The domestic playing of chamber music is a great western tradition dating back to the 17th century (or earlier), which thrived in the 18th, reached its azimuth in the 19th, survived in the 20th and now sadly appears to be on its last legs. A large majority of the players I've encountered in orchestras, amateur and professional, have virtually no experience of it. Isn't it something every player should experience and every teacher encourage?
Tweet
http://icking-music-archive.org/lists/string-quartets/heimeran.pdf
On top of this, even a lot of top music schools seem to place way more emphasis on orchestral playing, as if job prospects there were really much better. All of this probably explains some suppression at the professional level as well, though there are still a lot of great groups out there, and groups that are getting less and less traditional.
Some of my colleagues run successful chamber music series on the side where they present several concerts a season of great works performed at the highest level. Others, like me, play a lot of quartet gigs (weddings, mainly). But please keep in mind that as professional orchestra musicians we already have an impressive stack of music that we need to learn in order to show up prepared to rehearsal. On top of that, many of us have families that we would like to see on occasion, and/or students we are committed to teaching on a weekly basis.
The idea of a weekly chamber music evening for fun is far more realistic for amateurs than for many professionals. For myself, when I have the (extremely rare) evening off permitted by my usual weekly schedule of seven days of teaching on top of two or three symphony concerts, I am going to spend it with my family.
I grew up in a household where my father's string quartet came to practice every 4 weeks (rotating weekly to the homes of the other players). I got involved once as a cellist when I was 14 - 2 weeks before my first cello lesson.
As an adult I have always looked upon community orchestra playing as a way to get involved in chamber music playing. I have always inquired about community orchestra opportunities before moving to a new location (either for work or in retirement). I have pretty consistently had a piano trio going for almost 50 years - but through several evolutions as people moved or died or went deaf or blind. (Right now I'm in hiatus for the past 2 months for the last reason.)
I've not done much string quartet playing in the past 20 years, but some (maybe 3 years worth in total). But I was pretty consistent on a weekly basis in the 1960s and 70s with some continuing through the rest of the 20th century.
Right now I'm in a conductor- less chamber orchestra (30 pieces) out of which several quartets have evolved as well as a String Serenade ensemble that meets 2 Friday mornings a month. When attendance is good we can play complex stuff that may have up to 13 parts, and when things get thin we may reduce to octets, septets, sextets, quintets - or even quartets. If it is going to get thinner than that - we just stay home.
It's been hard to replicate. I think of this as a 2x2 matrix, where one axis is how seriously people take their chamber music (e.g. do they want to sightread or are they hoping to get coached, go to camp together, even perform?) and the other axis is, of course, ability.
Recently we've played several times with people who are significantly better and practice more than we do--but because they signed up for wine and sightreading, it was fine. (Thing is, they all have regular quartet-type situations for the more serious endeavors, so unless we're organizing sextets or something, they're less likely to engage.)
I've also been playing with a group of older, less capable musicians (faculty from the university where I work) and this has been tricky. For one thing, I'm not a natural leader and most first violin parts are going to be tough for me to do more than hack through--but because I'm the best violinist of the bunch, they expect me to play first. Which would be fine if we were just drinking wine and sightreading...but they also like to hire coaches and "work on" something (which in my experience means barely making it through the movement). For me, this is the wrong quadrant: too serious/less skilled. You know what's not fun? having an annoyed coach berating you for not nailing a first violin part you never should have been playing to begin with. (sorry, just venting!)
Anyway, in my experience, this is the challenge: life situations change. People have varying abilities and varying degrees of seriousness. But if you can find the right combo and stick with each other for awhile, magic!
Frankly, I'm surprised that quartets stay together as long as they do.
And after reading some famous string quartet biographies and hearing what my teachers have to say, I think long-term harmonious relations are the exception rather than the rule in chamber music playing.
Although it can be rewarding to take rehearsals quite seriously and even give small concerts for friends, as time goes on I feel more and more strongly that I don't need the stress that this inevitably causes, individually or group-wise. The essence of domestic chamber music playing I think consists in the "wine and sightreading" approach, in Katie's delightful phrase. In the 18th and 19th centuries most quartets were written for domestic entertainment amongst amateurs and there exists a huge repertoire that today is completely neglected. I appreciate the particular difficulty that some professionals and serious violin students may have in switching to informal mode (I recall the Russian leader of a quartet we were coached by on several occasions remarking that she didn't enjoy "playing for fun"!) but amongst amateurs who cares if things should get a bit chaotic?
One question I'd like to put to teachers - how common is it to arrange your pupils into groups to acquaint them with the easier end of the repertoire and give them the chance to acquire the skills of holding their own part in ensemble? As one who never enjoyed practising for the sake of technique I'm convinced that this is what underlies the major part of my musical development.
Steve, I like my quartets with fixed 1st and 2nd chairs. I think specializing in a specific role and sound gives most groups a better blend. But in learning how to play chamber music, I wouldn't put a less advanced player on 2nd and more advanced on 1st. All violinists will learn better how to play together and blend and tune together by learning both functions. (Google some videos of Zukerman and Perlman to see the difference.)
That said, chamber music is way beyond string quartet; you are playing chamber music when you are playing with someone else. Playing with a pianist or playing duets with another player certainly counts as playing chamber music.
Finally, I've been taught to view chamber musicians as soloists and I treat each chamber rep as a solo piece. This is often not commonly shared by other amateur chamber players. I wonder who else would share this view with mine.
There was an attempt once to form a directory of musicians who want to play chamber as amateurs. I joined only to find that it was made up of predominately professionals selling workshops, classes, weekend and week long retreats for significant amounts of cash.
In over 40 years of playing I've never joined of founded a chamber group that lasted more than a few get-togethers that did not rapidly display all of the traits of an "Ill Tempered" group where nobody could agree on what to play.
Mary Ellen, I completely agree with you regarding professional musicians and chamber music. As a board member of a professional chamber music society, I know how hard these musicians have to work. In addition to practice, rehearsal, performing and touring, they also have to do a lot of administrative work such as applying for grants, fundraising, negotiating with composers/event organizers, finding venues, doing PR works, etc. It can be a full time job of its own. Chamber musicians do this has to be labour of passion because even the top notch groups won't last unless they also have other steady income from, say, orchestra position, or university residency. All the international quartet competition winners I've met expressed this unanimously.
EDITED TO ADD: One of things I most admired about my first teacher in Santa Cruz, Ca. was that she was the one to suggest I play some chamber music. She said she often put her students together to play quartets that suited their ability. Sadly, I moved to Canada before that came to fruition.
Neil
It's been over 20 years. I wonder if she still says things like that in rehearsal.
Reminds me of a quartet joke:
Q: Why do string quartets fight so bitterly?
A. Because the stakes are so low.
I've found the ACMP to be a pretty good resource for getting people together. Locally (if you are near metropolitan DC), there are a number of good Meetup groups for adult chamber musicians, which are also good resources.
I think it's been good for me, although it's also made me painfully aware of my deficiencies as a player. So I agree that in theory anyway it's good for people to casually switch off. In established groups it really seems to depend on the personalities and sounds of the musicians. I know the St. Lawrence Quartet has had a more fluid approach (or at least they did when Scott St. John was second violinist). But I remember hearing Mark Steinberg from Brentano state definitively that he felt it affected the sound of an ensemble when violinists switched chairs.
But good(ish) amateur players do tend to give themselves airs, don't they? Somehow my groups have all self-selected on the basis that we were all reasonably modest and socially ept (opposite of inept) people that we could imagine getting along with. In one quartet a small amount of head-butting used to go on between the two violins, but we eventually came to a tacit understanding about who was better for whatever piece. In the other group we have 3 potential first violinists and 2 violists - not good if it's the best standard of performance you're after, but great for democracy.
As someone with a full time teaching career split between music and computer science, I made a decision over a decade ago to pretty much stop taking orchestra gigs so that I could spend the little free time that I have playing quartets. I got tired of teaching only orchestras at the high school level, and around the same time moved to a position at a school without an established program, and developed a high school chamber music program with full academic courses that meet every day, along with an honors version with a research/writing component. For me, chamber music is the answer...the collaboration, the compromise, and the criticism are what help me prepare students to deal with life. It's the avenue of music that I feel helps me communicate the ideals I hold as important (things like personal integrity and commitment) to young musicians. It's much harder for a student to justify bailing on a quartet than it is as one of twenty violins in an orchestra section.
That is precisely why I did not enjoy playing chamber music even back in my high school years.
I believe this is happening more often these days, due to the excellent level of the current crop of musicians opting for SQ.
The Spanish (or should I say Catalan?) Cuarteto Casals (recording for Harmonia Mundi) switches seats. The Danish Quartet (playing on great instruments, loaned by a Danish corporation, recording for DaCapo) switch between first and second. I seem to recall the Quatuor Ebene (recording with Virgin) switched between 1st and 2nd.
Like I said, this is because string quartets since the nineties have an extremily high level; there is no second violinist who gets stuck in that place because he's not as good as the first violinist.
So, I'm not sure whether SQ playing by amateurs is down (compared to when?), but professional quartet playing has never been better. The French Quatuor Ebene is one of the absolute top SQs. Sadly the Berlin-based Petersen SQ is history now, but its spirit seems to live on in the Artemis SQ. The New York based Dover SQ is poised to become a great ensemble. There are just dozens of first rate quartets touring and recording, while in the 1950 - 1985 period there were far fewer top ensembles.
I've been going to BISQC to watch since 2013.and here is my blog in 2013.
Most amateur players I've heard don't take Haydn seriously enough. This is so unfortunate because to me, a good chamber musician is one can really play Haydn, early Beethoven and Mozart (especially his 10 celebrated SQs) beautifully. Dig in and find the treasures in these literature and you'll be hooked by SQs for good:
I've generally found that people tend to self-group by ability level. Better players will gravitate to other players around their level rather than struggle with a group that they feel is too far beneath their skill level; I don't think it's so much elitism as frustration / lack of musical satisfaction.
So, that's the first reason: difficulty. I don't know where did you got that information that just a few people play chamber music. Anyways, the alternative is, I guess, an orchestra. Well, it's 4 musicians vs 100-120 musicians, you don't have to be an engineer to notice you would need dozens of chamber groups to match it.
I agree with you that it's very fun to play chamber music, I totally feel the same way, indeed I don't prefer orchestra over chamber, or viceversa, it's just they are two different things.
I wonder if self-grouping is a reason why you don't see a lot of chamber musicians in an orchestra or younger people in a coaching course. The most active chamber players I know don't participate in orchestras.
I also know a lot of younger people who play chamber music. They tend to stay within their own networks.
Also, as Lydia pointed out and I completely agree with, that chamber players self-group by ability level not because snobbishness but skill compatibility is a key factor to keep players get together again and again, even it means they have to juggle schedule and travel to accommodate each other. When I first started playing chamber music, I was a bit miffed for not being included in certain SQ. Looking back, that was simply silly. These days I wouldn't take it personally. As I'm getting better, more and more people want to have me in their group. That's how it works.
That doesn't mean that chamber music is dying, by any means. In fact, I'd bet that for young people, it might be more common than ever, especially with people staying single longer and delaying having children, leaving them more time to spend with friends. And on the older end, baby-boomer retirees are picking up their instruments again. Younger people are much less likely to be able to take time off from work/family to attend a camp, though.
I played quite a bit of chamber music when I was younger, including some performing, without any coaching. I think we figured that it wasn't worthwhile to pay for a coach until we had exhausted our own understanding of how to play better together.
The workshop I always want to go is SLSQ's Chamber Music Seminar. I've got friends who have been going every year and absolutely love it. The level there is pretty high (mixture of young professional and quite advanced amateur chamber groups).
Lieschen, I know what you are saying. I don't mind if a coach doesn't want to hear what I've got to say musically because I figured that we don't pay a coach to listen to our ideas but to tell us his/her ideas so that we can look at our work through a different (usually better) lens. The least satisfying coaches we've got were those who were full of praises but gave us very little to work on.
Almost every course culminated in a public performance to the coaches and the other groups - the most critical audience on earth! They didn't catcall or throw stuff, but you knew what they were thinking. The experience can be pretty intense and I still cringe at the memory of one performance (I wasn't even playing!)in which the second violin, the only amateur amongst them, was completely unable to start the finale of Mozart's K387 on account of the dreaded purlies (bow shake).
Anyway, it sounds as if the domestic chamber music tradition may be more vital in the US than the UK. Perhaps they all kept very quiet about it, but amongst the hundreds of violinists I must have encountered in amateur and semi-pro orchestras I doubt that as many as 10% were regular chamber music players.
"Why don't more people (amateurs) do X, Y, and Z?" Haven't you noticed? Everyone is crazy busy. If that hasn't hit you yet, well, it's like having your ID checked at the supermarket when you're buying beer: Enjoy it while it lasts.
And some conservatories have graduate quartets-in-residence, and those folks might already be performing, even touring.
When my friends get together after a couple of months (as we did yesterday) we mostly go for pieces we know will give us a big musical buzz, but I (being the repertoire man) feel it my duty also to bring out something unfamiliar that I at least have started to get my head and fingers round. Yesterday it was the first quartet by Vitezslav Novak. I wouldn't say we made perfect sense of it but we all enjoyed the experience.
^^^ this!
I can't tell you how many times I sit down with students to read a quartet, and they want something harder because it's "just" Haydn or Mozart. And then we go for it, and they realize that their lack of rhythmic integrity makes it so they can't even get to the first repeat sign without my dragging them to the barline. Then come the excuses, "I don't like this composer" or "I'm better at Romantic repertoire" or whatever the nonsense of the day happens to be.
I think there's a number of quartet compositions out there that are simply much more fun and engaging to play than they are to listen to...but there's a wealth of great music, more than enough for a lifetime, and some worth visiting repeatedly. I'll gladly play any part (except cello, that I can't play) of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Borodin, Bartok, and Shostakovich, the Brahms 18/36 sextets, the Mendelssohn Octet, etc. for the rest of the time I have. I am enormously grateful to my chamber music mentors who put up with me long enough to study and perform a huge amount of repertoire year-after-year...I learned the most by sitting next to stellar musicians and learning how to communicate with them.
Regarding the difficulty in Haydn, I recall during last September's quartet festival in Banff, one of the BISQC jurors lamented how poorly Haydn is played by many quartets. He was referring to professional quartets. So my question is, instead of asking why don't more people play chamber music, I wonder why don't people study chamber repertoires like the way they should when they study solo reps?
But, even though I cannot play it like SLSQ, I will play it and enjoy it. Hopefully my collaborators and listeners will not be too offended.
Players who are tackling this music because they think it's easier are doing so because the rest of the standard quartet literature may be out of reach.
"getting better at it" is not and end in itself by a means to dive deeper into music and enjoy more. Yes, sight reading can be fun, but real enjoyment starts once one goes beyond the ink and paper.
This is not to belittle the enjoyment of amateur music, but if one is cursed to chase the song of mermaids, one has to enter the ocean.
R
However, the reasons I play chamber music vary. Usually, it's to experience great music in the company of people that I (hopefully) like. There needs to be a certain minimum level of competence before that experience is enjoyable rather than frustrating. Sometimes you really don't experience how great a work is until the group has had time to settle into it. Sometimes working something up to performance level unlocks capabilities for the group as a whole that can't be readily accessed if people are struggling with the notes.
I remember the feeling of playing in chamber... When things click, everyone just knows.
Do any of you bring quartets to your lessons as well? Or is it more efficient to work on technique through the solo repertoire?
The first violin part of Haydn Op. 20 No. 5 (one of my favorites) is surprisingly violinistic despite the scary key (F minor). It's a worthwhile piece to study for technique.
Carl, SLSQ has "play-ins" after some of their concerts. Audience mostly leaves, local amateurs come on stage and the sections are led by the members of the quartet. They did that here in Blacksburg and one of the pieces was the first movement of the Emperor. A teenager I know got to sit next to Owen Dalby! I played 2nd. The whole thing was a total blast.
I have brought quartets to lesson but only when I am preparing something for a summer camp. My teacher does tend to prioritize repertoire for which there might be some kind of performance in view, even if that horizon is relatively distant.
Roger asked: "The skill-set we are talking about is multi-layered and, in my opinion, non-professionals simply do not have those skills. A chamber music group is supposed to be self-managed, but where do members acquire the knowledge to practice as such group?"
The biggest obstacle of acquiring any knowledge and skill is our own attitude -- the "good enough", "we just want to have fun so don't be so serious" sort of nonsense we say to ourselves and to each other. Acquiring knowledge and skills are getting so much easier now with internet. Yet, astonishingly, there are many amateur or even professional players who don't even bother to listen or watch other performances of the piece they are working on. It is a bit mindboggling.
If you treat chamber works as solo reps, which I think you should if you are working on any chamber music, then you'll learn a lot more just like you are just going through the notes. But then the same can be said about learning anything: It's not what you play but how you play it that matters , isn't it?
So what is fun?
There's just so much repertoire to tackle in one hour! Scales, Mazas, Bach, solo repertoire, orchestra, etc.
I agree with doing things well enough. I think there might be a minimum threshold for doing something good enough for it to be fun. Baking a cake would not be fun if it tasted like cardboard. Same with playing, it can't be sloshed through. I guess the minimum acceptable level would differ from person to person. What is sloppy to a professional or high level amateur can be acceptable to an intermediate player.
But I dare say, denizens of this message board excepted, that that's not an option for most adult amateurs, many of whom are lucky to touch their instruments once a week, or even once a month, and haven't taken a lesson in decades.
Some of these folks are in well past their three score and ten; I imagine that whatever damage their imperfect technique might have caused is probably of lesser concern than palsy, macular degeneration, hearing loss, etc. Surely they can own the decision about whether or not it's fun to hack through the Schubert Cello Quintet.
Cats may run away when they play but if it brings them (and their similarly oriented friends) enjoyment in the privacy of their own homes, I don't really see the harm. Call it HIP if you like–as so many others have pointed out, chamber music in the days of Haydn and Mozart was not written with the conservatory-bound in mind.
Yes, I am very lucky to be retired early and have the time and energy to do more than I used to when I was working fulltime in often demanding environment. I did much less when I was working full time but I didn't believe in lowing my standard of playing. I just did less. I believe if I do anything, it is worth my best efforts to do it well. Obviously one wouldn't think this is an universalizable concept.
If you look around, there aren't all that many other amateur players who are willing to make the commitment to learning parts and coming to rehearsal. "
......
Sang in a Balkan choir for a few years - we experienced the same issues as here - lack of at home practice by participants, conflicts for regular group practice dates, varying singing ability. Our group leader was my boss at work. She was an amateur singer. Funny thing was she was an absolute tyrant at choir practice but a lamb of a boss at work.
Also, I want to do a shout out to the amateur chamber music groups.
I grew up in a very, very poor neighborhood with a similar poor school - no music program , no family money for private lessons. My exposure to classical music was bugs bunny and two albums I got to select for my birthday at the age of 9 (I purposely chose classical albums). I chose Beethoven's 5th cause I recognized it from Bugs and the Vienna Symphony playing Mozart Piano concerto's in F major, and D minor because I liked the album art.I played both of those albums on our mono stereo system until the grooves were worn out.
That was my exposure to the canon until one day an amateur chamber group performed for our 4rd grade class. I was entranced as I'm sure were other students. And it was that quartet that started my journey toward playing the violin and as an aside my adoration of opera.
Now that I am an adult with a healthy income I contribute as a listener to live performance, buy recorded classical music as well as pay a good sum for private music lessons -all essentially starting from that amateur quartet.
There's a lot of perceived/real snobbery on the part of the more elite/experienced cyclists toward those who are less skilled. But there is also an underlying reason: elite cyclists see risk in riding too close to those who aren't accustomed to the norms, or who don't "hold their line", stop unpredictably, etc.
So the less skilled cyclists set up their own groups. They might ride long distances, but they'll do it a much more leisurely pace, with different norms (a lot more calling out of obstacles and signaling, less reading body language, etc.)
Retired racers are funny about how they ride. Many would give up cycling entirely if they weren't able to maintain a near-race level of fitness. They take up other sports (e.g. running, rowing, crossfit) instead (and sometimes get competitive about those sports too! but not always).
Meanwhile, some of the more casual "weekend warriors" are markedly out of shape, at least by elite athlete standards. and yet they ride centuries and consider cycling an important hobby. So you have this weird scenario where a cyclist perfectly capable of riding 100 miles will refuse to do so because s/he's no longer able to do it at a 16 mph average and another cyclist who will never reach that level of fitness will happily potter along at 12 mph all day long.
Why is this analogous? As we've established, people with diverse goals and abilities don't often mix well in these intense avocational settings. Indeed, they can mar each other's enjoyment and comfort. Should a rider with low fitness/skills have the temerity to show up on an elite group ride, they'll quickly be told in no uncertain terms that they are out of their depth. And I imagine that if a group of mediocre, unpracticed amateurs applied to join the SLSQ seminar, they'd be gently redirected (although there's more diversity than you'd think at those seminars).
Also, it's hard for people who were really really good at something to experience joy in doing the same thing, a lot less well. You know how it's supposed to sound when a group truly gels and listens to each other. You know how you used to feel when you went really fast up a big hill. And there's a little bit of pride in that knowledge--you're not one of those rank amateurs.
I seem to straddle the divide in both arenas. It's a valuable, albeit often frustrating, place to be--but the view is unparalleled.
I'm glad none of you will ever be in a position to hear the cacophony produced during my most recent chamber music experience (the one in which I had to play first violin, we played everything at .6 speed, and the first violist could barely hold his bow). It wasn't pretty. But if you'd watched a silent movie of the gathering, you'd have thought everyone was having the time of their lives. That's the part I want to remember.
It's also one of the things that makes it hard to continue playing, or resume playing after a hiatus, if you've been highly adept previously. I still find it enormously frustrating to not be able to do some things the way that I could when younger, even if I've improved in other respects.
For me string quartet playing is about much more than the music; it's been the chief nexus of my social life for the last 40 years. The tale runs like a soap opera with about 14 principals and a similar number of walk-ons (no walk-outs). There have been marriages, births and premature deaths. One of the walk-ons probably wouldn't exist at all without the quartet. You can take it as seriously or as as frivolously you like, and everyone needs to discover their own winning formula. My bottom line is that people's feelings are more important than the performance.
A chicken and egg question here: is it compatible playing as a group that leads to better social life or the other way around? It depends, I'm sure. In my own case, it's always the former: I think String playing is about music to start with but it may end with more than music. We want to spend more time together playing because we are compatible as a group of musicians, and the more we spend time together, the better friends we become.
Regarding feelings, most people I've been playing with in chamber groups are seasoned amateur players who are mature and professional. We usually know when it works and when doesn't. It is our passion, honesty, mutual respect and not taking ourselves too seriously that keep us together year after year.
Timothy - thanks for your candour which is genuinely appreciated. To you and all posters, if we were having this discussion over the dinner table we'd be modulating the force of our statements with laughter and body language.
For me playing for fun is usually great, but I too get irked when one player isn't giving it total commitment. And deliberately mucking about is a complete no-no! Issues have certainly arisen due to the relative inexperience/incompetence of certain individuals: the viola player who lost the pulse in syncopated Brahms, the other viola player who slowed down in semiquaver passages, the cellist who loved to tackle the great monuments of the repertoire but was simply past it due to age. I remember the very attractive young cellist who played professionally in the D'Oyly Carte Opera band but couldn't sight-read a movement of Haydn without breaking down. Extracting myself from that group cost me the cello part of the middle Beethoven quartets.
There have also been occasions when tensions rose during a coached course and words were said (by me as well as of me!) which weren't easily forgotten. I think that's actually part of the reason we tacitly decided to keep it informal in future, valuing continued friendship over improved performance. Immodestly I will say that I and my regular partners (25 years for one group, 15 years the other) are all good sight-readers and counters who over the years have developed the subtle ability to maintain ensemble when one player is having a bit of trouble and the pulse starts to rock. And it isn't all literally sight-reading, since we find we remember a great deal even of pieces we haven't tackled for a decade.
So that's what works for me, and I'm hugely grateful for it.
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Leila Josefowicz and the Los Angeles Philharmonic
Shanghai Isaac Stern International Violin Competition
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
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
I am envious of these people I know here, who have played string quartet together for 20+ years and have a weekly quartet-night....
On meeting with professional orchestra musicians I have several times been surprised how little chamber music they play. Like the violinist who was hired as concert master for a summer camp with an amateur orchestra I used to play with as a student. In the evenings we would sit down and play quartets, quintets, sextets etc. and we off course brought her in too. I was so surprised that she - a 50+ years old pro violinist - had never played Brahms sextets or Mozarts Quintets. I was about 20 and had played them many times. But maybe that is one of the drawbacks of making music your profession - it is not the same relaxing hobby as it is to us amateurs.