Ronald Thomas, as is his custom, is both conductor and soloist in these performances. He uses a modest-sized orchestra, so internal balances are generally very clear (not always in very fullyscored passages, however), while the unassertive placing of the solo violin accords nicely with his 'classical', anti-histrionic manner. Zimmermann on EMI (who also uses a chamber orchestra and a restrained 'early romantic' style) makes an obvious comparison, therefore, but the no less obvious difference between them (Zimmermann contents himself with being a soloist only, leaving the conducting to Jeffrey Tate) is perceptible throughout. A soloist-led account of this concerto is by no means a bad idea, but the Zimmermann/Tate reading makes the advantages of a conductor fairly apparent, while Thomas is less than persuasive of the opposite view.
He plays with fine, poised tone and admirable technique throughout, but with a lack of fire and fantasy that suggest (as do some passages of slack tempo in the first movement) that his solo playing would have been more imaginative if he had not had an orchestra to worry about. Whether his conducting would have acquired some of Tate's wit and point if someone else had been the soloist is debatable, but a page-by-page comparison with Zimmermann/Tate makes one regret that Thomas did not opt for the greater security and freedom that collaboration with a conductor could have given him. His performance is accomplished and musicianly but small in scale and not very characterful, an agreeable antidote to many overcharacterized, showy readings, no doubt, but with few positive qualities of its own.'