| Author |
Subject |
bethjohanna
Registered User
(12/8/00 2:16:32 pm)
Reply |
Shifting-argh!
I have the pleasure of playing
Corigliano Symphony No. 1 next week, and am distressed by what seems
to be a relatively simple technique. The composer call for a long
A (the one above middle C), which is progressively moved to the
same A on the D string, and then the G string. I can't
seem to
find the 2nd and 3rd occurrences of A. I try slow shifting to hear
myself approaching the note, and fast shifting to convince myself
that I do actually know where this A is. Neither one seems to work.
Any suggestions? I think it may just be something my left arm needs
to figure out, but I thought I would check with y'all too. (ok, and
I needed a practice break.)
|
Lucy
Clifford
Registered User
(12/10/00 9:07:55 pm)
Reply |
shifting
Just draw a little pencil * on your
fingerboard in the appropriate places. Practice in front of a mirror
(so you don't have to look down at the fingers) and hey presto! It
works. After practicing the shift about 30 times you'll know where
it is!
~Tip-of-the-day~
|
Tim
Janof
Registered
User
(12/15/00 9:32:01 am)
Reply |
Re:
Shifting-argh!
Starker feels that people who shift
to specific notes will tend to have greater intonation problems than
people who shift between positions (i.e. shifting between blocks of
notes). For example, when going to the D string, think about where
your thumb will be (on E). Continue this thought process as you go
to the lower strings. In other words, always keep the overall
geography of the fingerboard in mind.
Edited by: Tim
Janof at: 12/15/00 9:32:01 am
|
cellofreak2000
Registered
User
(12/15/00 5:04:43 pm)
Reply |
re:shifting
Starker also says: always think of
the preparation of your arm before shifting, think rather of moving
your whole arm and hand to the new position - Tim is right:always
think of positions! (Starker got mad at any student who did not know
which notes all fingers would play while playing a single note).
Never think of reaching a note only directed by the note-playing
finger.
Try f.i. the famous BsharpCsharp-Csharp shift in Tchaiks
rococo before the 1st and 2nd variation : 1-2-2, and aim for the D
with the thumb on the D-string, and not for the high csharp with the
2nd. IT WORKS!
|
dennisw
Registered User
(12/15/00 5:17:22 pm)
Reply |
Re:
Starker
Tim,
I'm not sure I
understand what you are trying to say. Can you
clarify???
|
Tim
Janof
Registered
User
(12/18/00 7:54:54 pm)
Reply |
Re:
Starker
Hmm, how to explain it. As a
starting point, we have to talk about Starker's view of the left
hand "positions." According to him, there are three basic fingering
positions/types: the 4-finger positions (the lower positions, all
half-steps between fingers), the 3-finger positions (which some know
as 5th position through 7th position), and thumb positions. There
are eight 4-finger positions, four 3-finger positions, and 32 thumb
positions. Thus, for Starker, there are 44 positions, not just the
traditional seven plus generic "thumb position," if I've done the
math correctly. 
It
seems that Starker and his students are all very aware of exactly
where they are on the cello, which fingers are on top of which notes
at all times (including the notes on adjacent strings), and in which
of the above mentioned positions they are playing (if not by name,
they know them by the notes that are "under the hand" in the
particular position). Most of us can do this in the lower positions
(like we know that the fourth finger plays A, E, B, F# on the four
strings when playing in "extended third position"), but we get lost
when in thumb positions, or when we're playing in the three-finger
positions on the lower strings. Not Starker. He knows the entire
fingerboard. The rest of us feel our way around to a greater or
lesser degree, but we don't REALLY know the fingerboard.
I
now quote from the Maria Kliegel interview: Starker "showed me how
to practice and how to create little exercises out of difficult
passages, not just in études, but in the major literature, which is
what his fantastic exercise book for the left hand, An Organized
Method of String Playing, is all about. The key to his method is in
the last three detachable pages at the end of the book, which
describes the geography of the fingerboard. You have to know these
three pages by heart and make your own combinations from them. If
you don't know the cello's geography, it's like speaking a language
without knowing its alphabet; you can only get so far in your
communication skills."
Anyway, let's say you are practicing a
big shift, say from C in "first position" (Starker would never use
this term) on the A string to the first C above the A harmonic. If
you just lunge upwards, with no clear concept of where you are
going, your process is more hit and miss, like throwing darts while
blindfolded; you may know the general direction you are aiming at,
but you have no idea where the bull's eye is. If you eventually
master this shift through stubborn repetition, what have you
learned? Only how to shift between these two notes. But if you shift
between positions, or blocks of notes, you master all the shifts
between all the notes in each position. Much more efficient, and
much more accurate. If you have a concept of where you are shifting
to, like "my thumb will be on the half-string harmonic after the
shift, and my other fingers are on B, C natural, and D, and my arm
position will feel like this" your shift to the C will tend to be
much more predictable and repeatable, since you are actually aiming
at a known target.
Shifting with geographical context can be
very helpful. Just like you know you've hit fourth position when
your thumb hits the base of the neck, having similar
conceptual/spatial sign posts helps with the other positions.
We all probably use a similar process when playing in the
lower positions. If we want to play an F# on the A string, we are
aware that our first finger is on D and our second finger is on E
(depending on the key and other factors). For some reason, we don't
do this in the upper regions, even though there's not much
difference when you look at the cello (no frets anywhere last time I
checked, just a straight, unmarked fingerboard). Perhaps this is a
failing of our music educational system, that we stop thinking in
spatial context once we get out of the lower positions.
I
hope this clarifies things a bit.
Edited by: Tim
Janof at: 12/18/00 7:54:54 pm
|
zambocello
Registered User
(12/17/00 4:50:44 am)
Reply |
shifting
Don't forget the importance of
knowing not only the note/position TO which the shift goes but also
the note/position FROM which the shift comes.
In most
contexts it is quite important to shift to a position (not a note)
to be prepared to continue the passage. That's not as much of an
issue in this Corigliano passage, though. However the idea of
shifting "from" and "to" surely does apply. Even though the lower
note of the glissando is not specified (if memory serves) it is
advisable to be aware of the note which begins the slide. Then you
have a better chance of a secure arrival at the new A.
This
passage really demonstrates the need to shift from a note. Few of us
could pick the note a' on the G string out of the blue, but we have
a good chance of shifting to it from the d' a 5th below. The same
principle applies to shifts in more familiar territories. Plus, if
the "from" note is not given its proper due, the phrasing will be
flawed.
|
Bob
Registered User
(12/17/00 8:08:47 pm)
Reply |
Re:
Starker
Nice going, there, Tim. For a
non-Starker-student, you've got the principles down remarkably well.
I would only add that the practice process when working on, say, an
octave shift should consist mostly of connecting all double-stops
between the two positions. Actually playing them. Makes hitting the
single note seem mighty easy by the end.
|
Tim
Janof
Registered
User
(12/19/00 10:49:18 am)
Reply |
Re:
Starker
I'm glad that I'm on the right
track. This is what I've gleaned from his master classes,
interviews, etc.
It seems that the guiding principle in his
teaching is that he wants his students to think. In the case of the
shift, that split second before the shift occurs (if not even
earlier), one should have fully conceptualized the action that is
about to occur -- where you are, where you will be, and how you will
get there.
|
dennisw
Registered User
(12/19/00 6:35:09 pm)
Reply |
re:Starker/shifting
Thanks Tim. That does the
trick...
Not being aware of any of this, I'm still wondering
about practical applications. Especially to an approach to left-hand
playing that is so intellectualized.
Let's take the first
movement exposition of the Boccherini Concerto in B-flat for
instance.
In the transition from B-flat to f major (second
theme) the piece goes through a g minor section starting with the
low G (open g-string). That run winds up on the dominant of the
dominant (middle C).
When I play that passage, the middle C
is played with the thumb on the D string. The next note is the C one
octave up (3 on the A string) which leads to a shift up to F
natural. Then, you are in the key of F.
So, with this method
of shifting your entire position-frame up from the C to the F to
play what
follows as an F-major scale, it could be played across
strings or up and down the A string.
According to what you
have said then, the cellist should know that the shift from C to F
winds up
with the thumb on the tonic & dominant of the new
key with the third finger on the higher tonic
and the rest of the
fingers ready to fall into line to play any note in F????
And
that, presumably, would make the shift from C to F more
effective???
Do I have the right idea
here???
|
dennisw
Registered User
(12/19/00 6:51:05 pm)
Reply |
re:Starker
Oh yes, as an addendum to the 32
thumb positions:
That's quite a few. After the 2nd octave on
the D & A strings (24 positions) by this definition. My left
hand has a harder and harder time moving down the fingerboard while
maintaining its orientation. I tend to start thinking extensions to
positions rather than shifting when it gets to that
point.
Funny, I listened to the Starker recording of
Elfentanz and, after wondering how the hell he played those squeaky
high notes so flawlessly, began to think that he left his thumb in
place and extended his hand to play the notes "in position". I don't
really know, though. It's just a guess.
I'm wondering how
useful it would be to "learn" those extra 8 positions, given that
the literature rarely goes there for scale work.
|
Tim
Janof
Registered
User
(12/20/00 2:04:38 pm)
Reply |
Re:
re:Starker/shifting
I would appreciate some input from
an actual Starker student on this. But I don't think of Starker's
approach to technique as being over-intellectual. It's just well
thought out, and, as cellofreak said, it works! There are a lot of
highly refined cellists out there who are former Starker students,
so he must be doing something right, not to mention his own
mind-boggling technical accomplishments.
My impression is
that Starker doesn't emphasize music theory when he teaches, but I
would like confirmation on this. So, your allusions to concepts like
dominants and "dominant of dominants" doesn't mesh with what I've
observed or read.
I will try to explain his ideas in
another, perhaps more nerdy way. If you are familiar with html
coding, his method of finding notes versus others' method is like
the difference between absolute and relative references. Whereas it
sounds like you slide up to the C because you have memorized the
shift in relation to the G (relative reference), Starker shifts to
the C because he knows exactly where it is on the fingerboard,
irregardless of what he is playing before the C (i.e. absolute
reference). You ask him to play a high F out of the blue and he can
do it because he knows exactly where it is, as well as the other
notes that are under the hand while up there.
I think we all
can do this in the lower positions with little trouble, but we
stumble when we are in the thumb positions. Not Starker.
Starker-ites, where are you?! I may be going overboard on
this.
Edited by: Tim
Janof at: 12/20/00 2:04:38 pm
|
Walter
Lenel
Registered
User
(12/20/00 2:32:38 pm)
Reply |
Re:
re:Starker/shifting
I am not a Starker student, but by
my understanding, you hit the nail right on the head, Tim. The idea
is to know where any note is, and to be able to play it out of the
blue with any finger. And then to always know what other notes could
be played with the other fingers in that position.
|
dennisw
Registered User
(12/20/00 2:59:15 pm)
Reply |
re:
Starker/shifting
Tim,
Thanks for the
clarification. That makes more sense. It still seems
intellectualized to me, but I can see the practical implications of
having an absolute knowledge of the fingerboard. I'm not certain
that that type of knowledge, however, is easily acquired and easily
remembered.
To make things simpler, then, why doesn't Starker
advocate inlaid frets (perhaps he does)??? They could be color-coded
or marked with the pitch.
I could even see, as a teaching
aid, a microchip embedded in the base of the neck with sensors on
the inlaid frets. You could buy software that allowed you to mark
difficult shifts. The software then would get installed in the cello
and control the microchip to light up the inlaid fret when you hit
the marked note correctly. Hmm....
I wonder why I keep
thinking that the old-fashioned "slide & listen" method is
sufficient???
|
Tim
Janof
Registered
User
(12/20/00 4:54:13 pm)
Reply |
Re: re:
Starker/shifting
The slide-and-listen method is
certainly used by many of the big-name cellists (I assume you are
talking about the technique where you lighten up the bow as you
slide up the fingerboard. When you hear that you have reached the
note, you fully engage the bow again.) I've seen Greenhouse and
Harrell advocate this in master classes, I saw Helmerson use it when
he performed the Elgar at WCCIII, and I think I remember seeing
Isserlis use it when he played the Poulenc Sonata at the last RNCM
festival. I'm sure others use this technique as well.
This
technique is not as courageous (not that cello playing should be
like a game of chicken) but it certainly does the job, though
sometimes I feel like the slide-and-listen method results in late
arrivals on the upper notes, which can be musically distracting.
I do like the fantasy of being able to shift right to ANY
note with surety. Starker is living my dream!
Edited by: Tim
Janof at: 12/20/00 4:54:13 pm
|
Nicholas
Anderson
Registered User
(12/20/00 10:41:18 pm)
Reply |
Another
point of view
There are so many assumptions that
have been made here, and it would be useful to examine at least some
of them. One is the idea that "Jaws" (Sharker) and his followers are
the only cellists on the face of the earth who truly know the
geography of the fingerboard. In fact, there are many others who
have masterful knowledge of it without ever having studied his
system. It's equally misleading to suggest that it's not possible to
master the fingerboard without deliberately and consciously using
his particular mental conception and images of positions and notes;
that any other approach is chaotic and out of control. In actuality,
people learn in many different ways; one person learns this way,
another person learns that way. Some people filter everything
through a structure of linear logic, while others are intuitively
tactile in their approach, with just as much success if not more.
Many who have consummate mastery of the fingerboard have attained it
without thinking in terms of Starker's regimen at all. These
methodologies, including Starker's, are ultimately superficial, in
that they don't address the profound underlying physical issues that
govern whether *any* methodology can function - what makes it work
well when it works, and what makes it not work well when it doesn't
work. These issues have to do with subtle physical states and levels
of sensitivity, which are in a separate domain from technique, and
which form the basis of the relationship between the body and the
cello. In this particular context, they concern such things as the
precise INTERNAL FEEL of how the arm carries the hand around the
fingerboard (and allows it to find a given note); what, in turn, is
the source of the arm's motion; what exact state the hand and
fingers are in when they arrive at the note; exactly how energy is
channeled through the arms; the source of strength which actually
creates flexibility and suppleness; how to gain access to a physical
sensation; how to practice with rigorous creativity so that more
physical ability is cultivated with less effort; the generating
principles, and matters of first cause; and a litany of other issues
too numerous to mention. This is the unconscious physical dimension,
which has not been formulated. Cellists who have it are said to be
"natural," and it doesn't matter what methodology they use, their
playing will develop well and succeed. Without it, no amount of any
methodology will solve what it's designed to solve. Gaining
conscious access to this unconscious physical dimension, and
penetrating the mystery of how it works, is the only thing that can
make a real difference; (and, as *one* example, it is explored in
great depth and practical effectiveness in my cello
seminars).
Another assumption is the absolute infallibility
of Starker's playing. Anyone who has heard him play live numerous
times, including many years ago in his prime, as I have, eventually
realizes that he is not superhuman, as he wants everyone to think he
is. He is capable of missing a shift from time to time, or playing
an occasional note out of tune, just like everyone else. In this
sense, he is not in a separate world from the "state of the art" of
all other cellists; and yet, he has perpetuated a myth of his own
unique total infallibility, which many people have swallowed without
using their own critical faculties. A kind of cult has built up
around him, which inculcates the party line. Anyone who DARES to
question any part of it, on any level, ever, is considered to be,
well - fatuous, arrogant, pretentious, incompetent, malevolent. This
allows his followers to cling to his image of perfection for a sense
of security. Because if the slightest possibility of even a
microscopic human flaw were ever admitted, the whole "house of
cards" of his self-reinforcing theory would fall apart.
It's
predictable that his "Organized" method of playing, (with its
contemptuous implication that no one else but Starker is organized),
would appeal to a Teutonic mind like Kliegel's. (After all, it goes
along with the "German historical purpose" - to impose order on
chaos.) But her analogy is a false one, and is not a valid premise
to begin with. She's saying that in spoken language, it's necessary
to be literate in order to be communicative. But that's an obvious
piece of sophistry, and is contradicted in every domain from poetry
to popular culture. Artistic and linguistic communication both
spring from a much deeper well than mere structure imposed from the
outside. If language, spoken or musical, were limited to her
conception of it, it never would have existed in the first
place.
Starker's system purports to be an utterly objective
scientific technology for complete mechanical perfection. But I
think it really reveals a hidden agenda, as a vehicle for his notion
of musical aesthetics. In his emotionally desiccated conception of
musicality and cello sound, it's not an obstacle to clutter up one's
attention with obsessive thoughts of 44 positions, etc. But if the
goal is to express something from the inside out, this obsession is
counterproductive. Maybe, just maybe, there is more to music (and
cello playing) than Jaws would have us believe.
Starker (and
Kliegel) do not need defending; their power and influence are
permanently established. What does need defending is the possibility
of any other viewpoint, which he has done so much to trample
underfoot. His brand of autocratic dogma is capable of corrupting
every channel of enlightenment, and silencing the voices of those
who could contribute to the constructive development of cello
playing in the future.
|
Tracie
Price 
Registered User
(12/21/00 12:11:40 am)
Reply |
Re:
Another point of view
>It's equally misleading to
suggest that it's not possible to master the fingerboard without
deliberately and consciously using his particular mental conception
and images of positions and notes; that any other approach is
chaotic and out of control. In actuality, people learn in many
different ways; one person learns this way, another person learns
that way. Some people filter everything through a structure of
linear logic, while others are intuitively tactile in their
approach, with just as much success if not more. Many who have
consummate mastery of the fingerboard have attained it without
thinking in terms of Starker's regimen at all.
Thanks
Nicholas. I wholeheartedly agree with your point about people
learning things differently.
I have never met/heard/seen Mr.
Starker live, but have had a number of similar ideas passed along to
me, (regarding the shifting thoughts posted here by Tim) and spent
the last two years with this particular idea being imposed upon me.
I agree that in theory it is obviously a well thought out idea, and
certainly works well for a great number of cellists. But not for me.
My brain doesn't work that way. Perhaps it is my piano background,
but I just don't think in terms of positions. That doesn't mean that
I don't know what note is over on the next string, I DO think in
terms of intervals. Trying to reprogram my brain to do it the other
way was more or less pointless and frustrating, and didn't help me
play in tune any better. My initial thought process stayed the same,
just I now had another needless step overlayed on top of them. In
addition, I think my shifting has suffered and become too fast and
mechanical in many instances. (over Thanksgiving, Ryan threatened to
take away my shifting license!)
I think the interval,
distance, the note, whatever, not the entire position, and this is
much more natural to me and allows me to think linearly and improve
the sound of my line. Again, this is just my own personal way of
thinking undoubtably influenced by my piano background- since on the
piano if you were going to play a F# with your 4th finger you'd
never stop to think...oh wait... where is my thumb? You'd just play
F#. I did become a bit resentful trying to be "converted" -
especially since it seemed that often Starker's idea was portrayed
as the ONLY way it could be done, which I don't believe.
I
guess the moral is, if it helps you, great. If not, don't stop
looking for alternative methods, because there is more than one way
to skin a cat. Ooooh how gruesome!
|
Tim
Janof
Registered
User
(12/21/00 2:20:23 pm)
Reply |
Re:
Another point of view
Mr. Anderson, you seem really
p.o.'d. You oughtn't hold this stuff in so long. It's not good for
your health! When one uses hyperbole like "emotionally desiccated
conception of musicality and cello sound" ... well ... it was a good
read anyway.
Your point is well taken that there are other
ways of thinking about and doing things. Thanks for jumping in the
mix. Hopefully one of Starker's disciples will respond to your
message.
Edited by: Tim
Janof at: 12/21/00 2:20:23 pm
|
dennisw
Registered User
(12/21/00 2:39:32 pm)
Reply |
re:
Shifting
Hello Nick!!!!
You haven't
lost a step since Peter Stambler walked the halls of NCSA!
I
actually tried to analyze my shifting last night, based on the
information so clearly explained by Tim.
First, I started
with a 3-octave scale (d-flat major) in broken thirds. I played it
slowly then I played it fast with various rhythms etc. It seemed to
me that, especially when playing fast, I had no idea of what
position I was shifting to or from. But I could feel the correct
interval either to stretch or shift. It was a good test because
there are alternating major & minor thirds.
Trying to
visualize where you need to go next would require me to think about
it. It seemed to me that there wasn't enough time for me to think
about anything. I also realized that I knew what was coming next
because I could hear the scale progression.
I also tried it
looking at my hands and looking away. No difference wrt
positioning/blocking the left hand in getting to the correct notes.
The visual helped in other ways though, like watching my left elbow
to make sure it was up high enough etc. etc.
So, the result
was that I use 2 of the 5 (or 6) senses to assist in shifting: touch
and sound.
Next, I tried the opening of the Schumann
concerto. Specifically, the run up the G-string followed by the
g-minor triad. I play (on the g-string) c-1,c#-2,d-3,shift to
g-thumb,b-flat-2,(d-string)d-thumb,g-3,(a-string)b-flat-1,d-3.
I
In shifting the g octave on the g-string (a reasonably fast
shift), that I rely on hitting the g-harmonic then settling into the
note. My hand moves so fast that there is almost no perceptible
slide-sound, but there seem to be 2 keys for me in getting the shift
correctly: one is hearing the perfect 4th (d-g) and the next is
sensing the distance from d-to-g. I learned the distance from my
work with arpeggios, so that is just habit. Hearing the 4th is easy
enough, but hearing the ringing harmonic is a confirmation of the
correct note, so that helps too.
If you were to ask me to
flat-out put my thumb on the octave g from nowhere and then play it,
I would be "close but no cigar".
With that in mind, I picked
the last movement of the Beethoven Sonata in g-minor and tried to
play the c-major arpeggio in the B-section of the Rondo. It starts
with a c-major chord then proceeds up the arpeggio starting on
middle-c to e a 10th above. It's all using
dotted-rhythms.
So, I played the c-chord, then I tried to
place my thumb on middle c on the d-string out of the clear blue
sky. I then moved up the arpeggio in position and stretch to get the
e. Without a relative point of reference, it's tough to nail the c
every time. What I found myself doing was silently sliding up the
d-string with my thumb until it got to where I figured it should be,
then I played the note. That was better, but I found myself making
minor adjustments to the thumb as I played the note.
I
suppose that if I were to repeat that motion mindlessly over &
over I might finally get it perfectly. But it seems to me that I
have better things to do with my time.....
Like I said
before, maybe the best way would be to have inlaid
frets...
Finally, I replayed the Beethoven passage all on the
a-string. I realized that it was easier to find the notes this way,
not because they are in lower positions, but because there is a
simple point of reference for the fingers to find their own way.
Playing the passage on the a-string has problems of its own, but it
seems to me that that would be ultimately more secure and less
time-consuming to learn. When the chips are down in performance, I
usually opt for what is going to be more reliable for me. That seems
to have an added psychological benefit as well.
|
Tim
Janof
Registered
User
(12/21/00 3:43:19 pm)
Reply |
Oh
yeah!
Did your question get answered,
bethjohanna? We seem to have taken quite a detour. Who knew your
question would turn into a major slugfest about Starker?!
Edited by: Tim
Janof at: 12/21/00 3:43:19 pm
|
Bob
Registered User
(12/22/00 6:25:01 pm)
Reply |
A point
of view about Another point of view
>>There are so many
assumptions that have been made here, and it would be useful to
examine at least some of them. One is the idea that "Jaws" (Sharker)
and his followers are the only cellists on the face of the earth who
truly know the geography of the fingerboard.
Here's an interesting opening. Sounds like someone's
got issues he needs to work out. Let's begin with the first
"assumption" he wants to examine ("the idea that "Jaws" (Sharker)
and his followers are the only cellists on the face of the earth who
truly know the geography of the fingerboard"). Our friend wants to
"examine" this assumption because it was "made here." Hello? Who
made it? Where?
>> In fact, there are many others
who have masterful knowledge of [the cello] without ever having
studied his system.
NO!! Where
did this genius spring from who has figured out such a puissant
truth that has eluded us all until now??
>>These
methodologies, including Starker's, are ultimately superficial, in
that they don't address the profound underlying physical issues . .
. concern[ing] such things as the precise INTERNAL FEEL of how the
arm carries the hand around the fingerboard (and allows it to find a
given note); what, in turn, is the source of the arm's motion; what
exact state the hand and fingers are in when they arrive at the
note;
Spoken like a true
ignoramus. He claimed somewhere to have attended one or two of
Starker's classes, but based on the above he clearly was asleep at
the time. Starker addresses these issues in exhaustive detail, far
more so than The Einstein Of The Cello ever could.
>>Another assumption is the absolute infallibility
of Starker's playing. Anyone who has heard him play . . . eventually
realizes that he is not superhuman, as he wants everyone to think he
is.
Holy God, someone help me to
my seat . . . my head is spinning . . . my world is in turmoil . . .
CAN IT BE??? I joined millions of others in the "assumption" that
Starker WAS superhuman and never let an out-of-tune note occur. And
now I find out that I'm wrong!!
>>He is capable of
missing a shift from time to time . . . yet he has perpetuated a
myth of his own unique total infallibility . . .
That bastard! Here Starker TOLD us he was infallible
and, like everyone else, I simply accepted his word without ever
actually listening to him play. I feel snookered!! At last my eyes
are finally opened.
>> A kind of cult has built up
around him, which inculcates the party line.
Sarcasm aside now, I don't know whether to laugh or
cry. This is the single most astoundingly ironic line our resident
Rowell fanatic has yet typed to us. I've known thousands of
musicians in my life, balanced and otherwise, and I've NEVER seen
anyone expend so much of himself to create a cult around someone:
"But one teacher, Margaret Rowell, cracked the whole thing
wide open, and now there's the possibility of making the
"unthinkable" happen - realizing the impossible dream. It took a
unique genius to do this, much like Einstein and the things he came
up with; Margaret was sort of an Einstein of the cello. What she
developed for cello playing is extremely profound, unprecedented,
and universal for all cellists, and it goes to places we haven't
been before."
I’m not making this up, folks. Has anyone out
there heard such absurdity about their teacher from a Rose or
Starker pupil, or indeed, from ANYONE’S pupil?
To be sure,
Rowell was a wonderful lady, who thought seriously about the cello
(including adopting many of Starker's principles, whether she
admitted it or not) and taught with energy and creativity throughout
her long life. I saw her in action several times and always admired
her amazing life-force and optimism. She was a fine, dedicated
teacher. Starker himself recognized her accomplishments, presenting
her with the Eva Janzer Award at a 3-day festival in her honor at
Indiana University.
Having said that, deifying her as Mr.
Anderson does is silly and embarrassing. We know he tends towards
hyperbole (remember the Cleveland Quartet attaining a purity and
perfection that no other ensemble in history has ever surpassed?),
and that Rowell clearly assumed some kind of uber-mater position in
his life. Fine. But the underlying sadness and futility of his
construct is revealed through this paranoid fulminating about
Starker.
Aside from his unique gift for the instrument,
Starker's understanding of the cello draws upon his rigorous
training under a Popper pupil, his lifelong and ongoing interaction
with the world's finest string players and pedagogues, his
unparalleled performing experience, and over 40 years of nearly
full-time teaching. And he is willing to share this understanding
with those who seek it. But somehow, Mr. Anderson sees in him a
vile, oppressive force ("[h]is brand of autocratic dogma is capable
of corrupting every channel of enlightenment, and silencing the
voices of those who could contribute to the constructive development
of cello playing in the future"). Whether he simply doesn't
understand the elegance and complexity of Starker's system, or
whether he does but distorts it to create straw men to knock down, I
really can't tell. Either way, it's
piteous.
>>Starker (and Kliegel) do not need
defending; their power and influence are permanently
established.
Here, at least, Mr. Anderson is correct.
Clearly, given how much he has invested in it, the fact that
Rowell's cello ideas are NOT permanently established anguishes Mr.
Anderson. But unless one believes in dark conspiracy theories (which
he might), the cold fact is that greatness and success, in teaching
and performance, speak for themselves and rise to the top, while
fringe ideas of questionable value tend to remain in obscurity. This
is why I don't spend a lot of time worrying that people will take
Sazer's book seriously.
The state of the art is in pretty
good shape. As Greenhouse pointed out, the number of true, special
artists is, was, and always will be extremely small. But the overall
level of cello playing, from even mid-level conservatories (at which
I have taught) is much higher than a generation ago, and likely the
same will be true 20 years from now.
One reason for this
overall rising tide is that Rose, Starker, Piatigorsky and
Greenhouse (the four top artists who did the most teaching) have
sent many hundreds of well-trained pupils out into the world, to
spread the good word. Thus are the most important, time-tested
concepts from the greatest practitioners passed down throughout the
world. I truly feel sorry for someone who feels threatened and/or
ignored by this reality, but hurling invective at a great artist and
teacher is not going to get Mr. Anderson any more business for his
"seminars."
>>Maybe, just maybe, there is more to
music (and cello playing) than Jaws would have us
believe.
Maybe so. But CLEARLY
there is a lot more to music (and cello playing) than Mr. Anderson
currently understands.
Enough. I
haven’t had red meat on the board in some time, and I may have
overindulged myself. If so, I’ll slink back from whence I came.
Things were all sweetness and light after I left the first time.
Merry Christmas to all, including Mr. Anderson, who I don’t know but
who I hope won’t take too much offense.
Edited by: Bob
at: 12/22/00 6:25:01
pm
| |
Email This To a
Friend
Topic Commands
(Moderator only)
