Recital advice needed
hi, i've got my second year violin recital in a fortnight and i was wondering if anyone had any tips for me with regards to stage presence etc. The pieces that i'm playing aren't enormously complex so i'm confident playing them but they stretch me enough to hopefully meet the grade technically. however, we've been told that a lot of our marks depend on stage presence and looking comfortable etc. i'm planning on videoing myself practising so i know what i look like but has anyone got any tips on how i can improve and what to wear - not too formal but still smart (i have a tendency to practise in bare feet!)thanks!!
Replies (100)
Although I am only 15 years old, I have done a LOT of performing... hard literature and easy ranging from niccolo paganini and pablo de sarasate to dr. suzuki. There are a few tricks that I use to keep my audience captivated while I am playing.
The first thing I would suggest is to make it look like you're having the time of your life. Smile every once in a while, and the audience will overall see you as a good performer. When you get to a very melodic section of a piece, REALLY get into it. Close your eyes and sway with the music. Make the technically challenging music LOOK technically challenging. Even if it isn't that difficult, squinting slightly and moving your bow faster will help A LOT. The final thing I would do, you have already done. Videotaping is a brilliant idea. Then you get to listen to yourself and see what it's like to be an audience member when you perform.
Greetings,
I would respectfully suggest you do not follow the advice in the previous message. The great violinists do not do this kind of things and deliberately suqinting and so forth will not only look fake, but set up all kinds of technical problems. The muscles in the face are part of the whole organism and one doesn`t play games with them to do er what...?
Nor do you need to use the bow any differnetly from the practice room. It is there that we decided and practice as we are goiing to perform.
There are a few simple things one can do. First, doin@t fall into the trap of rushing throuhg things -between pieces- You can take your time to get set, think about the music, tune up or whatever.
Second, your whole attitude should coincide with the interest of the audience who baically come to sit in a relaxed atmosphere and be told a story or be moved. Just play as though it is a great priviledge to be playing for them and that you would genuinly like to give them music as a present. This was brought home to me somewhat a few months back when I did a recital where I was vaugegly awaye of someone in the audience laid out on a kind of half stretcher/chair with oxygen tanks and face mask strapped opn her and so forth. After the concert an old guy wheeled this poor lady up to me and said `Thanks. My wife can`t speak because she had a stroke, but she almost never gets out and this was just fantastic for us.`
There is nothing wrong with smiling and smiling and smiling before you go on stage and during.
Finally I also make sure the pianist gets exactly the same credit from the applause as myself.
Cheers,
Buri
I agree with BOTH Brivati and Ohrlund.
With recitals, it depends on what audience you are playing for and why.
If you are playing for a bunch of judges who hold your destiny in their hands - and this seems to be the case based on the "marks" you are going to receive, then do what Brivati says because that's what's expected of a "classical violinist". Violin judges don't like it when student violinists do anything other than just get through a song preferably with a frown. I've had to learn to master the "poker face" myself, and I even enjoy doing it at times.
But if you are playing a recital for the general public and it's for monetary or glee purposes, then do what Ohrlund does and ham it up. That's because if you look all stiff and reserved on stage, you're going to project that into your target audience. Since a paying audience is generally there in their spare time and is paying their money to have you entertain them, they're not going to appreciate you doing the stiff lipped competition thing on stage for them. At least that's the way it is with the audiences I've play for night after night.
There are various forms of enjoying oneself in music. Brivati advocates disciplining oneself on stage, which suits audiences that pride themselves on order. Ohrlund is suggesting that one release his spirit, which suits audiences that enjoy their freedom. Both are valid, but don't play one way for both audiences.
You can't please everybody in music, but you can try to please yourself and those who you are trying to play for.
I certainly am against the idea of "making technically challenging music" look like it's difficult. No way! You have to make it look easy. In concerts, it's very difficult to lie about your technical level anyway. I'd concentrate on making your shifts and bow strokes as easy as possible - you should be like a well oiled machine!
Hi,
Good advice from Kreisler, one of the greatest and most commanding presence of all times (though apparently reserved by today's standards): be sincere, be honest, be simple. Seriously, those qualities carry through. All else is fake. Sincerety and honesty are undoubtedly in my opinion the two most rare traits in life. All truly great artists have them. It enables them to communicate and eliminates barriers. There is no substitute for that.
Cheers!
"All truly great artists have them."
I wish that were true.
I like both sides of the argument. But when all is said and done, I find the "mugging" a distraction. Heifetz is still the model for stage presence, and I think his example has been followed by many (Milstein, Hahn, Menuhin, Kogan, Francescatti, Oistrakh, Ricci, and so many others). Anyway there's enough "ham" in some of the music itself to make up for any facial expressions and theatrical gestures. Nevertheless, once in a while, it is special to see someone performing and really lose themselves in their efforts to concentrate.
Sandy
Yeah, but sometimes people are so unnaturally stiff on stage that it actually gets in the way of the music.
I'd loved to have seen Kogan crack a smile or ham it up. If anything, it would've softened his stiff stage image and shown audiences his real nature: that of a warm and caring family guy who loved the violin more than anyone. There are violin songs that require humor and hamminess, and Kogan has the chops to play them in their full silly glory.
Besides, I consider Heifetz's imperious demeanor an "act" of its own. It's clear that he's naturally a fun and bubbly guy, and that comes through when he's messing around when he thinks nobody is looking.
My favorite Heifetz lick of all time is when he played "Three Blind Mice" on his "Heifetz in Performance" video right before he recorded the Bach Chaconne.
Classical musicians are way too serious. They seem to act so aloof and serious out there. Relax and make the audience/judges enjoy themselves. Smile, relax, and actually have fun. It's contageous.
Greetings,
first of all, if you use my family name it is Mr. Brivati. but I have consistently used the nickname Buri on this list and wish others would either do like wise or address me as Stephen.
Second, I feel I am being seriously misquoted and misrepresented here so I will take the trouble to repond and hope that some thought is perhaps given to what I write.
>If you are playing for a bunch of judges who hold your destiny in their hands - and this seems to be the case based on the "marks" you are going to receive, then do what Brivati says because that's what's expected of a "classical violinist". Violin judges don't like it when student violinists do anything other than just get through a song preferably with a frown. I've had to learn to master the "poker face" myself, and I even enjoy doing it at times.
This is begging the question. The people I had to play in front of at college were world class violinists of very different make up and nobody can generalize to that extent. Except, in my opinion, that they will not tolerate faking. At no time did I say one shopuld have a `poker face.` I argued that one should not be a fake because it is detrimental both in terms of thinking about music with complete focus and also physically disturbing. I think you will find in both cases faking is really easy to spot and not be appreciated.
>But if you are playing a recital for the general public and it's for monetary or glee purposes, then do what Ohrlund does and ham it up.
Why? Go look at DVDs of real players. Or even actually go to some recitals.
>That's because if you look all stiff and reserved on stage, you're going to project that into your target audience.
At no time did I say look stiff and reserved. Someone who looks stiff is just that and will not play well. Again, I said no such thing.
>Since a paying audience is generally there in their spare time and is paying their money to have you entertain them, they're not going to appreciate you doing the stiff lipped competition thing on stage for them.
Again, no such approach was ever proposed.
>At least that's the way it is with the audiences I've play for night after night.
Ah. That`s why you don`t have time to check out what people actually do.
>There are various forms of enjoying oneself in music. Brivati advocates disciplining oneself on stage, which suits audiences that pride themselves on order.
In a broad sense what is the purpose of music without discipline. Disipline in working within the parameters of the style of the music. Of rehearisng adequately. of dressing well. Other than that I make no mention of displine in the negative sense that you are implying. I am talking about art, where the music flows through the player who tries to step out of the way. I am pointing out the crass idoicy of hamming and faking. The distinction between audiences who want order and those who want entertainment is essentially meaningless and I too speak as a regular performer.
>Ohrlund is suggesting that one release his spirit,
No he isn`t. Read his message more carefully. And why imply by extension that my spirit is -not- released. It damn well is, thank you wvery much. But I am more interested in what the music has to say and how the spirit of the audience is relived and released. That is the purpose of music making. It is not an ego trip.
>which suits audiences that enjoy their freedom. Both are valid, but don't play one way for both audiences.
Adjusitng the way you play for audiences is a no brainer. Either you are a sincere player and interpreter of music or you are not.
Cheers,
Buri
I wholeheartedly agree with Buri. Everything should be honest and natural. Some players move like it's their last day on earth- Midori and Nadja SS both move a lot- but that's completely natural for them. Heifetz probably would have dropped his bow had he tried to move- for him, all of the expression was to be in the playing, not the body. It will depend with each person- I personally tend to move a little bit and my face (so I've been told) often reflects the character of the music, but if it's contrived it won't go over so well. It's like the difference between watching an Oscar-worthy actress and someone on a daytime soap opera (no offense to those who truly like them).
All this being said- there are times when choreographing a little bit can be useful, but only for some. I have purposely changed my footstance on stage before, but usually either to brace myself for what was coming up or to heighten the drama. A little cheesy? Yeah, I guess so. But it did work and the audience liked it. However, I truly felt that that bit of choreography was coming from my heart and that it was helping me carry across the music.
I believe everything should look as effortless as possible. Unless you have complete the mental aspect under control, there's a chance that you might translate the drama and passion in your "scrunched-up" face into tension in your arms and shoulders. Look at Gil Shaham- he always looks relaxed, like everything's easy, even when he's playing Sibelius or Berg.
My biggest tip, over all of these, is this: play your heart out and play for your heart. Don't try to dazzle the audience with tricks and bedazzlements- just play the music and enjoy yourself. Walk out on stage with your head high and a beautiful smile on your face- the audience wants to be enjoying the music with you, so show it to them.
~Tina
Your way of thinking is only ONE WAY, Buri.
It isn't the only way that works. There are plenty of people like Ohrlund who make it the other way. In fact, they make money doing it.
Besides, I've attended and been to more recitals than either you or I can count. I've played them for over 20 years myself, just as you have. And I STILL attend them when I get a chance, just like you do. In fact, I attended and played in a student recital about 2 weeks ago!
Your way is sincere and effective. It works in situations like your college in front of world class violinists like the ones you played in front of - I would definitely not do as well as you. In fact, I'd probably get kicked out the instant I drew bow to string. There's no way I'd let any violinist of any stature tell me not to do certain things that make me me. I do not compare to you in your venue, that's for sure. To that you have my utmost respect and even awe.
But Ohrlund's way is sincere too. Hamming it up, when done right is just as sincere as doing it "straight". I wouldn't have a job if I couldn't ham it up, and I need to eat and pay bills.
Besides, just because a guy is a ham (as I am) doesn't mean that he isn't a serious and dedicated musician. The art of "hamming" has been practiced by violinists for centuries - look at Paganini with his string breaking and Clement playing a song with the violin upside down right before premiering the Beethoven Concerto. Or Lara St. John, whose deepest respect for both her musicianship and marketing she has earned in my mind at least.
And the thing is that sometimes doing it "straight" is the ultimate form of insincerety, not that I'm saying that of any particular player.
I've never understood why everybody and their teacher (including my own) state that Heifetz "doesn't move" in performance.
He moves quite a bit in his live performances, swaying his violin here and there for musical emphasis. By no means does he just stand there and strictly play, though he could if he wanted to. Look at his videos to see him "moving" even in his masterclasses when he plays.
In my opinion, stage presence is a very individual thing. It may affect the audience's feelings of the performance, but overall, it shouldn't "make or break" a performance. There isn't a certain set of rules that one must adhere to in order to "learn" stage presence.
Posture is related to stage presence, and if you have good posture, then all you need to worry about is the performance.
I recently gave a performance and honestly, stage presence wasn't even the first thing I thought about. But I understand that you want to make a good impression on the judges, so... what I suggest is just to smile when you walk in. Smiling indicates confidence and comfortability with your situation. You needn't worry too much about presenting yourself during your performance because the music will help you present yourself.
As for dress, I would suggest something casually formal, such as dress shoes, slacks, and a button downed collar shirt. If the shirt isn't too long at the tail end, you can leave it untucked. It's completely up to you. :)
Greetings,
Kevin,
>Your way of thinking is only ONE WAY, Buri.
My original complaint was that you were explicating my thinking incorrectly to set up a straw man argument. taht is what you are persisting in doing here by trying to label me as a one track thinker/teacher /player.
You haven@t even touched on the point that I did not say anything about being poker faced or not allowing free rein to natural and necessray body reactions.
>It isn't the only way that works. There are plenty of people like Ohrlund who make it the other way. In fact, they make money doing it.
That too is very imprecise. Mr Ohrland hasn`t actually made it in the concert world yet. Perhaps you could tell me a list of players who do deliberatley squint or look soulful in recitals? I can tell you who isn`t on the list straightaway: Mr. Perlman, Midori, Ilya Gringolts, Hilary Hahn, Reiko Suzuki. Here are the dead ones : Szeryng, Milstein, Oistrakh, KoganShumsky, Heifetz.
>But Ohrlund's way is sincere too.
No it`s not. Deliberatley trying to show that somnething is difficult is insincerity personified. Its is also extremely stupid from a tehnical perspective becuase then one is making all sorts of subconscious decisions that a passage is difficult which does indeed render it so.Squinting by choice also has a knock on effetc on the physiology across the board.Trying to express emotions across the face deliberatley shows a deep lack of understanding about how music is produced and where the emotions is supposed to occur. To quote Vivien Mackie `there is nothing more boring that watching someone cry.` Or Peter Oundjian: our job is to elicit emotions in the litener, not dwell on our own
>Hamming it up, when done right is just as sincere as doing it "straight". I wouldn't have a job if I couldn't ham it up, and I need to eat and pay bills.
Yes. But now we are talking about different things. You are applying all your commentary to your context where you know exactly what you are talking about and can prove it beyond doubt by your experience. But the original discussion was about a straightforward violin recital . That was clear enough I think.
>Besides, just because a guy is a ham (as I am) doesn't mean that he isn't a serious and dedicated musician. The art of "hamming" has been practiced by violinists for centuries - look at Paganini with his string breaking and Clement playing a song with the violin upside down right before premiering the Beethoven Concerto. Or Lara St. John, whose deepest respect for both her musicianship and marketing she has earned in my mind at least.
Different eras, different values, differnet kinds of venues, differnet expectations.WQas Paginini alive now and playing the Beethoven concerto in public I don`t think he would be breaking strings for the sake of it. His attention would be on the music where it is supposed to be.
>And the thing is that sometimes doing it "straight" is the ultimate form of insincerety, not that I'm saying that of any particular player.
This makes no sense to me.Why should walking oin stage in a relxed and friendly manner. Chatting with the audience where appropriate then playing your heart out according to your belives about a piece qualify as `insincere.`
>I've never understood why everybody and their teacher (including my own) state that Heifetz "doesn't move" in performance.
Anybody who does is wrong unles sthey were trying to make a point and using the words relatively. Heifetz moved a lot. what has thta got to do with pulling faces?
>He moves quite a bit in his live performances, swaying his violin here and there for musical emphasis. By no means does he just stand there and strictly play, though he could if he wanted to. Look at his videos to see him "moving" even in his masterclasses when he plays.
Why do you persist in trying to define what I think and do interms of violin playing? I teach my students to move the whole body as an integrated whole. Tension in any joint, anywhere will result in less than one`s best playing. My beginners teaching is solidly based on the work of Rolland who incidentally was greatly influenced by Alexander technique. I know the Heifetz videos inside out. See my above comments. What we are talkign about is`squinting to make things look diifuclt and creating a false consiousness of emotions which is highly detrimental to producing good music. It is nothing to do with moving naturally, including the face.
Cheers,
Buri
Because if I believed what you said and stayed "sincere" the way you'd have me, I'd be unemployed and starving as a musician. I've BEEN THERE.
Why can't a recital have ham elements to it? I mean, wasn't that whole Heifetz video at USC where he pretended to give an impromptu recital the ultimate in silly hamness? As if Heifetz would just stroll into USC and play FOR FREE a live concert and have Brooks Smith there armed and ready with his music and video crew waiting.
Your "concert world" is but one of many, and it is neither the best nor worst one. If a guy like me or Ohrlund doesn't make it in your classical "concert world", that doesn't mean anything even in the short run. Plenty of people enjoy huge careers as professional hams earning lots of money doing all sorts of silly things in classical music - look at Victor Borge or Jack Benny or Vanessa Mae or Kennedy.
As far as modern violinists go, Midori and Vengerov made headlines by breaking E-strings in concert. A "true" concert professional would've made sure his E-strings were good before going on stage, let alone bust more than one E string on stage as these guys have. That's hamminess of a type even I wouldn't do, and Midori and Vengerov are at the pinnacle of the classical world in part BECAUSE they were memorable for these incidents.
The great Itzhak Perlman has occasionally messed with conductors and audiences, all to their delight. Pinchas Zukerman pretended as if he were playing strictly for a small child in the front row at one of his concerts I attended. That's ham stuff too, done by our finest classical guys.
When I was at that student violin recital, I hammed it up even though it was supposed to be straight as an arrow. I "squinted", I "looked soulful", I "made things look hard" when they actually weren't, and I broke probably every rule you'd have thrown at me and then some. You'd probably have got up and left in an indignant huff, which I would totally have understood you doing. But the kids enjoyed it, their parents got a kick out of it, and I'll see them at my concerts in the future. All for being a silly ham.
If I played it "straight", that would've been so NOT ME and hence "insincere". I wanted those kids to have a good time, so I remained true to my nature and hammed it up. I also wanted them to come to see me play in the future, as one can never have enough filled audience seats. Why should I act polite and proper when I knew that being a bit silly would get their attention?
Shouldn't economic rewards be an incentive to ham it up at times? I'd rather be a paid "insincere" (at least by your standards) musician than an unpaid "sincere" one. Money talks, at least for me.
By the way, I'm really enjoying this discussion and your intellect, Buri. You're clearly highly accomplished as a teacher and violinist and are fun to joust with verbally!
Are we talking about a concert,more specifically, the interpretation of the musical repetoire or a variety show.I always feel very strongly that a musicians music should speak for itself.If one is forced to do circus tricks in order to get the attention of the audience then maybe it would be better to think over another profession.Clown perhaps!
Greetings,
Hi Kevin, yep. You have brightened up an otherwise rather tedious day. The cheque`s in the post.
>Because if I believed what you said and stayed "sincere" the way you'd have me, I'd be unemployed and starving as a musician. I've BEEN THERE.
But your point still has nothing to do with the discussion started whihc wa sspecifically about a recital and concerning which some extremely misleading advice was given.
>Why can't a recital have ham elements to it?
No reason at all. Perlman hams up choosing his encores at the end. I recently did a recital with the pianist Daniel Forro and he almost destroyed the piano in a brilliant piece by Bartok. At the end I lifted the lid , looked inside and commneted to the audience `Hmmm. Nothing seems to bebroken.`
If you want to do the splits at the end of the Csardas that is fine by me too. In fact I think it makes you a genius. But that is because it is the Czardas and I am sure a gypsy in a restaurant who needed extra money for his rose garden would be green with envy. But the example is largely irrlevent because I never railed against this kind of thing. Were you to do it at the end of a Bach sonata I would question your sanity. Were you to do it in a recital that included Bach, I would say `Good for you,` As long as your Bach was good enough. Taht is the point.
>I mean, wasn't that whole Heifetz video at USC where he pretended to give an impromptu recital the ultimate in silly hamness? As if Heifetz would just stroll into USC and play FOR FREE a live concert and have Brooks Smith there armed and ready with his music and video crew waiting.
I envy your abilty to talk about and quote subjects with no beairng on the topic. They are all interesitng in themselves. That was a movie....
>Your "concert world" is but one of many, and it is neither the best nor worst one.
Yes. Now you are finally talking about the topic of this thread. That means I can finally use a smiley face. :)
>If a guy like me or Ohrlund doesn't make it in your classical "concert world", that doesn't mean anything even in the short run.
You don`t know which world I am in but I am glad to possess it. As you say, it means nothing , except it -may- put limitations on the kind of advice you give. As I keep saying over and over, I am not talking about -your- world so why are you arguing for it. I revere your world.
>Plenty of people enjoy huge careers as professional hams earning lots of money doing all sorts of silly things in classical music - look at Victor Borge or Jack Benny or Vanessa Mae or Kennedy.
Yes, fantastic. But botty aside, Vanessa Mae does not have Jack Benny`s talent.
>As far as modern violinists go, Midori and Vengerov made headlines by breaking E-strings in concert. A "true" concert professional would've made sure his E-strings were good before going on stage, let alone bust more than one E string on stage as these guys have.
I think that is where you are extrapolating a fake argument. All professionals break strings no matter how hard they check them.
>That's hamminess of a type even I wouldn't do, and Midori and Vengerov are at the pinnacle of the classical world in part BECAUSE they were memorable for these incidents.
I don`t agree. They are at the pinnacle (or not..) because of their ability and dedication. You are now about half wya down that bottle of red wine by my reckoning. I can`t afford ot drink on Thursday`s because my world doesn`t pay enough...
>The great Itzhak Perlman has occasionally messed with conductors and audiences, all to their delight. Pinchas Zukerman pretended as if he were playing strictly for a small child in the front row at one of his concerts I attended. That's ham stuff too, done by our finest classical guys.
Yes, and still not relevant to the point of the discussion which concerned pulling faces in a recital as an integral part of perfromanc epractice.
>When I was at that student violin recital, I hammed it up even though it was supposed to be straight as an arrow. I "squinted", I "looked soulful", I "made things look hard" when they actually weren't, and I broke probably every rule you'd have thrown at me and then some. You'd probably have got up and left in an indignant huff,
Only if your playing was crap which I am sure it wasn`t. You are recreating me in your own arguments again...
>which I would totally have understood you doing. But the kids enjoyed it, their parents got a kick out of it, and I'll see them at my concerts in the future. All for being a silly ham.
Thus the new context you have introduced is an informal recital for people who know each other.
>If I played it "straight", that would've been so NOT ME and hence "insincere". I wanted those kids to have a good time, so I remained true to my nature and hammed it up. I also wanted them to come to see me play in the future, as one can never have enough filled audience seats. Why should I act polite and proper when I knew that being a bit silly would get their attention?
No. Sounds great to me.
>Shouldn't economic rewards be an incentive to ham it up at times?
Not if it is detrimental to playing.
>I'd rather be a paid "insincere" (at least by your standards) musician than an unpaid "sincere" one. Money talks, at least for me.
I never said you were insincere. Its just your discourse and debating style is loopy.
>By the way, I'm really enjoying this discussion and your intellect, Buri. You're clearly highly accomplished as a teacher and violinist and are fun to joust with verbally!
I make a mean prune souffle too.
Cheers,
Buri
What great and detailed discussions on the many sides of this issue. But when all is said and done there is a difference between:
- being stiff vs. having a professional stage presence.
- putting on an act and hamming it up vs. being spontaneous and genuine, and projecting something genuine to an audience in addition to the music itself.
One thing I never did like about Heifetz's stage presence is that after every piece, he would give a brief, disdainful look, as if he was disgusted with the whole thing. In his master class video, however, a wonderful sense of humor and spontaneity really do show through. And, yes, the deadpan expression can be thought of as an act, but I think it was so much a part of who Heifetz was inside as a person, that it was completely genuine.
Sandy
(violin) music discussion
oxymoron?
I have a related question not so much about external appearance but inner attitude, that I sometimes wonder about.
Buri mentioned the quotation "our job is to elicit emotions in the listener, not dwell on our own."
Similarly I sometimes wonder (as a raw amateur trying to figure things out), about whether it is better to be quite detached from the music one is playing, concentrating on getting it just "right", or to play with a strong emotional involvement, merging with the music, etc. My guess is that the second would be a bit dangerous and also ineffective, possibly self-indulgent, like comedians who laugh at their own jokes.
When I look at the Oistrach DVD, it looks like he is simply holding himself apart a bit, keeping everything under control, doing his job as best he can. The sound, of course, is very moving, but he is busy listening critically and probably has no desire to get carried away - that is the audience's job.
That might come across to some people as a faint feeling of contempt, but that would be a misunderstanding, probably it is a mark of inner discipline.
What do you think?
The type of music one is playing and the audience one is playing for determines how a person chooses to express himself.
I've always thought of Oistrakh as a guy who was truest to himself first and foremost. That the audience was into him was great, but he was great because he stuck to his own enjoyment first and foremost. The man had great musical taste.
Oistrakh was a conductor by nature, and he always had a symphonic view of the music he played. To me, he was able to work himself into the music while also keeping his fellow musicians together. That's hardly surprising given his lifestyle, as living in the Soviet regime with his independent streak caused him some anguish with the authorities.
One last log to throw on the fire:
Midori and Vengerov, in my opinion, DELIBERATELY broke their E-strings in concert.
It's one thing to break an E-string on your own violin during performance. It's another thing to break an E-string on SOMEBODY ELSE'S violin (in this case, that of the concertmaster) that these two players picked up during the song in order to continue. I have heard of both of these players then going on to the assistant concertmaster's violins during these performances. How can a violinist "accidentally" break not one but TWO E-strings in a single song?
That's no "accident", buri, and you know it.
The NY Times and other publications gobbled that stuff up and trumped it up, thus extending the career of both players.
When I was at Juilliard, a fellow student showed me how Midori would break those E-strings in concert. You take the little metal piece at the frog that holds the wedge and hair together, jam it under the E-string, and yank really hard. I've never done it myself, but I can easily imagine it working effectively.
After I learned how to do that, I vowed then and there NEVER to let my violin into the hands of a soloist of any stature if he broke his E-string deliberately like that and I happened to be sitting at the concertmaster position. I also told myself that I'd willingly let myself get fired if I denied a Vengerov or Midori in a live professional concert over such an issue.
Is Sarah Chang still 13? or has she matured to a sweet 16 yet?
"hi, i've got my second year violin recital in a fortnight and i was wondering if anyone had any tips for me with regards to stage presence etc. The pieces that i'm playing aren't enormously complex so i'm confident playing them but they stretch me enough to hopefully meet the grade technically. however, we've been told that a lot of our marks depend on stage presence and looking comfortable etc. i'm planning on videoing myself practising so i know what i look like but has anyone got any tips on how i can improve and what to wear - not too formal but still smart (i have a tendency to practise in bare feet!)thanks!!"
I had to post Nicky's original message here because darned if I didn't lose track of what this thread was about. (Somehow I have a feeling I'm not the only one...)
Can we please argue about something new? Like.... what Nicky should WEAR for chrissakes. This is tricky on an online forum, as I don't know Nicky's gender. And if I, assuming Nicky was a female, suggested something long, slinky but elegant, and maybe in shades of ivory or lavender, I might send Nicky down the wrong path should Nicky turn out to be male.
Here's what's most important about what you wear: that it makes you feel GREAT. That it helps you project confidence and grace. That it doesn't abstruct you in any way or make you feel self-conscious.
You got some great replies here - hope they helped you. I'd have to advocate honestly and sincerity. No faking or grandiose movements that don't feel right. Just try to enjoy and then share that with the audience. As an audience member, I just eat it up when a musician is totally into their music and projecting it onto the audience. If they get all grandiose while in that moment, well, cool! If they stand there calmly because that's what is natural for them, well, cool! I know what's real, and that's what I want from a performer.
Haha this thread is phenomenal.
Buri, youve been taken for a ride mate!!
Unless this guy really is as loopy as he sounds! As if Maxim would snap his E string on purpose. It happens to him in rehearsals, its just the force of his playing. I have done it too a few times. Hey, In my early days I even split a bow playing Caprice Basque. But im not getting involved......
I'll never let YOU play my violin, then.
Come to think of it, I'll never let you play my bows either. You'll snap both of them in two.
It's because of people like you, john, that I won't let overly forceful players do to my violins what Vengerov and Midori did to those concertmaster's violins.
Greetings,
>hi, i've got my second year violin recital in a fortnight and i was wondering if anyone had any tips for me with regards to stage presence etc.
I think (actually i know ;)) stage presence comes from the inside out. There are a few fundamentals common to all great performers (and by great I also people like you who go out and give people pleasure, also Junko but that is another thread)
1) Play from memory. The other day I was talking to the elader of the La Scala opera orchestra and I asked him what memory meant to him. He thought about it for a bit and replied. `It means playing from the heart. Only when you play from memory do you really share your love and passion for the music with people.`
2) Know the piece so well you can lie on the floor and run through it mentally, not only hearing every note , but feeling the responses in your body, hands and fingers as you play each note. Every time you find a point where you can`t do this , you do not know the point and need to work through it mentally until it is absolutely clear in your head. Then clean it up on the instrument.
3) Learn the piasno part inside out.
4) When you have the above factors aunder control you have a three way communion going. You are lsitening to the piano player and making music with here and you are giving directly to the audience.
5) As you play to the audience you whole attitude is one of love. Tehy are not here to criticize. They just hold an expectation of enjoyment which you will give them as long as you don`t start buggering around with your face.
When these things are under control what the audience will se eis you as you are. Worrying about stage presence in terms of walk or whatever is epiphenominal.
>i'm planning on videoing myself practising so i know what i look like but has anyone got any tips on how i can improve and what to wear - not too formal but still smart (i have a tendency to practise in bare feet!)thanks!!"
Whatever else, practice from now on in the clothes you are going to wear, and that includes the shoes.
>I had to post Nicky's original message here because darned if I didn't lose track of what this thread was about. (Somehow I have a feeling I'm not the only one...)
That`s because that nutter Mr Huang is on speed. He is the master of discussing the non-sequiter.
> You got some great replies here - hope they helped you. I'd have to advocate honestly and sincerity. No faking or grandiose movements that don't feel right. Just try to enjoy and then share that with the audience. As an audience member, I just eat it up when a musician is totally into their music and projecting it onto the audience. If they get all grandiose while in that moment, well, cool! If they stand there calmly because that's what is natural for them, well, cool! I know what's real, and that's what I want from a performer.
See. You@ve got it!
There wa salso some references to feelings a while back which I might as well sticjk in here.
I started Alexander training about five years ago and in one of the most memorable first lessons a very talented blues harmonica player gave a cute perfomance which we all enjoyed. teh teacher then did the usual hand magic and as the player experienced the remarkable shift the technique evokes his playing became so touching it wa s hard not to cry. The funny thing was at the end he seemed really angry. So we asked him why he looked so pissed and he looked at the teacher and said `You have taken away my emotion.`
I had a similar experience playing in front of an audience at an Alexander seminar (in fact I have ha dit many times). I played a handel sonata movement and it wa s okay. The teacher asked me to work on my `primary control` and nothing else. After i finshed she asked me what I thought and I said the experience was okay but I didn`t feel so moved or involved. She laughed and pointed at the audience who I had been ignoring. Some of them were crying and they were all laughing and saying how moved they had been. It`s weird and I don`t have a worked out explanation for this but I know it is what Mr Oundjian wa s getting at as I mentioned before. I think from a young age we are taught to `be expressive` to play with more feeling, to imagine that your favorite dead grandmother is saying hello and so on.` This is all fine but I suspect it gets in the way causing us to create a kind of false emotion in our own bodies with all the concomitant tension and misuse of the bodyIE stupid facial expressions at a bare minimum. When we can dump this garbage and play in time, in tune, with some shape then the music begins to flow through us and those things which belong in the domain of art more than technique begin to kick in. The composer ideas flow unhindered and trigger genuine musical impulses within us that modulate the phrasing vibrato and bowing. The playing is utterly different. We carry around so much baggage from our musical training and experiences taht needs to be got rid of. Another time I had an Alexande r lesson and I realised that my concept of sound had been influenced by Oistrak to such an extent that it was contradicting the sound that actually emerges when my primary control is freed and the body functions as one organism. That sound is much ligher, is created by rapid bow speed andd is much more akin to that produced by Misltein than the Great David. Unfortunately it ain`t as good.
That`s life.
Cheers,
Buri
PS Kevin said:
That's no "accident", buri, and you know it.
He is still trying to explain to the world exactly what I think about everything. But what do you expect from a guy who bangs his gonads on the ground everytime he finished Monti Czardas....?
"Here's what's most important about what you wear: that it makes you feel GREAT. That it helps you project confidence and grace. That it doesn't abstruct you in any way or make you feel self-conscious."
I totally agree, Terez! Wonderful advice!
Hi,
My own final last two cents... advice that I give to myself. Play to the best of your ability, be true to yourself, listen.
Good luck and Cheers!
Chris
I myself am very stiff when I perform. I have heard that I am very boring to watch, so I am working on spicing things up a little. Nothing could be more difficult! It is so unnatural for me to move at all...yet I don't want to give a tedious performance. I think doing what is natural is okay, unless you are actually taking something away from your music, like I am with my stiff-ness. This, of course, can go the other way, too. Who hasn't blushed a little watching a performer who moves inappropriately with the music, or gotten totally distracted by someone gyrating and grimacing? I think there is definitely a fine art to stage presence, which is not necessarily "dishonest" if a bit rehearsed. I think of it as dancing, and usually "honest" dancing=bad dancing.
My 10 cents for what it's worth:
1 - DO NOT stick out your tongue
2 - DO NOT let your jaw drop open
3 - WEAR shoes
4 - DO NOT stand on one leg like a flamingo
5 - DO NOT rub your face, adjust your hair or glasses, pick or rub your nose while resting
6 - DO NOT adjust your bow hold by placing it on your leg and moving hour hand down closer to the frog.
7 - DO NOT slouch
8 - Be smooth and graceful, not jerky and robotic
9 - DO NOT keep your eyes closed
10 - finally, RELAX and have FUN!
Greetings,
Keri, it is not a question of being boring or not boring to watch so addressing the issue in terms of spciing things up is dangerous. The body is an organic whole so, as Rolland continually points out in his works one cannot usefully foucs on developing technique in the hands and arms if any part of the whole is stiff. this pont was dealt with in great detail by Flesch in his Art of Violin. he may have been the first great teacher to realize the fundamental importnace of the origin of movements in the legs.
The direction of hip swing and weight transfer has a profound effct on bow stroke and should be taught right from the beginning by the teacher through simple exercises, asuming the studnet does not do them naturally. You might take a look at Rollands book `The Teachign of action in string playing.` The Flesch is worth reading too.
In the meantime, when you practice it is well worth spending time at the beginning of yor practic erunning through a mental checklist of your joints from the ankles up- consciously relaxing them. Also try leaning against a door frame and bending your knees going up and down a syou play.
Cheers,
Buri
Dear Nicky,
be natural on the stage , feel the music only and don't expect you'll play better than in your room. If you expect or want to play better than usual some tension will arise. What you can do well at home you will do also well on the stage. What you cannot do yet will be a good thing to improve after the concert in your room.
Enjoy and communicate!
Be yourself is very difficult sometimes... so practice it on the stage.
B-Bye
Andy
Mendy - okay, so, what if you pick your nose with the tip of your bow in a smooth and graceful manner while wearing shoes and standing on both feet? And if you're relaxed and having fun with it?
((Feel free to give it a try on Saturday night and let me know people's reactions!))
Why do people (KEVIN!) So often confuse “natural” with “stiff”??!!! These two things couldn’t be more diametrically opposed!!
Performers who feel the music in a way that makes them move a lot or make facial expressions are genuine and sincere, as much as performers who feel the music in a way that makes them stand tall and proud and noble and serene, etc. are also genuine and sincere.
Anyone who tries to deliberately do something other than what they feel the music dictates is being insincere, including people who force themselves to keep a straight face just because they think that’s what’s expected of them.
What is so difficult about this distinction? It has nothing to do with competitions versus performances, conservatory world vs. some other world, etc. Obviously, as you mentioned yourself, people do “ham it up” in the “concert world” which you so disparage, and those who do it in a way that doesn’t look forced or fake are taken seriously.
As for breaking strings on purpose in order to gain publicity, how do you know what’s going on in somebody’s head? Perhaps you’re saying that because that’s what YOU would have done? You seem to be very good at twisting everything other people do and say in order to support your notion that there exists this stodgy attitude in classical music. How do you explain the fact that someone that makes as many “hamming it up” faces and gestures as Vengerov is so respected and revered by the establishment?
The issue of doing something for money is a completely separate one, not anywhere within the topic brought up in the original post.
Speaking of which...
Nicky, relax and be confident and feel the music and be natural.
Keri, I’d say don’t do something that’s unnatural for you. If you want to eventually give performances that are “not stiff”, first learn to feel and hear the music in a less stiff way. The “motions” will come naturally after that.
Regarding Vengerov and his E strings, I seriously doubt he breaks them on purpose. He's a little crazy, but he's never "fake". And Kevin, your comment about the press eating up the broken-string incidents and "thus extending the careers of the players" is absolutely absurd. You essentially imply that Vengerov would have no career (or at least a less stellar one) if he didn't break strings and "ham things up", and that is quite frankly an insult to one of the great geniuses of the violin.
Yes, Maxim does "ham things up" a bit, but he's just a natural ham, he can't really help it, it's his personality. When I watch him play I never get the impression that he's "putting on a show" in the sense that it's an affected, insincere pose. Occasionally I've seen that artificialness in other violinists (not naming names here), but never with Maxim. He just looks like he's completely into the music and is having a lot of fun. Never artificial, never forced, just spontaneous and exuberant.
No arguments from me on the points that Maura and Keuna made.
Having articles written about string breaking in things like Strad or other major magazines (Midori was written up in the NY Times at least once about that, and Vengerov has been interviewed about his string breaking) can get people to take notice of one's career, no matter how famous an artist has become. I just wouldn't do it myself, contrary to what you believe Keuna.
That was the whole point of my rant, if you didn't notice. I never have busted my string deliberately, never intend to do that, and never will let anybody of any stature do it TO MY violin. Would you, Maura and Keuna, let a Midori or Vengerov bust strings on YOUR violins deliberately after they've busted strings on theirs AND somebody else's violin in the same concert? If so, be prepared to do some explaining to your violin insurance companies.
No more from me on this very important recital issue.
Many a concert gesture that is seen as inappropriate by a certain person is considered appropriate by others. One can always do as he wishes in a recital or concert, as long as he is willing to live with the consequences good and bad.
If Vengerov played my violin, I wouldn't care if he broke a string or not. It doesn't hurt the fiddle, and it would make a great conversation piece! :) See, in order for Vengerov to play my violin, I would have to meet him, and if a broken string is the price I would have to pay, I'd pay it. :) LOL
MG
What I'd like to see is a violin soloist break all 4 strings and then keep playing. Not even Paganini could do that.
Sandy
Terez - I'd like to see someone try to pick their nose with a bow without ripping it off their face! And do all that gracefully at the same time! LOL. I think that is one trick I will pass on tomorrow night! I'll just be happy bowing with everyone else at this point!
Dad is here, and I gave him and my step mom a quick recital on the new viola and old one for comparison. Got a thumbs up on the new girl. And got over a bit of stage fright playing for them before dinner. Had a good dinner and a bit too much wine, but feeling better about tomorrow. I'll have pics to share by Sunday!
Okay, I have just read all of the previous responses to this thread and the first thing that came to mind was . . wow.
I am exhausted.
That said, I would like to offer my thoughts without any danger of offending anyone who previously posted. Here are three tips to start:
1. Before any thought goes into stage presence and connecting with an audience (very important aspects of PERFORMING), one must FIRST make absolutely sure ALL MUSICAL IDEAS (interpretation, phrasing, emotion, etc.) are communicated THROUGH THE INSTRUMENT. If you cannot express the music to someone while their eyes are closed, you have no business adding theatrical gestures in an effort to convince the audience of your musicality. [In a lesson I had years ago, I played for a teacher and thought I gave it my all. The teacher looked at me and said, "Well gee, Peter, you know I could SEE the music in your face, but I couldn't HEAR it." This was a wonderful lesson.]
2. Assuming one has mastered the music and is communicating effectively in SOUND, I am not one of these musicians who believes one should be completely play straight in terms of facial expression or body language. The moment one chooses to perform on a stage for an audience, that person has a greater responsibility than simply playing the music well "for the music's sake" (as music ethics professors might say--I do not subscribe to this mentality). It is now your job to SELL this music to your audience. In no way am I recommending that one be fake on stage or add superficial movements simply to entertain the audience. Rather, one should embrace their OWN personality and try to display the emotions of the music they are playing. There is always a risk here of exceding that which is being produced on the instrument. The audience will KNOW this. Videotaping practice sessions is always advised here. BE ONE with the MUSIC you are playing and you might just have all the selling power you need in terms of your visual presentation.
3. When you walk out on stage, immediately make eye contact with the audience and SMILE. Likewise, as soon as you are finished performing and the "mood" has settled, SMILE to the audience as you are bowing--regardless of how you think you played. We all wish we played something a little better, but the audience may not always know this. A smile lets them know that you feel confident in your presentation and they will, in turn, be satisfied, if only on a basic level, with your performance.
Hope this was a helpful.
-Peter
Thanks, Buri, for the advice. I will definitely crack open my dusty, neglected copy of Flesch this weekend.
I don't want to sound like I am confusing "natural" with "stiff," it is just that I, personally, am naturally stiff when I play.
Wow. Quite a thread.
I find this topic very interesting as my daughter, until recently, had been rather stiff when performing. That's what garnered the comments but what went unobserved was, compared to now, she hadn't worked as hard preparing the music, was not as confident, and wasn't playing from the heart as much as focusing on not making a mistake. Now that she's improved in those areas, she's able to express the music, and stage presence has improved. Her movements are still small and subtle but they are sincere (done unaware) and I think they serve the music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj8G8aFF8Y4
Nicky, it sounds like you have the foundation in your music to offer a convincing, if not yet commanding, stage presence. Best of luck.
One thing about the advice to emulate the masters. The masters often seem to have no need to look at either their bow or left hand. I think that's a bit of stage presence that can't be forced too early...
I am just wondering... do you have time to think about how your face looks like or make it look like, how your body should move and so forth when you are totally emerced in the music you are playing? I just don't get it. If you have time to think about all these things on stage, shouldn't you be thinking about how you play your music instead?
I've heard both Joshua Bell and Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg say that they're completely unaware of their mannerisms. It would seem that for them, what happens with their body is a result of how they feel the music.
Hi,
One's physical relationship with the instrument is individual. Some keep things simple as excess movements interfere with their ability to play, while others have ways of playing that is very physical and works great. Depends on each person. In the end it is individual.
To best put it, like Mauricio Fuks said, movements are either constructive or destructive. If something interferes with one's ability to play, then it is destructive. So, depends on each person.
Cheers!
Greetings,
Christian, what you say is true but it has to operate within parameters, as you know. One of the things that all the greta violnist of hsitory have had in common is a minimu amount of ffort to produce the desired result. The implication of this is that great violinists such as Midori, Joshua Bell and even Gil Shaham are actuallky not playing at maximum efficiency. The excess movements they are using are not a necessary part of their art but rather a reaction to misuse of the body somewhere. If one forced(!) them to stop using such excess movements then the result would be a deterioration in their playing, but this is not an argument that what they do now is correct. It simply means that the misuse of the body which cause the excess is not being compensated for.
With the extreme players it is posisble, in my opinion, to track a deterioration in playing as a consequence. Midori is a case in point even though she can still outplay anyone on a good day.
It`s amazing the number of times I have seen Alexander classes in which brilliant violinists have been stopped from moving and complained they have lost their expressivity when the audience states exactly the reverse has happened. Seen Stern do that to wobllers in masterclasses as well,
Cheers,
Buri
If the great violin players have that in common, then Bell, Shaham, Midori, et. al. aren't great violinists in your opinion. If that isn't your position, then why couldn't the still ones learn something from the movers? Or is it really an expression of conservatism? And if you stop them from moving they can't play, or if you stop them they improve? You said both.
Since the question asked about stage presence, what it comes down to is two components, in my opinion. Confidence and physical attractiveness. The latter doesn't have to be conventional beauty, like an advertising model. The former doesn't have to convey that everything to follow is under control. It has nothing to do with an act, including either moving or being still. But since you said they're grading you on it, I suspect those people will be looking for something tangible. Therefore you should probably gleam like Miss America. What a business.
double misquote.
1) I said the great violinists of history.
2) I clearly said that if a player like Midori has her current misuse of body blocked there would be a drop in quality because the misuse that it compensated for was still extant. That would also have to be dealt with by a return to more natural use.
hey all,
I would just like to say that my point of view on things is basically for the audience. As an audience member, I enjoy seeing a performer have fun on stage. I didn't mean for it to be "hammed up" as some people have said. I just meant for it to look like it was good. When a person looks like it's tough, the audience will respond better and even pay more attention to the performer. I completely agree with brivati when performing in front of judges. However, I do believe that broadcasting your emotions does help to loosen up the performance and make it more enjoyable for the performer AND the audience. If they see that the violinist is truely having a good time and truely putting their soul into a performance, they will enjoy it more. I am not 'fake' in any way, as you have said countless times. I have many many high honours to my name, and also remember that I AM ONLY 15, and my thoughts on performing are just that. MY THOUGHTS. I have also read that Niccolo Paganini himself, when playing another composer's music, always made his performances look harder than they actually were. If paganini wasn't a 'great violinist' I don't know who would be then. I'm not saying that either of us is wrong. I'm just saying that I disagree with his views of things. He's saying that Midori isn't a great player and isn't 'performing at full ability'. We all know that she is a brilliant violinist and probably the most expressive player alive right now. That's all I have to say for now about that.
Cheers,
Kevin J. Ohrlund
I wasn't quoting you at all, since there's no need to repeat it so soon. I was attempting to extract the meaning.
Kevin [Ohrlund],
I believe there's a saying,
Better to keep your mouth closed and have others think you're a fool than to open it and remove all doubt...
[edited to include the full name of the poster to whom i was referring]
Greetings,
Jim, you failed... I will try to be clearer next time. My point is not that the modern players I mentioned aren`t great but rather to the extent that they, or anyone else uses movement/energy in excess of what is necessary they are not playing to their maximum potential. They are still hea dand shoulders above the rest of the pack.
Kevin, don`t addres sme as Brivati. It`s rude.
Cheers,
Buri
You posted that I "talk out of my ()*&()*" when playing the violin, "Buri".
As far as I'm concerned, that is a lot ruder than me mistakenly addressing you by your screen last name, the one you chose for public view.
It's even more rude when considering that you haven't even HEARD ME PLAY. You're a professional violin teacher and should know better than to negatively judge somebody's playing that you haven't heard. Now if you've heard me in the last 4 months and don't like the way I play, I will respect your dislike of my playing style. Be careful - I might want to hear YOU play one day. Notice how I'm not saying that you play like you're "talking out of our )(*&", but instead am honoring the fact that you're a respected member of violinist.com whose ability and knowledge are to be respected. I'm sure you're a terrific player in your own right - you'd have to be if you're teaching violin professionally.
But out of deferences to your wishes, I shall address you as "Buri" since that's what you've addressed yourself as in other posts. Since you didn't say what I should call you, don't get mad at me if "Buri" is not good enough for you. I might not like your negative opinion of my violin playing, but I will be as respectful of you as I can be.
I may come to Japan next year in a concert tour. Perhaps we can meet in person on a more FRIENDLY basis (notice me extending an olive branch?)
Have you heard the story behind his nickname? Apparently it's the closest Japanese kids can get to pronouncing "Brivati", and it's also Japanese for "fart".
I haven't heard the story behind his nickname, and I'm sorry I called him that online. Then again, I'm not Japanese and "Brivati" sounds like some sort of European name. How in the world am I supposed to know that "Brivati" sounds like "fart" considering I don't speak a word of Japanese?
And if so, he shouldn't be offended if I "accidentally" addressed him that. I've apologized now that I know the story, which I shouldn't even have to do. It's HIS screenname, the one he deliberately chose for violinist.com.
This is the first time I've been publicly taken to task for addressing somebody by his REAL name.
Wasn't trying to scold you for anything, I just remember reading one of his posts that explained the whole "Buri" thing. (FYI I don't speak Japanese either.) I think it's funny, and I think, um, Buri agrees?
Um, not no but HELL NO.
He'd not have called me "rude" for addressing him as "Professor Brivati" if he thought it was "funny".
I'm new to violinist.com, and I have not seen that post. I don't even know where it is. Maybe Buri thought I had seen that and was calling him that, but I'm not that type of person. Besides, is it really that inappropriate for me to address him by his professional last name?
If (when) we meet in person, I'll probably just say "Hello Buri" since I'm not even sure if "Stephen" would be appropriate for addressing him.
As for me, Kevin, I'll say that one's opinions and statements are often a clear indicator of how they play. Mainly because they reveal a person's priorities, ability and criteria in judging themselves (and others) and judgment calls on what is difficult and what isn't. On those grounds alone, I find it rather amusing that you offer your advice on as many different aspects of violin playing as you do. But that merely makes me smirk.
What makes my blood boil - and you're not the only one who does this to me, I might add - is the reverse contempt you and your ideological brethren display. You blithely reference the "classical violinist" world, decry what you perceive as our stiffness, and in statements reeking of sour grapes talk of what you think is or isn't necessary for respectable classical success. How about this, if you wish to humble yourself, just slightly: put every reference to what YOU do for a living into quotes (e.g. "music" - quotes mandatory); talk endlessly about the animalism and bad taste displayed and demanded by your audiences; and laugh at how ludicrously easy it is to meet the requirements of your quote-music-unquote. Yes?
Then I'll easily believe that you see yourself and Heifetz/Milstein/Oistrakh as AT LEAST peers, instead of leading me to suspect with every sentence that your write that you believe your Everyman persona somehow trumps their Olympian stature. Do it convincingly enough and I might even believe that you know perfectly well that the least competent orchestral player in the most h-class American orchestra is deserving of infinitely more respect than the Grand Ole Opry's in-house fiddlemaster.
Kevin,
Calm down. 'Twas just a bit of confusion. I meant that Buri seems to think that "Buri" is a funny nickname.
PS--I'm rather new to v.com myself, just stumbled upon that post somewhere.
Greetings,
Kevin it was a poor joke and in no sense was it intended to be a slur on your abilities. A combination of extreme tiredness and language attrition. I apologize unreservedly.
You can@t call me Professor Brivati any more since I was actually fired from that position. Nothing to do with music. I made a reference to Marx in an academic journal that offended the extremely right wing university I was teaching er... English, at.
Cheers,
Buri
Maura, I don`t actually think Buri is -funny- Its just what I have been calle dfor the last sixteen years. Like a pair of smelly slippers you neve r want to get rid of.
Emil, I disagree with you completely.
I respect the fact that "classical violinists" like you earn money and pay taxes and delight audiences worldwide. You have your own set of standards, ones that require great skill and ability to live up to. Not everybody can live up to those standards for all sorts of reasons, and those who can like you get my respect. I am the first person to not be able to live up to those standards, though you STILL would have to hear me play before you can rubber stamp me as a classical violin hack.
Classical violinists aren't the only ones impressing audiences and making a living. I play for audiences, just like you do. I pay taxes, just like you do. I practice my art, just like you do. I even went to Juilliard and play professional classical music, just like you do. I'm not as far off from you as you think I am, emil. My professional world is different from yours, but it's not inferior to yours just as your world isn't inferior to mine.
Yes emil, I write about every aspect of my violin playing as it pertains to these posts. What's wrong with that? Do I force my ideas on you - or you on me? Obviously not. I've earned just as much right as you have to post whatever I've learned, and if you don't like it then get Administration to kick me out. If you don't like what I post, tell us about your wonderful experiences so that people will know not to listen to Kevin Huang (most people here are not going to care one bit about what I say anyway). I'd love to hear about the things you are doing myself, though I'll probably not agree with most of the stuff you do just because we have different needs.
As for the "least competent orchestral player in the most h-class American orchestra is deserving of infinitely more respect than the Grand Ole Opry's in-house fiddlemaster", that's 100% ludicrous. Emil, do you realize what you're getting into here? You're insulting a whole world of nonclassical violinists who have earned their reputations and money every bit as honestly as you earn yours. I don't think you meant it that way, but's that's how it sounds and so I'll step to their defense.
Let's stick someone like that (why not YOU for that matter) on AC Jobim's "Girl from Ipanema" and see if you can improvise melodically to the bridge while still staying in the correct key. That's tough even on pro jazz cats, believe me. The "least competent orchestra player in the most h-class American orchestra" would thus have to improvise rings around me on that song, and I've been improvising on difficult jazz standards like that for my entire professional career. I seriously doubt that even the concertmaster of the best classical orchestra could compete in improvisational jazz with guys who play jazz every day for a living (though anything's possible). On the other hand, I wouldn't expect the typical show violinist to be able to pass the average orchestral audition even at a community amateur level. These are two different worlds with two totally different skill sets, as people who try to cross over painfully find out sooner or later.
Both show violinists and "classical" violinists have different sets of skills that are just as worthy as each other, and that's the whole point of this wonderful debate. But assuming that a professional classical violinist would automatically be superior to a professional show violinist on the show violinist's turf is as ridiculous as assuming that the show violinist would somehow be teaching the pro classical guys what to do when Zubin Mehta raises his baton. I've repeatedly stated my inability to fit into a classical format at least as a violinist (oddly enough not as a mandolin player), which is why I now work in the show world. But there are a lot of classical guys who wouldn't last two seconds in the show world because they don't have the improvisational skills, showmanship, and even violinistic technique to be show violinists. Not even Heifetz/Milstein/Oistrakh would survive this world if they didn't know how to improvise in the Dorian mode. If you don't believe me emil, try coming down to the Opry and jamming with us. If you truly are better than us doing what we do, then I'll respectfully tip my hat to you and learn from you whatever I can. Since I don't know your background, I wouldn't be surprised if you could show me different substitutions over a 1-4-5 chordal pattern.
Comparing apples to oranges is one thing, comparing apples to apples is another.
Buri, I am really sorry I offended you.
It really was inadvertent. And you really are a "professor" to me, a professional teacher and performer who does what he does for paying clients and earns a living doing it.
We don't agree on lots of things, but you do have my respect for the tangible things you have accomplished. I'll hopefully see you in Japan next summer.
Greetings,
I said
>The implication of this is that great violinists such as Midori
to which Kevin responded
>He's saying that Midori isn't a great player
Please work harder on your reading.
>and isn't 'performing at full ability'.
Yes, I -did-say that. She isn`t.
>We all know that she is a brilliant violinist
Yes.
>and probably the most expressive player alive right now.
Attributing an extrme and highly subjective opinion (that has little merit actually)to `all` of us is very arrogant.It doe snot constitute any kind of point at all.
Finally, it is rude and stupid of you to persist in adresisng me as Brivati. All your self proclaimed honors will get you nowhere in the music business if you cannot even manage basic things like using peoples names as they request.
and why are there so many Kevin`s in this thread. It`s driving me nuts...I just can`t keep up
Hello friends:
Thought I'd jump back into the discussion here since we seem to have gone the way of personal attacks and "name" calling. Let's get back to the important debate regarding stage presence:
After reviewing all the posts in this discussion, something that comes to mind that would be an effective parallel is the Kennedy/Nixon debate of 1960. It was broadcast both on television and on the radio. Apparently, viewers of the television broadcast found Kennedy to be the winner of the debatee, primarily because Nixon--on television--consistently appeared to be frustrated and uncomfortable, a "sign" of defeat to many. On the other hand, listeners of the radio broadcast of the very same debate overwhelmingly felt Nixon was the clear winner of the debate, for he had a command of the issues, DEBATED well, and had greater substance to his answers.
I use this illustration NOT to promote any political opinion or agenda.
Relating this to our discussion here, I would argue that HOW a person PLAYS and HOW they SOUND are far more important than how they LOOK. This MUST be the final judge of a person's ability as a player. Unfortunately, in our modern society of music videos and supermodels, it has become very important to look good and to have a VISUAL intensity and expressiveness--or one is viewed as uninteresting as a player.
When looking at the great masters of the violin (on "The Art of the Violin" for example) by and large you see models of efficiency, the most expressive movements are in the bow ARM! Their faces are still and in intense concentration and posture was key. On the other hand, many modern violinists--perhaps feeling the pressure of competing with one another--engage in extensive bodily movement while playing.
Again, I think the key here is (1) is the player truly producing wonderful music in SOUND and (2) are the player's expressions and/or body language complimenting the playing and NOT distracting or detracting from the music? If the answer to both of these questions is "yes," then the performer is successful.
Heifetz has often been criticized as having no feeling in his playing or that he is robotic. If one ignores his very conservative visual approach and simply LISTENS, they will find an incredibly expressive performer in Heifetz.
Let's keep our eye on the ball, shall we?
-Peter
The eye IS on the ball, so much so that it's getting sore.
Constructive debates of this sort go right to the heart of one's stage performing career. It's this raging debate that makes the things people do on stage all the more interesting.
Respect is the issue that's really at hand here. We've got a bunch of professionals who disagree with things like the use of the word "song" and doing extramusical stage antics (though Perlman and Midori and other prominent violinists are allowed to get away with such things because they're celebrated) and think that the worst professional orchestra player is necessarily superior to any professional show violinist. That kind of respect (more like the lack of it) comes through in one's stage performances in music making. Of course, there are audiences for all kinds of people and that's why recital mannerisms tell so much about a performer's personality.
Buri, I edited the first sentence of my previous post because it was originally intended at emil and not you.
Unfortunately, you posted seemingly right before I got my post to emil onboard. What I had originally wrote would've seemed as if it were contradicting your newest post, so I edited it out and changed it to address emil's concerns. So I still stand by my original comments of respecting you.
Even if you don't respect me anymore, I still respect you. You're "Buri" to me from now on, even if we meet in person.
Mr. Brivati,
I am getting very tired of your extreme language in this discussion group. For you to call someone's comments or opinions "stupid" is both unprofessional and unproductive. If you are the professor you claim to be, you should know this.
I make is a policy not to call people by a nickname unless I know them personally, so I'm afraid "Buri" is not an option for now. Further, unless I see some substantial credentials, I would hesitate to refer to anyone as "Professor" either. This 15-year-old is a kid. Would it kill you to give him a break? I think it's great that he is enthusiastic about his potential and is trying to engage in good discussion. You don't need to slam him for mentioning his awards. He is proud of them and, let's face it, this is what 15-year-olds do!
As my mother always taught me, "If you are really good at something, you don't need to tell anyone . . . "
Let's not silence anyone in these discussions, but let us ALL be respectful and patient with one another. We are all of different ages, experience, and background and perhaps can learn something from each other.
Most respectfully,
Peter
Cheers Mr. Wilson- you're post helped bring us back to the question at hand and was very clear. And I'm not just saying that because I have lived in northern VA my whole life... (traffic's horrible, isn't it?). It's hard to remember sometimes that it's all about the music.
I had a defensive e-mail against Peter Wilson, but then I realized that there indeed are more than one "Kevin's" posting here. If Peter Wilson wasn't directing his 15 year old comment against me (I'm Kevin HUANG, and I'm a 32 year old full time professional violinist), then I have no business being defensive about my real age. Thats why I'm going to just drop the matter entirely.
Similarly, I'm saying my final "sorry" to buri. I'll address him by whatever he wants me to. I look forward to possibly meeting buri in Japan next year.
I'm now so confused with all the "Kevin's" that I'm just going to stop posting here simply because I don't know who I'm responding to!
Now I'm truly off-topic, which is why I'm removing myself right now! See you guys on the other threads on this wonderful website.
Oh, and Nicky- have you had your recital? What did you play/when was it/how did it go? If it's still in the near future, then good luck/break a leg (or perhaps just a bow hair). :)
we really need to start using some last names, particularly when referring to those with the first name Kevin...
Mr. Huang,
First of all, I wasn't referring to you at all when I mentioned the 15-year-old. If you will look at the "transcript" you will see I was referring to Kevin Ohrlund. You clearly have no respect or regard for anyone else on this website--as evidenced by your unprovoked attack on me AND your uncontrollable need to tell all of us how great and diverse you are and have been during your unbelievable professional career.
As I said before, if you are really good, you don't have to tell anyone. It sounds to me as though, for some reason, you have felt underappreciated as a violinist "show" or "classical" or otherwise for quite some time.
I certainly hope you can find peace in your professional life. You may be 32, but if you really want to be a "grown man," perhaps a little modesty might suit you better.
Further, what's with all the tax references and IRS business?
Finally, I'm in agreement with the other Kevin in saying that "What is so wrong with addressing a person with MR. followed by the LAST NAME given as their screenname?" If it is SO offensive, than perhaps the person in question should change his screenname. And, for the record, I never questioned anyone's intelligence or violin abilities.
Respectfully,
Peter
I don't care what anyone calls me as long as it's nice.
I prefer to be called Goddess of the Universe. Nobody seems willing to oblige. Or to do my bidding. Dratted minions.
Oh yes, and here's a more on- point exposition, a response to Mr. Huang (from way back - I'm a little behind):
This is Emil’s wife, Robin. As an initial proviso, I’ll say that I am most definitively NOT a classical musician. I can read music and play, for my own pleasure only (i.e., no one in their right mind would pay to hear me play), various pieces, ranging from Mendelssohn’s Lieder Ohne Woerter to, oh, let’s say the Beatles or show tunes – that is to say, I come at this with whole classical vs. popular music debate with a more lenient attitude than does Emil.
That being said, I first want to say I appreciate that you are able to respect classical violinists. However, I agree with Emil that putting classical violinists in quotes is not the way to convince those musicians of the sincerity of your position. Be that as it may. You’re right to note that such artists must possess great skill and technical ability. I wish that you would also realize (and perhaps you do), that classical musicians need to connect with their audiences – to move them. But such a connection can be made without pandering, without a laser/lights show, without merely playing plebian music (not an insult, by the way – you must admit that some sorts of music – pop, bluegrass – are easier to get into than classical). A connection can be made through the musician’s own level of musicality. You hear countless technically proficient students play who don’t get this, and that’s why they are not yet professionals. Musical sense is essential for any successful musician, be he classically- or otherwise oriented.
Secondly, as to your comment on “h-class orchestras”, I don’t think Emil means to insult how other, non-classical musicians earn their money. He prefers other pianists to Lang Lang, for example (and I don’t blame him), but I doubt he would say that such a pianist didn’t deserve his income. His beef is with an uneducated public, one which pours the money into the coffers of musical panderers like Andre Rieu. At any rate. Let people earn money any way they can. It’s merely a travesty that American youth regard the talents of, say, Christina Aguilera (who does, by pop standards, have a very nice voice) to be on par with the arduous genius of Oistrakh.
Thirdly – yes, improvisational skill is a much different talent than what classical music requires. But you also must admit that those who improvise can range widely in their technical ability. Imagination and hutzpah are required, but so long as you can figure out the key, technical ability need not really figure into it. Also, I have great faith that the Heifetz set could easily LEARN to improvise. Their training lends itself to such a musical challenge, and exposure to music requiring improvisational riffs would quickly result in their improved skill on that front. Even so, as far as I can tell (and, please, correct me if I need it – my experience with improvisation basically extends to school-level jazz bands and listening to Coltrane et al.), playing improvisationally is not as difficult as, say, playing the fourth Pagannini caprice. You bip, you bop, you get the right key and throw in some syncopation, and voila – an amusing improvisational session.
So, finally – I don’t THINK it’s comparing apples to oranges, but apples to apples. Technical skill is invaluable for any player, and can be displayed by either classical or non-classical musicians. Even so, classical music, it seems to me, requires much more of its players than do show tunes or bluegrass, etc. This is not to say that the latter genres are EASY, just that I have not seen, in my experience playing both, a popular piece that has ever required of me as much (or caused me as much frustration) as a classical piece.
Oh yes, and an update since this thread is moving WAY too fast for me. I understand that you are proud of your accomplishments. I'm sure you should be. But it's a little off-putting to have them shoved in one's face as such. I'm reminded of a story from an international competition. Young hot stuff walks up to two players, boasts, "Hello, I'm Yurn Kurkin (name changed to protect the idiotic) and I won sixth prize at such- and such- competition." Stunned silence on one violinist's part. Other violinist, in very proper British: "I'm Andrew Paveroffity. I have a rabbit."
Regardless of your qualifications, it's irritating to have them shoved in my face.
Dear Mr Wilson,
one thing I have noticed on this discussion is that people =simply do not bother- to read what I have written. For example, you say I called someone@s opinion stupid` and then went on from there to attack me on that basis `professor should know this` blah blah.`
In fact I did not say anyones opinion was stupid. I said it wa s rude and stupid to use my name incorrectly after I complained. I stand by that.
As far as my extreme language that is making you tired is concerned I think I can claim quite legitimately that I have been responding to being consistently misrepresented in what I say.
Cheers,
Buri
AMEN, Robin. Thank you for your comments!
For the record, Heifetz was actually known to improvise from time to time and played jazz quite well (many do not know this side of him). In addition, he was a FANTASTIC pianist and quite an accomplished arranger. He was truly the complete musician.
Also, in defense of the jazz violinists out there--jazz fiddling DOES require a great deal of technique if one hopes to be successful (as does country fiddling). Clearly, there would be no merit in comparing jazz violin playing with performing the Beethoven Violin Concerto; however, the really accomplished professional jazz artists are extremely skilled at what they do and their abilities should not be underappreciated. Perlman once said of Mark O'Conner that he was perhaps "the most naturally talented violinist" he had ever seen/heard. O'Conner does have some techinque to burn.
Best,
Peter
Dear Mr. Brivati:
My point is simply that "rude" is a description of behavior while "stupid" can easily be misinterpreted as an attack on someone's being (unintelligent, learning disabled, etc.). I think "rude" was enough to represent your frustration.
I, too, can appreciate being misrepresented.
Sincerely,
Peter
If someone thinks improvising a solo like John Coltrane is "easier" than playing a Paganini caprice...one would expect a lot more Coltranes around! Start both now, and see which one you can do ten years from now. If you change the comparison to Heifetz playing a caprice, then you're onto something. Even in (new) bluegrass I can't believe what I've heard sometimes. The main emphasis of classical music, with every instrument, is technical perfection, technical perfection by classical standards. That's not the only worthy criterium in the world.
Greetings,
Mr Wilson. I don`t think Kevin is stupid so I will withdraw the perjorative. But of all the threads I have ever been on this has been the one where I have been the most consistently misrea d and misquoted- you just did it yourself! Kevin really didn`t read what I said with any care before attacking me. I think he was very rude. It makes me wonder about some kind of double standard. That is, we are supposed to give a fifteen year old a break because of their age but at the same time we are not allowed to expect courtesy from a younger perosn up to older more experienced people?
Actually I don`t think either is satisfactory. My position on this Internet thing has been consistent for the last four or five years I have been writing. It is not necessary to make any claims above and beyond what emerges from what you have to say. That way whether one is abrilliant fifteen year old or an over the hill nutter you have a voice.
Cheers,
Buri
I am such a hypocrite. I said I wouldn't be back, and here I am. Sorry, this discussion has been most interesting. I'm just sinking myself into a deeper and deeper hole. This is grounds for legitimate criticism against me.
Back to the original topic: To play popular music with proper panache to impress oneself and audiences is every bit as challenging to me as playing any of the Paganini Caprices (and I play ALL of them by memory). There's an example of me talking about something I do not to show people how great I am, but that I am intimately familiar with the perils of playing any of the Paganini Caprices at concert pitch for the sake of this discussion. Sure you can get the notes out in an improvisation easier than you can get them out in Caprice #4, but is there any guarantee that the audience will actually enjoy what came out of that improvisation? That's where the greatest improvisers make their names and money.
I actually have as much respect for Christina Aguilera as I do for David Oistrakh. She's got to appeal to those audiences and marketing conglomerates in order to sell all that stuff, and that requires a special talent of its own. Granted perhaps Oistrakh is more accomplished from a violinistic technical standpoint, but he doesn't look as good in a bikini as Aguilera does. Cultivating any sort of musical career requires its own special type of talent when one considers the whole picture and not just the ability to play music. That's why I tip my hat to ANYBODY who's made it in any form, even at an amateur level. I don't even pretend that certain musicians are "better" than others, though I will contend that certain musicians are "better" at winning approval in certain circumstances.
Done right, the greatest improvisers are just as accomplished at what they do as the greatest classical rote readers are. If it were so easy to become a great improvisers, why is it impossible to clone Charlie Parker? Or John Coltrane? Or Art Tatum, whose skill as a jazz pianist led Vladimir Horowitz to thank the heavens that Tatum wasn't a classical pianist. Improvisation is what a performer makes of it, and the extent one pushes it determines how difficult it is. Jean Luc Ponty is an improviser and the stuff he plays is wicked hard, especially when he starts doing the broken meter thing. In my experience, technical experience factors GREATLY into improvisation depending on what one wishes to do with his career.
I absolutely do not agree with the notion that "so long as you can figure out the key, technical ability need not really figure into it." Improvising songs on the fly at a high level is VERY dependent on technical ability, though of a different sort of skill than playing a Caprice or concerto. You've got your feelers out to the other players, as they're improvising too and can shake up your groove. The song is flying by and you're basically composing as you go along. Your emotions are coming out in your improvisational lines, which can be good or bad depending on what's needed at the specific moment. On top of all that, you have to do it in a way that the audience doesn't go "Ho Hum" when you're relying on set licks or "Eeewww" when you hit a wrong note by accident. One can and SHOULD take this improvisational technique far beyond the scope of "bips and bops", particularly once you start playing on different styles and bringing in your life experiences into the music. I can get my "Band-In-A-Box" program to bip and bop along, but I'm probably not going to get it to consistently generate audience pleasing solos that keep them clamoring for more.
Improvisation may be easier to "bip and bop" if merely hitting notes is the goal, but hitting more than that is really difficult. That's why guys like me are proud of our ability to improvise. We spend countless hours constantly honing our technique so that when we're jamming (often with unfamiliar musicians), we can do so in a way that brings out our inner emotions. Since we spend so much time working on our ideas and feel vindicated for our efforts when the audience cheers us when we play our solos well, we are justifiably defensive when people say that all we do is "bip and bop". We are even more defensive when classical musicians like your husband denigrate our improvisational abilities, especially since so many of us improvisers ARE classical trained and play the same songs that the classical guys do.
Because I've done so much freelance work in the pop field, people from the "classical" world tend to assume that I'm inferior to a whole lot of other people just as your husband does Ms. Rietz (or is it Mrs. Chudnovsky?). In fact, I'm so used to it that I've been FORCED to stand up for myself when people like your husband say that "the least competent orchestral player in the most h-class American orchestra is deserving of infinitely more respect than the Grand Ole Opry's in-house fiddlemaster", which is ME he's talking about. That's bad for my professional image and he knows it. Audiences will not pay their hard earned money to see a guy who is "not deserving of respect", and that's why I'll always defend myself against guys like him to the fullest extent.
I've faced comments like the one your husband made about me from more people in more walks of life than you can imagine at this point, and that I'm a short Asian guy only makes things worse. If you're a short Asian guy, people consistently think that you're nothing but a technical nerd who can only play at a student level. If I didn't stand up for myself, usually brashly (not the way I'd prefer), I'd have no career whatsoever because people like your husband would and have taken me down just like he's trying to do now. That's exactly what happened to me when I first started out in professional music, as I told buri in one of the earlier posts here. Being quiet about my accomplishments reinforced the popular view that I couldn't do anything right, and that nearly landed me in financial starvation. Only after much training and hard experience did I build up the kinds of skills it takes to survive in the pop world. Most of my successful colleagues in pop music have faced wave after wave of all-out rejection and have triumphed only by standing firm and not letting anybody push them around. Only after forcibly proclaiming my achievements did people realize that I'm NOT somebody that can be pushed around just because I'm supposedly "less deserving of respect" in your husband's eyes.
You all have the right to criticize me, to tell me that I'm incompetent, and claim that what I do is inferior to what you are doing. That's fine, but don't expect me to NOT fight back. I've scratched and clawed every day against preconceived notions like "the least competent orchestral player in the most h-class American orchestra is deserving of infinitely more respect than the Grand Ole Opry's in-house fiddlemaster" for the entirety of my musical career, and I'll be damned if somebody takes my audience appeal from me by saying that I'm not good enough or by limiting the theatrics I can do on a show concert stage. Now when I'm going to appear with the Symphony, that's a whole different story because that's a totally different venue with totally different needs. And that, my friends, is the whole point of this entire thread!
Thank you all for your differing opinions. I am so very impressed by your collective intelligence and experience.
My 2 cents.
I used to love going to Marilyn Horne recitals because she took so much obvious pleasure in sheer singing. I think it's transferable to the fiddle--after all why play this difficult instrument if not for the sheer joy of making that kind of musical sound. Of course it's about the right notes but it has to be a joy to do it--if it's a chore no one is going to enjoy themselves--not you --not the listener.
J
I'm sure that Robin can respond at greater detail later but for now, Mr. Huang, I'll touch on a couple of the points that you raised. First, though, something that Jim also said can serve as an excellent point of departure. You both pointed out that if improvisation were easy, the planet would be knee-deep in Coltrane and Miles Davis clones. And then proceeded to name half a dozen others in whose clones the planet would be drowning. But don't you both see that the more people with legendary improvisational skills you name, the more you undermine your own point? After all, if jazz improvisational skills were so much more difficult than the technical skills necessary for classical music, why would there be literally the dozens of legends you HAVE named? To be sure, each has his distinctive musical voice but their sheer number shows that improvisational talent isn't some divine gift that strikes but once a generation.
That being said, I should also point out that I never said improvisation was easy. I said the technical abilities required to play improv licks are easy, at roughly Kreutzer etude level or below. Control, finesse, mastery...none of these are prime determinants. Imagination and the ability to let your hands go while your ears stay attuned to the same key ARE prime determinants. Moreover, I don't hear mastery of harmony in what admittedly little jazz I've heard; I haven't heard modulation, surprising turns of chord, or engaging or complex chord progressions. I hear melodic riffs on simplistic harmonic frameworks, sometimes venturing stunningly far from the framework, I hasten to add. This requires ears that hold onto the simple harmonic scaffold even as the fingers pull away from it. Impressive, certainly, and deserving of great respect. Engaging and fun to listen to. But not by any stretch of the imagination demanding the performers control the entirety of the instrument in all its subtleties.
And no, once one IS a master of the violin in terms of technique, that does not mean one is automatically good at - or even capable of - improvisation, nor that one has the charisma necessary to hold an audience's attention. But the technical prerequisites for improv are definitely covered with room to spare in the basic, essential classical training.
Finally, about the Coltrane clones argument, I'd just like to point out that though one DOES need tremendous imagination in improvising, one doesn't necessarily TRAIN one's imagination. Although I can't prove it, I suspect it's one of those things one is born with. I no more respect Aguilera for her looks than I respect Michael Jordan for his height. I respect Michael Jordan for his ABILITIES, which training, discipline and dedication have honed into an almost balletic virtuosity. It's not the gifts for which you can no more take responsibility or credit or blame that lead me to respect or despise a person. It's what that person has DONE with those gifts or curses that lead to respect. God, or nature, or your parents, can be blamed or praised for giving you hands. Only you and your teacher can be praised or blamed for what you DO with them.
So while I admire Coltrane, I genuflect before Heifetz, venerate Milstein, am in awe of Oistrakh. Even as I prefer to listen to Coltrane than Heifetz, when in a particular mood. You say you RESPECT Aguilera's "ability" in a bikini on par with Oistrakh's ability on the violin. Do you not see that his is an ABILITY while hers is an ATTRIBUTE? And do you not realize that his ability reflects decades-long training of talents which, ever afterwards, make him able to enrich and exhalt that which makes us human? As opposed to that aspect to which she caters, one requiring nothing more of us, the audience, than that we allow ourselves to degrade into shallow and lustful apes, screeching on about hormones, deifying a faculty in which a primate is our equal and a donkey infinitely our superior?
Hello again, friends:
At this point, I believe some objective commentary is in order.
Let me say that, after carefully reading the posts of Kevin Huang and Emil, it can be said that they are both right AND both wrong in their analysis.
First, the arguement as to why there aren't more clones of Coltrane, Tatum, or Parker IF jazz improvization is so easy is not effective because the same question could be posed for classical violinists . . . If classical violin playing is so much easier than jazz improvization, then why aren't there more clones of Heifetz, Milstein, Rabin, Oistrakh, etc.? Clearly the "Golden Age" of both classical violin soloists AND jazz legends produced individuals who will NEVER be recreated . . . only copied.
Second, I believe it is very important at this point in the discussion to be clear on what IMPROVISATION is all about. We must remember that JAZZ is still a relatively new artform in the history of music; however IMPROVISATION is perhaps the OLDEST form of expression within the history of music. To say that one only needs a "Kreutzer" level of technique for effective improvisation is simply an uninformed comment. Historically, the CADENZA was, by definition, an IMPROVISED interlude to a Concerto--a skill that was developed and perfected by players of the day, but most successfully executed by those who perhaps had the "gift" of improvisational creativity. Often, the most successful of THESE were the player/composers, given their harmonic training.
Eugene YSAYE was perhaps the last GREAT improvising violinist. The recitativo from his "Ballade" was not only composed in the style of Enescu's playing, but was also very autobiographical (i.e., very similar to Ysaye's OWN improvisational style). It is quite likely that he literally improvised that opening and then penned his creation. Now, I defy ANY jazz artist of the violin to spontaneously create THAT kind of music on their instrument with only "Kreutzer-like" technique. Clearly, Ysaye was a master of his instrument--of the highest order, technically--and, because of his immense creativity and compositional skills, he was very successful at improvisation.
As disciplined as the great modern violinists may be, the truth is that we are in an age of specialization and most are "lazy" to the thought of developing an improvisational ear. Why? Because it's generally unnecessary given the repertoire having cadenzas written out. Of course, there are still some (Nigel Kennedy, for example) who, through their passion for jazz improvisation, have performed Mozart Concertos and have completely made up cadenzas during performance. This is a great thing to witness.
Bottom line: Improvisation should not be discussed in a vacuum--only to be associated with jazz.
Best,
Peter
Kevin H.
I can understand why you'd feel defensive, but why do you care what others think? As long as your audience likes you, isn't that what matters? My husband is also a short Asian man but he doesn't give a d#$%m what anyone thinks of him. His violin playing speaks for himself and he doesn't need to tell anyone he's a good player. I wasted a lot of my time worrying about what people thought of my playing. I could have spent the mental energy on practice. Insecurity and defensiveness gets you no where. If you're a good player and people here doubt it, then they're ignorant and judgemental and who cares what they think. If you doubt your own skills and feel insecure, then just keep working. Your opinion of yourself and your audience's opinion is all that matters.
By the way, can we keep these posts to constructive comments everyone? Thank you to those of you trying to keep things friendly. All of us here love the violin so isn't that something that should unite us rather than divide us? The world is full of enough real conflicts. No need to add silly arguments to it.
As for the original question, I think it's important to tape yourself and eliminate what you don't like about your stage presence. Stage presence is a very individual thing that goes to the heart of one's performing philosophy. As long as it doesn't interfere with playing, shouldn't everyone be able to make their own choices? Can't we all be tolerant of the fact that everyone is an individual with different ideas and preferences?
-Laura
Thanks Laura.
Bravo, Laura. Very concise and constructive.
Thanks for your insight and advice.
Best,
Peter
mr. sr. dr. mrs. whatever the hell you want to be called buri,
I would appreciate it if you would stop bashing me. READ OVER YOUR OWN MATERIAL. So far a lot of it has contradicted itself. As for your name, I meant no disrespect to you, your family, or whatever I may have insulted.
Kevin Ohrlund
Emil, good points. I would say two things. Imagination in improvisation is of course a developed thing. The cultivation of that is a lot of what progressing amounts to. If imagination and bikinis and height are attributes, rather than developed skills, so are the circumstances that produce a real classical musician. Being born into a musical family and being started on your instrument at age 5 for example are "attributes" as well. I see Jordan and Aguilera and Milstein and Chudnovsky as products to a large extent of things beyond their control.
I don't know how hard any of them had to work, but to me the end result is the significant thing - it doesn't matter in itself whether an author wrote his book in one sitting or pored over every word for years. To me the most beautiful music of the 20th century is very easy technically, by classical standards, but it's no less a miracle. Congrats on tying the knot too, first I'd heard of it.
It seems obvious to know what the evaluation criteria is if you will be "graded" in any way for your recital.
I have given this subject much thought over the years. As a devoted and enthusiastic audience for popular and classical music, I think of the musician(s) as a "medium" in a grand dynamic painting. There is the audience, the composer (often dead), the performers, the conductor and arranger. There are blends of different values and colors that you can hook onto when watching a performance. There is the technical value, the musicianship, staging, the program order, the artistry and then of course the pure "entertainment" value of an event. Audience, critics not included, can be very generous to a sincere performance, technical flaws and all despite the point of view of professional critics.
Ironically, I have seen great entertainers who are lousy technical musicians and great technical musicians who are rather weak in the entertainment category. Maybe they are discreet disciplines? I recommend you read a book entitled "Respect for Acting". the author is Utte Haggen (spelling???). It talks about stage presence and "suspending all doubt" ..."total belief in the given circumstance" which keeps stage presence from feeling like a fake. You might check it out some time.
The whole thing is so dynamic that the audience must define the boundaries at any given moment in time based upon their belief in the given circumstance. That is why live performances are so engaging, you never know when you will see a great one!
The musicians are the actors that must deliver on the promise of all the variables at play during a performance.
Know thy audience!
I KNEW you weren't truly disrespectful of my position as a show violinist, emil.
Nor am I disrespectful of your position as a concertizing classical violin professional. I know how hard it is to do what you do day in and out, as I've done my time on the classical stage and have many more such gigs ahead of me. I'll bet that if we compared notes, you and I work on the same solo violin concertos and repertoire daily. The only difference is that you're currently performing professionally them with orchestra and I'm not, but I've done that in the past and likely will get a shot to do that in the future. I'm classically trained, but I'm NOT an active classical violin professional at the moment and thus know my limits.
Similarly, I actually do accept everything you said in your post to no small extent. I've heard many people say the same things you have about both violin and jazz, and I'll probably agree with you more times than not. But there's no question I won't agree with you every time, and that doesn't make my arguments any weaker than yours.
As far as the allowing myself "to degrade into shallow and lustful apes, screeching on about hormones, deifying a faculty in which a primate is our equal and a donkey infinitely our superior", I'm probably as GUILTY of it as one can be. I like my lusts and I'll even indulge in them sometimes by looking at the Aguileras. Maybe that's base and foul, but it's the way I'm made and to some extent it's the way I perform! I enjoy watching and listening to performers that skillfully utilize that stuff, and I get a bit bored when it's not there. That's not for everybody, of course.
I'm not sure I agree with you on some of the jazz things emil, and that's a matter of taste. You mentioned not hearing "mastery" in the jazz you've heard. What constitutes "mastery" anyway? Is it being able to play one note tastefully through an entire blues solo? Or is it hitting tons of cool harmonies the way Coltrane does? As long as somebody likes it, it's worth generating and should NOT be denigrated as "better or worse" than something. If I hear something I don't like, I don't automatically say that it's worse than something that sounds better to my ear. What I dislike (I'm not a Coltrane fan because I like melodic solos I can sing along to) is what somebody like you likes, emil.
Back to the Coltrane issue: You listen to him and you can't hear "modulation, surprising turns of chord, or engaging or complex chord progressions?" It's there, trust me. I don't like following it myself, but there's no denying Coltrane's ability in those issues. Listen to "Lazy Bird" or "Giant Steps" to hear him doing all that stuff.
As far as "training" one's imagination, it's an art form in itself. Guitarist Johnny Smith, one of my teachers, said that improvising is an art and needs to be practiced. Sure the basic innate imagination needs to be there, but it needs to be developed by constant practice and performing. On the violin, I run modes in every key all the way up and down the neck on a daily basis in order to be able to feel comfortable when the chord shifts on me. I compile licks that work for me and practice utilizing them in certain situations. I constantly study songs, their history, and the players that play them so that I can augment my ability. Sometimes I even "steal" licks from the classical stuff I'm working on, especially when I'm working on improvised solo jazz guitar and I'm stealing from Carcassi. I treat my improvisation practice as seriously as I do my classical practice, which is totally appropriate for the kind of work I'm doing on stage.
Where we differ most greatly, emil, is in our definition of what we think is good in music. To me, control and finesse and mastery are "prime determinants" of who's really doing well on improvisation. I could easily go out and "let my hands go", resulting in a garbled profuse of harmonically correct but essentially meaningless notes to confuse the listener. There are guys that make careers doing that, and I am not one of them. Rather I'll PICK what I want to come out and release it only when I feel the timing is right. That requires a special sort of control and finesse, one not equatable to anything in classical music because I'm making this stuff up as I go along. I don't copy anybody because I want to be known as my own man, though I'll occasionally steal licks. Even that needs practice.
Personally, my whole thing is that a performance need not be difficult to play or listen to in order for it to be appreciated. In fact, I'd rather hear an EASY song that is simply played and fills my soul with joy. That's why I'd usually rather hear a beginning violin student play "Twinkle" all broken and out of tune than some atonal modern violin concerto played by any big violin soloist. It's no different than wanting to drink cold clear water as opposed to 100 year old wine. That doesn't mean that water tastes better than wine or vice versa - it's simply what people prefer. I just like to hear the deeper emotion behind songs that performers bring, and it's always there no matter who's performing or what's being performed.
I cater to audiences that enjoy hearing pop music. Since I've chosen to perform in that venue, I'll willingly do what it takes to get them to enjoy it. But when people that DON'T perform in that venue come and assert superiority over me just because I happen to be on that pop stage doing pop things (and I'm NOT talking about a single person here, not even emil), I'll try to point out my classical training and hold my ground in order to protect my image.
Laura, I WISH I could do what your husband does.
Unfortunately, I run into the same attitudes every time I deal with classical musicians and particularly professional classical violinists. Some of them are open, but most of them frankly haven't been and have been outright RUDE to my face in their dismissal of my skills. Even in my job, there are enough audience members that thumb their noses at me for daring to get up on stage and being different from them in every way. It's been like that ever since I started playing the violin at age 6 and has continued unabated to the present day. I was dumb enough to listen to teachers that told me that "I wasn't good enough" or "You'll never make it", but now I know better. I STILL face that even now, as can be seen in the above posts.
If I merely let my playing "speak for itself," I'd be playing strictly for myself and not a paying audience. I went through 7 years of musical unemployment before I finally had it with people who had never heard my playing or seen the extent what I can fully do. All sorts of people were (and still are) criticizing my playing just because I hadn't "made it" as buri said to Kevin Ohrlund. In short, I WAS Kevin Ohrlund for many years. The difference between Ohrlund and me is that I faced that negative stuff for a lot longer as a grown man before I finally put my foot down and started fighting back when people would denigrate my skills just because I wasn't a success in their chosen venue. At this point, I HAVE made it in my sphere and I won't let anybody reduce me to amateur hack status with the blatantly incorrect notion that what I do is "easy" compared to hardcore classical music and that any classical professional in an orchestra is superior to me on my chosen stage by default.
I'll tell you, that "Juilliard" name tag does confer some amount of respect. Most people I know in classical music treat me like a little bratty adopted kid until they hear the "J word". We here all know that the "Juilliard" tag doesn't play a single note or even mean that a person is a competent player, but it has never failed to get people to at least take notice of what I was doing instead of dismissing me outright before I even got a chance. Even so, there are enough people who insist that I'm an uneducated violin hack AFTER I swing around the J word. Fortunately, there are enough people that employ professional violinists who will give a guy like me the benefit of the doubt when they hear the "Juilliard" tag. I learned how to swing my credentials around when I first started at the bottom of the freelance world, and I wouldn't have even gotten as far as I have (which really isn't that far) had I NOT done that.
The hardest thing I've always faced in life, let alone music, was getting people to not automatically assume that I'm a lazy idiot just because I look a certain way. Experience has taught me that swinging my credentials arond has saved me so many times from being dismissed as an uneducated Chinese little nerd who does not have the training and background to perform on professional music stages. Music is the only thing that earns me money, and I'll starve to death if I allow people to chop my reputation down.
Karen,
For an "enthusiastic amateur" you have some great insight into the essence of performing!
One of the beauties of being a musician is that, unlike the actor, we do not NEED an audience. The actor rehearses lines and blocking, but in the end, he/she relies on the audience to a certain extent for balance and energy. We as musicians can play our instruments privately with great success and satisfaction. When we DO perform for an audience, however, the circumstances become quite different and, in turn, so do our responsibilities as musicians. We, in affect, become actors as well. We are now a vehicle whose purpose is to communicate musical ideas to those in the seats. It is for this reason that we cannot simply play the same on stage as we did in the practice room. The energy from the audience can affect the performance and the musician should embrace this. I think someone like Heifetz, though very conservative in movement, communicated an INTENSITY to the audience and an undeniable, almost unbelievable technical prowess that made his presence awesome--with no added flamboyance. To be clear, stage presence is far more than simply moving about on stage in a dramatic way. It is about CONNECTING with an audience, drawing them in, making their heart smile and/or cry, and touching their soul. There are MANY ways to achieve this. The first is to master the music and master expressing it.
I often refer to acting techniques when giving performance clinics. Well done!
-Peter
Kevin (Huang):
When did you graduate from Juilliard? I'm just curious if you and I might have colleague friends in common. Did/do you know Erika Sato? We're in the same orchestra here in DC.
Also, please don't take offense to this, but you sound very bitter and I'm wondering if you felt underappreciated at Juilliard or elsewhere. Based on how you describe yourself, you seem very accomplished as a classical violinist AND a "show" (jazz/pop/country) violinist. Why the bitterness? Do you feel YOU are the only one who knows how good you are? Is it fellow musicians who seem to attack your playing or audience members? I'm just trying to get a handle on the (apparent) hostility you seem to have toward so many.
Again, please do NOT take offense to my questions. I really am simply trying to appreciate your perspective.
Regards,
Peter
Just my .02, but I don't think Kevin seems bitter. More frustrated and disheartened by some dismissive comments here about non-classical music and, by implication, those who perform it.
Oh well... different strokes for different folks, eh?
Over all the words on this thread, I think greater value is to be found in that well-knowm maxim by Duke Ellington: "If it sounds good, it IS good."
Isn't that the goal? To have the audience immerse themselves in the sounds and, at the end that arrived too soon, say to their neighbor or just marvel to themselves, Wow, that was so good.
I never "graduated" from Juilliard, though I spent 4 years there under Margaret Pardee in the Pre-College division. She was the first person to recognize that I had any sort of potential as a pro violinist, and she was RIGHT.
In fact, I remember Eriko Sato very vividly. Last thing I heard from some of our Juilliard companions, she had acquired a great violin some years back. I do not know if this story is true or not, but I can only tell you what I heard. My impression of Eriko Sato at the time was that she was a very solid performer who was comfortable with who she was. Aside from that, she probably wouldn't know who I was nor even recognize me from those days we spent there. I would imagine that she's very successful these days - certainly she had the right violin build and the hunger to be good.
I'm EXTRAORDINARILY BITTER, actually. Ever since I was a little kid, I was always the guy sitting in the back of the orchestra or ridiculed by teachers in school and elsewhere for being a wimpy little nerd. I grew up as a Chinese kid in NY the 80s, fresh off the Vietnam fiasco. When I got into fights at school, I never fought just one guy at a time. It was always 4 or 5, and then the teachers would laugh it off or send ME to detention. That's still the case today across the board in life. Most of my fellow professional violinists (some of them close to me) are amazed that I have any sort of career at all!
Ironically, Juilliard was the one place in my entire childhood where I was never called "arrogant" or "stupid" or "rude" or "offensive" or "lazy" or "Chink" or "Jap". It was a sanctuary for me, the only place I've been too where I wasn't a constant target from my peers and instructors. Being there really softened me - I am a softie today compared to what I was when I first got there! Many of my classmates had faced what I did and thus were understanding and even supportive of what I had been through. I even got to sit high seats in orchestra from time to time if I worked hard for it, though I remember one time when I was seated last seat 2nd violin and played a seating audition that caused the conductor to tell me to my face "That was the best audition I heard all day!" Of course, I was last seat second violin after auditions were completed and I remained there until my parents removed me from Juilliard.
In general, audience members tend to like me. That much has been true ever since I stepped on stage at age 6, and it's still true today. The dicier part is getting on that stage to begin with, and that's where the majority of my wars have been fought and lost.
The reason I sidestepped into country and jazz and world music is because I just couldn't find employment in even community orchestras as a player or soloist. I've played for more conductors and concertmasters than I can count, and I always see the dismissive looks on their faces before I even open my violin case. Even after I play something, people in classical music tend to assume that I'm an utter hack because I don't play THEIR style. I'm definitely not the greatest violinist at anything, but the least skilled professional orchestral player can't necessarily do better than me just because I'm on a different stage either. Just because I can't play something the way wants me to doesn't mean that I should quit playing the violin for a living. That said, I seriously doubt you'd like the way I play (Peter Wilson is the one I'm trying to respectfully address) given what I've read about your performance and teaching tendencies.
I've sidewound myself into nonclassical music because I've had to. Fortunately, I've really learned to appreciate all that stuff as I went along. It was a long and painful (often embarrassing) process to learn, but I became stronger as a result. Now if somebody calls me for a fiddle gig, I won't turn it down. I even did a stint for a huge Irish beauty pageant as a GUITARIST, so desperate I've been (and still am) for gigs.
My current job at the Arizona Opry has a lot of Juilliard-like elements to it. We have several musicians, all of whom have played all over the place and even internationally. Of them, I am easily the LEAST qualified to be up on that stage given my relative lack of experience. There are no egos, no agendas, and no secret games to remove one another. We all learn from each other when we can, make constructive criticisms to strengthen the group, and commiserate over the scars we've all accumulated. Everybody is trying to make everybody else look better, as we have the common interest of the group as our main goal. Instead of my nonclassical skills being dismissed, they're UTILIZED. The audiences there genuinely like me, but that's NOT a classical audience by their own admission.
I've been around enough people and taken enough real abuse to know the looks and behaviors of disapproval when I see it. My survival has been predicated on avoiding those situations when I can and tolerating them when I must. When you face that every day in your life, it changes you and not necessarily for the worse.
what do I know?
A lot, actually.
I'm trying NOT to be bitter, and you certainly sensed that.
Classical music is one of the greatest art forms there is, and classical musicians are to be admired and treasured for their talent and application.
KH,
I was afraid this might happen . . . I actually was not speaking of ErikO Sato, but ErikA Sato, simply a different Juilliard grad. I don't know Eriko, but Erika is a great player and in our ensemble at The White House. Sorry for the confusion.
I AM gathering that this discussion group is a great outlet for you to vent! It is likely saving you thousands of dollars that might be spend years from now on shrink couches! Vent away!
I am a little surprised that your "throwing around" the fact that you STUDIED at Juilliard hasn't come under greater scrutiny considering you didn't actually go to college there, let alone graduate. I do NOT mean to pour salt on an open wound here, I'm simply saying that it would be a little like auditing some law classes at Harvard while in high school, but not actually being admitted into Harvard Law School or graduating from there.
Respectfully, of course,
Peter
KH,
Okay, admittedly, I wrote my last entry before reading your "bitter" explanation all the way through. Honestly, I really feel like "taking on your case" and truly getting the heart of the problems of which you speak so passionately.
First, did you attend and graduate from any university/conservatory after your experience at Juilliard or, after your parents pulled you out, did you simply begin auditioning for conductors, concertmaster, and orchestras?
I ask this because I am struck by this notion you mentioned that
you have:
"played for more conductors and concertmasters than I can count, and I always see the dismissive looks on their faces before I even open my violin case. Even after I play something, people in classical music tend to assume that I'm an utter hack because I don't play THEIR style."
What teachers have you studied with during your late teens and 20's and did you ever go back to them to ask what you could do to improve your chances of winning an audition or winning a favorable critique from condutors/concertmasters WHILE KEEPING YOUR OWN STYLE, which you have admitted may be a bit unorthodox (my word) to that which many of us are used to hearing. I find it troubling that you don't have a mentor or coach at your disposal for whom you can play or otherwise bounce things off of. As long as I've been performing and coaching, I still keep the student "on" inside and continue to seek coachings from older mentors. It never fails--just when I think I have a handle on how to play something, they are there to give me a new perspective--an invaluable resource for growth.
You mentioned a jazz teacher, but are there violin teachers you respect in the jazz and/or classical worlds who you could approach and tap?
Again, I am really trying to be helpful here.
Regards,
Peter
Wow this has been interesting.
For those of you who took the time to read this, thanks for making it fun. I win, Buri.
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Subscribe
Laurie's Books
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine
May 17, 2006 at 10:47 PM · One tip is to watch DVD's of great players. What do they have in common? How do they move?
Are they holding their violins up? How high? What kind facial expressions are they making? Which violinist's presence do you prefer? Compare to a tape of you. What's different?
Watch your posture first and foremost, hold your violin up, etc.
Edit: Forgot to mention, kind of goes without saying, but I recommend watching Heifetz.
Act confident, even if you don't feel it. There is a saying, if you don't feel confident, fake it!
I'm sure others will have better ideas than this, but hopefully this will give you a start.