5 30 The Enkindling Spirit David Oistrakh In one of their many heart-to-heart talks Yehudi Menuhin once asked David Oistrakh if he would ever consider living in the Wee The reply was characteristically honest: ‘I owe the state everything, They are responsible for my upbringing and have seen to it that I have had the best musical education and training. My family are there. It would be disloyal of me to live elsewhere.” Oistrakh paid 4 price for that loyalty when, as a sick man, he undertook far too much work in his last years. No-one in power ever suggested that he should rest more and play less. His relentless travelling schedule was finally broken when he died in Amsterdam in 1974 at the age of sixty-six. David Fydorovich Oistrakh was born in Odessa in 1908, into a musical family. His father, a poor book-keeper, played the violin and trained the chorus of the local operatic society. His mother Was a singer and actress. Tt is, therefore, not surprising that Oistrakh once said: ‘I cannot think of my childhood without music. My father gave me a toy Violin when I was about three-and-a-half and I remember trying fo join a party of strect musicians.’ His enthusiasm was rewarded the presentation of a real eighth-size fiddle at the age of five. He tecalled his first audience. ‘I can see myself standing in a courtyard Surrounded by other children. I had some sort of music in front of Me which I pretended to read but did not understand as I eta Scratched away on that canary-yellow instrument. But the notes drew from it sounded heavenly to me at the time.” same year, David was accepted as a pupil of Pyotr Stolarsky at the Music School of Odessa. His lessons were 213 CC ————————————————THE GREAT VIOLINISTS 214 3 , but free. Stolyarsky never turned away 3 ae afford to pay. Oistrakh once said: xe the snning he instilled in us the need for perseverance an, d ue i us how to enjoy the pleasures of the creative side of ma Renowned for his special gift for instructing young Re Stolyarsky worked from seven in the morning until late at A ‘His incredible enthusiasm was contagious and we were 4} affected by it.” Even as a child, Oistrakh had an excellent musical memory ang a marked perception of form and rhythm. Most remarkable of all was his highly developed musical imagination — rare in on a young. Nevertheless, he was not a child prodigy and Stolyarsky swas wise enough to allow his talent to ripen slowly. At the age of fifteen he was admitted into Stolyarsky’s master-class at the Conservatoire in Odessa, but his first position in the orchestra was as a rank-and-file viola player. He was soon appointed leader and within a few months appeared as soloist, playing Bach’s A minor concerto. A year later he made his début at a solo recital in Odessa, and followed this with a tour of the Ukraine. Oistrakh had no more tuition after the age of eighteen and spent the next two years touring the Sovict Union. In that country news of an outstanding violinist travels fast, and he found himself playing to capacity audiences everywhere. When he made his Leningrad début in 1928 playing the Tchaikovsky concerto with Nikolai Malko conducting, he was acknowledged as a master and given a standing ovation. A year later he repeated this success in Moscow. In 1930 Oistrakh was married to Tamara, a professional pianist who gave up her own career to devote herself to her husband. In later years when he spent most of his time travelling abroad, she was always at his side, Their only son, Igor — later to become virtuoso violinist in his own right — was born on 27 April 1931. Oistrakh now added teaching to his accomplishments. In 1934 he was given a lectureship at the Tchaikovsky Conservatolie in Moscow and he and his family left Odessa to move int a three-roomed apartment in the capital — a great privilege im? i where creature comforts were few. er Two years later Oistrakh came second in the Winete Competition in Warsaw. The first prize was awarded t0 : fifteen-year-old Ginette Neveu, Ida Haendel, then aged 7 took the first Polish Prize at the same competition. She ™ Pupil Who‘THE GREAT VIOLINISTS 216 sepsis published in East Germany in 1973, states that he playeq certo in Moscow with Menuhin in 1 Be ee Ie two men certainly met for the first a fie this is Rioscow, however, and Menuhin records the occasion = Fear detail in his autobiography, Unfinished Journey. Excea at the thought of meeting this great violinist, of whom he ha a heard so much, Menuhin arrived at the airport to find Oistrakh waiting on the tarmac, ‘in the wind and wet of the November afternoon’ to welcome a fellow artist to his country. An immedi. ate affinity sprang up between the two and resulted in a friendship which endured for almost thirty years. Menuhin recalls the visit as being fraught with rebuffs and bureaucratic obstacles. He had to leave Moscow without even hearing Oistrakh play, let alone taking part in a joint performance. ‘ : Oistrakh’s earliest appearance outside the Soviet Union after the war was at the First Prague Spring Festival in 1946. A year later at the same festival, Menuhin and Oistrakh were finally brought together professionally to play the Bach double concerto. For Menuhin the experience was significant. We were to play the same work together in Paris and Brussels and many other places. Playing this was interesting, not only because of the personal rapport that existed between us but because it gave mean insight of what was still Russian to me. My parents had come from Russia and we shared the same Russian-Jewish background. It was curious how our styles seemed to be almost identical when we played together. We both gained so much from this contact. I for the reasons already stated and he, perhaps something that was useful to him right after the war, when he had been immured in Russia all his life and knew little of what was going on in the Western world.’ When restrictions were finally lifted and opportunities to travel abroad became a reality, it was not to satisfy the egocentric ambitions of a star performer that Qistrakh set forth on his Journeys. He was convinced that he had a mission to use his influence in representing the traditions of the Russian school of violin playing, and was particularly keen to pass on his ideas to the younger generation. The Strad critic wrote of a performance in Paris in the eatly attics that ‘he fully justified his reputation’, The qualities of his Playing ‘lift it into a class by itself . .. His playing of the Mot Fifth Concerto in A (K. 219) with Jacques Thibaud conducting ¥8a THE ENKINDLING sprpry : a 21 » Btacious and virile”, with no Si é i ly struck this critic was that ‘ , a feature we have now come eS “hate non ba be ina in anyone under sixty! The keynotes of his piri Pee ale sincerity and the simplicity which goes with sig, rolty, balanced musicianship.’ Profound ‘and England did not see Oistrakh official] had been sent on a delegation to Lond and had played at a private party at impresario Victor Hochhauser was responsible ingi eG Brttin, He bad heard him fee tines a Festival in 1949 and recognized an extraordinary talent. pee long campaign of bombarding the Soviet Embassy, in 1953 Hochhauser managed to organize a London concert by Oistrakh’s son, Igor, who was by then a fully-fledged performer in his own i A year later Hochhauser brought David Oistrakh to lon. Accompanied on the piano by V. Yampolsky, Oistrakh gave his long-awaited recital to a packed Royal Albert Hall on 10 November 1954. He played Beethoven’s first sonata in D and Prokofiey’s F minor sonata, which the composer had dedicated to him. An unusual choice was Schumann’s rarely played Fantasia in C, ‘composed for Joachim and touched up by Kreisler’, and unpopular on account of its fiendishly unviolinistic passages. In this work and Ysa¥e’s Ballade No. 3 ‘the multiple stopping was carried with such truth of intonation and such smoothness of bow that one almost overlooked its difficulty’.” Oistrakh’s British orchestral début took place at the Royal Albert Hall on 26 November 1954 with the Philharmonic Orches- tra conducted by Norman del Mar. He played concertos by Brahms and Khachaturian, the latter being conducted by the composer. In the Brahms, Oistrakh was inevitably compared with Heifetz who had played it in London the previous week. The Times critic appears to prefer Oistrakh. Heifetz ‘was’ all objectiv- ity, Oistrakh’s performance .. . had a more classical feeling, more "identification of himself with the composer, than Heifetz’. The slow movement was ‘reminiscent of Kreisler in his gentleness and Sweetness’, Since the end of the war Oistrakh’s recordings had ly until 1954, although he On some years previously the Soviet Embassy. The218 THE GREAT VIOLINISTS appeared in Europe and America on a variety & ess of |, built him a reputation as a violinist possessin labels ang Antena al ha tone with tremendous intensity and power, Wat lsc layed to Western audiences in the flesh, they r final Pua Y Tesponded nop al to his simple unaffected manner, but found that his a ot only overwhelming. It had a refinement and delicacy that a We from and superior to that which had been over-am Oistrakh made his début in New York at Carnegie Hall on 20 November 1955. The audien scat and overflowed onto the stage. Several times ¢/ cheers and would not let him go before he had encores. Next morning, Howard Taubman wrote i Times: plified oa Tecital at the ce filled @ hey broke into Played sever) in the New York In Tartini’s ‘Devil’s Trill’ sonata he had a masterful ‘command of the bravura requirements [but] ... the most impressive thing about Mr Oistrakh was the thoughtfulness and sensitivity of his musidm, ship. He is unmistakably 2 violinist who docs not begin by thing how to subdue an audience through sheer brilliance. Taubman illustrates his point by describing Oistrakh’s playing of the Sonata No. 1 in D, Op. 12 by Beethoven. In the slow movement ‘the framework of the conception was classic, but the feeling had a romantic glow.’ This particular November day is probably unique in the history of this famous hall. At two-thirty that afternoon, Mischa Elman gave a recital. Oistrakh was at five-thirty. Three hours biter, Milstein took the stage. In Oistrakh’s audience was a galaxy of famous musicians. ‘But the presence of Kreisler excited me more than anything else. When I saw him deep in thought listening my playing, and then rising to applaud, I was so overcome | thought I was dreaming.’® . By this time, in addition to his foreign tours and internation! recordings, Oistrakh was giving some ninety concerts a yet" the Soviet Union. But however much his performing a demanded of him he always left time for teaching. He had pe fifteen master pupils at the Moscow Conservatory who © from all over the world. He loved his students and they Be him. He would travel any distance to be with them Bee. of were entering international competitions and the high ye 1g Success of his pupils is proof of the excellence of his tea an Victor Tretiakov, Valery Klimov, Victor Pickeisen a Kagan are some of the most outstanding.To a | THE ENKINDLING spiarr The Russians claim that ee which their soloists are ciel technical equipment wi : their great players are teachers. oe due to the fact dae i Auer and his school. Although ee their debt to tions, modern Russian traditions are & i By intervening genera— which, through his predecessors Vieutr nee nis principles Tinked to the Italians through Viotti and he yng, eniawski, are The most outstanding eiaacane er ae : aptly described by Howard Taubman in, eee playing was his orchestral début in that city in 1 the New York Times after sensitivity with head and heart neeEE ie conde Beata critics! and colleagues alike were ty mente quality. In the Tchaikovsky concerto, Oistakt nnn tones and gave them dignity without robb Saeed Peete acter’ Ie was lycical without beech a when it came to Mozart, Oistrakh’s individe ees Sole to embrace the cighteenth-century style with pay eouad refinement. In his performances oho oe eae eee composers, Oistrakh was regarded as an im; a cee a by the Russian government. Shosakoaee ee ee 2 a licated both his On the platform his playing seemed effortless. One London critic expressed something approaching regret at his making th difficulties imperceptible on the grounds that half the rs eer of listening to a virtuoso is to witness the chenomenoneaet this apparent ease was a fine analytical musical mind, Oistrakh would spend hours studying scores and listening to tape- ieee precee cee He had always overcome the technical on iste efore he mounted the platform. After that ee istrakh and the music itself, and he played the : honestly and without vanity. He never took liberties with the music, Realy be was a master by any standards. Despite his heavy ild his bowing was elegant and consistent for the whole length of the bow. After his first appearance in Paris in 1953, the Strad critic wrote: ‘With only about two inches left at the heel on an up bow, he is able to add another note which is perfectly phrased and Clear, only then going to a down bow at the extreme limit and we complete smoothness.’ Frederick Riddle, principal viola of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra for many years, Was able to study Oistrakh’s playing at close quarters. He says: ‘His bowing Was a lovely example of the Auer school — the little finger comesTHE GREAT VIOLINISTS b and the first finger comes off a he point en as the bow is it ap: Aveee ore” h, And a great influence on violin haying Pe, revealing story about Oistrakh’s approach to mus Ricci: op Ree euce asked him: “What is the most diffiea piece you play?’ (Cjstrakb replied: ‘I don’t play the most difficul e h, like Busch and Szigeti, belonged in the very com of those who De music above pyrotechnics, , akh’s greatest pleasures was to perform with hi ei een Eee oye the double concertos by Bi! ks Vivaldi in London in 1961, The Times described them as being ‘in 4 sympathy, jn both thought and expression, their two ersonalities fused into 2 single overall conception’. In private life, Oistrakh was an inveterate collector. His Mos cow flat was crowded with instruments, music, books and mementoes of all kinds. Cameras and small mechanical toys always held a fascination for him, and his colleagues would smile at his boyish enthusiasm as he proudly demonstrated his newest acquisition. He was also a fine chess player and followed the jnternational competitions with interest. Best of all he liked to play chess with his son. Oistrakh’s continuing close relationship with his orchestral colleagues long after he had become an internationally famous soloist is reminiscent of Kreisler — a man who never became proud. His friend and impresario Victor Hochhauser considered him to be: quite the most outstanding man I have ever known — and I don't exclude all the great names. He was a character who combined the sense of tragedy of the Russian and the Jewish people. He just wanted to be left alone to play the violin, to teach and give pleasure to the masses, He was great fun to be with. His sen: of humour was delightful — never cruel or cynical at someone else’s expense. Mostly he laughed at himself.” Yehudi Menuhin sums up Oistrakh’s achievement The Revolution and World War I having interrupted the regenerating contribution of the great Russian school to our violin world, Cistraktt Was the first to rekindle it, For decades Jascha Heifetz and Mischa Elman had carried the torch and I am modestly proud to have BSDavid Oistrakh, first Soviet violinist to ach’ Yehudi Menuhin, supreme musiTHE GREAT VIOLINISTS uading Oistrakh at a time when relations betyy, were strained that he would be welcomed by een, » public. Indeed he evoked unbounded aff Y the gratitude and picked up and renewed the ile an violinists that had crossed the Atlantic thirty a pers ericaTHE ENKINDLING sprrrr F 21 ‘captivated by his [Oistrakh’s] beautiful tone and bri : ey technique.” Tt was in Brussels in 1937 that David O% first hurdle in the international field by wir icn. the in the first YsaYe Contest, held to commemorate the ce ee Belgian virtuoso. During his lifetime Ysaye had conti i a hhankered after the idea of holding a competition. He had ance, favoured freedom both in ideas and in the music itself BREE provision of extra funds, he wanted to give young esas ie opportunity to explore this freedom for themselves. But it was only after his death that Queen Elisabeth, a friend and devoted pupil of Ysa¥e, brought these plans to fulfilment. Lionel Giraud-Mangin, the then director of the Beaux-Arts, recalled the touching scene when this unknown Russian received the jury’s unanimous approval and a standing ovation. ‘The Queen called the young man into her box and personally pre- sented him to the audience for a round of further applause.’* When the Ysaye Foundation was founded in 1961 Oistrakh became its first president. The competition was held in Ysa¥e’s name for only two years and was renamed the Concours Musical International Reine Elisabeth. Oistrakh’s success in Brussels prompted many offers to play abroad. Thibaud, one of the most enthusiastic members of the jury, pressed him to come to Paris at the first opportunity. But at this time the Soviet Union was slow to allow artistic freedom, and before any plans could be discussed Europe was plunged into war. Now elevated to the appointment of violin professor at the Moscow conservatoire, Oistrakh continued to teach and to play in his own country. When Hitler’s armies invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, he travelled to the front, giving concerts to the troops and to workers in the factories. The conditions were sometimes unbearable. During the occupation of Leningrad he gave a memorable performance of the Tchaikovsky concerto in an unheated hall with the temperature well below zero. Against an unsolicited background accompaniment of intermittent gunfire and fire-alarms, Oistrakh — typically — remained unshaken throughout. . When the war ended Oistrakh was at the height of his career, but there were as yet no plans for concerts outside the Soi Union. It was almost as difficult to organize appearances ve Visiting foreign artists. Ernest Krause in his biography Davi it