Technique and Talent - www.ezboard.com

Internet Cello Society Forums > Cello Chat > Technique and Talent
Page 1 2	<< Prev Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Subject
TerryM Registered User (10/1/00 10:47:59 am) Reply	Technique and Talent For those of you who may not have read the book “The Beaux Arts Trio – A Portrait” written by Nicholas Delbanco, Morrow, 1985, I recommend it. It is especially interesting for those who play or listen to chamber music and the piano trio literature. The Beaux Arts Trio has been in existence since 1955 and originally was made up by the violinist Daniel Guilet, the pianist Menahem Pressler and the cellist Bernard Greenhouse. Several of you saw Bernard Greenhouse in action at the masterclasses at the World Cello Congress in Towson. Daniel Guilet retired in 1969 and was replaced by the violinist Isidore Cohen. This grouping performed together for many years and in the past few years both Greenhouse and Cohen have retired as well. What is interesting about this trio is what they accomplished over all these years. The endless concerts in the early years given in less than ideal surroundings, playing on bad pianos in auditoriums and high school gymnasiums. A lot of us think that today’s concert scene is the way it always has been. Most smaller cities today have some sort of concert hall suitable for the playing and presentation of chamber music concerts, but this has not always been the case. Groups such as the Beaux Arts Trio, worked very hard to establish the piano trio repertoire through their constant travel and playing in outlying areas. Touring chamber music groups really helped to establish the literature of chamber music and chamber music concerts as we know them today. Especially interesting for cellists is the chapter of the book dedicated to an interview with Bernard Greenhouse. He talks about his period of study with Casals and how he had to persevere to get Casals to take him on as a pupil, just after WW2 in Prades. He talks about technique, the balance in ensemble and the need to balance and play in tune with the piano. Overall the book impresses one with the need for an ensemble to practice and play together for many years to get the interpretation and appropriate feel of the music. In keeping with the gist of a couple of threads here on CC, I am quoting Greenhouse on the technique of cello playing and the talent of cellists. “If I were to consider a career on the instrument today, and I listened to the enormous number of young gifted cellists--gifted at least in the technical sense--I’d hesitate. The techniques have improved so much, and there are so many accomplished young cellists by now. When I was a student there might have been twenty young cellists at the Curtis and the Julliard; today there are hundreds. The teaching has been superior. We have garnered in this country people like [Janos] Starker and Leonard Rose; we have people on the West Coast like Gabor Rejto; we have Zara Nelsova and Bonnie Hampton; we’ve had Piatigorsky teaching a superior class of students. What I want to stress, though is that--however much techniques may have changed--talent has not progressed. Talent remains something which one cannot instruct or invent. And while there are many, many great instrumentalists, one has to search for the true artist---that great talent we encounter so rarely. They are still quite as rare as they were fifty or one hundred or two hundred years ago.” Terry
OyOy Registered User (10/1/00 11:11:51 am) Reply	Re: Technique and Talent Beautiful words of wisdom from one who was indisputably a great artist. Incidentally, DelBanco is Greenhouse's son-in-law, and has just completed the text for a forthcoming picture book about the restoration of Greenhouse's Strad; Morel worked on the instrument for nearly a year and finally returned it to Greenhouse just days before the WCCIII. I've seen a draft, and it's a very interesting piece, going into both Greenhouse's and the instrument's histories. The text might be published separately in Harper's first.
Nicholas Anderson Registered User (10/2/00 2:47:48 am) Reply	The New Frontier The quote from Greenhouse brings up some points that are of fundamental importance to cellists, and about which I have some unusual knowledge. That's the result of my 24 years of close work with Margaret Rowell, who was the architect and practitioner of an extraordinary breakthrough in this exact aspect of cello playing. Mr. Greenhouse, whom I know and admire, draws some valid distinctions; but then he drops the "iron curtain" down at the exact point where it should be open. He distinguishes between being "gifted at least in the technical sense," (an area where there's very little mystery any more), and the kind of "great talent" for being a true artist. Those are in fact two very different kinds of talent; (though I would assert that they both, in different ways, have to do with the player's physical approach to the way the body relates to the cello). He then says that "talent [rare true artist type] has not progressed" - well, of course not, how could it, without either some kind of genetic engineering, or "karma control?" But he THEN goes on to say that "talent [again, rare true artist type] remains something which one cannot instruct or invent" - and THAT statement I believe to be very far off, particularly in that it ignores Margaret Rowell's work. What she achieved is tantamount to being able to "teach a person to be talented," in that exact sense of being a "true artist - that great talent we encounter so rarely." Please note carefully what I'm saying. I'm not talking about artistic coaching, (valuable as that is); I'm talking about re-orienting a person's physical approach to the instrument in such a way that it would be comparable to taking a syringe and injecting them with the kind of artistic talent for the instrument that has always been thought to be something you had to be born with, and if you weren't, it was simply impossible to acquire it. It's ironic in this context that Mr. Greenhouse knew Margaret and had great respect for her. But I believe that like so many others who did, (including Casals, Rostropovich, Piatigorsky, Rose, Nelsova, Fournier, Tortelier, Ma, etc.), he and they were impressed by her unique results, without knowing anything about her actual methods, actual insights, and actual vision. (Please don't tell him I said that, because I respect him, and he's always been very cordial to me.) But it's interesting that Bonnie Hampton, whom he does mention, was a product of Margaret's teaching - as was Paul Tobias; the obituary Paul wrote about Margaret in the newsletter of the New York Cello Society was signed, "by Paul Tobias, whose principal teacher was Margaret Rowell." Irene Sharp used Margaret's insights to construct a brilliant program for the development of young cello students, and I believe she would be the first to credit Margaret with providing the foundation for it. Even "Jaws" (Sharker) used to call Margaret "The Queen," and she was honored in a special ceremony by the Indiana University Music Dept. with the title of "Grande Dame du Violoncelle." But she was a pretty self-effacing Queen, and was never one to promote herself in any way. That job has to be left to others who understand her importance. One way I have been carrying on her work in in my Breakthrough Cello Seminars, in which I convey her unique insights in depth. Anyone who is curious about this can read more about it on my website, at: www.nicholas-anderson.com. I expect that in the years to come, this work will become better known, with plenty of controversy swirling around it. Of course, those people who are wedded to the idea that this kind of talent is out of reach and cannot be taught will get all up in arms, and I'll be called all kinds of names. But that's okay; I think this has always been the way with new ideas or positive breakthroughs in any field. A new idea that challenges conventional wisdom is initially attacked or ridiculed; later it's quietly examined and, if found to be valid, slowly assimilated - until it eventually becomes "what everyone already knows." I just happened to be at the transition point for this one, and it's a role that needs to be played. There's the further factor of "Who is Nicholas Anderson, and who is HE to be talking about this?" I also believe that my reputation as a good performer will grow, as I gradually become less obscure. (And I'm already in pretty good company as a member of the Board of Directors of the New York Cello Society.) But I feel that the most valuable contribution I could offer to the cello world would be to make Margaret's transformational and illuminating discovery more available, so that it can help other cellists as it helped me. This new accessibility of natural cello artistry is indeed useful to ALL cellists. I believe it's safe to say that those rare "great artist" cellists who already have a lot of it in their playing do not actually know how they do it - because if they did, they could teach it to others, and as Mr. Greenhouse says, they can't. So those natural artists, too, could stand to know more about how they do what they do. Therefore, this breakthrough has a kind of universal value, in filling an enormous void in the cello world. And as Margaret showed us by example, it's a matter of "thinking outside the box" - opening up new possibilities, instead of reinforcing old limitations.
dennisw Registered User (10/2/00 1:38:05 pm) Reply	Re: Technique and Talent Bernard Greenhouse is full of baloney and someone should tell him so. He needs to wake up, in his old age, to the FACT that there are extremely talented musicians ALL OVER THE PLACE. He's one of these people who truly believe that there is a Valhalla where the few greats throughout history are enshrined & if he's lucky, he'll be one of them. But starting out TODAY as a cellist.... The numbers game is running against you, the field is FLOODED with technicians, but somehow by percentage, not much TALENT. I assume the implication here, if I may be so bold, is that there are so many out there and since the listening public can't distinguish between the merely technical and the truly talented, a cellist (like him) would just get lost in the crowd. Hey Bernie, get a grip!!!
Walter Lenel Registered User (10/2/00 5:02:51 pm) Reply	Re: The New Frontier I agree that freeing up the cellist physically and helping him or her to relate to the instrument in the most natural, comfortable and efficient way possible will enable a player to actually create all the music and beauty and artistry of which he is capable. I think that huge numbers of cellists are NOT able to create the performances they imagine in their minds and hearts precisely because they are not suffiently "free" physically. However, I believe that "how much" of an artist a person is capable of becoming, differs from one person to the next, and one is born with that capacity.
MaryK Registered User (10/2/00 8:37:27 pm) Reply	Re: Technique and Talent/New Frontier I agree with Walter L. on this one. Personally, my sensibilities lie mainly with B. Greenhouse. Currently I am studying w/a former M. Rowell pupil. Anybody see a bit of a conflict there??? <g> Cheers, MaryK Edited by: MaryK at: 10/2/00 8:37:27 pm
BA Registered User (10/2/00 8:05:52 pm) Reply	You don't also post with the name 'Sopher' do you? Where are all these truly talented cellists, with the talent to create beauty and move people? All over the place? Perhaps, but if so, not many are on the concert stages, so something is not right... I have heard Greenhouses's sentiments in almost the exact same words from Rose and Nelsova. I guess that's just because they are (were) old too? (To quote someone a little younger "Ain't there one damn song that can make me break down and cry?" -David Bowie, Young Americans) Actually it is not so much that listening audiences can't distinguish (though this is often true) but that there is also something different in the way great talents are nurtured (or not nurtured but exploited, as is now often the case) Whatever technical gains may have been made, they have been accompanied by (on the average) a demonstrably less sophisticated degree of musicianship. Although there are exceptions, the focus seems to have shifted towards instrumental athleticism- with consistency rather than virtuosity the paragon of virtues. There are better musicians now perhaps, but not better artists. Perhaps this is not because the talents are not developed in the right way or perhaps the route to success is now more divergent from then route to developing artistry. (Sigh- here we go again...)
dennisw Registered User (10/2/00 10:14:15 pm) Reply	Re: You don't also post with the name 'Sopher' do you? Stop being so pompous with your sighs for a minute and maybe you'll hear something you like. No one on the face of this earth has annointed Bernie Greenhouse, nor YOU, nor Sarah Nelson, nor Leonard Rose as the final judge and arbiter of good taste and approved talent in cello music. You seem to base all your arguments on the fact that more and more musicians play with ever greater technical proficiency and that that somehow has managed to degrade the quality of the music these technicians play. That is complete nonsense on the face of it. Everyone strives for technical proficiency. There is no quid pro quo that requires technically proficient players to play like typewriters, though it can and does happen. However, those unmusical players would be unmusical with or without any technique. While I do agree with you that a higher premium is placed on technical proficiency now than 50-100 years ago it is also true that the sense of what is aesthetically pleasing to hear has also changed dramatically. I believe that 2 factors have contributed to changing tastes: the advent of recorded music which is available, cheap, and portable so that our listening experience (timewise) is nearly all from recorded, as opposed to live, performances. Needless to say, recorded music is almost always perfect, technically. The second is the breadth of music that is availble to the listener. Just 50 years ago it was mainly classical, big band, show tunes, the "hit parade", and jazz. Just what is acceptable to hear coming from a cello has also changed. Now it is acceptable to play Bach on a 5-stringed cello, a viola da gamba, or a standard cello with gut strings using a bow played with a German grip. It is also acceptable to hear very very loud pop/rock since ELO and the electric cello as well as bebop and third stream-retro jazz. That's a big difference from 50 years ago!!! Maybe YOU don't like it, but that doesn't mean that people aren't "moved" when they hear a Jimi Hendrix tune transcribed for string quartet or when they hear Vivaldi on a baroque cello. They just aren't "moved" in the way you are "moved" or think that listeners (that includes musicians) should be "moved". I think the playing of Casals is a great case in point here, since he was so stubborn in his musical taste that he barely acknowledged the 20th century at all. His interpretations of Bach are genuine classics. They are at the same time operatic, romantic, and yet filled rhythmic vitality. Absolutely brilliant. It was only his mindset that had totally shut out any potential influences from Varese, Stockhausen, Ives, Berio, Boulez or even Stravinsky & Bartok, that could have created these interpretations. At the same time, he hits notes a little off, misses others, doesn't always have clean articulation in the right hand, plays the minor keys with a bit too much pathos, over-emphasizes notes for dramatic effect, uses slurs for crescendo/decresendo instead of tiers for dynamic contrast, and other stylistic choices that are either not acceptable today with many players, or simply ignored by many others. That being said, it has to be added that his influence on the interpretation of Bach on the cello is still enormous, to this day. Even though I don't play Bach that way anymore, I know his influence is still there in my playing. BA, you do your contemporaries a great dis-service were you to say "Well, no one plays Bach the way Casals did, and we're all the worse for that fact." Do you mean there isn't even 1 cellist on the face of the earth that can "move" people with his interpretations of Bach, as Casals did in his time??? That is the height of arrogance. You should also be careful with your name-associations. You may wind up with a moniker like "Sophist" yourself.
BA Registered User (10/3/00 3:25:27 am) Reply	Re: You don't also post with the name 'Sopher' do you? Your post is cogent and I apologize for equating you with our former friend. I have never for one moment implied that technical facility leads to a degraded sense of musicianship. It is quite the opposite- it is not possible to create great music without highly developed technique. Those who try to pawn themselves off as 'great musicians' to hide a faulty technique do a great dis-service to the name of musicianship. However neither Rose, Greenhouse or Nelsova fit this bill. What I am saying is that there is a notable change in mindset in the expectations of the managers, conductors, competition judges and audiences. Consistency and blandness have become seemingly sought after qualities. Individuality does not lead to success. You mention Casals (quite a bit of what you complain about was the result of nerves and age-listen to his earliest recordings, if you have not already) Could Casals have made a career today? Could Kreisler? I think the honest answer may be no. If not, what are losing? Are potentialy great musicians not being allowed the chance to blossom? Your thesis is the recurring one that the musicians of today simply play 'differently', and that it is not better or worse but merely different and equally moving. You have given a lot of thought as to why it might be that they play differently. Have you given much thought to exactly HOW it is that they play differently? You are very fortunate to find so many artists today that you feel create true beauty. Which players do you most admire? Again, I can only say that unless we actually take recordings, put them on side by side and really work to understand what is heard, this is an endless argument. I do not however quite understand your hostility towards Grenhouse, Nelsova,Rose, etc... Age does bring perspective and wisdom and to discount what they say as merely sour grapes seems a trifle arrogant to me. Nevertheless I respect the thoughtful reply.
justinkagan1 Registered User (10/3/00 8:31:32 am) Reply	Re: You don't also post with the name 'Sopher' do you? This is a curious thread. Dennis the Menace, my only regret is that you insist on adding a Tsp of nasty undertoning curry to every meal you make for this board...otherwise, in spirit you raise good points. Those of us raised on a diet of classic artists are constantly reconsidering what is near and dear to our sensibilities, and fortunately we aren't sufficiently dispirited by trendiness to turn off our headsets just yet. white breadification is everywhere, just look at the NBC Olympic coverage. Perhaps we have too much access to form and as a result protect, retreat to what we "know" best. I for one don't participate in backward thinking yet confess to preferring recorded performances of the past, mostly for reasons of perceiveable spontaneity and underengineering, if anything predominates. Yesterday I was riveted to a radio play of the Chausson Poeme which I'd never heard before but knew immediately must be Francescatti...musically limpid, with that slight off-centeredness of intonation..joined by the orchestra playing incredibly balls-out (Francescatti and Bernstein conducting, no surprise, just thrills). I haven't heard many current versions of this intense piece but I would hope some of today's players would be leaning in this direction and committing their passions. One of the great troubles in today's concert world is the lack of real opportunity to get a slice of the pie; too many artists of "stature" (?!), not enough venues. Support live music! Not complaining about what's available multi-medially..thinking at the moment back to when I reviewed an LP in the late 70's for the first issue of Fanfare, which was a thin volume then...now usually some 500 pages. Overkill? I don't know, but it takes forever to get through the stacks at Tower in Lincoln Center, which is quite Wal-Mart-sized. Fortunately there is a spate of older recordings, and I'm glad for it.
Tim Janof Registered User (10/3/00 12:44:44 pm) Reply	Greenhouse No performing artist from today's crop has ever touched my soul like Greenhouse's did during his master classes at WCC3. His playing didn't feel dated at all. It was simply sublime musicianship, subtle but full of tenderness, warmth, and vitality. I still can't get over this one conscious slide he did: visible but not really audible, though very much felt to the core. Greenhouse kindly shared his thoughts in words, but his playing speaks irrefutable volumes. Edited by: Tim Janof at: 10/3/00 12:44:44 pm
dennisw Registered User (10/3/00 12:26:06 pm) Reply	Re: Greenhouse I still listen to the Beaux Arts' recordings of the Brahms trios every now & then. He is a masterful chamber musician on these recordings and a superb cellist in general. But neither he nor his contemporaries have a corner on the market for talent and artistry.
dennisw Registered User (10/3/00 12:32:12 pm) Reply	Re: You don't also post with the name 'Sopher' do you? Cut out the name-calling unless you want this dialog to degenerate to your low-level.
OyOy Registered User (10/3/00 12:54:32 pm) Reply	Are you from Canada? Just wondering . . .
Laura Wichers Registered User (10/3/00 2:01:24 pm) Reply	Re: Greenhouse "But neither he nor his contemporaries have a corner on the market for talent and artistry." Alright then, who does? I get the impression from your posts that you seem to have someone in mind. -Laura
Laura Wichers Registered User (10/3/00 2:05:17 pm) Reply	Re: Greenhouse I agree. Something about Greenhouse's playing is beyond description. It is a combination of small nuances, things I really don't think he is conscious about, that make it so moving. These are the kinds of things that I do not believe you can teach. The true 'masters' (Greenhouse, Casals, etc) had these things comes naturally once the technique was in place. If you teach someone to phrase, are you really bringing out their natural ability? IMO, no. You are only teaching them to imitate. -Laura
dennisw Registered User (10/3/00 2:08:23 pm) Reply	A refreshingly useful dialog Have the conservatories cranked out thousands of bland automatons over the past 30 years who can execute any lick perfectly and with barely a hint of individuality???? My answer is an unequivocal yes. So where are they now???? At least some must be in all the major orchestras. I heard the principle @SF Symphony play the Schumann Concerto a couple of years back. He looked like some faceless bureaucrat gearing up for an exciting day's work filling out forms on paper and his commitment to the piece and playing were about as spicy as paper mache paste. Are some or most of them active on the concert- circuit today???? Again, I answer yes. However, I avoid listening to musicians who don't "move" me. Why, or how has this happened???? I don't really know. However, I suspect the reasons are fairly deep and largely beyond the music itself. The reasons I pointed out in my former post are part of it. Other reasons have to do with changes in the music business itself. Many of those changes have been detailed in a book: "Who Killed Classical Music". Beyond that, I can't say. Does this mean everyone has to play this "new" bland way???? No. Why should it? BA, I am now giving you permission to play exactly the way you like, and the way you think the music should sound irrespective of the way anyone else in the entire world plays. You never know, your special way of playing may catch on! I wasn't around for the occasion, but I can imagine that there were quite a few chortles in the crowd when Bylsma first strung his cello with gut strings. How about my own favorites???? My tastes are pretty ecclectic and go beyond stringed instruments. Some of them are contemporary and some of them go back in time. All of them influence my playing in one way or another. I'm not sure how useful it would be to "play-favorites-and-choose-sides" like kids do with baseball players. In many cases my own playing is my favorite, in some cases I hear something memorable from an amateur in a moment of inspiration, sometimes I hear something on the radio that knocks me out, but I don't know who played it. If you look at my CD collection you'll see no more than 2 selections from any one musician. I'm not advocating some kind of "aesthetic relativism" here. However, what is considered "good music" is constantly changing. I had a teacher once who was in a string quartet. At one point they encountered a piece for string quartet by John Cage that they had to play for a recital. Each and every member of the group had a FIT because they had to play the entire piece in tune without vibrato. It was shortly thereafter I heard my teacher mention that he objected to contemporary music because "so much of it lacked any integrity at all". (Yeah right). Well, now we hear baroque cellists who claim that vibrato is just another ornament and use it very sparingly. As you know, vibrato is the moving force behind so much cello playing that it is a given. It makes the cello sound like a voice. It gives richness and depth to the sound and is responsible for phrasing and expression that mimics opera or lieder. Well, that is a kind of beauty. All of a sudden someone like Cage comes along and decides that a thin non-vibrated sound is beautiful. What do you do when that aesthetic change begins to permeate the playing of lots of cellists???? Do you say that they don't know how to play like xxx, so they clearly don't play the right way??? Do you claim they "lack integrity"????
dennisw Registered User (10/3/00 2:25:10 pm) Reply	Re: Greenhouse Believe it or not, I don't.... (EOT)
Len Thompson Registered User (10/3/00 9:11:37 pm) Reply	Re: Teaching Talent I don't know. Maybe I'm just seeing things on the surface too much here. To teach someone beyond technique seems to be teaching them to be somebody else. There are basic ingredients of style that belong to the cello, and which must be learned as a part of basic technique. But beyond that is where the true talent lies. To teach someone to do it as so and so did it, is to teach them to be somebody else. Once technique is mastered (or as it is mastered), shouldn't it be up to the individual to add his or her own talent and artistry. Let the world decide if it's good or bad, as with any other art. Otherwise it seems we will end up with carbon copies of those who went before us. I hear too much of that in modern music, "copy cats". I dont want to see clasical music change, but lets let people interpret it for themselves. We approve of the masters of the past, I think the masters of the present and future will emerge. Then again, as I said , I'm only scratching at the surface here! Len
Sopher Registered User (10/4/00 7:51:56 am) Reply	Re: You don't also post with the name 'Sopher' do you? BA, I'm touched that you remembered me - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you - ROTFL. (the real) Sopher
Daniel Ortbals Registered User (10/4/00 9:47:22 am) Reply	Re: Teaching Talent I can see where you're coming from (saying that just teaching good technique will be sufficient). However, teaching someone to be expressive beyond their technique does not necessarily make him or her a copy cat. If your point was true, then every student would simply imitate his or her teacher, but that is not the case. Talent can be taught, but it sure is much simpler if one is born with it. In my opinion, anything (and I mean anything) can be taught; it just requires the right teacher and the right situation. Teaching someone to be expressive is not the same thing as saying "play it like this." It is more like "what do you think when you play this piece? what sort of emotions or ideas do you want to convey? How do you think you might accomplish these things? and so on..." Art does not mean absolute liberty. Artists must be taught, just like anything else, to control their ideas. If technique was all that was required in order for one to be a master of the cello, that is, if technique was the ONLY thing standing in the way of everyone 'unleashing their creativity,' then I think that one could theoretically write a computer program that could play as well as a human. Technique is pretty clear cut, but creativity is not. That is a very personal thing that must be brought out of people by their teachers. I operate under the school that music comes first, technique second. Don't get me wrong, I practice an awful lot of technique, and a whole lot of lesson time is spent on it. However, I first start with the music. I ask "what do I want to accomplish" and then I simply draw upon whatever technique I have to accomplish it. I think the other way around, mastering technique and THEN trying to find a place for all that technique, leads to either bland playing or phrases that aren't really connected. I used to think that one had to be born with certain gifts in order to possess them. I was born with an exceptional memory, so I would never understand why people would struggle trying to remember phone numbers or things said in class, etc. Knowing that I was born with this, and also knowing that I WASN'T born with other gifts like perfect pitch, gave me a tough time, since I thought that one had to be born with a good ear. However, I simply wasn't taught to really listen (not that my teacher at the time didn't try). It just took me a little (lot) longer to develop my ear. The point is, I LEARNED it. It was taught to me. The same thing applies to creativity. Some are born with it, while others must be pushed along by their teachers and peers to 'express themselves.'