In The Orchestra Analysis

n this assignment I'll be comparing both recordings, and explaining in details every special moment they have. Larghetto 2nd movt. - In the orchestra introduction Mullova's recording presents a much better phrase. It shows a lot of contrast in dynamic, articulation, and consequently mood. Creativity makes this recording special. They add dynamic that are not originally written, but the result is very good; it creates a totally different environment, suppress the lack of vibrato, and therefore doesn't make the movement boring. They almost never use vibrato, and also playing in a sort of baroque articulation (second note of a tie is weaker). On the other side (Kavakos' recording) there's a very good introduction, played the way it's supposed …show more content…
Usually, the violinist has to use less bow, bringing the bow closer to the bridge in order to shown a sadder mood. Kavakos plays it way better than Mullova. In this situation, perhaps Mullova didn't have to suffer that much in life and consequently doesn't know how to express that on the violin. Not sure about Kavakos eitheir, but usually feelings are naturally reflected on the way the performers play. In the recapitulation, Ms. Mullova retains her reign and brings up important notes, harmonically speaking, to my ears and this is just awesome. In the last cadenza, Kavakos once more gives us an extremely virtuosistic moment and leave us breathless for a minute and a half. The coda, in this movement, is a great moment of joy and it reminds me some heroic moments from Beethoven's 3rd Symphony. Kavakos' modern way of playing is extremely good advantage. He explodes like a bomb and doesn't limit the amount of bow used. However, I still don't understand why playing the very last note in a sort of Baroque style if you haven't been playing in a baroque style for 45 minutes straight? Not cool, Leonidas. On the other hand, Mullova ends it like a queen, with a very energetic, beautiful, and brilliant D Major