A violin player in an orchestra doesn't have to be especially creative.
Maybe that student who was turned down needs to go back to the woodshed and see if he can raise his level of playing.
Did you actually read the original post? "That student" was Haifitz, one of the greats of the violin. That was the point.
Jascha Heifetz was born in Vilna, Russia (now Vilnius, Lithuania) on February 2, 1901. His father was a concertmaster and violinist who had no formal training. Heifetz got his first violin (quarter-size) and lessons from his father at the age of three. The young Heifetz' face would scrunch up if he heard dissonance and he would throw a fit when a wrong note was played. His natural ability was evident early on. He easily held the violin under his chin and prompted it with his left hand, things that usually take several lessons to master. He amazed audiences by playing the Mendelssohn Concerto without difficulty at the age of six.His mother shielded him from all the praise and attention he was getting. It was not until 30 years after his American debut and after his mother had died that Heifetz discovered a sealed chest full of critic's reviews all carefully arranged in chronological order.His father had a "horror of mediocrity," Heifetz said. The perfectionism was passed from father to son and became a dominant character trait, showing up not only in Heifetz' music but also in his hobbies - ping-pong, tennis and even mixing drinks - all of which he took very seriously. The family attended concerts, theater and cultural events which served, along with regular family musical evenings, to enrich Heifetz' musical experience and nurture the young prodigy. After two years with his father and two more with a professional teacher, Heifetz was ready for the master, Leopold Auer of the St. Petersburg Conservatory. Considered the greatest teacher of his time, Auer produced a string of violin prodigies including Efrem Zimbalist and Mischa Elman. The story, possibly apocryphal, is told that Auer was reduced to tears and proclaimed Heifetz to be the best at the boy's audition.
Again, the question is whether a student should be able to hear potential in another student who has not yet been properly trained. <snip> In fact, it is the metaphorical students' ability to listen which threw them off in the first place. It is only with long experience that a teacher can hear what is not yet there, but potentially there.
Learning to listen for something that's not there yet would seem to be a challenge.But learning to listen for what IS there is a major task that holds students back. See the classic book by Gieseking and Leimer.
. The more actively she works, the more detailed but energetically passive her playing sounds. What do you do in such a case?
I don't pretend to have a clue.I can't help wondering if a mild state of intoxication - maybe a glass of wine or too - would make a difference. Could be risky, too, but...........
Now, if a violonist is raised in the more sentimental, "hugging" Perlman style, for example, then it is conceivable that he/she will reject the "straight", reserved, intellectual approach of a Heifetz, and miss the latter's pure intentions. Any unknown Korean girl that plays in the Heifetz style will consequently also be rejected.
Do you play violin? (trying to place the "hugging" vs. "straight")
No, not at all. I wouldn't even know how to hold that instrument. The word choice is how it feels emotionally when I listen to those people. Perlman - heart, Heifetz - mind, no-nonsense.
So hearing really well is a learned skill, and it may be the primary difference between the great players especially prodigies, and the rest of us who struggle.There is a small caveat with this theory. I conceptualized this process long before realizing that I am actually a high functioning Asperger's/autistic spectrum, and therefore my sensory processing is by definition nonstandard, but I don't know all the places it varies from the norm.
How do we teach students to listen "Subjectively", and not first think of the performer and then decide if it's good or not?
The whole question of listening to which performance (or performer) is "good" to me is not listening.
But there's a subtle trap here for some.The purpose of music is not to learn to control notes or fade, to play on the beat or syncopate or stretch the time. The purpose of music is to move Joe Average, who will never hear how you're doing it, but will respond if you do it correctly.
And how, as a music student intending to play for Joe Average, do you learn to move Joe Average, if you don't learn these tools? Spare me the teacher who tells you to feel the music, but doesn't teach you the means to create that feeling.
Nope, you're wrong. And, you're right. I'm an analytical type by nature and it does seem that I need to learn the tools (mechanics) to do it. But I'm not the only type of student, probably not even the most common type. Many do fine with a more goal oriented, "inner game of tennis," Arnold Jacobs "Song and Wind" approach.Many of the most successful performers don't have a clue how they do what they do. That's why they can be the most abyssmal teachers.
Many of the most successful performers don't have a clue how they do what they do. That's why they can be the most abyssmal teachers.
In any case, the thread here is called "teaching students to listen", and the largest part of the thread is centered on not teaching students how to be judgmental.
A "finger-oriented" teacher/student (very often an intellectual approach to music) will listen for different things than a "whole-body" teacher/student (very often an intuitive, emotional approach to music), and I think that during an audition (s)he may think: "I cannot possible work with such a [fill in a nasty noun], and will reject that candidate, even if there is potential present. It would therefore be wise on the part of the student to know what type of teacher he/she is going to audition for; what artistic ideals they have, what school of thought/playing they are from.
I wonder if there's not actually greater reward to be gained if the teacher and student come from different approaches. Assuming they don't kill one another, of course. But both approaches have their limitations, and the conflict will go some way to stimulate a fuller approach/understanding.
I would never go to a representative of the French School to learn the finer points in playing Rachmaninoff, that's for sure! The artistic ideals are just too far away from each other.
Perhaps. But do you only go to a teacher to learn what they can teach? Surely as an advanced student, and I suspect a good one, you also go to learn from yourself - to test your ideas against a skeptical listener. Musical performance is, after all, in part (and perhaps in the end entirely) about persuasion.
but first I will put you on a diet of scales and Hanon, otherwise you won't be able to express what it is really about. Can you believe that a young person may have the wish to die on the spot if they come in such a situation?
That or rebel. And from rebellion comes great things. Those without a taste for it are doomed to mediocrity anyway.
Since they are the authorities, trying to transfer to another teacher within that same institution without offending anyone seems like a better idea.
P.S.: This example simply triggers the question: What is "listening" and how are we supposed to teach/learn it? I cannot "listen" without activating the rest of who I am.
But originally the question was about listening without false preconceptions - this must be good because X is playing, or Y is playing so it's going to have these faults. If those preconceptions form part of the "rest of who I am", they need to be purged. We must listen to what is presented, and judge it on its merits - is it consistent, is it effective, is it persuasive? Am I moved (intellectually, emotionally or in some other way)? Am I the same after having heard it?
My suggestion for this topic would therefore be the reverse: the burden of being accepted is on the ones that want to be accepted, not on the audience. EDIT: Effectively, this means they should simply learn something about how the target audience listens. If they don't like that kind of listening, they should simply reject such an audience.
From the perspective of the pianist, no doubt that is correct. But from the perspective of the audience, I feel the burden is reversed. And we are, at various times, lucky enough to be in both camps.
I think the audience is generally more intelligent than they are given credit for, and is always right in terms of taste.
I think a greater problem (even) than the failure to communicate for the reasons you have stated (and I agree it is a problem) is that all too often, all the player wishes to communicate is "look at me, I can play this!". If that ever did cut the mustard, which is debatable, it certainly does not do so in these days of ubiquitous recordings.
By the time he or she is 7 or 8, having shown all of that 'talent' early on, the pupil is now working on advanced virtuoso material. By the time he or she is 14 or 15, with an adult body....... the technique which the person learned to make their miniature hands barely get around Gnomenreigen almost a decade ago is now of little use. They now need to discover the more advanced, efficient ways of playing the piano. Unfortunately, bad habits of movement, which worked so well when the hands were tiny and the pieces were huge, are often so deeply ingrained, that the situation becomes dire.
EDIT: Just to make sure that this is understood correctly: what I said has to do with communication from within, which was present before and seems to have been partly lost.
You'll need to expound on this, dima.
Topic: Teaching students to listen 