@brainwasher9876 Hahn's tempo is half of Heifetz and she and Henryk Szeryng play it as it is on the text -- and no spiccatto, that didn't exist back then. Also the next part that comes at 4:42 she plays it all as 1-2-1-2 and her playing is virtually identical to Szeryng's (he though doesn't slow down in those areas.)
Milstein on the other hand played the part from 4:54 entirely in 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2-3 triplet arpeggios. Does that answer your question?
@brainwasher9876 Check out Heifetz Masterclass 4 where he demonstrates the Chaccone. Basically he took the simple 1-2-3-4 1-2 1-2 1-2-3-4 rhythms and turned them into more complicated rhythms on the melodic line. Plus he also played the whole thing in spiccatto (!!!)
Again at 4:42 he takes the 1-2-1-2 rhythm and after one point plays it in 1-2-3-1-2-3 triplets then finally into 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4 Quadruplets (which push the instrument to it's limits). It's making it complicated.
"On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind."
Heifetz hears and plays this piece in a way that only he could, and a way I would only expect from him. beautiful, dramatic, yet sensitive. DISCLAIMER: I do not think that Heifetz is God and realize that everybody is entitled to their own opinion in music, and quite frankly would not give a damn about some youtube comments if I were a performer on the same stature as Heifetz. :|
I'm going to flamed for this but how come Heifetz's 3:14 sounded so messy? It didn't sound like heifetz at all, or maybe I'm just not used to the style....I think Hilary Hahn did it a lot more justice. Before you thumbs me down, call me a moron, etc, please listen to her version first and then discuss.
thats my favorite part out of the whole piece. i can only picture bach thinking of his wife and remembering the joy and happiness she must have brought him. i think Heifetz played that part perfectly, its a lot of overwhelming emotion. thats how i see it, and Hilary does do a good job of this piece but she (along with James Ehnes) plays it too...nicely at certain points
@brainwasher9876 I know what you mean, but I think part of what you are hearing is just the crappy sound quality of You Tube videos combined with the slightly grainy quality of such an old recording. Plus, I'm assuming you're computer speakers aren't all that great (mine aren't) If you compare the same recording played on a high quality stereo you will discover it makes a huge difference.
This is what you hear when technique is so overwhelming that it can be utterly subjugated to the service of the composition, becoming merely a means of channeling a divine symbiosis between the artist & composer. Heifitz was not histrionic, preferring to let his fingers do the talking; but to say this performance is cold is to profoundly misunderstand what you hear. He is temporarliy putting his soul into the service of Johann Sebastian Bach.
I wonder why ya'll are whining about this recording. If you know how it should sound then you play it and upload it. (this is my favorite interpretation along with Milstein's)
The passages in this second part from about 3:12 thru 3:25 sound rhythmically clumsy and even outright sloppy to me, Compare them to, say Johanna Martzy's interpretation or even Menuhin's or Milstein's, and tell me what you think.
You must be mistaken. If you watch the Heifetz masterclass videos, their is a video of him playing the Chaconne and he teaches it exactly how he plays it on this video. It brings out the inner voices and melody. Nobody nowadays does it that way.
I disagree, and although this may be Heifetz's intentional interpretation, he seems to have 'missed the forest for the trees'. His treatment of a simple harmonic motif as a true melodic line is anti-musical, and the results are ugly and disjointed. True, a motif is a melodic fragment, but it is NOT a true melodic line, Bach uses it here as it is suppose to be used: to enhance and anticipate harmonic structure/progression. Heifetz overplays a utilitarian part and it injures the whole.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is no such thing as a supreme musical authority, no matter how much you desire to be one, semisavage. i think your problem is that you are closed minded and think that whatever you believe is right and have no consideration for different people's unique views and emotions. In a way, it's just plain rude.
The hazards of making any meaningful comment on youtube is that you must expect backlash from those who know nothing of the subject (music) so put down anyone who does. Again, I never said anything "rude" about this performance, I simply stated the facts. If you don't like the facts, that's not my problem. A better counter to my post would be a refutation of the facts I present, but that would require knowledge of music beyond "views and emotion", which most (including Newtacious) don't have.
Only reefing to the 8 bars in question, 201-208: This is where you perceived him rhythmically clumsy. I believe he got himself into an intellectual quagmire unsettled in his own mind, and it became unwieldy. This sounds to have been an enigmatic 8 bars for him; he seems to have made too much out of a simple recurring passing tone motif used for harmonic effect.
Heifetz treats a passing tone that creates a minor harmonic motif that anticipates a return to the home key, D minor, as an inner melodic voice; then must honor it as such. His down beat isnt very stable already, but when he tries to make a true melody out of a harmonic tool he changes the emphasis to the top note (A) at bar 203 on the second beat on the beat. Looking at the original manuscript gives no reason for this treatment: it is his interpretation: not very musical however.
i get exactly what you are saying agree with you to an extent. but i do have to say i think, hands down, this version sounds more beautiful and evokes more emotion (in me) than any other version i've heard.
Not clumsy . . . not in the least! This was Heifetz's interpretation . . . his passion . . . his voice . . . Heifetz was never sloppy or clumsy . . . he was passionate and deliberate . . .
I stated that this was his personal interpretation and he was deliberate, but in this passage he was wrong. He was a master of the physical aspect of 'playing music', but there are at least several levels beyond that. A depth of knowledge of the nature of music as a written language he has shown very little. He is like most gifted instrumentalist, he limited his efforts to his mastery of the material/sound realm. If he were a composer himself he would have a very different interpretation.
I understand what you are saying . . . I just disagree with you. This was his interpretation, his voice, there is no wrong in this coming from a master like Heifetz. For instance, I believe Toscanini's interpretations of Beethoven's music to be rushed . . . almost like it was a painful experience for him he was just trying to get through as quickly as possible, but I wouldn't say he was wrong, he just sees Beethoven differently from me. To say he is wrong, in my opinion, is musical arrogance.
This isn't an issue of 'opinion', however, and not about tempo. It's about the misuse of a harmonic indicator preparing to a return to the home key. His treatment of this minor motif as an actual 'melodic line' is wrong, and it shows that he was not really in tune with the basic structural elements of music. One could say an architect putting a toilet on the ceiling in a matter of opinion, but he would be 'wrong', and if any had doubt, just try using it. It's the same thing here at this spot.
Yes, but Le Corbusier decided one day that the neoclassical rules of architecture had to change. And they changed. And the fact that a hundred years ago he said the ceiling should be 2,16 high was quite as strange as a toilet on the roof. What i mean is that Heifetz surely knew what you say is a rule. Maybe he just felt it a different way. If all rules were literally followed forever, no progress would be possible. And the truth is that i hear it and i think his play works. : )
"A toilet on the roof" would work fine; just view any of Vengerov's performances. He insists on 'expressing himself' in as vulgar a fashion as possible in public view.
I said a "toilet on the ceiling", which means that it is up-side-down to begin with.
Too often we think those who are gifted performers/instrumentalists are NECESSARILLY gifted composers with a firm grasp of the basic musical elements of composition. Sadly, they are not. Did Heifetz ever even compose a violin cadenza?
I knew what you mean with a toilet on the ceiling. i just misplaced a word because i´m not english.
But have to give you that one. a performer is a performer, and doesn´t need to know about composition. at this point you´re right. He may know exactly what to do with his instrument but not what to do with the piece at all.
Yeah I know that you guys had this discussion almost a year ago. But I'd just like to point out the fact that Heifetz composed pieces too. Quite a few, in fact. There's a fact for you.
Does this mean Brittany Spears is a 'composer' too? Popular song writing is a very different realm than the counterpoint and many other means of composition in Bach's day. I like Heifetz just fine, but in this one case he missed the mark and it is because he is not aware of the motifs true function in this type of composition. He treats it as an inner voice, a melodic line within its own right, which is an error, and it sounds bad because it is an error. Nobody's perfect;))
my bad, I thought composing meant writing music. On a more serious note, I'm fairly certain a violinist such as heifetz would know what counterpoint, melodic dischord (is that what it's called in english?) or fugue meant. As a violinist myself I'm aware of these things and I'm certainly nowhere near as experienced as he was.
This piece is very very difficult to interpretate in a stunning way (as this version), and this interpretation is a pure miracle of art!! no more words...
yeah, I think Milstein is pretty impressive (he played even in his 80's!), but I never found his interpretations of pieces such as this one as satisfying as Heifetz's.
@diditrich Milstein was awesome.. Milstein was better than all. Heifetz is awesome aswell, but i prefer milstein. Milstein had suck strength in hes playing, and there was no weakness
It's hard to listen to other versions after hearing Heifetz, I find myself prefering to just come back to listen to him again after hearing mere moments of other artists renditions.
I've posted another performance of the Bach partita in d minor, performed by Perlman. It's a recording from the '70s, I think. I really rare one. Check it out!
Heifetz delivers here a refreshing rendition, not conservative nor academic, nor a monochromatic approach-- he really goes for it. First time ever I've felt able to comment on Heifetz' Bach one way or the other.
If you aren't familiar with the Schubert Fant C Maj D534 get it today with Kremer. If you don't think it is one of most enjoyable pieces written and performed, I promise I'll pay you for the disc. Actually there are two discs of Kremer doing Schubert viol/piano, both great
This particular record of H doing the 2nd part of the Chac is one of the best sound recordings and performances I have heard of H. My favorite vi piece is Schubert Fantasy in C. D934, which I heard first in person done by Kremer and Agerich at L.A. Phil, and subsequently recorded by Kremer with Afanasiev. I dont think anyone has done it better. And then when I heard the Heif recording of it it sounded terrible and I thought was performed poorly. With these tracks I feel differently.
You felt that the Heifetz recording of the Fantasy was very poor compared to Kremer or the other way around. I don't think I remember listening to this piece, although I'm sure I have it in my Heifetz collection.
The Kremer was vastly superior. The H recording was one of the worst recorded and performed violin pieces I have ever heard and consequently wouldn't listen to H for years. Your tracks here have regained my appreciation for him likely cause they ARE earlier perfs.
i prefer the audio in the "crappy" video version when Heifetz was supposedly older...this audio isn't as seasoned and warm as the "elder Heifetz on the crappy version"
I think he lost his edge in the later recording. Part of what I think made Heifetz so great was that he took risks in his playing. I prefer this more energetic and electric recording over his calmer and more complacent (but not "crappy") older recording.
well not to be negative, but FORGET playing like that in your life lol...just kidding, maybe one day you'll make Heifetz look like a kid playing with a toy violin...
Yeah, haha, I know what you mean. Sometimes I get really obsessed and listen to two different recordings over and over for 2-3 hours (mostly when I am bored and can't fall asleep late at night).
Yeah, I'm like that, too. I often listen to the same 10-15 second intervals 10, 20 times in certain pieces. I just listen over and over until I get my 'fix' and then move on. Hey, at least I'm not into heroin.
Not by playing Baldur's Gate, that's for sure... :) Seriously, although it would be nice to watch the video, audio works just fine with music. Plus, you don't have to go out and buy it, you can just find it on Youtube. Just listen and enjoy - if not, go do something else. Very simple.
Amazing, you are a very cultivated person! Anyway. No, I understand that it's a good way of having free music almost legally, but for people who have already all heifetz and desperetly looking for a video of him, it's a bit frustrating!
This audio is maybe here in youtube just because there is also video of very old Heifetz playing this very piece. That video recording has crappy sound quality and also Heifetz is definetly better in this recording.
Wow.
bushonomics 5 months ago
@brainwasher9876 Hahn's tempo is half of Heifetz and she and Henryk Szeryng play it as it is on the text -- and no spiccatto, that didn't exist back then. Also the next part that comes at 4:42 she plays it all as 1-2-1-2 and her playing is virtually identical to Szeryng's (he though doesn't slow down in those areas.)
Milstein on the other hand played the part from 4:54 entirely in 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2-3 triplet arpeggios. Does that answer your question?
srinitaaigaura 6 months ago
Comment removed
srinitaaigaura 6 months ago
@brainwasher9876 Check out Heifetz Masterclass 4 where he demonstrates the Chaccone. Basically he took the simple 1-2-3-4 1-2 1-2 1-2-3-4 rhythms and turned them into more complicated rhythms on the melodic line. Plus he also played the whole thing in spiccatto (!!!)
Again at 4:42 he takes the 1-2-1-2 rhythm and after one point plays it in 1-2-3-1-2-3 triplets then finally into 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4 Quadruplets (which push the instrument to it's limits). It's making it complicated.
srinitaaigaura 6 months ago
Comment removed
srinitaaigaura 6 months ago
Comment removed
srinitaaigaura 6 months ago
"On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind."
-Johannes Brahms re: Bach Chaconne
retardedman10 1 year ago 5
Heifetz hears and plays this piece in a way that only he could, and a way I would only expect from him. beautiful, dramatic, yet sensitive. DISCLAIMER: I do not think that Heifetz is God and realize that everybody is entitled to their own opinion in music, and quite frankly would not give a damn about some youtube comments if I were a performer on the same stature as Heifetz. :|
fryfry377 1 year ago
No matter how many times I hear Chaconne I can't get over its beauty.
falconfira 1 year ago
excellent playing, clean technique, Heifetz one of the greatest!
beethomozart 1 year ago
I'm going to flamed for this but how come Heifetz's 3:14 sounded so messy? It didn't sound like heifetz at all, or maybe I'm just not used to the style....I think Hilary Hahn did it a lot more justice. Before you thumbs me down, call me a moron, etc, please listen to her version first and then discuss.
brainwasher9876 2 years ago
thats my favorite part out of the whole piece. i can only picture bach thinking of his wife and remembering the joy and happiness she must have brought him. i think Heifetz played that part perfectly, its a lot of overwhelming emotion. thats how i see it, and Hilary does do a good job of this piece but she (along with James Ehnes) plays it too...nicely at certain points
carrottoponcrak 2 years ago
you might also consider the tempo Heifetz plays that passage compared to Hilary Hhan's tempo
yyr0502 2 years ago
@brainwasher9876 you do know that that yucky part is one of the most tragic parts of this piece right? Oh well :)
dagadbm 1 year ago
@dagadbm if that were tragic, then auschwitz would be downright jolly. 3:14 is the most uplifting part of the piece.
brainwasher9876 1 year ago
@brainwasher9876 I know what you mean, but I think part of what you are hearing is just the crappy sound quality of You Tube videos combined with the slightly grainy quality of such an old recording. Plus, I'm assuming you're computer speakers aren't all that great (mine aren't) If you compare the same recording played on a high quality stereo you will discover it makes a huge difference.
HannahXIV 1 year ago
Comment removed
brainwasher9876 2 years ago
This is what you hear when technique is so overwhelming that it can be utterly subjugated to the service of the composition, becoming merely a means of channeling a divine symbiosis between the artist & composer. Heifitz was not histrionic, preferring to let his fingers do the talking; but to say this performance is cold is to profoundly misunderstand what you hear. He is temporarliy putting his soul into the service of Johann Sebastian Bach.
johnp234 2 years ago 4
Wonderful!
heilogif 2 years ago
Enchanting. That is why Heifetz is the greatest violinist who ever lived.
ladyEulaelie 2 years ago 2
I wonder why ya'll are whining about this recording. If you know how it should sound then you play it and upload it. (this is my favorite interpretation along with Milstein's)
GLXLR 2 years ago
i love him... his my favorite violinist.. although Bach wrote this song when his wife died.. i think it should be played slower...
BaRToLoMaSi 2 years ago
The passages in this second part from about 3:12 thru 3:25 sound rhythmically clumsy and even outright sloppy to me, Compare them to, say Johanna Martzy's interpretation or even Menuhin's or Milstein's, and tell me what you think.
freeyourcrt 3 years ago
that part is not dynamic that much yeah, somehow u'r right.
sahandsesoot 3 years ago 2
You must be mistaken. If you watch the Heifetz masterclass videos, their is a video of him playing the Chaconne and he teaches it exactly how he plays it on this video. It brings out the inner voices and melody. Nobody nowadays does it that way.
mrausar 3 years ago
I disagree, and although this may be Heifetz's intentional interpretation, he seems to have 'missed the forest for the trees'. His treatment of a simple harmonic motif as a true melodic line is anti-musical, and the results are ugly and disjointed. True, a motif is a melodic fragment, but it is NOT a true melodic line, Bach uses it here as it is suppose to be used: to enhance and anticipate harmonic structure/progression. Heifetz overplays a utilitarian part and it injures the whole.
semisavage 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is no such thing as a supreme musical authority, no matter how much you desire to be one, semisavage. i think your problem is that you are closed minded and think that whatever you believe is right and have no consideration for different people's unique views and emotions. In a way, it's just plain rude.
Newtacious 2 years ago
The hazards of making any meaningful comment on youtube is that you must expect backlash from those who know nothing of the subject (music) so put down anyone who does. Again, I never said anything "rude" about this performance, I simply stated the facts. If you don't like the facts, that's not my problem. A better counter to my post would be a refutation of the facts I present, but that would require knowledge of music beyond "views and emotion", which most (including Newtacious) don't have.
semisavage 2 years ago
stating your opinion as if it is fact in itself is a rude behavior
amgar09 2 years ago
If you could even read music you would know that what I stated IS a FACT.
semisavage 2 years ago
Only reefing to the 8 bars in question, 201-208: This is where you perceived him rhythmically clumsy. I believe he got himself into an intellectual quagmire unsettled in his own mind, and it became unwieldy. This sounds to have been an enigmatic 8 bars for him; he seems to have made too much out of a simple recurring passing tone motif used for harmonic effect.
semisavage 3 years ago 5
Heifetz treats a passing tone that creates a minor harmonic motif that anticipates a return to the home key, D minor, as an inner melodic voice; then must honor it as such. His down beat isnt very stable already, but when he tries to make a true melody out of a harmonic tool he changes the emphasis to the top note (A) at bar 203 on the second beat on the beat. Looking at the original manuscript gives no reason for this treatment: it is his interpretation: not very musical however.
semisavage 3 years ago 3
And as my 7 year old says, "It sounds yucky." Thanks semi for such a thoughtful response.
freeyourcrt 3 years ago 20
i get exactly what you are saying agree with you to an extent. but i do have to say i think, hands down, this version sounds more beautiful and evokes more emotion (in me) than any other version i've heard.
carrottoponcrak 2 years ago
Not clumsy . . . not in the least! This was Heifetz's interpretation . . . his passion . . . his voice . . . Heifetz was never sloppy or clumsy . . . he was passionate and deliberate . . .
jubjub2112 2 years ago
I stated that this was his personal interpretation and he was deliberate, but in this passage he was wrong. He was a master of the physical aspect of 'playing music', but there are at least several levels beyond that. A depth of knowledge of the nature of music as a written language he has shown very little. He is like most gifted instrumentalist, he limited his efforts to his mastery of the material/sound realm. If he were a composer himself he would have a very different interpretation.
semisavage 2 years ago
I understand what you are saying . . . I just disagree with you. This was his interpretation, his voice, there is no wrong in this coming from a master like Heifetz. For instance, I believe Toscanini's interpretations of Beethoven's music to be rushed . . . almost like it was a painful experience for him he was just trying to get through as quickly as possible, but I wouldn't say he was wrong, he just sees Beethoven differently from me. To say he is wrong, in my opinion, is musical arrogance.
jubjub2112 2 years ago
This isn't an issue of 'opinion', however, and not about tempo. It's about the misuse of a harmonic indicator preparing to a return to the home key. His treatment of this minor motif as an actual 'melodic line' is wrong, and it shows that he was not really in tune with the basic structural elements of music. One could say an architect putting a toilet on the ceiling in a matter of opinion, but he would be 'wrong', and if any had doubt, just try using it. It's the same thing here at this spot.
semisavage 2 years ago
Yes, but Le Corbusier decided one day that the neoclassical rules of architecture had to change. And they changed. And the fact that a hundred years ago he said the ceiling should be 2,16 high was quite as strange as a toilet on the roof. What i mean is that Heifetz surely knew what you say is a rule. Maybe he just felt it a different way. If all rules were literally followed forever, no progress would be possible. And the truth is that i hear it and i think his play works. : )
javierleonenriquez 2 years ago
"A toilet on the roof" would work fine; just view any of Vengerov's performances. He insists on 'expressing himself' in as vulgar a fashion as possible in public view.
I said a "toilet on the ceiling", which means that it is up-side-down to begin with.
Too often we think those who are gifted performers/instrumentalists are NECESSARILLY gifted composers with a firm grasp of the basic musical elements of composition. Sadly, they are not. Did Heifetz ever even compose a violin cadenza?
semisavage 2 years ago
I knew what you mean with a toilet on the ceiling. i just misplaced a word because i´m not english.
But have to give you that one. a performer is a performer, and doesn´t need to know about composition. at this point you´re right. He may know exactly what to do with his instrument but not what to do with the piece at all.
javierleonenriquez 2 years ago
He wrote his own cadenza for the Brahms violin concerto, beautifully done
ILikeCalculus 2 years ago
Yeah I know that you guys had this discussion almost a year ago. But I'd just like to point out the fact that Heifetz composed pieces too. Quite a few, in fact. There's a fact for you.
brainwasher9876 2 years ago
Really? Could you please point us to those "quite a few" pieces Jascha Heifetz composed? Thanks in advance.
semisavage 2 years ago
"when you make love (don't make believe)" under a pseudonym. It's on youtube but the site won't let me post urls. type it in search.
brainwasher9876 2 years ago
Does this mean Brittany Spears is a 'composer' too? Popular song writing is a very different realm than the counterpoint and many other means of composition in Bach's day. I like Heifetz just fine, but in this one case he missed the mark and it is because he is not aware of the motifs true function in this type of composition. He treats it as an inner voice, a melodic line within its own right, which is an error, and it sounds bad because it is an error. Nobody's perfect;))
semisavage 2 years ago
my bad, I thought composing meant writing music. On a more serious note, I'm fairly certain a violinist such as heifetz would know what counterpoint, melodic dischord (is that what it's called in english?) or fugue meant. As a violinist myself I'm aware of these things and I'm certainly nowhere near as experienced as he was.
brainwasher9876 2 years ago
Que si alguien muestra sabiduría sobre algo, es normal que uno quiera seguirlo ¿no?
picurillo09 3 years ago
¡Por este camino me llevas a dónde yo quiero llegar Padre!
picurillo09 3 years ago
que?
carrottoponcrak 3 years ago
what happen miss picture oon last part?
DHcello 3 years ago
1:55-1:60 is the most powerful part of this half to me
retardedman10 3 years ago
T_T
hombremanq 3 years ago
*jaw drop*
brainwasher9876 3 years ago
Another astonishing perfomance by Heifetz, unbelivable.
BalthasarMA 3 years ago 3
hmm its either jascha heifetz is amazing like that or there's actually two violins playing.
... i'll take the first one. :)
vtun707 3 years ago
This piece is very very difficult to interpretate in a stunning way (as this version), and this interpretation is a pure miracle of art!! no more words...
mrmz80 3 years ago 7
Wow. I've never heard this particular recording, and the last few minutes were quite a revelation. Love the nuances. Unique and beautiful.
cromulentinnoc3nce 3 years ago 7
the first 0:30 is pure bliss
arzdiamondbacks 4 years ago 6
Milstein was more impressive and had more stamina... but this level of purity and sweetnes... it's not human.
And... how could a human being write such a piece por such a limited instrument. Only Bach.
diditrich 4 years ago 22
yeah, I think Milstein is pretty impressive (he played even in his 80's!), but I never found his interpretations of pieces such as this one as satisfying as Heifetz's.
arzdiamondbacks 3 years ago 4
I totally agree with you, milstein added more of his own work to make it interesting. but Heifetz's version is plain yet it is very soothing.
4162999783 3 years ago 3
@diditrich Milstein was awesome.. Milstein was better than all. Heifetz is awesome aswell, but i prefer milstein. Milstein had suck strength in hes playing, and there was no weakness
ericgable 1 year ago
His pianissimos are even MORE frenetic that the forte parts... that's being SENSITIVE... MY god!!!
diditrich 4 years ago 4
It's hard to listen to other versions after hearing Heifetz, I find myself prefering to just come back to listen to him again after hearing mere moments of other artists renditions.
344438 4 years ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi everybody,
I've posted another performance of the Bach partita in d minor, performed by Perlman. It's a recording from the '70s, I think. I really rare one. Check it out!
likemyviolin 4 years ago
umbelievable! I love Bach and this interpretation makes my hair standing. :)
mangonorsu 4 years ago 4
Heifetz delivers here a refreshing rendition, not conservative nor academic, nor a monochromatic approach-- he really goes for it. First time ever I've felt able to comment on Heifetz' Bach one way or the other.
gawgul 4 years ago
Heifetz is Great, but i prefer Milstein interpretation Bach's "Chaconne"
my666vs777 4 years ago
If you aren't familiar with the Schubert Fant C Maj D534 get it today with Kremer. If you don't think it is one of most enjoyable pieces written and performed, I promise I'll pay you for the disc. Actually there are two discs of Kremer doing Schubert viol/piano, both great
rsjmd 4 years ago
This particular record of H doing the 2nd part of the Chac is one of the best sound recordings and performances I have heard of H. My favorite vi piece is Schubert Fantasy in C. D934, which I heard first in person done by Kremer and Agerich at L.A. Phil, and subsequently recorded by Kremer with Afanasiev. I dont think anyone has done it better. And then when I heard the Heif recording of it it sounded terrible and I thought was performed poorly. With these tracks I feel differently.
rsjmd 4 years ago
You felt that the Heifetz recording of the Fantasy was very poor compared to Kremer or the other way around. I don't think I remember listening to this piece, although I'm sure I have it in my Heifetz collection.
aimson 4 years ago
The Kremer was vastly superior. The H recording was one of the worst recorded and performed violin pieces I have ever heard and consequently wouldn't listen to H for years. Your tracks here have regained my appreciation for him likely cause they ARE earlier perfs.
rsjmd 4 years ago
i prefer the audio in the "crappy" video version when Heifetz was supposedly older...this audio isn't as seasoned and warm as the "elder Heifetz on the crappy version"
miketoddd 4 years ago
I think he lost his edge in the later recording. Part of what I think made Heifetz so great was that he took risks in his playing. I prefer this more energetic and electric recording over his calmer and more complacent (but not "crappy") older recording.
aimson 4 years ago 4
i don't think i can play like that in my life.....i am still young though....
violaver 4 years ago
well not to be negative, but FORGET playing like that in your life lol...just kidding, maybe one day you'll make Heifetz look like a kid playing with a toy violin...
miketoddd 4 years ago
i listened to it 4 times in a row ;9
baroque2 4 years ago
Yeah, haha, I know what you mean. Sometimes I get really obsessed and listen to two different recordings over and over for 2-3 hours (mostly when I am bored and can't fall asleep late at night).
aimson 4 years ago 5
Yeah, I'm like that, too. I often listen to the same 10-15 second intervals 10, 20 times in certain pieces. I just listen over and over until I get my 'fix' and then move on. Hey, at least I'm not into heroin.
felixmendelssohn 4 years ago
I love Heifetz's playing and he was a genius.
videosandmorevideos 5 years ago 2
I don't see the point: you tube is about video, that's just an audio file with a picture every one can finf everywhere.
BiffTheUnderstudy 5 years ago
Not by playing Baldur's Gate, that's for sure... :) Seriously, although it would be nice to watch the video, audio works just fine with music. Plus, you don't have to go out and buy it, you can just find it on Youtube. Just listen and enjoy - if not, go do something else. Very simple.
aimson 5 years ago
Amazing, you are a very cultivated person! Anyway. No, I understand that it's a good way of having free music almost legally, but for people who have already all heifetz and desperetly looking for a video of him, it's a bit frustrating!
BiffTheUnderstudy 5 years ago
This audio is maybe here in youtube just because there is also video of very old Heifetz playing this very piece. That video recording has crappy sound quality and also Heifetz is definetly better in this recording.
wallyllaw 4 years ago 2
Beautiful
beylo2374433 5 years ago