Paganini
Posted by: jayd on 13 December 2003
Just watched a documentary on classical violin, and they suggested that pretty much all modern violinists were "descendents" (stylistically) of Paganini. Not sure how true that is, but the guy seems to have been waaaaay out there as far as technique was concerned.
Maybe it's a silly question, but who does Paganini the most like Paganini himself? I'm interested in exploring the really fiery stuff, but would like to avoid players who are just talented technicians.
Thanks!
Maybe it's a silly question, but who does Paganini the most like Paganini himself? I'm interested in exploring the really fiery stuff, but would like to avoid players who are just talented technicians.
Thanks!
Posted on: 13 December 2003 by throbnorth
I think it's rather an interesting than silly question ... Obviously we can never know absolutely about past performance styles & levels of performance, but it's a fascinating field of conjecture all the same.
My feeling is that in almost any technique based art form [painting excluded, perhaps], standards today are probably waaay in advance of anything that was even concieved of in the 'classical' period. This is just a feeling, mind you, but to support this feeling, it is undoubtedly true that pieces that were considered unplayable in Paganini's day are tossed off without comment by today's soloists [and without any accompanying rumours of Satanic Compacts].
Things are just so different: today if you have a distinct aptitude in any field, you are hothoused to an extent that previous generations might find incomprehensible. Also, the world has shrunk so much that any significant talent is picked up, marketed and discarded at an incredible speed.
I think it can persuasively be argued that current performances of a lot of core repertoire [by this I mean Beethoven, Mozart et al.] would astonish their composers. Questions of tempi remain, but care, preparation, technique etc. have surely reached heights undreamed of by their originators. In fact, given that hearing music of any kind in previous centuries would be a comparatively rare event, it baffles me how contemporary audiences could reach even a vague understanding of what we now hold to be masterpieces after at best a couple of [probably indifferent] performances, let alone be able to pick out the tunes.
In answer to your original question though, my feeling is probably just about anybody [not helpful, I know]. Nigel Kennedy & Vanessa Mae undoubtedly have the technique and showmanship, but then that isn't probably what you want. I hope.
throb
My feeling is that in almost any technique based art form [painting excluded, perhaps], standards today are probably waaay in advance of anything that was even concieved of in the 'classical' period. This is just a feeling, mind you, but to support this feeling, it is undoubtedly true that pieces that were considered unplayable in Paganini's day are tossed off without comment by today's soloists [and without any accompanying rumours of Satanic Compacts].
Things are just so different: today if you have a distinct aptitude in any field, you are hothoused to an extent that previous generations might find incomprehensible. Also, the world has shrunk so much that any significant talent is picked up, marketed and discarded at an incredible speed.
I think it can persuasively be argued that current performances of a lot of core repertoire [by this I mean Beethoven, Mozart et al.] would astonish their composers. Questions of tempi remain, but care, preparation, technique etc. have surely reached heights undreamed of by their originators. In fact, given that hearing music of any kind in previous centuries would be a comparatively rare event, it baffles me how contemporary audiences could reach even a vague understanding of what we now hold to be masterpieces after at best a couple of [probably indifferent] performances, let alone be able to pick out the tunes.
In answer to your original question though, my feeling is probably just about anybody [not helpful, I know]. Nigel Kennedy & Vanessa Mae undoubtedly have the technique and showmanship, but then that isn't probably what you want. I hope.
throb
Posted on: 13 December 2003 by jayd
In the documentary, they chose a player named Alexander Markov, playing Paganini's Caprice No. 24, to illustrate Paganini's "demonic virtuosity". It was a frantic amalgam of plucked and bowed notes, and the guy certainly was a showman. It just struck me as sounding so totally different than almost anything I've ever heard.
I suspect my problem is two-fold - I'm unfamiliar with prominent contemporary violinists, and equally unfamiliar with Paganini's repertoire.
Your point is well made that technical mastery is more easily achieved today, given our comparatively luxurious standard of living, leisure, etc.
I guess I thought that since modern violinists are only a few generations removed from Paganini himself, that possibly his disciples/students taught others, etc., etc., somehow establishing a direct line of descent to a modern "school" of playing. Does that make sense? Like maybe Heifetz learned from the guy who learned from the guy who learned from Paganini, something along those lines (just a completely made up example). Or maybe Paganini didn't teach.
PS - Of all the people playing Paganini in the documentary, my favorite was Ivry Gitlis (yet another player I've never heard of), playing the Concerto No. 2 (a film clip from 1966).
[This message was edited by jayd on SATURDAY 13 December 2003 at 21:26.]
I suspect my problem is two-fold - I'm unfamiliar with prominent contemporary violinists, and equally unfamiliar with Paganini's repertoire.
Your point is well made that technical mastery is more easily achieved today, given our comparatively luxurious standard of living, leisure, etc.
I guess I thought that since modern violinists are only a few generations removed from Paganini himself, that possibly his disciples/students taught others, etc., etc., somehow establishing a direct line of descent to a modern "school" of playing. Does that make sense? Like maybe Heifetz learned from the guy who learned from the guy who learned from Paganini, something along those lines (just a completely made up example). Or maybe Paganini didn't teach.
PS - Of all the people playing Paganini in the documentary, my favorite was Ivry Gitlis (yet another player I've never heard of), playing the Concerto No. 2 (a film clip from 1966).
[This message was edited by jayd on SATURDAY 13 December 2003 at 21:26.]
Posted on: 13 December 2003 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
I guess I thought that since modern violinists are only a few generations removed from Paganini himself, that possibly his disciples/students taught others, etc., etc., somehow establishing a direct line of descent to a modern "school" of playing. Does that make sense? Like maybe Heifetz learned from the guy who learned from the guy who learned from Paganini, something along those lines (just a completely made up example). Or maybe Paganini didn't teach.
This is somethig one often hears in the piano world. There used to be pupils of pupils of Liszt, Chopin or Beethoven. I believe in the violin world there is more a sense of national schools, Franco-Belgian violinists being different from Russian style violinists. (I will gladly stand corrected though.) And to make matters even more confusing, there have been pianists trained by violinists. The great pianist Artur Rubinstein was taught (for a while) by Brahms's friend the violinist Joseph Joachim.
The problem with the tradition you're curious about is it presupposes unchanging attitudes. I.e. Liszt in his old age have his blessing to the young pianist X, whose last pupil (50 years later) was Y, who, 75 years old have his blessing to Z, whom we are going to hear tomorrow night. Liszt didn't play the same way when he was 70 years old as when he was a young piano star. Nor did his pupil. You can hear this yourself on records: if artists played pieces the same way their whole life through they'd be bad artists, plus they'd be out of business.
This is indeed evinced in the technical progress which Throb talked about: people play Pagini Caprices these days without having to sell their soul, just like athletes going faster every ten years. But also the expressive ideas and demands change over a person's lifetime, and he's handing down a different take on the Pathétique than he learned from his master.
Try Izthak Perlman's Paganini.
Herman