dagegen auf eine Actions-Weise, äußerlich attraktiver, spitziger doch auch unruhiger (umtriebig) und ärmer inhaltsmäsig.

Ich glaube Schumann hätte lieber den Deutschen, denn seine Interpretation entspricht mehr seinem damaligen Gemütszustand. Außerdem hasste Schumann "konzertante" Äußerlichkeiten.

[maxreger100]

Menuhin, 22 years old here, already has the signs of his left hand problems. His music making has become more strident and thin and unsure. But his musicality and instinct is still far more interesting to me that Kulenkampf's. Also, Kulenkampf plays his long notes in a strained manner, as if he's squeezing out the tones.

Sorry to disagree friend petrof.

[Enlimdr]

Joshua Bell does a lovely sensitive interpretation. The slow movement is exquistite!

[commanderfairfax]

Nobody has come close to Rybar, except for Kremer in 1994.

Neither Kulenkampff nor Menuhin has a clue what the concerto is all about and take it much too fast.

[GeorgeMaxwellDuPre]

for the first movement, I definitely prefer Menuhin.

[dududevynidu]

Szeryng

[guarneri20]

Szeryng is the absolute master of this.

[amrbotnaru]

Guys, relax.... Neither of the two.

Please do listen LIVIU PRUNARU's version...

Cheers,

Anna

[leofurda]

When I listen to Kulenkampff i always want to skip...is boring..not interesting...

But Menuhin is NEVER boring...EVERY note is interesting....

Stupid debate...listen to Szeryng!

[petrof4056]

When this concerto was discovered, this is this two violonists who were accepted to play it. Kulenkampff was the first and then Menuhin; Szeryng had absolutely no ideas to play it, he was not in the same situation/context than Menuhin and Kulenkampff (1937,beginning 1938).

[MrFullService]

I prefer Kulenkampf as a violinist, never found Menuhin's playing too great. However, I prefer the clipped tempo of the American performance.

[theViolinDreamer]

Yehudi I like more. I can relate more to his music . I feel it as more fluent and convincing.

[assindiastignani]

It's a shame that Szeryng is not include here. He played this piece a lot in the 1960's and, in my opinion, better than these two wonderful gentleman here. I heard him in and around 1966 or 1967 play this piece with NY Phil. and it was stupendous. His studio recording is for medefinitive.

[69brancaleone]

I prefer version of Kulenkampff. More beautiful!

[petrof4056]

the best choice ;) bravo!! i recognize ears of a son of a great musician

[callasdimitrova]

estas pruebas que nos hace escuchar...nos damos cuenta que siempre la misma pieza tocada...jamas sera una igual que la otra...

es un delite para nosotros los amantes de la musica clasica ver y escuchar estas piezas

susana*

[webxyz777]

Georg Kulenkampff's version gives you more time to absorb the music. I like his version more

[younglemeshevist]

I liked Kulenkampff more, though both performances are great. It's just my subjective opinion, because I don't know anything about technique or style .

Thanks for the video, it's very interesting to compare great performances.

[Lupot123]

... Menuhin performance as a whole(!) if you want to understand it. It can be extremely captivating and beautiful (e.g. his 3rd mov. of Bartok Solo). So for me, it is difficult to compare them just in a few clips.

Kuhlenkampff seems to bring out the late Schumann in this more. His priorities are the different characters, and his tempo makes it possible to hear the harmony relations more clearly. This may be the better "Schumann" performance for me, but I also love Menuhin's momentum.

[Lupot123]

I agree that we often can't say that one is better than the other, but I think it is interesting that there are tendencies to prefer one to another in the mass opinion.

Now, first about the piece:

This is an extremely late Schumann work, which reflects his insanity in the many character changes and quick harmony changes (especially in the first movement).

Menuhin is the kind of violinist who tries to capture the audience with his great momentum and beauty of sound. You have to look at a ...

[jozefsterkens]

I've read Menuhin was not welcome to nazi Germany, being a Jew.

[kunnukun]

Sorry - I'm no musician. But the topic is of great interest to me because I would like to know more about the criteria which musicians have in mind (perhaps unconsciously). What about a very short piece as another example, maybe a Bach-violin-sonata? So you could refer to very few specific characteristics of each version. Petrof4056 already selected them which one normally has to do to justify his opinion concerning a long piece but I think that it is easier to do this with a shorter piece.

[petrof4056]

certainly, it's already very complicated to explain this concerto

[kunnukun]

Yes - as I said: With this concerto it is special. When I first heard it (radio) I didn't know what it was and was really fascinated right from the beginning. Soon I will try to get the version which you called a catastrophic one.

[petrof4056]

OK, thanks for participing

[Kievest]

Menuhin's interpretation reflects more

the disturbed (not his fault) genius of

the composer. Kulenkampff's displays a

more mature understanding almost a

detachment, or perhaps exquisite resignation. I prefer the latter. Thank

you for all your hard work and interesting

opportunity.

[petrof4056]

2:41 light ritenuto to arrive to the beauty.

2:44 the C is stressed it's the top of this four quavers

2:47 the D is stressed too for the same reasons

2:50 the first top D

2:53 slide to change the theme that we heard a 2nd time.

3:08 and 3:09 is the 2nd top of the phrase, crescendo and the F is more stressed again.

Do you heard this with Menuhin? : he chains each elements of four quavers

[vstasov]

petrof4056,

This was a wonderful event. Thank you for inviting all of us. Like a musical evening or home concert with discussion afterwards. Very stimulating and interesting!

Could you please host another? I would love a discussion and compare/contrast Sibelius, or Tchaikovsky, or any other great concerto of your selection. For Sibelius, I would like to hear people's comments on Neveu, Oistrakh or other immortals.

And also, thank you for disclosing your favorite, and your reasons why.

[petrof4056]

Thanks vstasov, the green thump come from me. you're fine listeners. I'm interesting by the idea to debate about Sibelius violin concerto: i have Neveu, Kulenkampff, Heifetz, Oistrakh, i think i have Ferras some others probably. That's will be interesting, I'll choose some passages and what versions... Neveu sure, Oistrakh yes, Kulenkampff. I'll see that. Thanks for the idea and yours nice comments.

[vstasov]

Great. I look forward to another interesting discussion. This was a great idea, and thank you for the work that went into it. I've never seen this done quite this way on YouTube before.

[petrof4056]

Know that: the Menuhin instinct was not enough to play it perfectly although i think it's the 2nd best recording of all time about this concerto

[kunnukun]

To me Kulenkampff sounds more exalted; perhaps that is suited to the concerto - ... but such remarks are rather useless

[petrof4056]

My conclusion: Kulenkampff is much better than Menuhin IN THIS CONCERTO!! Maybe not for others but about Schumann, he's the best! Counter to some people said, it's not subjective!! There is a truth when there is a creator. The truth of the interpretation about Schumann violin concerto come from Georg Kulenkampff, the creator of this concerto.

BUT YOU CAN PREFER MENUHIN IF YOU WANT.

[petrof4056]

So he worked a lot notes of the partition. And recorded it with his beautiful sound and his gift. Unfortunately, it's not enough to play a concerto like this. Schumann was a genius composer (sick>madman against his will) and a sawl disturbed. His composition is the fact of his madness, it is very important to know who was he, what are his styles. His music needs to treate with serious and understanding.

Menuhin played by instinct.

Kulenkampff studied and reflected before to play.

[petrof4056]

Why> THE TRUTH: Kulenkampff studied a lot this concerto: he was a great pedagogue of this kind of music, he created this concerto for Hindemith AS A COMPOSER so he played his composition!

Menuhin: germans wanted that Menuhin plays Schumann violin concerto so they sent the original partition to USA. In his context: he was in tourned in USA, he have to play everytime for concerts because he had a big gift BUT for this concerto, he hadn't the same time that Kulenkampff to study this new concerto..

[petrof4056]

OK i saw yours opinions, me, i'm violonist i have father who is pianist. He knows perfectly Schumann, he comes from german romantic tradition. For him (for example), Menuhin is nothing to compare with Kulenkampff, i watched to him this video; he said me Kulenkampff is 100% Schumann, he said me it's the best version of all time.Personnally, he's hard! but i agree with him Kulenkampff is MUCH better than Menuhin. Why? >

[likemyviolin]

I'm thinking about now that it's a very good idea what you did here, actually a violinist forum. Exchanging the opinions, discussing about interpretations, maybe also a start of friendships, who knows... Maybe I should do the same one day, I have many recordings at home, as well.

[likemyviolin]

I forgot to reply to you: I think I prefer Kulenpampff''s version a bit more than Menuhin's. Because of tempi, vibrati and tone.

I really have to go to eat...

[faxodotcom]

i'll take Haagen-Dazs!

[petrof4056]

lol :D

[likemyviolin]

I prefer both, of course, today I ate a huge pizza and now I go to have an ice cream at Haagen-Dazs. :) Seriously: the recording which is very close to my taste is Kristof's approach. I really agree with every note played by him and the entire way that he expresses himself there by music. I don't have that recording with me now... Maybe later... Ok I go now, my ice cream is waiting for me...

[likemyviolin]

Yes, I agree with the ones who say: you cannot compare two great artists' recordings because they both are perfect, just in a different way. So it's relative, which individuality is chosen by the listener as the "beloved one". It's the same thing as if you want to compare which is better: pizza or ice cream? Both are great but in a different way.

But I think it is only possible like that if both are really on the same level (or very close): technically, musically, emotionally by taste, etc...

[petrof4056]

yes, i agree but YOU, do you prefer pizza or ice cream ? :) i mean do you have a personnal preference? it is right we can't compare because they're very similar but each listener have preferences and i want them, same for unexplains reasons. That's interest me to see where is the musical opinion today.

[OriginalMoonbeam]

I am a violinist as well..I don't always select what is most technically correct. In K. I hear some ferocity which I like but he also has the ability to turn sensitive quickly and I like this in a player. I admit that I don't know alot about Schuman so I have learned much by reading your comments-but just going by my ear if I were to purchase a CD I would go with K because it stirs me most and I generally go for the fire. Menuhin puts much warmth into the music but I especially like that

[OriginalMoonbeam]

extra fierceness that Kulenkampff interjects--though I want to say that I strongly add that this is one of Menuhins shining moments--it is an excellent performance on his part and he shows great maturity and it is magnificent playing

[OriginalMoonbeam]

I have heard the Kulenkampff version before--both are perfectly beautiful and one would be hard pressed to choose a preference. Both seem matched in playing ability and it boils down to style and artistic preference. Menuin has a heavier vibrato and while both use a lot of portemento again, Menuhin's is heard more (making his playing distingished) For this piece I think his style adds a nice touch-though Kulenkampff is a most remarkable player in his own right.

[Hamlynhyde]

Thank you so much for sharing this video as well as the dilemma. To be honest, however, I don;t think it's either completely fair or absolutely necessary to decide on the first and second prize, so to speak. To my mind, they are both perfect in their own way... Different, but perfect! The rest is and can only be subjective. On the whole, I personally, tend to feel a fraction closer to Menuhin's approach, but then I always find his interpretations particularly fascinating...

[kunnukun]

Let me state the following (philosophical):

1) Each version claims to be a piece of art (which it is in a certain degree).

2) The more a piece of art has quality the more it is a piece of art.

3) Quality - as far as it is relevant - is not merely subjective.

That's why I wish musicians could give reasons for their opinions a bit more precisely than they usually do. So the video Petrof4056 offers is extraordinarily useful.

[Hamlynhyde]

With all due respect to both kunnukun and Petrof4056, I beg to disagree - and not only in the context of art. Are blond women more attractive than brunettes? Roast potatoes tastier than roast beef? Was Einstein greater than Newton? One cannot compare them! Everything outside exact sciences is subjective. 2 + 2 = 4, and if anybody says 5, then they're wrong. But everything else is subject to opinion and taste. History would have been different, if people hadn't mistaken opinions for facts...!

[petrof4056]

Yes, you're right! As if i ask you to prefer the day or the night. But here, i would like to know some subjective points because i have my favourite that i find much better and i see it's not the favourite of the world.

So yes, we can't compare them but do you have a personnal preference? or maybe you don't know? the both?

[Hamlynhyde]

Thank you again, petrof4056! Then we do agree, don't we? As for my personal preference... Apart from skill, interpretations are bound to reflect approach - which in turn reflects personality or at least a facet thereof. That's why I said I felt a fraction closer to Menuhin's version. I simply feel I have a little more in common with him than with Kulenkampf. In other words, Menuhin's interpretation means a little more to me than the alternative. But that is, of course, very, very subjective!

[petrof4056]

yes! but thanks!! ok fine! :)

[Hamlynhyde]

May I be as cheeky as to try and turn the table on you for a moment, petrof4056? You did say that you too, had a preference... Which one is it? Or won't you tell us...?

[kunnukun]

Now I have to listen to both alternately for some time. It's difficult to make a decision. (But I insist on my statement: It's not merely subjective because no musician can simply play it the way he wants to play it.)

[kunnukun]

"I beg to disagree - and not only in the context of art." I only referred to the context of art. Certainly in many contexts only taste is decisive.

[calzio71]

Both are great but may be I am more sensitive to Menuhin's interpretation

[kunnukun]

This is a great video - it offers a base for a real comparison. Unfortunately "I'm not a violinist so I don't have the language to describe it" (vstasov). But indeed in the first part there is something 'sweet and lovely' in the Kulenkampff version, which Menuhin seems to lack. Perhaps in the third part it's the other way round. I'll have to listen to it several times.

[likemyviolin]

Both!!!! :)

[petrof4056]

lol it's two great versions :D

[likemyviolin]

Yes. :) I have two more great recordings, really great onea of this Schumann. They are Szeryng and Kristof Barati. Kristof is 30 today, so it's not a historic recording, difficult to compair, perhaps I have to show it to you all one day here at YT...

[likemyviolin]

"...really great oneS..."

sorry

[petrof4056]

no problem, my english is'nt perfect too ;)

[petrof4056]

yes!!! why not!

[MrCafiero]

Kulenkampff was better. There is more variation, more expressive contrast and wonderful tone differentiation.

[petrof4056]

exactly

[alainwilliam]

Merci en se qui me concerne j'ai un faible pour la version de kulenkampff -meilleure prise de son et le son du violon qui s'adapte bien à la sonoritée romantique de schumann-je pense que Menuhin joue sur un Stradivarius

[petrof4056]

je suis entièrement d'accord. (oui Menuhin joue probablement sur un stradivarius, je sais lequel mais je ne me souviens plus du nom du violon. Il en était attaché)

[vstasov]

Wonderful video! Thank you. Love to compare and contrast.

Kulenkampff has sweet and lovely, singing tone. Beautifully expressive. * * * * *

Something in Menuhin's 'voice' that disturbs me. See 2'33. What is that? I'm sorry, I'm not a violinist so I don't have the language to describe it. Could you say he's rather meaty? But like him better in the 3rd theme.

I really like Barbirolli's conducting.

[SchnauzerGR]

interesting.... i too had to listen a couple of times. id say that i like them both a lot, each gives the piece a different prespective. but if i was in a store and wanted to buy one cd and only one id choose Kulenkampff . he sounds more lyric to my ears.

[joanabanyeres]

very interesting,nut l have to listen few times, first impression , they are both magnificent , legato and phrase, but may be Kulenkampff- he is a bit more romantic and then more Schumann, but may be l will change of opinion later on. Great interest.

[francotenelli]

thanks for uploading.

I think they are both great:) Menuhin, I think is better with slow tempi-he is more romantic and touches me more, Kulenkampf has more energy in faster tempi.

well Menuhin wins overroll