If I were to list comparisons of the Sibelius, however selective, there would be no room for anything else. The Gramophone Classical Catalogue lists over 50 versions in all. This year alone has so far brought us four new ones from Anne Sophie Mutter and Andre Previn (DG, 3/96), Kuusisto and Segerstam (Ondine, 5/96), Josefowicz and Marriner (Philips, 1/96) and Repin and Krivine (Erato, 5/96). Last year we had Midori (Sony, 2/95), a reissue of the Kyung-Wha Chung and Previn (Decca, 5/95) and Belkin (Denon, 10/95), not to mention reissues from Heifetz (Pearl, 11/95) and Perlman (EMI, 6/95). All are pretty marvellous, some spectacularly so, but none is coupled with the Nielsen concerto, composed within a few years of its more celebrated companion. Only Menuhin and the Gramophone Award-Winning Cho-Liang Lin version are so coupled.
There is no doubt that Vengerov’s playing is absolutely dazzling and in terms of virtuosity is second-to-none. You have only to listen to the extraordinary velocity and accuracy of both first movement cadenzas to hear that. In their way they are quite breathtaking. At the same time there is something self-regarding to which I do not warm. Just one example: he draws attention to himself by lingering rather too much at 18 bars before fig. 11 (track 1, 14'16''ff) – the corresponding bars earlier in the movement are also exaggerated but are not quite so disturbing. In the slow movement the climax of the theme (beginning at eight bars or so before fig. 1) is, shall we say, not untouched by schmaltz – indeed, it positively throbs with febrile emotion. EG spoke of “the purity and refinement” of Repin’s recent performance, qualities that one also finds in the playing of both Kyung-Wha Chung and Cho-Liang Lin but which only intermittently surface here. Daniel Barenboim keeps a firm grip on the proceedings and seems to have a natural feeling for this world with which I have not previously associated him, though come to think of it, he did record this concerto with Zukerman for DG (10/75 – nla).
By comparison with the naturalness and simplicity of Lin’s account of the Nielsen, Vengerov sounds very self-conscious indeed. We range from barely whispered pianissimos to full-throated, thrustful ardour with none of that effortless, natural eloquence which Lin commands. Vengerov is brilliant and glamorous but there is little inclination to let this music speak for itself. The playing of the Chicago orchestra throughout is pretty masterly. As will be obvious, there is much to admire in the Sibelius even if it would not be a first choice, but the innocence of the Nielsen is obscured in much the same way as a face can be overlaid by excessive make-up. The Teldec recording places Vengerov rather further forward in the Nielsen than in the Sibelius though the orchestral detail is not masked in either work.'