These are fascinating
and somewhat idiosyncratic recordings,
both made by HMV. My colleague, Jonathan
Woolf, hit the nail squarely on the
head, I think, in describing Moiseiwitsch’s
approach as "elegant and poetic…[and]
one that’s not devoid of drama but that
subsumes it more to a lyric curve."
I must say it took
me a while to adjust to Moiseiwitsch’s
way with these works and even now I
still feel that though the first movement
of the Third concerto is efficiently
played it’s not projected particularly
distinctively, either by soloist or
conductor. In his booklet note Jonathan
Summers quotes a rather damning verdict
on the recording, delivered when it
was first issued, by the distinguished
critic Andrew Porter. Porter described
the interpretation as "shallow" and
singled out Sargent’s accompaniment
for particular criticism. I’m not sure
I’d go all the way with Mr. Porter but
the reading of the first movement is
not especially memorable and I don’t
believe it’s as searching or satisfying
as Solomon’s 1944 traversal with Boult.
Moiseiwitsch uses the cadenza by Carl
Reinecke, which is interesting to hear
for a change though, pace Mr.
Summers, the pianism sounds a bit splashy
hereabouts.
I enjoyed the slow
movement much more. Moiseiwitsch’s tone
is limpid and beautifully even at the
start and, in fact, this sets the tone
for the whole movement. . Moiseiwitsch
plays much of it as though it were a
nocturne. Here his poetic vein is heard
to best advantage. The Rondo finale
is enjoyable but it just seems to lack
that indefinable "something". The best
way I can describe it is to say that
it comes across as a trifle cool, though
the concluding presto (track 3, from
7’37") is done with spirit.
To my ears the earlier
partnership with Szell works quite well.
I can’t agree with Jonathan Summers’
view that Szell "conducts in his usual
fashion of the martinet." The orchestral
exposition is laid out with purpose
and bite, as befits the music. When
Moiseiwitsch joins the argument it’s
true that he displays a more lyrical
disposition but I don’t feel that his
conception jars with that of Szell.
This isn’t by any means a barnstorming
performance of the movement and those
that seek leonine strength in the music
should probably look elsewhere. However,
there’s much to admire. In particular
there are some lovely touches by the
soloist. For example there’s a passage
in the first movement (track 4, 5’49"
– 6’30") where Moiseiwitsch makes the
music sound very withdrawn thanks to
some delicate playing. Indeed, at this
point the thread of tone sometimes fades
away almost too much.
The second movement
is hushed and inward. Moiseiwitsch gives
a musing performance of subtlety and
beauty. The transition to the finale
is poetically done and that movement
opens with lithe vigour. The reading
of the finale as a whole is light and
a bit puckish. Szell is an attentive
and alert accompanist here and throughout
the concerto.
In summary I would
not prefer these performances to, say,
Solomon in either work (No.3 with Boult
in 1944 and No. 5 with Herbert Menges
in 1955, both for EMI.) Nor among other
historic accounts is my allegiance to
Gilels’ 1957 reading of No. 5 (with
Leopold Ludwig, originally on EMI, now
on Testament) shaken. However, these
Moiseiwitsch performances have their
own strengths and insights and it’s
good to have them restored to wide circulation.
The transfers for Naxos
are by Ward Marston. The source for
the recording of No. 3 was the original
HMV tape (the recording itself was issued
on 78’s by HMV). The sound is clear
and has transferred well. For No. 5
he has used a set of American Victor
78s and these transfers also sounded
well on my equipment though for optimum
clarity this older recording should
be replayed at a higher level than is
required for No. 3.
This is a valuable
addition to the Naxos Moiseiwitsch series
and it’s well worth hearing.
John Quinn
See also review by
Jonathan Woolf and Christopher
Howell
Benno Moiseiwitsch (piano) 
