Joshua Bell vs. Hilary Hahn

2006-02-05T12:38:00.000-08:00

I've seen several chat rooms with people fighting over whether Joshua Bell or Hilary Hahn is the dominant violinist of our time. I'd have to discard Anne-Sophie Mutter right away, because she seems to take too many liberties in her interpretations of pieces. For example, her rubato gets a little obsessive in her new recording of the Beethoven concerto. Although her tone has a very smooth and expressive quality, I doubt that her interpretations will pass the test of time. Bell and Hahn, on the other hand, provide some of the best versions of the popular violin concertos that I have ever heard.
My one complaint with Bell's interpretation of the Mendelssohn concerto is that he uses his own cadenza in the first movement. Mendelssohn provided a gorgeous one, and it fits perfectly into the piece; a person should not try to mess with perfection. One of Bell's arguments for inserting his own cadenza is that it might have been Ferdinand David, and not Mendelssohn who wrote most of the cadenza. However, since Mendelssohn was personally involved in the construction of it, and wrote his concerto alongside it (rather than leaving a gap for it at the end as many composers have done), I would have to say that a violinist should definately use that one and not take the liberty of putting in his own. As you can see, I favor rather "conservative" interpretations of pieces, which is why I discarded Mutter at the beginning.
If you ignore the cadenza in his Mendelssohn, Bell does a remarkable job of expressively playing the piece, and letting its intimate quiality permeate the atmosphere. It is quite easy to bring this to the extreme, but Bell is able to avoid excessive rubato, vibrato, and other special effects that would be detrimental to the performance. I especially enjoy Bell's interpretation of the third movement; there is an electric quality to the mood that is absent in any other versions I've heard--I have yet to hear another performance so energetic, and yet so intimate.
Hilary Hahn, on the other hand, has an "ultra-conservative" approach to the concerto. Apart from her vibrato, Hahn does not embellish the music in any way. This provides a unique purity to the tone, but becomes a little monotonous by the end. Hahn's style is technically flawless, which is one of the reasons that she tends to play the music faster than is the norm for today. Her third movement is especially fast, and I would have to say that she takes it to the extreme. The whole movement seems like a breathless sprint, with neither the performer nor the orchestra able to display the beautiful quality inherent in the movement.
In conclusion, I would have to say that I favor Bell's interpretations on account of his expressiveness, and because he plays the music slow enough to allow the listener to absorb every facet of beauty which the various pieces afford. Hahn is an extremely talented player, but I don't much care for the way that she plays certain pieces. However, I should mention that I absolutely love her performances of the Shostakovich and Stravinsky violin concertos. These seem to suit Hahn's style very well, as they require more technical finesse than expression. I should also mention that I have not extensively listened to modern virtuosos like Sarah Chang and Pinchas Zukerman, but have heard that they are excellent. Perhaps I will study their performances and report my opinions later on.

Why Astrophysics?

2006-02-05T11:15:00.000-08:00

There have been many times when people have asked me why I decided to go into astrophysics. For those of you who don't know, astrophysics is basically the combination of astronomy and physics. Astrophysicists use telescopes and other instruments to observe parts of the universe, and try to explain why everything does what it does. Yeah, this might sound kind of boring--peering into the sky and attempting to justify why everything happens. But it definately has more significance than that, and I'll tell you why. Much, if not all, of the reason that we have not been able to overcome disease in the world is because we are not able to completely understand the physical universe. If we knew everything about bacteria and viruses, we would not have to fear them. Now I don't know that astrophysics would directly teach us more about viruses, but it definately helps us understand other interactions between matter.

So yeah, astrophysics is not a meaningless field of study; it is a vitally important field of study that teaches us more about the world around us. As a final note, I would like to point out that sometimes we cannot observe various phenomena in laboratories on earth. For example, black holes and other massive objects are one of the best places to learn more about Einstein's Relativity. Through them we can observe time dilation and warping of space-time, along with other things. Now maybe this won't convince you to become an astrophysicist, but hopefully you will better understand the importance of their work.

Mark's Thoughts

Joshua Bell vs. Hilary Hahn

Why Astrophysics?