No One Ever Talks About

August 17, 2006 at 09:01 PM · Come on everyone . . . Don't be shy. Post a story!

August 19, 2006 at 11:16 AM · I read somewhere once that Ole Bull, the famous virtuoso of the 1800's, once prepared a Paganini piece (either one of the Caprices or Moto Perpetuo) by literally practicing it 1,000 times.

August 19, 2006 at 12:13 PM · In the book _Emotional Intelligence_ by Daniel Goleman, there is a chapter that discusses the relationship between "flow," a feeling of effortless joy, and high levels of skill in many contexts. He makes the point in this chapter that the people most likely to experience flow have practiced their skill for thousands and thousands of hours. He made an attempt at quantitating it over a lifetime and he included violinists (maybe Anne-Sophie Mutter was one, I'm not sure, it's been a while since I read the book) as examples. He pointed out that people who reach the highest levels of their art have often practiced ~10,000 hours, more than 50% longer than the average.

I liked the way it was presented because I had never really thought of it that way before, as cumulative. I'd always been taught about practicing on a daily or maybe weekly basis, in isolation, as if what came before and after didn't really matter, only the miserable present mattered, and the more miserable, the better. Goleman's presentation helped me think about how it all adds up and gave me a new way to see the forest instead of the trees.

I also liked it because the end result, in his view, of practicing that much and achieving that kind of skill resulted in flow: in real happiness.

Conversely, I find stories that present practicing and happiness in opposition (like the one above, "nobody ever talks about Heifetz' happy childhood"), as if there's a trade-off that you have to hold your nose and make, to be discouraging and depressing.

Karen Allendoerfer

August 19, 2006 at 02:22 PM · There is an article on this topic online in the current Business Week by Burt Helm, who embedded himself at Meadowmount for a few days this summer:

A Boot Camp for Budding Virtuosos

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_34/b3998414.htm

August 19, 2006 at 02:52 PM · "After a concert, 18-year-old cellist Audrey Nadeau sits by the front steps of the main house and lights a cigarette."

Haa. You don't see that sort of realism in print much. Unfortunately there's no byline, or I'd congratulate him for breaking on through to the other side.

August 19, 2006 at 03:26 PM · Jan Kubelik used to practice until his fingers started bleeding. I thought I had achieved that once, but it turned out it was just a paper cut.

Also, I'd like to say that a happy childhood and a successful career are not necessarily mutually exclusive...

August 19, 2006 at 03:37 PM · "I do not think I could ever have made any progress if I had practiced six hours a day. In the first place, I have never believed in practicing too much--it is just as bad as practicing too little! And then there are so many other things I like to do. I am fond of reading and I like sport: tennis, golf, bicycle riding, boating, swimming, etc. Often when I am supposed to be practicing hard, I am out with my camera, taking pictures; for I have become what is known as a 'camera fiend.' And just now I have a new car, which I have learned to drive, and which takes up a great deal of my time. . . . I hardly ever practice more than three hours a day on an average, and besides, I keep my Sunday when I do not practice at all, and sometimes I make an extra holiday." --Jascha Heifetz as interviewed by Frederick H. Martens, "Violin Mastery," pub. 1919

August 19, 2006 at 03:37 PM · I like this article. It just goes to show that practicing methodically and intelligently works. It's so important to practice those 10,000 hours using your brain - not just through endless repetition!

August 19, 2006 at 04:03 PM · Quote from Leopold Auer: "Practice three hours a day if you are any good, four if you are a little stupid. If you need more than that, stop. You should find another profession."

August 19, 2006 at 08:20 PM · i remember reading how nathan milstein had a violin case propped up on the sink while he shaved.

i remember reading of how on any given day, zino francescatti's father would practice in the front room, his mother would practice in the back, and he'd practice in the kitchen, all for hours a day.

i saw a tv show last year about a young chinese violinist from vancouver who would go to his father's restaurant and practice in the kitchen while his dad ran the shop. apparently his father worked 16 hour days there and his son would be there the whole time after school running scales and learning pieces. i'm talking monday to sunday, and the kid was only 10. i really felt bad for him when he lost out in a competition to a younger player who wasn't really any better than him, just younger and cuter. when he went to congratulate the winner, he turned to his dad and cried his eyes out and it broke my heart.

a long time ago there was a news story about a juilliard graduate who busked and saved up enough money to rent out carnegie hall for one of his concerts. goes to show you that some people have to pave their own road to the top.

there are so many stories that don't make the news. despite the glitz and glamour image we portray to the world, the classical world can be very gritty and demanding.

August 19, 2006 at 10:53 PM · I think I put 10 hours into the Coda for the Prokofiev 2 and it still isn't recordable.

August 19, 2006 at 11:50 PM · Oh man.

I myself have all sorts of "stories" - most of them of the "difficult" nature that were downright brutal and sometimes bloody (I had the Kubelik bleeding finger thing forced on me as a 6 year old child - that HURT and my grandmother had to bandage me up several times). But let me relate one that turned out well.

Ever since I was a child, I have been fascinated with the sound of the unaccompanied violin. Because I seldom got the chance to perform major works with piano or orchestra, I invented my own arrangements for solo violin. This means that I'd play both tutti and solo parts in succession, focusing strictly on the melody lines while trying to provide a semblance of the pulse. This was not an easy endeavor, and I did so without ever hoping to bring these arrangements to the public eye. Still, I labored on simply because it was FUN. This I did for about 7 years, and I still do it today.

Fast forward 7 years later. I had been living in Phoenix for a year and had just met a local violin contractor. For the first time in my adult life, I was being hired (!!!) Within a few gigs, I was sent out on one-man strolling violin corporate events and weddings. Suddenly, those little violin arrangements that I made (e.g. the entire Suzuki Book 1 in double stops) became my bread and butter!

August 21, 2006 at 02:52 PM · I think Auer's comment is interesting. I'd like to know how absolutely accurate he was . . . not that I doubt Milstein, Heifetz' greatness, but I have always had this feeling that a little exaggeration played its part . . . in this way:

I get the sense that Heifetz sort-of invented (or at least was the poster boy) for "never let them see you sweat." Maybe "making it look easy" was not only part of the job, it was part of the business of violin playing. It was part of the magic. If that "making it look easy" and "magic" was such a vital part of staying at the top, it doesn't strike me as odd that we might hear a lot of "press" which would serve that purpose, and downplay the role of hard work.

What do you all think? Does this thought ever occur to you? I don't doubt violin playing is certainly easier for the great violinists, but I guess it depends on how much you're trying to accomplish. If I'm learning more literature at a faster rate, I'm usually practicing more hours.

Nell was at Meadowmount. She soloed with most of the world's major orchestras. She's got dozens of recordings. I'm glad she didn't choose another profession.

August 21, 2006 at 03:03 PM · The idea of "making it look easy" is interesting because that's what violin is (or should be) all about...finding the most natural way to play, given an unnatural position! This, in turn, produces the most flexibility in musicality and technique.

I had a teacher who once told me to always remember the two "e's"...Ease and Economy..He told me to play like I am a well oiled machine!

August 21, 2006 at 04:02 PM · Kimberlee, I think you're absolutely right. By whatching these guys like Heifetz, during a long while I have had the illusion that violin playing is supposed to be relaxed. Whenever I was getting tired somehow using big bows and vibrato on every single note, I thought I was doing it the wrong way. Recently I finally realized that you need really strong muscles and stamina to play like that and I'm lacking that. Did nobody of the great guys ever confess they did push-ups every day? Also in the left hand they have strong muscles.

I do think though that the ease with which they play is not completely unreal, when they have done a lot of training and when they are in good shape.

Ok, this was only about the physical side of course.

August 21, 2006 at 04:18 PM · Much of that ease of play in the greatest violinists is due to having great instruments that respond to their every command.

If that weren't the case, they'd play on standard issue instruments that anybody could use.

August 21, 2006 at 04:16 PM · Oh, and Daniel: I also always aim for ease and economy (given that I'm a very gifted lazybones), but remember that they can sometimes only be achieved after a lot of hard work (and with that I don't mean only 'research' but also the muscle training I was talking about).

August 21, 2006 at 09:30 PM · Good point Sarah. I think ease is also in the mind, once you know what you're doing.

August 22, 2006 at 12:59 PM · Hi,

Actually, all of this is in reverse. Playing easy comes first, not the other way around. It is from the relaxed manner in which people like Heifetz play that they find their facility.

Cheers!

August 22, 2006 at 05:21 PM · Explain further, Christian, Please. Some of us are slower than others.

August 22, 2006 at 08:03 PM · The chicken vs. egg thing applies to the development of an easy violin technique.

Is it many hours of work that make things look easy, or is it the ease of playing that allows a violinist to practice for many hours?

As far as I'm concerned, the answer is "Yes" to the above question.

August 22, 2006 at 08:10 PM · A teacher, and solist, from my University said that David Oistrach used to practice four hours in the morning tehnique and four in the evening interpretation, and did that I dont for how many years( that I believe), but also sais that Oistrach mentioned that anyone, doing what he did, could play like him( that I dont believe:)

Ozcan Ulucan told me that one should practice three, four hours a day, normal rutine, just for keeping your hands in shape, and after that starts the real work, which should be proportional with your excitement thourds the works you're playing...I liked that very much, it gave me alot of will,in contradiction with Leopold's Auer quote, which I heard to some violinists, but find it so cold..practice shouldn't be viewed like that, after all,you do it with passion, and then, you cant really call it"work".

August 22, 2006 at 08:24 PM · For a professional violinist preparing several different programs on a short notice without the stresses of another job wearing on his psyche, 3-4 hours is NOTHING. A short solo recital without intermission eats up 45 minutes to an hour, which means that one could repeat his entire program 3-4 times tops per day. Factor in scales and etudes and the number of repetitions drops even below that!

A typical day job in any other profession is far more taxing physically and mentally, at least for a born violinist. Besides, all the great masters insist on NOT doing the 3-4 hours all at once. They also state in no uncertain terms that doing more than that will kill a violinist just as fast as not doing enough practice.

Doubtless, most of the teachers of the past (and more than one nonviolinist of today) would SMACK ME for routinely doing more than 3-4 hours a day, particularly in very recent days for me. It's gotten to the point where I'm actively trying to curtail my incessant violin scraping.

August 23, 2006 at 02:45 AM · The more I think about it, the more I am amazed how like the human voice the violin is.

Like my vocal counterparts in Conservatory who cannot practice more than two hours for fear of straining their vocal chords, we violinists must be a little careful for fear of straining our "vocal" muscles.

Still, the fight to ride the edge persists--pushing the boundary, finding new economies, working towards harmony and balance. All of it is such glorious work!

August 23, 2006 at 04:36 AM · I spent over 30 minutes on a single scale today....does that count as hard work? I put in four hours of practice today and still only managed to actually get through 1.5 pages of my concerto.

August 23, 2006 at 04:01 PM · That's hard work if I ever saw it, Kelsey.

You'll not want to practice like that forever. Such intense sessions are good every now and then. Doing that day after day will deaden the senses.

Even Jan Kubelik, the guy who purportedly practiced more than anybody else, severely curtailed his practice sessions as his career unfolded.

I've also read that several of the greats insisted on practicing no more than 20 minutes at a time. That's interesting because in medical school, we learned that the human attention span runs only about 15 minutes at full tilt. The greats figured out on their own what scientists established via clinical trials.

August 23, 2006 at 05:36 PM · I just discovered something...

when you have to play arpeggios in a piece, or a quick scale (like there are in Strauss vln sonata, or Wienawski scherzo terrantelle), I have broken them down so that I can play them in one motion. Before I thought too vertically about playing scales and arpeggios, and as a result if I nail it, I feel as if it was luck. How I almost think of them as a chord. You almost never play these things all on one string, so if you get your string crossings right, they sound much cleaner.

August 23, 2006 at 05:56 PM · Kevin,

Didn't many of the greats also sustain on one note for a very long time until they were satisfied with the sound? I mean, I know lots of people, myself included, who can easily stay on one page for hours (also probably because I'm not that great :-)).

Anyway, unless you are a genius (and not all of the greats were prodigies), I think you need to investigate really a lot of time before you can play exactly what you imagine.

August 23, 2006 at 06:10 PM · Pieter,

Yeah, especially in the Scherzo-Tarantelle. You can't think of them as separate notes, each triplet arpeggio is ONE entity. Of course, easier said than done...

August 23, 2006 at 06:57 PM · that part of the piece isn't really that hard. The first two pages can probably be learned in a day or two if you work hard, it's the slow part which I think is the real challenge for this piece.

To get that effect of like, a little fairy running on water without falling in is very, very hard. I'd say the 3rd page is by far the hardest part of the piece.

August 23, 2006 at 07:35 PM · Well, you're right that the triplets are the easy bit.....it's a nasty little bugger of a piece though, I just end up glaring at the music and thinking, "It shouldn't be this hard." The part that always gets me is the slow section that's all up and down the G string, intonation is monstrous.

Edit: Hmm, yeah, that would be the third page.

August 23, 2006 at 08:07 PM · Without a broad long fingered hand like that of Henryk Wieniawski himself, that middle section is not really playable.

For me, no amount of work changes that fact that Wieniawski doesn't fit my hand at all. Even vignettes like the "Obertass" and "Dudziarz" Mazurkas, to say nothing of the concerti or Legende, do not fit my little Chinese hand one bit.

The odd thing is that I have far less trouble with Paganini, who himself was not a big guy. But since Paganini likely had hyperelasticity syndrome, I've found his music infinitely more playable than that of Wieniawski since I've got a similar joint flexibility thing going on. I can bend both pinkies 180 degrees backwards, that's how flexible I am.

"Yes" to both of your questions, sarah. I should also add that not even the very best prodigies can play what they imagine without tons of hard physical and mental work put into it.

August 23, 2006 at 08:11 PM · The first time I ever heard that Wienawski was when I heard it played by my friend Jon, who was like 5-1 at the time and had a handsize closely resembling mine when I was about 7 years old... I didn't think hand size would be a problem in Wienawski as much as it would be in Paganini.

August 24, 2006 at 02:26 AM · Maybe I should say hand "shape" and not so much "size".

I've got short fingers with narrow fingertips, making many of Wieniawski's double stop passages very hard to play. Many children, including most Asian kids, have fingers that are proportionally longer on their hands than mine are.

I've got joints that fold completely back. Because most of Wieniawski is extension based, my joints fold backward when I try to do it the way a person with a more normal physiology does. So far I can do the runs in Wieniawski, but it really taxes me like no other music does.

You mentioned in your above post, Pieter, about how you're now playing things across the strings instead of up and down them. Many people call what you're doing "horizontal" fingering, and that's what Paganini (a guitarist first, violinist second) specialized in. Paganini was a physically far smaller man than Wieniawski - I've read that he was 5'5" tall.

August 24, 2006 at 03:56 AM · Well it all depends on whether or not I can afford to change the timbre of the line. Wienawski has a lot of stacatto which he likes to do on one string, and because it's not slurred, you can get away with a lot of shifts and other imperfections between notes.

My palm is quite huge, and my fingers are quite wide. They're also long, but not freakishly long. The problem with these huge hands is that in higher positions, I often forgo using the pinky, and do 3-3. At the top of the last 2 arpeggios in Paganini caprice no. 5, I have to do this, because if I try to line up all 4 fingers, there's just no way it will go smoothly. Also, when I have to go around the right shoulder of the violin, it can get difficult because my hand is so big. So yes, there are some advantages in that tenths feel pretty much like octaves, but there's some disadvantages. To play in tune, I require a lot more compensatory movement between my fingers in anything higher than maybe 3rd position.

The point is, I think that almost anything is possible with any hand. Much better violinists than me can play what I do much better, with both bigger, and much smaller hands than me. I'm sure you can play Wienawski, but maybe not with as much confidence as you would other stuff, like maybe Sarasate.

August 24, 2006 at 04:29 AM · Excellent post, Pieter.

I'm in full agreement. Well done.

August 24, 2006 at 02:10 PM · Well, my problem is just that I have tiny hands....

August 25, 2006 at 02:33 AM · Well, I've got great hands. They'll do just about anything I want them to do. Unfortunately, I just came from a lesson, and apparently I can't read notes or rhythm. "Almost unforgiveable" were my teacher's words. "C'mon Kimberlee, this is Suzuki Book 2 or 3 stuff you're having problems with" (he didn't mean the literature--it's advanced literature).

So, I guess all that hard work was in vain because the rhythm was all over the place and I played a couple of notes wrong (an F# instead of a Gb and a C# instead of a C natural).

If all of you don't mind, I am just going to take a second to let off a little steam before going back to the practice room for more WORK.

So, it was an hour of belittling comments aimed precisely at this: "you seem to have some problem with playing what is written on the page. These notes are clearly marked staccato, but you played them legato. These chords came too fast while these chords were too short."

So, I'm wondering if he's just going to stand around berating me a while longer, or if he's going to help me hammer these issues out. Maybe I'll just have to figure it out myself. So, Back to WORK.

Oh, incidentally, Kevin--thanks for the spiccato help. Teacher briefly commented on how perfect it was--before ranting some more about the rhythm.

August 24, 2006 at 09:56 PM · From: Skowronski: Classical Recordings

To: Pieter Viljoen-- AHhhh,...arpeggios and how to play them like the wind, in tune, as well as with sassy bravura---you've finally hit on 'il segreto!' Makes perfect sense, Pieter, doesn't it? And this logical technique will certainly make your Strauss sound more like Strauss intended!

To: Ms. Dray-- Sounds like your present teacher needs a 'meaningful visit' from a good buddy and former student of mine, Guido Fettuccine! I myself, would get pretty tired of your current teacher's 'approach' to solving problems real fast!! Perhaps you might have a chat with "Il Professore" to that end........if you get my drift.

Best wishes to us all.

Skowronski: Classical Recordings

www.skowronskiplays.com

August 24, 2006 at 11:14 PM · "Guido Fettucine"! LMAO! :)

August 25, 2006 at 12:49 AM · It's easy in violin teaching to lose sight of the forest for the trees, Kimberly.

What piece are you currently playing for your teacher? I'm wondering if the "flavor" of the piece is something your teacher wants to see more of.

A lot of times, the most beautiful and perfect violin playing sounds totally out of place if the style isn't played right. For example, I've heard people apply massive amounts of rubato to Bartok's Rumanian Folk Dances and thus the ethnic rhythm that is the backbone of the piece is lost.

Often when the pulse of a composition is understood, the details make intuitive sense.

August 25, 2006 at 02:35 AM · Kevin--

Well, I've totally taken us off topic now! But, in answer to your question, I am playing the Mendelssohn D Minor Concerto by my teacher's request. He chose the piece specifically because it is difficult to find a recording (as per his wishes, I haven't tried, and I haven't taken a look at the score either--although I'm rethinking that.) Just to look at, or even play at first sight, this Concerto is no big deal.

But, to play all your shifts imperceptibly, or with well chosen and appropriate glissandos, to add beautifully executed phrasing to all your twenty measure runs, to play it all absolutely in tune, to then play all your spiccatos as easily as if your bow had wings, and using continuous but well chosen vibrato without bumps or awkward string crossings and perfect bow changes, to know already that your teacher has accused you of "terroristic activities with the violin" and taking that into account, trying to come up with a pleasing "style" for a piece you've never heard. On top of that--you've got to see to the inside of an incredibly chromatic piece and extract some beauty. Well, it's been a challenge. It's embarrassing, for a multitude of reasons, that this Concerto in D Minor (not Major) by Mendelssohn has proven far more challenging than the Bruch, the Mendelssohn E Minor or the Saint Saens.

Yeah, and by the way, I totally butchered the style by his reckoning. I took that "terrorist" comment to heart and I've really been staying away from any short, articulated sounds for dreaded mortal fear of ever making an "ictus" or artificial swell.

When he corrected my style, it was no problem to just play back what he was asking--I think that's why he told me he wasn't worried about my style. It's harder for me to quickly adjust fingerings or notes or rhythm--I have to play through it a couple of times to get it, which is why he thinks I'm slow, and perhaps, as he said "THINKING is not your strong suit"--I'm stupid.

August 25, 2006 at 02:00 AM · "Terroristic activities with the violin!" Ouch!

August 25, 2006 at 04:33 AM · Okay, it's time to be fair to my teacher. He's brutal, but he's the best.

This notes and rhythm issue isn't anything new. I hope my teacher's patient, because I might not always get it right the first time. But, I think I'm getting better and next week, he's going to get a completely lifeless, but perfect notes and rhythm version!

August 25, 2006 at 11:37 AM · You're totally ON topic, kimberly. What's more relevant to a topic about how the greats got to being so than discussing the way your teacher is trying to get you to be a better player?

It is important to know when a teacher is being "tough" to strengthen you and when a teacher is trying to put you down to keep you down. I've had more of the latter than the former, so I now know the difference within about 5 minutes of interaction.

You might want to read about Leopold Auer, kimberly. Being that you're learning that style, you might want to see how the granddaddy of all of us showed Heifetz and Elman the ropes. You'll discover that his gruff exterior concealed a loving heart that looked after his students but swatted them when they were remiss in their responsibilities. That's a master who ruled mainly with gentleness but used the iron fist to stamp out irresponsibility.

I met a man yesterday who had studied with the great Cecile Hansen, who Heifetz claimed to have "always enjoyed listening to" in Auer's class. Hansen stated that when she was 7 or 8 awaiting her 1st audition with Auer, she went to his house. There was a young boy who was taking a lesson at the time. After a big ruckus, the door flew open and the boy ran out at full speed. Some papers were thrown at him and Auer yelled "Don't ever come back here without practicing!" Then he turned to Hansen and said "Next". Hansen was scared out of her wits, but she obviously survived Auer's training.

August 25, 2006 at 02:13 PM · Boy, that story would be hilarious if the boy turned out to be Heifetz or Milstein . . .

Well, after reflection, I think you're right, Kevin. It was a big beating I wasn't used to, but I guess I'd better get used to it, and I'd better learn to make less and less mistakes too! My teacher is truly in the Auer tradition--I think he really is concerned about me, and this lesson, he was using the iron fist to let me know the limits. No F#'s when it reads Gb and no lazy counting and no legato when it says staccato.

Thanks for the perspective. I wish he wouldn't make me an enemy to myself that way, but maybe that's a road to freedom. Once I conquer myself . . . Back to WORK.

Have any of you ever played the D Minor Mendelssohn? I used to dislike it, but now I think the second Movement is GORGEOUS.

Once I finish working on it, I might make a recording so all of you can hear it and love it like I do (that LOVE being hard won through suffering).

August 25, 2006 at 08:06 PM · Auer tradition or not, your teacher shouldn't trying to be squelch your natural instincts.

Auer was tough as far as professionalism and work habits go, but he wasn't a stickler on interpretation of detail or even technical issues. He did his best to nurture students, not whip them into shape.

Your teacher is much harder on you than Pardee and Rosand were on me. I know that I'd not have been able to survive your teacher - and I DON'T have a fragile ego. Chances are I'd buck back at him, but I'm probably not the best student either.

August 26, 2006 at 04:46 AM · I don't think he's squelching any natural instincts. If it says C natural and you play a C#, or if it says an eighth rest and you play a quarter rest, then it's just plain wrong. He was right to correct me. He is a good teacher--a little like Simon Cowell though--not for the faint of heart. Thank You Kevin--you don't know how much it means to me to hear you say you think he's being hard on me. It gives me hope!

I've come to some conclusions.

#1 conclusion is that I'm the one who is ultimately responsible for the way I sound.

#2 conclusion is that I'm not afraid of the big bad wolf. I may be just a little piggy, but I live in a brick house, and I don't care if I am a very stupid player. At least my life will have meaning and purpose because I will share my stupidity on violinist.com and everyone else will be happy and encouraged because they didn't play an A harmonic instead of an E just because underneath the obvious E note it had an A (to be played on the A string). Yikes. True story.

#3 conclusion is my concern needs to be the music, not the teacher, and I'm going to go march myself into my practice room right now, and I'm going to have myself a good ol'time ironing all those mistakes right out of it. I DON'T CARE HOW EASY IT WAS FOR THE GREATS. I ONLY THINK IT'S GREAT TO PLAY ONCE YOU'VE MADE IT EASY.

So, that is what I'm going to do. Now, everyone, go off and feel very good about yourselves.

August 26, 2006 at 02:12 AM · You're not stupid. :)

MG

August 26, 2006 at 04:37 AM · Thank You Maura.

September 27, 2006 at 01:42 AM · Not to be a stickler, but Kimberlee, isn't Gb enharmonically the same as F#? Or is your teacher one of those who believes that F# should be played slighter higher than Gb?

September 27, 2006 at 01:47 AM · "One of those"? I thought it was standard practice on string instruments....

September 27, 2006 at 02:17 AM · Greetings,

it is for me.

Cheers,

Buri

September 27, 2006 at 02:47 PM · If you play in a Baroque orchestra, you might want to play F# slightly LOWER than Gb.

September 27, 2006 at 07:45 PM · For Geoffrey, the Gb, in this instance, needed to be slightly lower than the F#.

It doesn't matter anymore. I whipped that piece into shape like I said I would, and the next week, he was dazzled.

So, the moral of the story: WORK HARD!

Now we've come full circle.

September 28, 2006 at 12:40 PM · I used to not differentiate between F#s and Gb.

Then after I learned jazz harmony, I realized how imperfect human hearing is. The key is that when trying to play out the difference between an F# and Gb, be able to play the harmony that fits with the given chord of the moment. I've stated before that many of the old great violin masters had an instinctive sense of chord harmony.

Concerning pitch, I didn't realize that electronic tuning devices make the caveat that if you tuned every string on the violin exactly to what it should be, it WILL sound out of tune to the human ear. My Sabine documentation makes this clear, and I figured that out only because I was scratching my head in confusion over why my violin sounded off after I had tuned all the strings electronically.

September 28, 2006 at 01:45 PM · Einstein's theory of violin playing.

E equals F flat

September 30, 2006 at 02:51 AM · That is very clever and I laughed heartily.