Prodigies

[MahlerSnob]

Well, at least in the early 20th century, I can't think of another country with more "big" composers than Russia, although it seems to have faded out over the years

(Note: I'm not just picking on Greg, but all of those who are espousing this idiotic notion.) Really? What about Germany/Austria? What about England? France? Hell, even the United States? The Soviet composers you are refering to, I assume, are Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Rachmaninov, Stravinsky. The first two are excellent examples of Soviet composers, but I won't take the later two. Both Rachmaninov and Stravinsky spent the greater part of their careers outside of Russia. Stravinsky is just as much a French or American composer as he is a Russian.
In contrast to this we have:
Germany: Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, Hindemith, Berg, Webern, Stockhausen
England: Vaughan-Williams, Elgar, Britten
France: Debussy, Ravel, Satie, Messaien, Boulez, Varese
US: Ives, Copland, Barber, Cage, Carter

My point is that Russia hardly dominated composition in the first half of the Twentieth Century. Just because you happen to like Russian composers more doesn't mean that they were any better, more influential, or more numerous than their counterparts in other countries.

As for the larger discussion: I don't have a problem with "prodigies" as long as people treat them as what they are. These are children who have become highly proficient on their chosen instrument. Sometimes, but not always, they are also highly intelligent and are the beginnings of good musicians. But the fact remains that the best teacher in the world can only teach you how to play your instrument: they can't make you a musician. Becoming a musician with personal ideas and something to say takes time and I'm yet to come across a ten-year-old pianist from rural China or suburban Chicago who has something individual to say. I don't think talented children should be pushed to get into professional performing careers. I think they should take time to develop, explore ALL of their interests, and grow as people before they become concert artists so that their contributions to the world of music are more significant than note-perfect readings of standard concerti. Unfortunately, there will always be overbearing parents and teachers and there will, sadly, always be an audience for photogenic eight-year-olds who can play the complete works of Pagannini from memory.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Ha yes, i forget. This is GMG. No musical criticism allowed. Everything revolves around individual opinion. Personal taste is unassailable. I know the song.

Nonsense yourself. Ashkenazy may well have his limitations, but he's far from a "sorry-ass musician" and if you're going to paint with such a broad brush, you may expect to be attacked, or if not attacked, disbelieved. Surely a nuanced assessment of Ashkenazy's strengths and limitations would do you more credit and make your "musical criticism" more credible. That's the song.

[Anne]

Would Jay Greenberg be considered a prodigy?  Has anyone heard what he's doing lately?  I have his cd from several years ago.  At that time some people thought he seemed quite promising.

[zamyrabyrd]

Sorry, that comment smacks of prejudice or at the very least is terribly confused: Rachmaninov left Russia when he was about 45 - hardly 'quite early'. If you mean he left the Soviet Union quite early, then why on earth mention Chaliapin. And talking of great singers nurtured by the Soviet Union, what about Lemeshev, Kozlovsky, Vishnevskaya and Borodina? And it's ridiculous to talk 100 Philips Great Pianists as the final arbiter of which Russian pianists qualify as 'great': how about Sofronitsky? Lazar Berman? Mikhail Pletnev?

"Mentioning Chaliapin" because he was a first tier, world class performer like Caruso. With all due respect, Vishnevskaya and Borodina are not Callas, Sutherland, Schwartzkopf, or any of the relatively few female Olympians.

Lemeshev may have done the Russian repertoire (there is an excellent Lenski aria on youtube) but few have heard him outside. The same goes for my own teacher Solomon Khromchenko (1907-2002). He only left Russia in the late 80's, as he was not permitted to go out except for an occasional group tour with those nosy governmental guides. Luckily he studied with teachers who learned Bel Canto in Europe. But this avenue to the outside world was pretty much shut off for 70 years, so the heavier type of singing (that probably fits the language and Slavic music) seemed to prevail (from what I still hear of Russian trained singers).

He himself was summoned to sing for Stalin, a test if he had failed would have landed him in the Gulag or worse. There can be only admiration and praise to those who stood up against such spirit-destroying pressures and to those who were forced against their wills to bend a bit in order to just live and if fortunate to practice their art.

It's only logical that a repressive regime would militate against music or any other self-expressive art. Music is the most elusive and the least amenable to control. The impression that I received was that bureaucratic control could be exerted by teachers who forced a note-perfect approach but at the same time compensated for this rigiidity by the schmaltz of late Romanticism.

I studied with a Russian piano teacher for a time in the 70's and it was SO different than what I had been used to. Maybe those who are already used to taking orders don't mind not having the freedom to choose. What still bugs me about the whole scene is many, if most times, the interpretations are as far away from the composers' intentions as is East from West, like how Mendelssohn can be turned into a Czerny exercise, for instance.

ZB
PS "The 100 Greatest Pianists" is not the final arbiter and only a compromise--how some got in and not for instance, Gyorgy Sandor.

[eyeresist]

Sorry, but the fact remains that Russia produced most of the finest musicians of this past few generations, and no automatons either, but true and genuine artists. High standards and hard work seem to lead to results, softer methods merely create slackers and arrogant and disrespectful slackers at that.

I did see a Russian pianist, who seemed to me a rather arrogant and disrespectful slacker, at the 2004 Sydney Piano Competition. He won the People's Choice because he looked very artistic and had attractively floppy hair.


As for rote-learned prodigies, I don't think we can expect better than excellent imitation from most very young musicians. It takes a decade or two to develop some artistic maturity. The real problem is our cult of youth - always looking for the best youngmusician (or best young composer), as though none of our older ones are good enough.

[Pierre]

First of all, I don't think that statement is even correct. The greatest singers apart from Chaliapin were not Russian. Conductors? Well, not a Cyrillic name on the current poll. Horowitz and Rachmaninoff left Russia quite early. OK, Kogan, Richter and Gilels. But the rest of the 100 Philips Great Pianists are not.
ZB

It was your use of the word 'greatest' which confused me; you evidently meant 'most popular outside Russia' (or even 'within the USA')? Your suggestion that a great singer like Lemeshev somehow doesn't count because 'few have heard him outside [Russia]' indicates as much. Please be careful, and don't dismiss the reputations of people you may know little of so lightly. It's scarcely their fault, as you admit, that they were (and are) so little known outside Russia/the former Soviet Union.

[Pierre]

The Soviet composers you are refering to, I assume, are Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Rachmaninov, Stravinsky. The first two are excellent examples of Soviet composers, but I won't take the later two. Both Rachmaninov and Stravinsky spent the greater part of their careers outside of Russia. Stravinsky is just as much a French or American composer as he is a Russian.

In fairness to Greg, he was referring to Russian composers, not Soviet. Rachmaninov, born in 1873, left Russia in 1918 (by which stage he'd written most of his music) and died in 1943: so no, he didn't spend most of his life outside Russia. And I suggest you have a good look in Richard Taruskin's 'Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions', or even Robert Craft's memoirs, before you suggest he's 'just as much a French or American composer as he is a Russian'.

[zamyrabyrd]

It was your use of the word 'greatest' which confused me; you evidently meant 'most popular outside Russia' (or even 'within the USA')? Your suggestion that a great singer like Lemeshev somehow doesn't count because 'few have heard him outside [Russia]' indicates as much. Please be careful, and don't dismiss the reputations of people you may know little of so lightly. It's scarcely their fault, as you admit, that they were (and are) so little known outside Russia/the former Soviet Union.

You're really twisting what I'm saying. Josquin made a proclamation about the alleged superiority of Russian musicians. Others chimed in and said any other country produced just as many if not more, and now while thinking about this, in proportion to the rest of their country's population.

[Pierre]

You're really twisting what I'm saying. Josquin made a proclamation about the alleged superiority of Russian musicians. Others chimed in and said any other country produced just as many if not more, and now while thinking about this, in proportion to the rest of their country's population.

OK, I'm not lining up with Josquin but with the truth as I know it. I wish you well on your cause, but politely suggest that you don't help it by defending it with misinformation. Also may I suggest that it's not a good idea to confuse an evil regime with some extremely talented musicians and music teachers who had to work within the Soviet Union. Of course it's to a large degree arguable that they were continuing a teaching tradition set up in Tsarist Russia by Anton and Nikolay Rubinstein and their successors, but that doesn't make the quality of teaching within Russia, even through the Soviet years, any the less. So no, the number of excellent and outstanding musicians Russia has produced is not merely down to the size of the country.

[zamyrabyrd]

OK, I'm not lining up with Josquin but with the truth as I know it. I wish you well on your cause, but politely suggest that you don't help it by defending it with misinformation. Also may I suggest that it's not a good idea to confuse an evil regime with some extremely talented musicians and music teachers who had to work within the Soviet Union. Of course it's to a large degree arguable that they were continuing a teaching tradition set up by Anton and Nikolay Rubinstein and their successors, but that doesn't make the quality of teaching within Russia, even through the Soviet years, any the less. So no, the number of excellent and outstanding musicians Russia has produced is not merely down to the size of the country.

First of all I don't have a "cause". I initially raised the question of prodigies and if producing note perfect kids is a good thing. This I said was observed by me on a smaller scale having been around Russian teachers.

For 30+ years, however, I am sorry to say that I have had the misfortune (with very few exceptions) to work around Russian musicians. Politics and ego are the main priorities, but this may be understandable coming from a brutal, competitive environment. They simply play by different rules. I won't repeat what I already wrote about the star system that crushes lesser talents, dictatorial methods that include shouting and physical aggressing on kids, and prima-donnism that most of the time is based on nothing. Humble, self-effacing people usually know more and I take that as a rule.

A friend of mine reported the horror of singing around some of those harpies in New York, who would intentionally give wrong cues just to trip her up. I just read (but can't say it's true) that Nureyev dislocated the arm of a ballerina he didn't want to dance with, not very accidentally.

ZB

[Ten thumbs]

None of you picked up my point but wouldn't true musical talent be better picked up if in the early days the child is offered little encouragement. Give access to an instrument and see how they get on. If the child seems determined, I believe there will be something there worth pursuing.

[greg]

(Note: I'm not just picking on Greg, but all of those who are espousing this idiotic notion.) Really? What about Germany/Austria? What about England? France? Hell, even the United States? The Soviet composers you are refering to, I assume, are Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Rachmaninov, Stravinsky. The first two are excellent examples of Soviet composers, but I won't take the later two. Both Rachmaninov and Stravinsky spent the greater part of their careers outside of Russia. Stravinsky is just as much a French or American composer as he is a Russian.
In contrast to this we have:
Germany: Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, Hindemith, Berg, Webern, Stockhausen
England: Vaughan-Williams, Elgar, Britten
France: Debussy, Ravel, Satie, Messaien, Boulez, Varese
US: Ives, Copland, Barber, Cage, Carter

hmmmmmmm if you include Scriabin and just think of the fact that Rachmaninov and Stravinsky were born and raised and learned music in Russia, then:

Russia: Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Rachmaninov, Stravinsky, Scriabin

as for Germany, i don't think Hindemith would belong on that list, not being influential or popular enough, and Stockhausen is too late. As for France, Boulez is later that what i meant and a couple of the other listed composers, too.
so, at least, Russia is up there at the top w/France and Germany.

[jochanaan]

...With all due respect, Vishnevskaya and Borodina are not Callas, Sutherland, Schwartzkopf, or any of the relatively few female Olympians...

I don't know Borodina's work, but I have to disagree about Galina Vishnevskaya, based primarily on her awesome recording of Shostakovich's Fourteenth Symphony with bass Mark Reshetin and members of the Moscow Philharmonic led by Vishnevskaya's husband Mstislav Rostropovich.  She had artistry and intensity as great as any diva I've heard.

[zamyrabyrd]

I don't know Borodina's work, but I have to disagree about Galina Vishnevskaya, based primarily on her awesome recording of Shostakovich's Fourteenth Symphony with bass Mark Reshetin and members of the Moscow Philharmonic led by Vishnevskaya's husband Mstislav Rostropovich.  She had artistry and intensity as great as any diva I've heard.

Vishnevskaya might have been good in Russian music but this typical heavy, strident production to my ears is unbearable in any other style or language. I could think of a character on the Muppet Show that she reminds me of here as Marguerite in Faust: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLOoewstxUw
I can't listen anymore--QUICK, get me Sutherland!!!!
ZB

This is awful too, mashed potatoes in her mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iOlPgrXlTo

[zamyrabyrd]

More horrors: Borodina in "O Don Fatale" (I curse you, my BEAUTY!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwSX3DG1l-o

Not convincing at all as Deliliah, she should have stuck to singing it in Russian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7KjSQec4aE&feature=related

The FUNDAMENTAL difference with these two women and world class sopranos is singing atcha, in other words aggression as production, and of course "ME ME ME, I'm the prima donna".

Whereas REAL prima donnas can be that AFTER they float the tones, don't place themselves above the need for perfect diction, draw you in, not blast you away. UGH.

ZB

[jochanaan]

Well, okay, those are all convincing points.

[zamyrabyrd]

Well, okay, those are all convincing points.

Hi Jochanaan,

I don't know if we spoke about this before (or might do it in another thread, although "prodigies" might be as good as any) but I heard from a flute teacher that the idea is to do the maximum with the minimum amount of air.

This would be "floating the tone" for singers, the most beautiful type of production. A voice teacher of mine more than 20 years ago would say, "less is more and more is less", a kind of zen pronouncement.

But the truth is, once you get the balance of the tone just sitting on the air, it does feel mystical, suspended in space as it were. This is supposed to be the basis of bel canto. That's why to sing Western art music over the past 400 years with any other technique simply doesn't work. But it's not only technique, but a heartful, non-aggressive approach to music.  Is it the same or similar with flute?

ZB

[Holden]

Ah - prodigies. In the early part of the 20th century, if biographies are to be believed, these were wunderkind who could step up to a piano at age two or three and immediately pick out a tune. The bios of Gilels, Solomon, Richter, Horowitz, Rubinstein, etc, tend to support this theory. They were noticed and did/didn't get a good teacher and their natural ability came through anyway. This was an era where musicality, romanticism and bravura were equally valued not just in the cultural sense but globally. This theme was prevalent in the arts, movies, literature, politics and even business. It was a time of the entrepreneur, inventor and visionary.

Today's prodigies espouse a different theme that similarly reflects a global ideology. However, this is the era of technology where accuracy and technical excellence is paramount and this is evident in our musical musical wunderkind. I've been listening to the SIPC 2008 and while all the playing is devastatingly accurate the individual voice seems to be missing.

But then again this is not an era where the lone voice is particularly valued in fact it's considered an anachronism. Fly in the face of public opinion (global warming is a myth, the war in Iraq is unjust) and you'll be howled down by the masses who slavishly adhere to the popular cause. So any musician who dares to be different in an international competition is really asking to be ignored when it comes to choosing finalists because our musical tastes reflect the ethos of the time. This is why we've had renaissance/baroque/classical/romantic/impressionist/serialist/etc periods in our arts. They are just a restatement of the general theme that drives the current word. Today is the era of the technician.

So now teachers churn out young performers who are first and foremost - note perfect, phrase perfect. Performers whose technical skills would have both amazed and bemused in a different era.

Finally, I like the fact that a pupil decided to learn the piano just so they could play, for themselves,  a Beethoven sonata. Maybe this is how Richter started (he did say that the first piece he learnt was a Chopin Etude and until Neuhaus, he taught himself)

[jochanaan]

Hi Jochanaan,

I don't know if we spoke about this before (or might do it in another thread, although "prodigies" might be as good as any) but I heard from a flute teacher that the idea is to do the maximum with the minimum amount of air.

This would be "floating the tone" for singers, the most beautiful type of production. A voice teacher of mine more than 20 years ago would say, "less is more and more is less", a kind of zen pronouncement.

But the truth is, once you get the balance of the tone just sitting on the air, it does feel mystical, suspended in space as it were. This is supposed to be the basis of bel canto. That's why to sing Western art music over the past 400 years with any other technique simply doesn't work. But it's not only technique, but a heartful, non-aggressive approach to music.  Is it the same or similar with flute?

ZB

It's similar, probably nearly identical.  For both flute and oboe (and most other wind instruments, I suppose), the tone has to have a firm base of air to float.  However, the oboe, my primary instrument, has rather an opposite problem; since its tonal opening is so very small, the air doesn't GO anywhere.  When I come to the end of a phrase, I have to breathe OUT first! And it requires such a high pressure that you have to be a little aggressive with your diaphragm muscles and lips, while at the same time keeping your hands and throat and everywhere else completely loose.  On the other hand, precisely because it's such a high-pressure instrument, I've had to develop a very relaxed method of playing just so I don't get tired before the concert is over.

[zamyrabyrd]

Today's prodigies espouse a different theme that similarly reflects a global ideology. However, this is the era of technology where accuracy and technical excellence is paramount and this is evident in our musical musical wunderkind. I've been listening to the SIPC 2008 and while all the playing is devastatingly accurate the individual voice seems to be missing.

But then again this is not an era where the lone voice is particularly valued in fact it's considered an anachronism. Fly in the face of public opinion (global warming is a myth, the war in Iraq is unjust) and you'll be howled down by the masses who slavishly adhere to the popular cause. So any musician who dares to be different in an international competition is really asking to be ignored when it comes to choosing finalists because our musical tastes reflect the ethos of the time. This is why we've had renaissance/baroque/classical/romantic/impressionist/serialist/etc periods in our arts. They are just a restatement of the general theme that drives the current word. Today is the era of the technician.

It's strange that in an era where calculations and information storing are done by machines, that musicians would not be freed up to be those individual voices. The music establishment, as in those Conservatories that spurned Berlioz and Debussy and still did not admit jazz to their hallowed halls even in the 1960's, tend to be museums and those who teach can only do what they know best. So if one is taught to be note perfect and have to play out-of-synch musical dinosaurs even if they are anachronisms in the real world, then this is what is passed on to the next generation and so forth.

But I would even go farther and say that from what I observed judges in competitions and examinations do not necessarily go according to their opinions but what they think might be acceptable to others.

I'd like to digress and illustrate this point by an experiment done by psychologists on small groups of people.  Two "waiting rooms" were set up with different types of furniture. One was ornate gold-leafed "French Provincial" with uncomfortable spotless brocaided chairs and the other was modern and very user friendly. After these people got to sit in either one for a time where they were watched from one way mirrors, they were squirming in the first and relaxing in the second.

Now here comes the punch line. When they were asked which room they preferred, most of them said the FIRST!! The idea was to show how sophisticated they were while denying their own feelings.

My bottom line here is that musical administrators know in their bones the needless anxiety of being note perfect but still insist on it. Judges who are unsure of themselves want to show their colleagues they are not slackers. For most of the music making population, reasonable accuracy like 98% is not an impossible goal. But to get from that 2% to almost 100% requires a herculean effort. This is not practical nor even desirable in a normal educational environment. And the trade off is expensive, the renunciation of spotaneity and enjoyment in doing music. Instead it becomes a grim task, dependent on the feedback from outside, not from oneself.

This is a VERY BAD scenario for prodigies who are encouraged to be the latter, little robots and conceivably the main reason they do not fulfill their promises later on. The rest of the world has moved on but their teachers haven't noticed that little detail. And probably more and more it will be apparent that absolute note perfection in music will be as useless as human calculators.

ZB