| Author |
Subject |
Tim
Janof
Registered
User
(8/7/00 9:59:46 am)
Reply |
Starker
I don't think (feel?) that Starker
is a "cold" player. Of course, I know why he is often considered as
such. But, when listening to his recordings, particularly the ones
made when he was younger, the word "cold" is the last thing that
comes to mind. I would say that there is probably a higher
proportion of brain power in his performances than in performances
of other cellists, but intellectual and "cold" are not synonymous.
Half-baked idea time. I'm not an expert in acting, so
hopefully I'm not too far off. End of disclaimer. Comparing Starker
to other cellists, like Tortelier, is like comparing Vivien Leigh
and Marlon Brando in "Streetcar Named Desire." Both are marvelous
actors, but their approach to conveying their characters is
radically different. Leigh was a "classical" actor (I shall wipe my
eye and use my crying voice to portray sadness) whereas Brando used
"The Method" (I AM sad). One might say that Vivien Leigh's approach
is more detached, perhaps "cold," but it certainly works for me. I
suppose a similar comparison could be made between Starker and
Tortelier. Starker sculpts phrases, sensing where "climaxes and
anti-climaxes" should be, i.e. "Create excitement. Don't get
excited." Tortelier becomes "the knight saving the damsel in
distress." Both approaches produce wonderful results, perhaps
similar ones at times.
I also don't want to discount Starker
as merely an intellectual player either. As he says, "without
emotions one is not a musician, or a human being." He also has said,
"I cry in my own way." I am not buddies with Starker, but I have
talked with him several times and "cold" is not a word that comes to
mind. He may keep his emotions in check, but he is a thinking and
FEELING human being just like the rest of us. This comes through in
his playing, particularly in his earlier recordings. I have seen his
emotional side in recent performances too.
Bottom line. I
long for the day when Starker isn't referred to as a "cold" player.
Imagine how this reputation must make Starker feel. He knows that he
is full of emotions, and yet people don't seem to want to take the
time to see this side of him. He is too quickly discounted as a
"cold" player. Granted, it takes a long time to get to know Starker,
but I'd say it's worth the effort.
|
RemRem
Registered User
(8/7/00 11:05:51 am)
Reply |
Re:
Starker
"Espressivo" doesn't mean that you
have to cry your heart out.
- Janos Starker
I like
Starker...
|
DWThomas
Registered User
(8/7/00 11:42:18 am)
Reply |
Re:
Starker
Yes, I have not listened to a wide
enough variety of players to say too much but...
I have a CD
here at work for when I need a change of environment. It's called
"Starker Encore Album" (Denon DC-8117, recorded in 1975) and I would
be thrilled beyond belief to be able to play any of those pieces the
way he does! I find a "musicality" to them that's quite
appealing.
Perhaps as my cello CD collection expands further
(my local Borders loves me) I will find something else even more
inspiring to me, but I would certainly not complain about
Starker.
Dave
|
Bob
Registered User
(8/8/00 7:11:39 am)
Reply |
Re:
Starker
We've gone around and around about
Starker here, and, much like the hopefully-dead political threads
below, no one's mind is going to be changed by what someone else
posts.
I certainly don't like everything Starker does
musically; however, I sometimes feel that there's a resentment and
sour-grapes attitude about the technical perfection he represents.
Somewhat like with Heifetz, some folks like to posit that playing
with "feeling" and playing with technical perfection are mutually
exclusive and that they prefer the former. It's sad, because they
are simply missing the wonderful subtleties and architecture of a
great artist who chooses not to "go overboard." My friend and
colleague Mr. Stucka, whose knowledge and historical perspective of
performing practice surpasses any of ours, hears things differently.
Perhaps someday I'll have the opportunity and privilege of beating
the !@*#$ out of him with a crowbar until he agrees with me.
It is a fact, though, that a lot of the criticism about
Starker echoes that directed at Heifetz. With the additional canard
that Starker's sound is "small." Now it is true that he is not a
large man. His hands are relatively small. So there's an excuse
right off. Second, his conception of sound is a quality-based
conception, not a quantity-based one. He is simply unwilling to make
an ugly or forced tone; he is all about COLORING the sound, having a
range of expression to choose from within each phrase. If he is
pushing the instrument to its limit all the time, there is no
variety. Third, the man is 76 years old, and now somewhat frail. As
he just demonstrated in the Dvorak Concerto at the WCCIII, he can
still nail the hardest licks to the wall; however, no one is
claiming that his sound today has the force it did 20 years ago.
People who are just now hearing him live for the first time should
also listen to his EMI and Mercury recordings to get the full extent
of his amazing powers on the instrument.
Well, I know I
won't change any minds with this. But I hope I might at least plant
seeds.
|
cellocase
Registered User
(8/8/00 8:14:50 am)
Reply |
Re:
Starker
At the World Cello Congress,
Starker's master class was one of my favorites. He was very kind,
something I hadn't quite expected... seeing him in action, "cold"
certainly doesn't come to mind. Karin
|
David
Sanders 
Registered User
(8/8/00 10:02:31 am)
Reply |
Re:
Starker
I've attended many, many
masterclasses given by Starker, and I've always said that this is
where he is at his best, cellistically, musically, and
personally.
Some of the greatest cello playing and music making
I'll ever have the thrill of hearing has been in those
classes.
David
|
G
M Stucka
Registered User
(8/8/00 10:15:41 am)
Reply |
Re:
Starker
I hope all have noted Mr. Battey's
threat of physical violence upon me in case I'm found bludgeoned in
my home. Gee, he refers to me as friend. How does he deal with
enemies? Is this typical of attorneys? I may be Stucka with my
views, but at least I'm not going to be driven Battey by
them.
I am certainly well aware of Mr. Starker's technical
prowess. My chief complaint is that I have never heard him turn a
memorable phrase or produce a tone of emotional warmth as I have
heard from say, Leonard Rose, for example. Feuermann, another
favorite of mine, is not necessarily known for "warmth" either (much
in the same way Heifetz was criticized for lack of warmth), but when
I think of the 'style' and 'finesse' that he uses in such pieces as
the Albeniz Tango, the Cantaloube Bouree Auvernate, the Reicha
Concerto (obscure pieces, for sure, but these performances come to
mind when I wish to cite examples that hopefully prove my point), I
can't say I've heard Starker play with the same sort of imagination.
Frankly. I'm not moved or even impressed by reserve. I'm not
an advocate of scratch or cellistic slobbering, either. I AM
offended when the implication is that playing with more emotion than
Starker's reserved approach IS viewed as slobbering.
As has
been expressed previously, all of this is a matter of taste and
opinion. It's just that, for me, if I have a choice between hearing
a performance played by Starker or by just about any other "great",
I will generally opt for one by the latter.
Regards to all.
GMS
|
dennisw
Registered User
(8/8/00 1:49:11 pm)
Reply |
Re:
Starker
In general I agree with you. But
there is, for
me, one notable exception: the Kodaly solo
sonata.
This is his signature piece and I have never
heard it
played the way Starker plays it.
The technical demands of the
music are well-known,
but I would like to emphasize the depth of
knowledge Starker displays for the clear influence
of
Hungarian folk music in the piece. It's as
though his soul is
hardwired to the music.
In my estimation he plays the Kodaly
with a fire
I have never heard before or since.
Interestingly,
it seems to me that the fire also requires a
bit
of reserve and Starker has found the right balance
of
both.
|
G
M Stucka
Registered User
(8/8/00 2:30:21 pm)
Reply |
Re:
Starker (to dennisw)
I, too, am a fan of his Kodaly for
just the reasons that you express.
Hmmmm, I wonder if this
shocks Bob into not clobbering me with a crowbar. (---:
>)---)
Edited by G
M Stucka at: 8/8/00 2:30:21 pm
|
Paul
Tseng ICS Staff 
Administrator
(8/8/00 3:23:52 pm)
Reply
 |
Re:
Starker
I don't think there is one cellist
who will satisfy every listener on every piece.
For example:
For pieces like Locatelli, Boccherini, Popper, etc. I'd chose
Starker in a heart-beat.
I just listened to Slava's recording
of the Brahms F Major with Serkin (which I haven't listened to in
about a decade because I didn't like it back then) and 10 years
later, I STILL don't like it! (you may pick your jaws up off the
floor now) That's right! And I don't really like Slava's Bach suites
that much either. In both cases, his cello playing is undeniably
INCREDIBLE. His sound is unmatched, but I just don't like the way he
plays those pieces. I prefer Rose's Brahms F (which I'm kicking
myself for giving away the LP woth Pommier).
I'm in a Bach
Quandry now, I don't know which recording to try
next.
Starker and Slava are at two very opposite ends of the
spectrum. Yet both of them have so much to offer in their own
ways.
It's easier to deal with this if you are a non-cellist
listener. But as practioner of the same art as these two masters,
how will thier playing affect you (if at all?)
I personally
hope to learn as much as I can from all the great masters'
performances and apply whatever I can in my own playing (or die
trying).
"Cold" isn't the word I'd use for Starker. "Cool"
maybe. The second movement of his Locatelli sonata has some of his
most passionate playing I've heard.
About his sound. Well, a
"big" sound is not just a matter of decibles. Slava doesn't always
play loudly, in fact sometimes he plays really quietly. But "BIG
SOUND" is a matter of perception too. What makes Slava or Rose's
sound seem big is the use of Vibrato and 'sounding point' (bow
placement) The amplitude of the vibrato also affects the apparent
"size" of the sound.
Starker's vibrato can be very intense,
but the amplitude is always the same (focused but not very wide).
Slava has a much bigger range of vibrato in terms of speed,
amplitude, and intensity.
Somehow, vibrato has an effect on
the listener's emotional response and perception of
sound.
The richness of a cellists' sound is only partially
influenced by the bow. That's why when you hear Slava playing ppp
but his left hand is vibrating like ff, the sound is so rich even
though the volume is so low. And there are times where he will float
the bow and use NO vibrato at all. All these amount to the "color"
of the sound.
I suppose the main complaint I have with
Starker's playing (though I'll never play as well as he does in a
million years) is that his palette of cello colors is much more
limited than many other cellists.
But would that that were
the only comlaint about my own playing!
He deserves to be
respected as one of the top 3 or 4 cellists of the 20-21
century.
Frankly, I'm glad there are so many different
cellists. Starker, Rose, Rostropovich and Piatigorsky. What a
diference in each of them. They were so easy to identify!
The
next generation: Yo Yo, Harell, Kates, Isserlis,(others) are also
easily identfiable.
But after that? hmmm....Alban Gerhardt,
Zuill Bailey, Matt Haimovitz, Hanna Chang? Is it still too early to
tell?
Thank God we have good recordings to preserve (to some
small degree) the legacy of a generation of cellists who might not
be with us much longer.
Paul Tseng, Cello Chat Administrator
Today's Quote
My Website
MP3!
The San Diego Cello Society
|
RonH
Registered User
(8/8/00 5:51:25 pm)
Reply |
To Mr.
Battey
"I may be Stucka with my views, but
at least I'm not going to be driven Battey by them."
May we
also stand in line with our baseball bats?
|
BA
Registered User
(8/9/00 3:10:39 am)
Reply |
Starker= Heifetz? Ummmm...not!
Simply because both Starker and
Heifetz were both accused of being 'cold' does not mean that Starker
can therefore be wrapped in the mantel of Heifetz. Heifetz was
called cold mostly by the ignorant or jealous, mainly because of his
stage demeanor. But listening to Heifetz quickly shows that he was
in fact one of the most profoundly romantic and passionate
violinists ever to play the instrument. Indeed he is often
criticised for his overly romantic interpretations (i.e. Mozart,
Bach). The 'cold' label was applied to Heifetz for his stage
demeanor and perhaps relentless tension he created by refusing to
indulge in lugubriousness with the internal rhythms.
I do not
see this being analagous to the complaints of Starker's 'coldness'
at all. This is not to say that there is not much to admire in Mr.
Starker's playing, but tempermentally he is the exact opposite of
the previous generation of string players like Feuermann and
Heifetz. Compare their use of tone shading, glissandi, rubato,
etc...I am in agreement with Mr. Stucka's comments on this. As an
aside, I would also note that based on the last several live
performances I've heard of Mr. Starker (Don Quixote, Brahms Double)
his legendary accuracy has begun to deteriorate and I hope he will
stop performing in public while the echoes of his better days are
still in our ears. Of course I didn't hear his Dvorak in Maryland-
perhaps it was a diffferent case there. I suppose this puts me in
line for a beating as well.... I should be in Norfolk tommorow, if
you feel like driving!
| |
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands (Moderator only)