Here is the intriguing situation of a small independent company—Biddulph—using out-of-copyright EMI material being challenged directly in an identical programme by the company which made the original recordings. EMI's disc has the immediate advantage of being at medium price, while Biddulph's ( (CD) LAB004, 1/90) is at full price. Menuhin himself writes an evocative, but musically inaccurate note for Biddulph, while LS's note for EMI is scholarly and informative. EMI's documentation is also superior to that of Biddulph. The latter were obviously obliged to use commercial pressings for their transfers, but it sounds as if EMI had access to the original masters.
Biddulph have achieved a full-bodied sound, but upper frequencies have been suppressed a little to give a slightly synthetic quality. EMI have opted for a much clearer, brighter, wider-ranging sound, which opens up the somewhat cramped acoustic of the original 78s. If there is some loss of tonal body the results are satisfactory in K216 and K271a, but in the Adelaide Concerto EMI have gone rather too far in their quest for clarity and brilliance. The orchestral string sound has become acidic, and Menuhin's tone has acquired a rough, sour quality: there is even a hint of flutter. Here Biddulph's transfer is much kinder to both soloist and orchestra. Potential buyers should perhaps try to sample a little of each disc before deciding which edition to purchase.
Once again I have been struck by the beauty, the freshness and spontaneity of Menuhin's playing, and by the maturity of his style when he was still a teenager. The Concerto, K216 provides every kind of delight, but neither the probably spurious K271a, nor the Adelaide Concerto (written in fact by Marius Casadesus) wear well musically. Enescu and Monteux each give Menuhin good support.'