While I do use Suzuki materials and can't argue with the basic philosophies of parental involvement and young starting ages, I really can't understand the editing decisions made by the powers that be. So maybe someone can give me some logical explanation for why some of the editing decisions have been allowed to stand against all modern playing philosophy and musical practice.
I'll be very specific and point out two absurdities in the first movement of Vivaldi's A-minor concerto. I have a fairly recent edition, 2008, edited by Natchez:
1. What possible rationalization can there be for bowing the 16-note passages staring at bar 24 with the two middle notes in each grouping slurred? This make no sense, either pedagogically or musically. The musical emphasis, instead of being on the first 16th, is now on the 2nd, resulting in a syncopation that Vivaldi did not intend.
2. in bar 30, the downbeat B is fingered with a first finger, in spite of the 1st finger F natural just before it. In what universe is this a good fingering suggestion? It's acceptable for book I, but for an advancing student who is learning common fingering patterns, this is a very poor example. I highly doubt there's a teacher that would allow this fingering, but then why does it persist? And who is this person Natchez? Can he or she be extradited?
If these examples have been corrected in more recent editions, than I'll eat my words. But I would really like to know how this kind of 19th century editing has been allowed to stand. Is Suzuki Inc. so abhorrent of change? Is the institutional inertia ("well, I learned it that way, and I don't want to change...") too great to expect the materials which can reflect modern sensibilities?
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.