We have thousands of human-written stories, discussions, interviews and reviews from today through the past 20+ years. Find them here:

Search the site Search

Some brief musings on technical perfection

October 20, 2007 at 3:51 PM

So many times I hear my friends and colleagues raving about some violinist or the other on account of his or her perfect, flawless virtuoso technique. "The articulation was so clean! The intonation was so accurate! The spiccato was so fast! The tone was so even!" I can appreciate those things too, but after people have been going on and on about them for long enough I just want to reply: well, obviously.

It's much more understandable when people are talking about other students. What are the conservatory years for but perfecting and refining a virtuoso technique? It's when the topic of conversation turns to world-class artists that I get confused and, frankly, annoyed.
There comes a point, a certain level at which technical perfection ought to be taken for granted. Great intonation? Clean articulation? Even tone? Everybody at the highest echelon should have that, so it should be nothing remarkable! And if the player's flawless technique is all anyone can ever find to comment on, then maybe that player is missing something.

Instrumental technique is like grammar. Essential to master completely, but only the means to an end, never an end in itself. No one, upon reading Tolstoy, would spend time enthusing about how well he conjugates his verbs and declines his nouns, so why is it so common to get so excited about flawless intonation and accurate articulation?

My Father, a concert organist and conductor, said he had 6 years or French between High School and Julliard. (Damrosch) When he took one of my TWA passes to Europe and went through France he said thanks to his extensive French classes he could conjugate like crazy, but had trouble ordering a cup of coffee.
Same with technique, it's useless unless by itself, you have to make it artfully bring out the composer's intentions.
some excellent points on the idea of technical ability! obviously, there are some times where you just have to comment on some technical mastery of the instrument, or a really well-executed lick (i saw Midori play the Britten concerto with Philly a week or so ago and couldn't stop talking about how clean her double harmonics were..). i see personal musical ideas and technique as the gasoline and spark of a fire. one without the other is pretty much useless, but put together you have one heck of a fire.
TEchnique is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for being a really good violinist.
This brings to mind what Maria Callas said about Renata Tebaldi:

"What a lovely voice, but who cares?"

Of course, that was a bit rude...

Technique is secondary. The real goal for me is to play with a beautiful sound.
Anne--good God, I love Callas!! :)
I see what you are saying, but I don't agree entirely!

Technique is never all by itself, really. The same *ideas* can be expressed through crude technique as can be expressed through flawless technique, but it's the marriage of the good ideas with the technique that makes it so compelling.

I find this to be true in writing as well; as a writer I love to see something new expressed, but can't help but smile a bit wider when it's expressed with a sense of the poetic, a feel for language, an efficiency of words. I actually do look up from reading a great sentence and read it aloud to my husband, "Just listen to the way she writes this!"

With something truly artistic, no, not everyone has the same, taken-for-granted technique.

Your problem is only that you're only hanging with people who only talk about that.
Laurie, I didn't mean to imply that everyone's technique should be the same, I just meant that once you get to a certain level, it should be generally assumed that everyone will (should!!) have great intonation, articulation, etc. I'm talking about the basics. I totally see your point about "Ooh, listen to how she wrote this!", but I personally would consider that more of an issue of artistry than of raw technique.

Jim, get a life.

I agree with you totally that it is a secondary situation, but I go see a lot of violinists, and still I will say to myself and my friends how incredible their technique is.

People tend to marvel at what they cannot do themselves, and given that so few people reach the level we're talking about, chances are you'll hear a lot about that at Oberlin.

Last week, Young Gerety's favorite string quartet came to town for a really nice concert. They played with great panache, sparkle, verve, and deep musical commitment. I enjoyed it tremendously!

That said, both the 1st and the 2nd violin had patches of iffy intonation. I wasn't offended though, and I didn't think it detracted from the overall positive concert experience.

To contrast that concert experience, a few years ago a Big-Name Violinist came to play A Big Beautiful Romantic Concerto with the local band. Nothing was wrong: perfect intonation, style, tone, pacing, etc., but it was so obvious that she was "phoning it in", that the effect, for me, was really off-putting.

For me, perfect technique without an artistic vision is just "typing".

Greetings,
I used to be fairly adamnt that one couldn@t make a real distinction between a fabuluous technique and muasic ot a certain extent becuas epast a certain point they couldn@t exist without the other - even if the music itslef was mwerel a peripheral `reason to be.` However, I did change my mind after one cocnert by a Japanes elady who wil remian nameless . SAhe played the most perfect Saint seans threre I could imagine. Nobody has every played it that cleanly to my ear. Noit Heifetz, Misltein, Grumiuax , Perlman -noone-. It was so boring, so devoid of any message about the music or even the person playign I actuallyf elt sick and couldn`t stay for the second half of the concert. It wa sso utterly painful I can@T even expres sadmiration for what is, theoretically, an awesome achievement.
Cheers,
Buri
You've certainly brought up a good topic, Mara! It's interesting how people have different levels of being able to understand a performance, too; the child or non-musician who is just wowed by the very existence of, say, fast spiccato or good tone (which can simply be a good violin, not much to do with the person playing it) vs. the musician or audience member with a trained ear who is seeking for a lot more on top of it.

Buri, don't you think this "playing without heart" business is also in some way a technical problem? I mean, everyone has a heart, has feelings. I don't know exactly what the mechanism is that connects feelings with playing, but that is what is underdeveloped in that kind of player.

Jim, re-type, you were making everyone italic!
Ok, for you...

I said "Very" "Young Gerety."
:)

Greetings,
>Buri, don't you think this "playing without heart" business is also in some way a technical problem?

Yes I agree Laurie. It`s what makes this area so diificult to pin down and talk about as though there were a clear cut problem and solution.
Its interesting the way we use language though. The lady in question has spent her whole life in terms of technique and in order to remake herself as a whole we tend to think/talk a sthough it were a tehcnical problem. I wonde rif it is this which slows down the resolution?
XCheers,
Buri

Laurie,

The violin they're playing won't really be the cause of good tone. It's because they have the technique to produce it.

And does Boris have thoughts on this?