Milstein vs. Shaham: Milstein Prevails!
Hello again! You may have noticed that I haven’t posted on my blog in over a year. I offer my sincerest apologies. I’ve been busy, teaching a bunch, and all those standard excuses. However, I think another reason that I got off track with posting was because this particular face-off was very difficult. After several listenings, I found it hard to articulate my feelings about the differences between the performances. My gut always leaned toward Milstein, but as I listened to both recordings and searched for the words to explain my feelings, I found myself thinking “but Shaham plays so beautifully…” In the end, I had to make a decision, and I went with my gut. I hope I can explain my decision clearly while acknowledging the ambivalence that I still feel towards this decision.
In many regards, both recordings are very similar. Neither artist does anything particularly innovative or unique that really stands out from the crowd (in the vein of Heifetz or Mutter, for example) . Their tempos and interpretations are both relatively conservative. Overall, both artists deliver tasteful, beautiful (if unremarkable) performances. However, when listening to Shaham I consistently found myself having a bit more trouble paying attention. This is not to say that Shaham’s playing is uninteresting (because it’s not), but it just doesn’t demand my attention in the same way Milstein’s does.
There are a some minor interpretive differences which I prefer in Milstein’s playing. For example, he makes ample use of natural harmonics and other techniques to add interest to the music (particularly in the development), where as Shaham’s fingerings sound more standard. Milstein’s pacing and use of rubato, etc also speaks to me a little more. I perceive Milstein’s playing to have more “personality”, and I think it’s because it is peppered with little “ooh, ahh” moments that grab my attention. Shaham’s musicality is exquisite, but I think the overall effect is that a lot of little moments get lost for me. Additionally, in Milstein I hear a wider variety in tone colors. He can range from gentle to strident and everything in between. Shaham’s tone quality is luminous throughout, but he seems to consistently favor power (particularly on the G string), and the end result is slightly lacking in tenderness.
I'm no expert in sound engineering, so I won’t presume to say which recording sounds more realistic or natural. Also, as Milstein’s recording is considerably older, I won’t assume that the differences in the sound are due to conscious choice (as opposed to changes in recording technology). I will say that I slightly prefer the sound of Milstein’s recording. The orchestra sounds smaller and less imposing, and the overall effect is much more intimate than Shaham’s. Intimacy probably isn’t what Shaham was going for, and I can see the value in that. I also slightly prefer Milstein's sound. It comes off a little warmer than Shaham's (again, I'm not sure how much of this could be attributable to the differences the ages of the recordings). In the end Milstein’s performance just feels a little more inviting.
Ultimately, Milstein’s recording feeling more “inviting” is the crux of his victory. Shaham plays beautifully and with amazing power, but at times I feel like I’m being bombarded by his brilliance rather than invited to enjoy it. His immense talents are screaming at the top of their lungs, but Milstein’s are speaking directly to me. Interestingly, this is almost the same contrast which exists between Heifetz and Perlman (only with the opposite result). I think the difference is that Heifetz’s technical achievement was so astounding that I enjoyed being bombarded by it. Shaham and Milstein play with equal technical brilliance, but Milstein is more engaging.
So, with much respect to Shaham’s wonderful performance, Milstein will proceed to round 2. Whether he’ll be facing off against Vengerov or Gitlis remains to be seen. Stay tuned!
