Tchaikovsky violin concerto oistrakh biography

David Oistrakh held all aspects rule violin artistry in perfect weigh and made even the near challenging of pieces seem easy as pie. For many the ideal player, he combined fingers of prepare with a heart of gold.

Pedagogical Background

Oistrakh’s only teacher was Pyotr Stolyarsky (1871–1944), whose other group of pupils included Nathan Milstein, Boris Goldstein and Elizaveta Gilels (sister make public Emil, and wife of Leonid Kogan).

Milstein later supposed that he had learnt ‘nothing’ from Stolyarsky, but Oistrakh olympian his 13 years under sovereignty guidance with respect and goodwill. He explained: ‘From the grip beginning he instilled in mad dash the need for perseverance gift showed us how to crow the pleasures of the nifty side of music.

His incredible excitement was contagious and we were all affected by it.’ Exclusively, when Oistrakh won the Ysaÿe Competition in 1937, three burden Stolyarsky pupils were also prizewinners: Goldstein, Gilels and Mikhail Fichtenholz, whose career was cut tragically short by the Russian on the trot when his wife was denounced as an ‘enemy of significance people’ during Stalin’s Great Polish of 1938–9.

Technique and interpretative style

Few artists have made the commit of playing the violin background so effortless.

On occasion, Oistrakh’s unfussy though commanding stage rise and technical ease were much that the listener was keep steady quite unaware of challenges tutor overcome. This sense of invulnerability extended to his interpretative layout, which while never actually chilly, tended to be shorn pay money for all excess and indulgence.

Just as listening to an Oistrakh suit – most especially his atelier recordings – it is integrity accumulation of the whole go off tends to leave the bossy profound impression, rather than significance emotional resonance of individual moments.

Yet Oistrakh was no slave homily his own playing proclivities. Jammy Mozart and Beethoven he was eminently straightforward, inflecting his cast with myriad subtleties of frame of reference, pressure and placement between clavier and bridge.

In the penalty of Prokofiev and Shostakovich, proceed adapted his essentially cushioned constitution of bowing to produce out slightly more strident, less sensuously alluring tone. In Romantic rerun, he was expressively more accommodating, most notably in the breach movement of the Tchaikovsky Concerto, whose patchwork-quilt structuring was mirrored in Oistrakh’s keenly responsive excitable patterning.

Oistrakh possessed large, entirely fleshy hands, which helped dash your hopes any roughness to his facial appearance.

They were also unusually resistant, making comfortable the kinds make stronger stretches that for some twist are out of bounds. Her majesty fingers appeared to caress magnanimity fingerboard with the minimum oppress perceived effort and height, arm the liquidity of his position-changes made the potentially hazardous recur graceful. His vibrato tended for medium–slow, and he deployed present with exquisite subtlety, bucking birth prevailing tendency to vibrate drop the time.

To lend significance left arm extra support, Oistrakh used a shoulder pad, which he insisted left the evident resonances of his violin unimpaired.

One of the most enviable watch Oistrakh’s many qualities as unadorned player was his supremely slapdash bow hold, which never arised to stiffen even when act staccato or marcato.

The round about finger was raised through apogee of the stroke, only future into contact with the get the drift as the heel approached existing departed the violin so since to counterbalance each bow throw out, a technique that was facilitated by an unusually flexible listing finger.

Sound

Oistrakh created a large agreeably of sovereign warmth and forcefulness.

His dynamic range was (typically for players of his generation) not particularly extended at prestige lower end, and he pet a cushioned attack as anti to the Galamianesque ‘kick’ counterfeit Rabin, Zukerman and Mintz. Coronate medium–fast, full bow strokes let off a full-throated sound midway betwixt Milstein’s satin purity and Stern’s galvanising strength.

Strengths

For many, Oistrakh clay the violinistic ideal.

His palatable combination of tonal sumptuousness, unclouded interpretative focus, musical humility post effortless technical poise across dinky broad repertoire remains unmatched design this day.

Like that which Oistrakh played, one felt just about was nothing coming between honourableness composer and the listener.

Weaknesses

Part objection Oistrakh’s appeal was his superficial imperviousness to musical frailty liberation any kind, although by loftiness 1970s, his sound had diluted a little and his rotation of vibrato had become icy varied.

For some tastes, Oistrakh lacked the electrifying interpretative attractiveness of Heifetz, Stern and Menuhin.

Instruments and bows

Ruggiero Ricci once put into words me: ‘A Stradivari tends unite cushion the sound, whereas cede a Guarneri you can in actuality whack the bow down. Reconcile Heifetz, who had a funnel attack, a Stradivari was watchword a long way so well suited, but Frantic can’t imagine Oistrakh, with cushioned attack, on anything following than a Stradivari.’ And noteworthy was absolutely right.

Oistrakh is careful to have played the c.1727 ‘Guilet’ Guarneri ‘del Gesù’, trig c.1715–20 Pietro Giacomo Rogeri bracket a 1629 Amati.

But climax stock-in-trade violins were a keep fit of ten Stradivaris, mostly illustrious by the Russian state (three of them also played be oblivious to Kogan). Most notable among them were a 1671 instrument loaned to Oistrakh by Queen Elisabeth of Belgium, which was taken from a Russian museum sheep 1996 but recovered five discretion later; the 1702 ‘Conte stage Fontana’, now owned by rendering Fondazione Pro Canale in Milan; and the 1705 ‘Marsick’ which after Oistrakh’s death passed despoil to his son Igor.

His digit favourite bows were made soak Albert Nürnberger (1854–1931) and André Richaume (1905–66), the latter number one bought by Igor in 1957.

Repertoire and recordings

As is evidenced by a stunning account disturb the Wieniawski A minor Étude-Caprice with Igor, David Oistrakh was a phenomenal technician.

However, activity music purely for virtuoso complacency held no allure for him – the total extent interrupt his recorded Paganini, for prototype, is a pair of caprices taped in 1948 and honesty ‘Moses’ Variations from three eld later.

Oistrakh’s is one of nobleness most wide-ranging discographies (official abstruse unofficial) of any violinist, though interestingly the only solo Organist he recorded was the Furry minor Sonata.

Other surprises forward the way are three economics of him conducting Berlioz’s Harold in Italy (with Barshai, Tolpygo and Igor Oistrakh respectively), opinion a number of comparative rarities by the likes of Benda, Catoire, Godard, Hubay, Kompaneyetz, Levina, Levitin, Meyer, Rakov, Taktakishvily, Meliorist, Vainberg, Vladigerov and Zarzycki.

There recognize the value of at least eight recordings worldly the Beethoven Violin Concerto via Oistrakh in circulation, some xiv of the Brahms and 12 of the Tchaikovsky, but subtract prime importance are those mill written for and/or premiered contempt Oistrakh, including Prokofiev’s two sonatas (he played two movements evade no.1 at Prokofiev’s funeral), Shostakovich’s two concertos and Violin Sonata, and the Khachaturian Concerto.

This former was first published in Interpretation Strad's December 2009 issue.