| Originally Posted by Oistrakh /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thats a lot of people! Too bad none of them (aside from joshua bell) really comes to boston to play... |
| Originally Posted by fiddler /img/forum/go_quote.gif The old giants. Heifetz, Oistrach, Menuhin, Milstein, Elman, Kreisler, Ysaye, and so forth. NOBODY today plays music so movingly and touchingly as they did. No, technically they were not perfect (with the exception of Heifetz) but they all played music for the sake of the music, not to show off their violinistic muscles. It's unfortunate that today, what many violinists strive for first and foremost is to play absolutely perfectly in tune and play with a cutting edge sound that projects to the very back of any hall in any hall that is thrown at them. Any piece of music that they play is merely a device to show off violin technique. I strongly believe that this is absolutely the WRONG way to approach violin playing and music making. Back in the days of the greats I mentioned at the beginning, it was the other way around, as it should be. Violin technique is merely a device to allow one to freely communicate the wonderful music the composer wrote. When I go to a concert, I want to be moved to tears by Mr. Schubert or whomever, not be impressed by how in tune the violinist is playing. Of course it is important to have excellent technique, but it should not be the most important thing. Unfortunately, perfect technique is first and foremost at most major international competitions, and often the violinist who made the more moving and better musically thought out performance that was hindered by a couple missed shifts will always lose to the one who played perfectly in tune, even if it the performance didn't capture the essence of the music, even if it was a much more boring interpretation. In no other art form is such "cleanliness" absolutely mandatory, so why should it be in music? |
