sign in sign up
<<
Home , Felix Galimir, Ferdinand Laub, Gaetano Pugnani, Giovanni Battista Viotti, Glenn Dicterow, Hellmesberger Quartet

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 The Influence of Schools on Prominent Violinists/Teachers in the Christian Matthew Baker

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF MUSIC

THE INFLUENCE OF VIOLIN SCHOOLS ON PROMINENT

VIOLINISTS/TEACHERS IN THE UNITED STATES

By

Christian M. Baker

A treatise submitted to the College of Music In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Music

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2005

The members of the Committee approve the treatise of Christian M. Baker defended on October 11, 2005.

______Eliot Chapo Professor Directing Treatise

______Carolyn Bridger Outside Committee Member

______Beth Newdome Committee Member

______Melanie Punter Committee Member

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii

Music resembles poetry; in each Are nameless graces, which no methods teach, And which a master hand alone may reach.

—Alexander Pope

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express appreciation to the violin teachers who were so kind to respond to my questions via written questionnaire and telephone interview. Their responses are the most essential component of this treatise. I would also like to thank my committee members for their time and attention to this project, including Lubomir Georgiev, who passed away before its completion, but who first recommended the topic to me. I am particularly indebted to my wife, Michelle, and to Dr. Carolyn Bridger, for their extensive help with the revisions. I express appreciation to my parents, Gary and Cathy Baker, who have made tremendous sacrifices to ensure that their children have the opportunity to study great music. I thank my wife’s parents, Jim and Nancy Bailey, who continually support and encourage. Finally, a special word of appreciation to my wife and our three little boys— Clyn, Russell, and Hyrum—for all their love and patience during this lengthy test of our endurance.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Respondents...... vi List of Tables ...... vii Abstract...... viii

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1. THE INFLUENCE OF VIOLIN SCHOOLS: INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES ...... 4

2. GENERAL RESPONSES AND CONCLUSIONS...... 45

3. A REPORT OF THE LITERATURE ADDRESSING VIOLIN SCHOOLS AND PROMINENT INFLUENCES ON VIOLIN PEDAGOGY ...... 50

4. TABLES ...... 56

APPENDIX: Human Subjects Research Approval Letter...... 92 Informed Consent Form...... 93

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 94

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 98

v

LIST OF RESPONDENTS

1. Andres Cardenes ...... 4

2. Charles Castleman ...... 10

3. ...... 14

4. Bayla Keyes ...... 16

5. Mikhail Kopelman ...... 23

6. ...... 26

7. Violaine Melancon...... 29

8. William Preucil ...... 32

9. David Updegraff ...... 34

10. Zvi Zeitlin ...... 37

vi

LIST OF TABLES

1. Abbreviations and Designations in the Tables...... 56

2. Life Spans of Selected Violinists...... 57

3. Selected Pupil-to-Teacher Relationships ...... 61

4. Selected Teacher-to-Pupil Relationships ...... 70

5. Selected Prominent Violinists/Teachers at Music Schools, Conservatories and Other Locations (Alphabetical by School)...... 75

6. Selected Prominent Violinists/Teachers at Music Schools, Conservatories and Other Locations (Alphabetical by Violinist/Teacher)...... 78

7. Significant Treatises on Violin Playing (Chronological by Publication Date)...... 86

8. Significant Treatises on Violin Playing (Alphabetical by Author)...... 88

9. Primary Sources Consulted for the Tables...... 90

vii

ABSTRACT

This treatise was written in an effort to increase awareness among violinists of the role and importance of violin schools in present-day performance and pedagogy. Over time, the meaning and relevance of the term “school” (as it applies to violin playing and teaching) has become increasingly ambiguous and debatable. The purpose of this study is two-fold: 1) to determine the extent to which schools continue to affect prominent violin teachers/performers in the United States today, and 2) to give an account of available literature addressing the various schools of violin playing. In order to enhance understanding of the current role that the various schools assume in violin pedagogy, opinions from current and highly respected teachers/performers were gathered in the form of telephone interviews and written responses. Their individual responses comprise Chapter One. Chapter Two summarizes their responses in more general terms. A report of relevant literature (Chapter Three) includes information which will allow readers to educate themselves about the different violin schools and prominent influences on violin pedagogy. A series of tables (Chapter Four) provides a useful reference to many of the more prominent teacher-student relationships, the relationships of those teachers to the schools where they were active, and some of the most significant treatises on violin playing. It is apparent from the interviews that current perspectives and opinions pertaining to the influence of schools vary quite widely, even among renowned artists and teachers. However, one may develop a discriminating sense of the importance of various schools in the history of violin playing and teaching by studying the interviews and the sources relevant to this topic.

viii

INTRODUCTION

Even while adherents to various schools teach their own versions of the correct approach to violin playing, each must consider how it is that conflicting schools are able to achieve equally impressive results, despite perceived faults inherent in other methods. The phenomenon is not new, as superb artists have emerged from many different schools (and from outside the schools) in the course of the past three centuries. Before the twentieth century, schools were traditionally affiliated with the location of influential teachers: for example, is recognized for his teaching in and Joseph Böhm for his work in . But even as early as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, prominent violinists often traveled extensively and taught in various locations. For instance, although Francesco Geminiani purportedly belongs to the Roman School, he taught for many years in Dublin and . Antonio Lolli spent a significant amount of time in , France, England, Scandinavia and , not to mention his native Italy. Other international travelers of influence from this era include , , Bartholomeo Campagnoli, Louis- Gabriel Guillemain, Giuseppi Tartini, Giuseppe Torelli and Pietro Locatelli, to name only a few. As violin playing continued to expand and become increasingly cosmopolitan, using location as a means of identifying a “school” steadily grew more problematic. Frederick Neumann commented on the situation: [A] comparison of the principles of . . . national schools . . . proved impossible . . . because these national schools resist clear definition. What, for example should be called the German School? The method of Spohr? Or Joachim? Or Flesch? . . . The only thing they have in common is mutual disagreement. As a ‘method’ the Russian school is a myth. . .1

Professor D.C. Dounis had this to say:

1 Frederick Neumann, Violin Left Hand Technique (Urbana, IL: American String Teachers Association, 1969), 8-9.

1

I would like to explode the myth about the existence of different ‘schools’ of bowing. There are no schools of bowing, such as French, Belgian, Franco- Belgian, German, Russian, etc. Bowing serves only in realizing and expressing the musical thought, and the mechanics through which that thought is projected is not a matter of nationality.2

Great pedagogues have always been held in high esteem, but perhaps the importance and influence of the national schools that they allegedly established has declined over time. In the twentieth century, distinguished performers and teachers were inclined to disassociate themselves from schools of the past, possibly because these traditional approaches were increasingly viewed as dogmatic. Consider the following statement by : “I have no method—unless the pursuance of natural lines of development, based on natural principles, be called a method.”3 said: I believe people are a little over-zealous in observing certain rules—one position according to a certain method, a different position according to another. People ask me what method and style I use in bowing. I really haven’t any idea! I really never have been able to find out what the so-called ‘Auer method’ is, even though I studied with him.4

When asked his opinion, replied:

To be frank with you, I doubt their importance. I have talked with other players on the subject, and I feel it is nonsense to make a philosophy of the various styles. We have a few great Belgian violinists, a number of Russian, French, etc., but to my mind it has just happened so. Nothing else.5

When asked whether his method was essentially Russian or French, answered, “Partly Russian, partly French, and a good deal of my own.”6 This disassociation from schools of the past conceivably led to begin his Art of Violin-Playing with these words: “The present work is not meant to be a ‘School of Violin-Playing’ in the current meaning of the term.”7

2 Samuel and Sada Applebaum, With the Artists (: John Markert & Co., 1955), 273. 3 As quoted in Neumann, Violin Left Hand Technique, 8. 4 Applebaum, With the Artists, 43. 5 Ibid., 79. 6 Ivan Galamian, Principles of Violin Playing & Teaching, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985), 123. 7 Carl Flesch, The Art of Violin Playing, trans. Frederick H. Martens, vol. 1 (New York: Carl Fischer, 1924-1930), 3.

2

In general, teachers today do not make a point to familiarize their students with different schools, past or present. One could reason that such should be the case, given that great talents continue to emerge regardless of the school to which each might—or might not—adhere. But this situation has generated a degree of uncertainty as to the role and importance of schools in present-day violin pedagogy. Over time, the meaning and relevance of the term “school” has become ever more ambiguous and debatable. A familiarity with acclaimed treatises on violin playing, other relevant literature, relationships between prominent violinists/teachers, locations where these artists were active, and the opinions of current, highly respected violin teachers on this issue will help readers better understand the influence that schools now have on violin playing and teaching.

3

CHAPTER ONE

THE INFLUENCE OF VIOLIN SCHOOLS: INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES

ANDRES CARDENES Carnegie Mellon University (Pittsburgh, PA) Telephone Interview January 8, 2005

Chris Baker: Who has most influenced your own violin playing and teaching? You may mention more than one person, if you wish. Andres Cardenes: There’s no question it was my teacher and mentor, Josef Gingold.

CB: To what extent do you view Gingold’s influence as being associated with any particular school or schools of violin playing? AC: Well, there’s no question he’s a proponent and exponent of the Franco-Belgian School, which dates back to the era of Baillot and Vieuxtemps. [Vieuxtemps was] more or less his “grandfather” of music. Mr. Gingold studied with Ysaÿe, who studied with Vieuxtemps, who studied with de Bériot. And so that school was an offshoot of the French and actually Italian School, because Viotti was the one who basically had an influence over establishing almost all the schools, with the exception of the Italian School. He was nevertheless an heir of the Italian school, having studied with Pugnani. Viotti was the one who had the most influence over almost every other school in the entire world.

CB: To what extent do you view your own playing and teaching as being associated with any particular school of violin playing? AC: Definitely the Franco-Belgian School. I think my expertise is in that area, and the tradition that I play in is in that area, and the things I teach my students and feel very strongly about are in that area. I still teach in the same methods, in the same style, more or less in the same concept of that particular school, of course with some modification [because] of various other influences and, of course, my own experience—so I would say 70% of it is still very much mired in the Franco-Belgian School.

CB: In your experience with other professional violinists, do you generally perceive violin playing and teaching today as being associated with violin schools? AC: It’s a little bit of a hard question because I think that in a global environment that we’re now living in, I think there’s less “territory” in a certain way. I think that it’s harder

4

to discern specific “schools” or specific “styles.” I would say generally that there’s still a pretty strong Galamian School because they were baby boomers and they’re still around, still playing quite a bit. There’s a weaker (I think) Belgian School; there are fewer proponents of that school, and there’s a few Russian School and Soviet School people still around, but I think the French School, and the Czech School, and the German School have all kind of started to lose their identities because of the globalization. I’m seeing now that there’s more and more “general” violin playing—more to each person’s individual tastes instead of falling under a specific tradition.

CB: Do you recall specific technical advice which Mr. Gingold regularly emphasized to many of his students? Please cite any examples you would like, especially if you feel they are hallmarks of the Franco-Belgian School. AC: Well, let’s put it this way: I think that the emphasis in the Franco-Belgian School was not on the technique so much. It was actually more on the style, and I would say there was significant bow technique, not so much left hand, but significant bow technique. And that bow technique was the usage of the bow in such a way that the bow was extremely expressive, and the bow would be used in a manner to create more color, more palettes, more—I guess I would also say more variety in color and sound and texture, and that the would kind of help that along. We didn’t spend an awful lot of time on the left hand except in the vibrato area, and in using extremely expressive fingerings, but not so much in the area of technical expertise, accuracy and perfection. That certainly was not the Franco-Belgian School’s emphasis; that was more the Soviet School and some of the schools that were offshoots of the Soviet School—the Czech School, the Polish School. They were more interested in accuracy and dexterity than they were in expressivity.

CB: Do you recall specific exercises and/or repertoire which Mr. Gingold regularly assigned to his students? AC: Well, I don’t know if I could say “regularly” because Mr. Gingold was a master of identifying people’s talents, and identifying their weaknesses and their strengths, and so he assigned repertoire or technical studies according to each individual. I couldn’t say there was a “blanket” repertoire that he gave everybody, but he did often give the Chausson Poeme, the Spohr No. 8, the Ysaÿe Sonatas—these were very much a big part of his teaching. And then surrounding that were many of the pieces that were associated somewhat on the fringes of the Belgian School: the Debussy Sonata, the Fauré Sonata, the Ravel Tzigane, Impressionists, the Romantic French, and then of course it started to branch out farther. Mr. Gingold was an expert in all the technical studies, particularly involving the bow, which was also more or less an expert area of the French School with Lucien Capet. Capet, of course, was kind of the “signature” of the bow— before him was Tartini—but Lucien Capet wrote volumes of books on bow technique, very much implemented in Galamian’s teaching of bow distribution.

CB: Do you think that Mr. Gingold implemented those same ideas? AC: I think he implemented a lot of those same ideas. So that’s why I say it was a little bit on the “fringe” of what he taught. But the core repertoire was all stuff that was either

5

dedicated to Ysaÿe or from the Franco-Belgian School, or repertoire that was conducive to the style in which the Franco-Belgian School was designed.

CB: Do you perceive significant differences between Mr. Gingold’s approach and your own approach to violin playing and teaching? AC: Well, I think that would be a normal thing to say; yes, of course, there are some very significant differences. We are significantly different people with different temperaments and different backgrounds, different religious backgrounds and birth places: He was born in what is now , and I was born in Cuba. It’s pretty hard to be too much of a “clone.” I would say only that there are a lot of similarities in my approach and in my thinking—and I wouldn’t [even] say “similarities”— there are a lot of things that I strongly, strongly believe in that he taught me, that I continue to expound upon, and I continue to try to inspire my students to follow those parameters. On the other hand, it’s a more contemporary world, and the facts are different than they were fifty years ago or a hundred years ago, and so the repertoire I select now has a lot to do with the kids’ trying to get a job, or the kids’ trying to play specific concert recitals for requirements or competitions. In the old days you didn’t think about that; usually you took an audition, you played a concerto and you got in based on that—fifty years ago. Now you have to play a lot of excerpts, and so there’s a lot of history and a lot of analysis of symphonic repertoire that’s included in my teaching. Mr. Gingold basically did do some of that, but he did it mainly with concertmaster solos. So, I would say, in essence I very much believe in the style and in the gravity and the seriousness of the Franco-Belgian School, but I have expanded it and modified it for the current time, and I’ve added some of my own ideas. I think Mr. Gingold also was a unique humanitarian, unique personality, a man who had the gift of teaching in such [a way] that nobody else I’ve ever known has had it. I don’t have that same kind of personable approach that he does. I’m more strict and I’m more to the point, and I’m much less patient than he was. He just had all the gifts of teaching, and so it’s hard to compare. But I would say that of course, regardless of comparison, the influence and the mentoring that took place are absolutely—it’s 90% of who I am.

CB: I watched a video of Mr. Gingold’s teaching once (it was years ago), and I’ve never forgotten the rapport that he had about him in his teaching. He really seems to have been an incredible man. AC: We adored him.

CB: Are there any additional aspects of any violin school which influence your own playing and teaching? AC: Well, let’s say this: Any person who considers himself an artist would not rationalize and say, “Well, I’m a product of ‘this.’” I feel like I’m a product of many, many different influences, of many different schools, of many different teachers, and of many different instrumentalists. I also think of people like Janos Starker, Menahem Pressler, Gyorgy Sebok, and Nathan Milstein with whom I studied for two summers, and so I had a pretty good dose of the Russian School—the Old Russian, not the Soviet, but the Russian School. All these others gave me tidbits of information, musical information, musical knowledge about specific works or techniques on their instruments, which was

6

extremely valuable. But I also learned from a few of the ones that I disliked: I also learned from many of those people just exactly how not to be, and exactly how not to teach, how not to play, how not to approach things, how not to treat people, and I think that those schools also—those proponents of those schools as well—showed (in my opinion) some serious deficiencies. The Soviet School, for instance, is a perfect example. It’s a school of tremendous, tremendous accuracy and high-powered violin playing, but it’s also a school of tremendous dependency: dependency on your teacher, dependency on the system, dependency on huge amounts of dedicated hours of practice. Once that starts to waver, or you grow up, or your teacher dies, you find many of these players really not able to continue very well, because they’re too mired in one specific way of doing things, and that has hurt them in the long run. I can’t generalize, of course, but I do know of a few that have done that, and some of them also don’t grow as musicians because they haven’t been exposed to enough other things.

CB: Do you believe in the current existence of national schools, such as the German, Franco-Belgian, Russian, or even American? AC: I’d say that they exist to a certain degree, but they’re watered down. And like I’ve said, the boundaries are starting to disintegrate because of globalization and the fact that you can travel anywhere. Teachers travel all over the world now to give classes, and musicians travel abroad very often now to take lessons, and as long as that happens—my class, for instance: Out of my ten students, eight of them are foreigners. They come from Rumania and Bulgaria and from England, from Poland, Mexico, Chile; they come from all over the world. And so as a result of that it’s very difficult to say that those schools all now exist with their real specific focus because once you inject one Bulgarian with the Franco-Belgian “virus” that I teach, then he takes it back to Bulgaria, and he starts to tell other people how I did it, and of course that starts to disturb the “gene pool” of violin playing. And it has to; it has to disturb the gene pool because when the countries, areas, or territories were much more isolated, with very little influence from other places (particularly Eastern Europe), of course they’d been playing a certain way for many years, and now it’s not that way. They can get a video, they can get on the internet, they can watch something on television easily, so all of those influences have to change how you perceive yourself and how you perceive the world. And so eventually I think we’re going to get to a point where there won’t necessarily be violin “schools,” but rather violin “styles,” where people will have more options to try different ways of playing based on what they feel is best for them, and possibly use various different influences from different teachers, through different methods, be it master classes, or private lessons, or video, or video-conferencing (which is what is doing), and, of course, going to concerts. With all those influences, one can start making their own identity rather than an identity that’s related or connected somehow to a specific school.

CB: In your opinion, how important is it that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing? AC: Well, I must say, if I have a complaint in the violin world today, it’s the tremendous amount of ignorance and—I can’t put it any other way—the incredible amount of ignorance there is about violin playing. Violin playing—somehow due to Suzuki, and due to just vast amounts of violinists and vast amounts of so-called “professionals” and so-

7

called “teachers,” and people who want to study and become professionals—this is one profession where you can be called a professional if you made $15 over the weekend in a church. And so, because there’s no way to screen or to maintain certain levels of professionalism like a bar exam, or to get your PhD you must pass written and oral examinations. In violin playing it’s so totally nebulous, all over the world, that anybody can be a “professional,” and because of that, I think, the fact is that we’ve lost touch with the tradition of playing violin—the discipline of playing violin—which goes back five hundred years. And now the “gene pool” (as I like to say metaphorically) is just extremely mutated because people are just “playing.” They think it’s just like buying a used car: “I think I’ll be a violinist.” And really, that’s not the way violin playing ought to be. Violin playing should be a combination of being gifted and talented: having the gift of playing, and then the second thing is the discipline of playing—to apply a discipline and a very well-schooled knowledge to your violin playing. And if you do that, and then you follow or you connect with a specific teacher, a specific school or a specific concept, then you can really start to be a violinist and musician, and have a career that I think is creditable. But we’ve really watered it down tremendously now, where, for instance, at one well-known school you’ve got 250 violin players studying violin. I’m sure they’re all very good, but I’m sure if you asked all of them to name five important violinists from a hundred years ago they probably couldn’t do it—or what countries they’re associated with, or “Why was this piece written? For whom? And why?” and they have no connection to that. They just play, and they play the notes, and, it would be the same thing if you read a book and you didn’t have any cognizance of words. If you didn’t know what any of the words meant, but you could still read it because you could phonetically say the words—I think that’s what’s happening in violin playing. Everybody is speaking musically “phonetically,” but do they have a knowledge? Do they really know what they’re playing? Do they have a connection to it? Do they understand the discipline, and do they understand the commitment? Do they understand the traditions and the responsibilities of being a violinist? I think that has changed dramatically for the worse.

CB: Would you think that it would be more important for violinists to familiarize themselves with maybe a single school of violin playing, rather than getting familiar with different schools? AC: I think the minute you limit yourself in any way in music, and when it comes to knowledge, the minute you put a certain “cap,” I think that’s already deadly. I’m very familiar with virtually every school of violin playing that has ever existed in 500 years, starting with the monks in churches in the middle of nowhere in Italy. Those monks were the ones who taught Corelli. And so if you think about how totally isolated they were at that time, what an incredible invention it was, those instruments at that time back in the fourteenth century—the twelfth century even, with that were not really violins, of course—but how it evolved out of that, and how it grew and how it expanded into Europe and how it expanded all over the world after that. This is not Silicon Valley; it’s not like you just go out and buy computer chips. It takes time, and you really should familiarize yourselves with everything you can. As an example, I had a student who came in a couple years ago, a wonderful student of mine, very talented girl. She came in playing Tartini’s Devil’s Trill, and she didn’t know what to do with it, and she was doing the Kreisler

8

arrangement of it. I just told her very simply, “Look, it can’t be half ‘this,’ half ‘that’; or it can’t be one-third ‘this,’ one-third ‘that’ and one-third ‘the other thing.’” I said, “You have to make a commitment. Are you going to play it like Kreisler did? Play it like Kreisler, and just don’t fool around with the senza vibrato things and the funky bowings. Just play it the way he wants you to play it—in the Kreisler style. But if not, then go study something about Italian ornamentation, and come back and play it like they would have played it in the baroque time.” And so she did; she did that. She came back, and then I said, “Okay, now we have a concept. Now let’s advance it.”…And so she started to modify the way she held the bow; she modified her fingerings, she modified her sound a little bit, she even wound up changing her strings for this piece. And then I thought— well, you see, if you didn’t know that there was an Italian School, if you didn’t know there was an Austrian School, if you didn’t know how the arrangements worked and what the differences in the tonality were, and if you didn’t know the differences in the bow strokes and the bow holds, and the manner in which to phrase, and the ornamentation, if you don’t know all of that, you can’t get a convincing performance. You can’t have a committed performance of that, and that’s why it’s important to know as much as you can possibly know, if you want to be an artist. If you want to be a violin “player,” that’s another story, but if you want to be an artist, this is what it really requires.

CB: Would you like to recommend any sources which would be helpful in becoming better acquainted with yourself or with Mr. Gingold, for example, written interviews which may be difficult for others to find? AC: Well, there is a wonderful interview that’s published by David Blum, and the name of the book is called Quintet. It’s a series of five very in-depth, beautiful interviews that he did with five important musicians, and one of them was Mr. Gingold. The article with Mr. Gingold is called The Gold Coin, and it’s really a very beautiful article. It’s a short biography of him—a synopsis of his life. It’s really wonderful. Of course, you have those videos of Mr. Gingold. I have quite a number of recordings, and soon I’ll have a website. You could find out a lot about me from Carnegie Mellon University or Pittsburgh Symphony or from my management, which is American International Artists. And let’s see, my , my playing—I mean, it’s all out there somewhere. I have two trios that I play in: You might know about the Diaz Trio, and I also play in the Carnegie Mellon Trio.

9

CHARLES CASTLEMAN Eastman School of Music (Rochester, NY) Telephone Interview January 8, 2005

Chris Baker: Who has most influenced your own violin playing and teaching? You may mention more than one person, if you wish. Charles Castleman: My first teacher was Emmanuel Ondricek, whose left hand is a Sevcik product—actually, both hands. He was really a Sevcik product, although he also studied with Ysaÿe. And I studied with Ivan Galamian, who was mainly influenced by Capet, although possibly also somewhat by Mostras. I had a few lessons with that had an enormous impact on my bow arm, and I had several lessons with , who had a great deal of impact on my choice of fingerings and choice of bowings in performance.

CB: So all of those great teachers, you would say, have had the most influence, all together? CC: Yes, I would. Yes.

CB: You wouldn’t favor one or two above the others? CC: No, because each one did something so different.

CB: To what extent do you view your mentors’ influences as being associated with any particular school or schools of violin playing? CC: Both Galamian and Oistrakh would be regarded as being from the Franco-Belgian School (bowing), and they were my “bowing” influences. I think that Ondricek—I think we’d call it a Sevcik School of left-hand, particularly left-hand, but also right hand. I’ve run into other Sevcik students who had the same right hand I did. There’s Michael Frischenschlager, who was the chair at Vienna Hochschule, who also was a Sevcik student, and I had a conversation with him, and he learned the same bow arm that I learned from Ondricek.

CB: Was Ondricek also a student of Sevcik, as well as his assistant? CC: Yes, he was. He was also the brother of Franz Ondricek, one of the famous violinists.

CB: But Franz didn’t study with Ysaÿe? CC: No, but I think Franz studied with Sevcik also. Jan Kubelik (a famous Sevcik student) and Emmanuel Ondricek worked very close together very frequently as examples of Sevcik’s playing and teaching.

CB: To what extent do you view your own playing and teaching as being associated with any particular school or schools of violin playing? CC: The Franco-Belgian bow grip is the grip that I teach.

CB: Franco-Belgian in the sense of how Flesch presents it in his Art of Violin Playing?

10

CC: Yes, I would think so; sure. And my left hand definitely is highly influenced by Sevcik’s concepts, although the fact that I’m a performer has changed things. Like everyone else, I’ve adapted it so that by now it’s almost not quite recognizable as part of [the Sevcik approach]. I think mostly by now it’s diverged, except for the Franco-Belgian bow grip and a particular conformation of the left hand in upper positions that I learned from Sevcik.

CB: So, would you say that you view your playing and teaching as being associated with a particular school, or not necessarily? CC: Not necessarily, except for what I just mentioned. I think that every student presents such individual problems. I mentioned Henryk Szeryng; he was an enormous influence on me in everything he ever taught me, and all the various lessons were things that would be associated with no school whatsoever, but were things he had learned from years of experience performing—a good fingering or a good bowing in a particular situation— which clearly was not part of his training. He had simply learned it himself, and had passed it on to me. And the main thing that Oistrakh gave to me had to do with the right wrist, because I had three teachers with very different points of view: the Sevcik point of view with the right wrist is that it should be stationary and basically immobile; Galamian (I would say unfortunately) doesn’t seem to say anything about the right wrist, so he didn’t do anything about what was going on, and Oistrakh made it loose because he was very much [inclined to] flexibility in the right wrist. So I’m not sure, I guess that would be associated with the schools involved, but I don’t know. Considering that Galamian and Oistrakh presented it so differently, and they both had the same school, I’m not sure.

CB: In your experience with other professional violinists, do you generally perceive violin playing and teaching today as being associated with violin schools? CC: Right hand, yes; left hand, no. What the Franco-Belgian School presents is a bow grip and an approach that is intermediate between what you might call a German or French version, and a Russian version; and as such, it is advantageous for the maximum number of people as a starting point, and it is a very good teaching vehicle because you’re giving them kind of the average—the place to start. But I think teachers and students eventually develop their own version of it. I think it’s a good starting point even though I’m not sure that all the people who would say they have Franco-Belgian bow arms look very similar.

CB: Do you recall specific technical advice which your mentors regularly emphasized to many of their students? Please cite any examples you would like, especially if you feel they are hallmarks of a particular school. CC: I learned my left hand from Ondricek, who died when I was 13 or 14 years old, and because I was a prodigy I was kind of “built” by then already. My later teachers didn’t say anything about the left hand; they just left it alone, so I can’t say much about the left hand because I don’t even remember how I was taught. A lot of the current violin teachers studied with Galamian or Delay (Delay being the same school), and there’s a lot of the grip, the bow change—the use of a lot of finger articulations are all with the Franco-Belgian School as practiced by Galamian and by Delay, and I think a lot of teachers are using that as a model.

11

CB: Do you recall specific exercises and/or repertoire which your mentors regularly assigned to their students? CC: I would think the basis for Galamian’s bow technique was collé.8 That was the basic tool. Collé was the way that you developed the strength and flexibility in your fingers to be able to manipulate the bow the way they wanted.

CB: Do you perceive significant differences between your mentors’ approaches and your own approach to violin playing and teaching? I know you’ve mentioned already that you consider yourself to be a combination of different styles, but if there’s anything else you would like to mention along those lines… CC: Not so much in technical terms. In terms of my own teaching, I think I’m much more concerned with specific physical strengths, weaknesses, attributes, flexibility, etc., of my individual students, and adapting my teaching to that—figuring out ways to loosen them up, figuring out ways to make them hold the bow perhaps in a way different from how someone else would with different characteristics—this more so than Galamian did. I think he had a system, and although his system was the basis for my bow arm, I think (given all of that), I think that I don’t hold to a system anywhere near as much as he did.

CB: So he was more uniform in his approach, maybe, than you are? CC: Yes.

CB: Are there any additional aspects of any violin school which influence your own playing and teaching which we haven’t talked about? CC: Well, there might be an interesting story with that. The so-called “Heifetz” bow arm (that was called the Russian bow arm) is one with a very pronated right hand, which gives one a lot of strength and not much flexibility, and for many years, that was the bow arm that was being taught because everybody admired Heifetz so much, [but it was taught] without a whole lot of success because it had so little flexibility. But if one looked at Heifetz’s physique and the way he worked, clearly he was someone with extraordinary flexibility and not necessarily strong. He was kind of—a little frail, in a way, and so he had come up with this particular bow grip that gave him maximum strength, and with his phenomenal flexibility it worked just fine, but with someone with lesser flexibility it didn’t work so well at all. I had a student several years ago who had studied with several teachers, very fine teachers. She was very small, not a very strong girl but very flexible, and she had studied with people from all the schools that you’ve ever heard of, and none of it really helped her. She was having a lot of trouble with tendonitis and things of that nature, and I decided to teach her the Heifetz bow arm—which of course I’ve never played from, but [from] my understanding of it—and it had wonderful results, because in fact it had exactly the effect that I had hoped. In other words [it] gave her the strength that she needed in her own, wonderful flexibility. So I found that this clearly is not a bow grip I would teach generally, but I found it really valuable in this one case.

8 See Galamian, Principles, 73-74.

12

CB: That’s interesting. Knowing how to adapt to the students is not always easy, so it’s great to have a sense for that. Would you say that the “Heifetz” bow arm is maybe synonymous with the Russian School? CC: Well, that’s what they call the Russian School, but I’ve avoided that because the Russians like Oistrakh and Kogan had Franco-Belgian bow arms, not like Heifetz’s at all, and Milstein’s is not Heifetz’s either; you know, Elman’s wasn’t Heifetz’s, so that’s what they call the Russian bow arm, but I think it was just Heifetz’s.

CB: Do you believe in the current existence of national schools, such as the German, Franco-Belgian, Russian, or even American? CC: Only in terms of the bow grip; I mean you can’t see someone play or hear someone play and know where they came from at this point. Outside of bow grips, I’m not so sure that necessarily holds. Joseph Silverstein, another excellent teacher, still teaches the Old French School, which is [in contrast to] Heifetz’s index finger, which (as I mentioned) contacts the bow very high up on the index finger, and the Franco-Belgian, which contacts the index finger mid-finger. Silverstein’s (what I would call French School) contacts it very near the first joint, not the second joint, creating enormous flexibility, not as much strength, but in a different way.

CB: I’ve never heard that somebody nowadays is teaching that—well, I’ve heard it called the German grip, what you called the Old French. Maybe it’s the same thing. CC: He teaches it with enormous success. He very frequently used to come and give master classes at my summer program; and what I found was [even] with his very different bow arm, we were looking for exactly the same result. I think what you have more than anything else is this: A teacher has a concept of the ideal product that comes from his students in terms of the sound that comes out, in terms of the flexibility, in terms of the strength, and we found that even though our bow arms are entirely different, the concept was so much the same that it worked very well to have students go back and forth.

CB: In your opinion, how important is it that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing? CC: I think it’s important to know that there isn’t a “right” way of playing. I think if you don’t realize that there are several schools of violin playing you’ll think that what your teacher taught you perhaps is right, and anything that you hear about [other approaches] is wrong, because your teacher is unlikely to be showing you schools that aren’t his own (I’m an exception). And if you know that there are these different schools, and they have different advantages—for example, that there was a bow arm that isn’t right for you, which contributed to Heifetz being the great artist that he was—you then understand enough and you know enough that you’re willing to adapt to what you are taught [in order] to help yourself more, and to help your students more. But I think as an exercise of just simply knowing what they were—knowing what’s different among them is important—I’m not sure you have to be able to understand all of them as they function.

13

GLENN DICTEROW Juilliard; School of Music Telephone Interview January 8, 2005

Chris Baker: Who has most influenced your own violin playing and teaching? You may mention more than one person, if you wish. Glenn Dicterow: Certainly my father was one of the biggest influences; he was a great musician. He was principal second of the Philharmonic (Harold was his name), and he began teaching both my brother and myself. Soon after, I began studying with other people, including Manuel Compinsky, , Erno Neufeld; then, of course were the performers that I studied with, Heifetz and Henryk Szeryng; and then Galamian at Juilliard.

CB: To what extent do you view your mentors’ influences as being associated with any particular school or schools of violin playing? GD: I think all of them are associated with different types of schools, but mostly I believe it’s the—not the Soviet—but the pre-Soviet Russian School that influenced me mostly (the one that went back before Oistrakh): Leopold Auer, Milstein, Heifetz. The most special influence musically would be .

CB: So do you view your own playing and teaching as being associated with the Auer School, combined with Kreisler’s musicality? GD: Yes.

CB: In your experience with other professional violinists, do you generally perceive violin playing and teaching today as being associated with violin schools? GD: Well, I don’t know what school you would call that, because a lot of people are influenced obviously by the Galamian/Delay connection; many of them are soloists out there. Then you have Vengerov’s School which is—I don’t remember the name of his teacher, I think it’s Bron.

CB: Yes, Bron. GD: But I’m not sure, mostly I would say today, most of them have come from the Galamian/Delay School. I suppose you could call that Franco-Belgian.

CB: Yes, Galamian is sort of his own school, in a sense, maybe a combination of the Belgian and the Russian. GD: Yes, I would say so.

CB: And his own—mostly his own, probably. Do you recall specific technical advice which your mentors regularly emphasized to many of his students? Please cite any examples you would like, especially if you feel they are hallmarks of a particular school. GD: I would say the right arm of the Auer School. There’s a lot more “color” involved rather than, say, in the Galamian School. That [Galamian] to me was just, you know, big

14

sound production: a lot of weight with not a lot of color, though I’ll have to say the older school [Auer] would be more mental, as far as the bow arm is concerned.

CB: You studied with Heifetz (who was the Auer School), and Blinder who was a second generation Auer student, and then Galamian. But Heifetz was more of an influence as far as the bow arm was concerned? GD: Heifetz, Milstein, Kreisler were much more of an influence as far as the color that they were able to produce, and their sound.

CB: Do you recall specific exercises and/or repertoire which your mentors regularly assigned to their students? GD: Galamian certainly assigned to his students the études of Gaviniés and Dont, and scales, of course. Heifetz was a fanatic of scales, Paganini caprices.

CB: Oh, and the Paganini caprices also? GD: Oh yeah. Not that he performed too many of them, but…

CB: But he would assign them a lot? GD: Yes, he would.

CB: Do you perceive significant differences between your mentor’s approach and your own approach to violin playing and teaching? GD: Well, I have many mentors, so yes, I would say there’s an approach, definitely, that, all mixed together, comes out perhaps as a makeup of all of them.

CB: And so you’ve combined the different things that you’ve learned from all of them? GD: Yes. Mainly the bow arm is the key to individuality and color.

CB: Do you believe in the current existence of national schools, such as the German, Franco-Belgian, Russian, or even American? GD: I think they’re getting more and more co-mingled. I believe that there is definitely a difference in the German style and the American style, I would say, but I think in America you have quite a mix because you have so many nationalities. I think that the American influence is very strong, certainly in the Asian culture. Musically speaking, they tend to gravitate toward the American School.

CB: American School meaning the Galamian…? GD: Mainly, I would say, but we also have the other teachers that certainly were important, [for instance, at] Curtis—Zimbalist in the olden days, a slightly different approach: more musically inclined, at least virtuosically. That’s why I say it’s very continental, very international.

CB: In your opinion, how important is it that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing? GD: Very important.

15

BAYLA KEYES University Telephone Interview April 14, 2004

Chris Baker: Who has most influenced your own violin playing and teaching? You may mention more than one person, if you wish. Bayla Keyes: There are several big influences. I’ll start with Paul Kling, who was my teacher at the University of Louisville, Kentucky. He was concertmaster of the Louisville at the time, then he moved to Canada and he taught in Victoria, Canada. As a young boy, he was a prisoner at Teresenstadt [concentration camp near ], so he was exposed to some of the greatest musical influences in Europe, many of whom were killed in that camp, but he survived. He was and is an incredible musician, a wonderful violinist, and it was just amazing luck to have him as a teacher. He basically kicked me out of the University of Louisville and made me go audition for Ivan Galamian. I got into Mr. Galamian’s studio at Curtis, and he was an amazing technician— really taught me about how to play the violin, although he didn’t combine it with the kind of musical information that Paul Kling had given me. I think the biggest musical influence on me during my time at Curtis was . He really became a mentor to me. There was a woman at Curtis named who was an amazing influence. She has a whole physical system of teaching; she calls it “coordination.” That was a fantastic piece of luck for me to be able to study with her, sort of on the side, but I also studied with her a great deal in the year immediately after my graduation from Curtis. Karen Tuttle is basically the “goddess” of the viola world. She taught most of the major violists in this country, including Jeffery Irvine, Dean Hansel, , Sally Clark, Michelle LaCourse, Karen Richards, Karen Dreyfus,…just on and on.

CB: Did you actually study violin with her? BK: Yes. She taught this coordination system which was basically a method of hooking the bow to the breathing, and so you learned a way to breathe so that you were constantly relaxing as you breathed out. It was a marvelous system for releasing tension. She worked in a large way with the body, so it almost didn’t matter what instrument she was teaching. She was basically teaching the relationship of the body to the music and the body to the instrument, so that you would be comfortable. This was a very different thing than what I had learned from the other teachers, who were concentrating either totally on the music or totally on the violin itself, like Mr. Galamian. Karen Tuttle ended up teaching at Curtis, Juilliard, Aspen—she’s just been the big name. It was fun to be the token violinist [laughs]. Long after I had been out of school, I developed some tendonitis in my hands. I wasn’t living in Boston yet; I was in the Muir quartet but we were living in Connecticut and we were on the road touring about 250 days a year, playing something like 120 concerts a year—very rigorous. I developed tendonitis carrying the luggage and everything like that, and I heard about this wonderful teacher in Boston named George Neikrug. I took about a dozen lessons with him, and that really changed my life because he had studied with D.C. Dounis. George Neikrug is actually a cellist, but (like Karen

16

Tuttle) he teaches all instruments. He kind of specializes in tendonitis and knows all these little ways to show how to do things; he just opened my eyes. I feel like I’ve had these great influences in my life, and I feel extremely blessed. I can’t say that I’m just one person’s student. I feel like I got such important things from all these people I’ve mentioned.

CB: Did you also study with Shumsky? BK: I did. I studied with Shumsky for two years at Yale. Well, he was phenomenal, but I think his technique was so different from what I had learned from Mr. Kling and Mr. Galamian that it—it kind of confused me. It wasn’t congruent with everything else that I had learned. For example, Galamian teaches to be slightly pronated on the bow, and Mr. Shumsky was teaching me to be very square on the bow.

CB: Meaning, with a flatter wrist? BK: Right, exactly. I didn’t understand enough to integrate it with what I already knew, and I think that was part of why I hurt myself, because I was not good at integrating different systems.

CB: So by the time you studied with Shumsky, your technique was probably pretty much established anyway, as far as what you had learned from Galamian and these others? BK: Certainly the Galamian stuff, but then later on when I hurt myself and I learned the Dounis stuff, that was a huge help.

CB: That was after Shumsky though, right? BK: Yes, and I would say that I went through interesting stages because after I studied with George Neikrug (which was in my early 30s; I had this series of lessons with him), I spent the next ten years or so integrating the Dounis concepts into what I was already doing with the Galamian training. They’re very different, so it took me quite a while to sort that out in my own playing. Then when I left the Muir Quartet in 1995 and began teaching full time at Boston University, playing with my piano trio (Triple Helix) and playing a few around town, I found I had to go back and draw on the Galamian training that I had before, because although the Dounis stuff works better in the , the Galamian stuff works better for the concertos (which he taught fabulously; he specialized in the concertos). Interestingly enough, it also works better for the piano trio because with the Galamian concept of sound there’s a lot more brilliance and clarity. Are you familiar with all the collé and martelé stuff?

CB: Yes, which he points out in his Principles of Violin Playing and Teaching. BK: Yes, and that makes a very articulate playing with a lot of consonants, and basically a large, ringing sound with a free use of bow. It works really well in a concert hall, but since there’s articulation it also works well next to a piano because the piano has an attack, whereas the Dounis stuff—well, I tell my kids that the Dounis stuff is the “push- pull,” which means that your hand responds to the bow (kind of a “melting” response which makes a really different sound). With the Galamian you do an active finger motion at the start of a stroke, and of course I use them both; it depends on what you want in any given situation.

17

CB: So you find the Dounis to be more helpful particularly in quartets? BK: Yes. Any time you want more of a “blendy” sound, or a more covered sound. Galamian said three things to me all the time: “closer to the bridge,” “more bow,” and “make every note beautiful.” With the Dounis, you are working with releases. The Karen Tuttle stuff that I learned is quite congruent with the Dounis, because Karen Tuttle works with the releases in the large muscle groups, and the Dounis stuff that George Neikrug showed me works with the releases in the small muscle groups of the knuckles, the fingers, the wrist (in both hands actually), so I began to understand these principles of “release,” and what I call “softness” or “melting.” Galamian is more strength-based, so you have a lot of power and a lot of muscle. Sometimes that’s exactly what you want, but sometimes you want relaxing, and a sound which reflects a suppleness in the muscles. It’s hard for me to explain without showing you.

CB: On a scale from 1 to 5, to what extent do you view your mentors’ influences as being associated with a particular school or schools of violin playing: “1” being closely associated, “3” being somewhat associated, and “5,” not associated? BK: “3,” somewhat associated. Paul Kling certainly came from the European line which was influenced by Carl Flesch and Sevcik—that whole stream. But Galamian was a student of Capet, so there’s that whole stream. Karen Tuttle studied with Dounis, but she was also ’s assistant as a student at Curtis, and she came up with her method while observing William Primrose. She went to all of his lessons and watched him play, and she came up with these physical principles. She really founded her own school.

CB: Many people refer to the “Galamian School” now, too—he being also his own school. BK: I think that’s right, and it’s not exactly Russian, but it’s certainly closely related to Russian, in my opinion.

CB: More so than Franco-Belgian? BK: Yes—oh, yes.

CB: Do you believe Galamian meant to establish his own school? BK: He took a lot of Capet’s ideas and he went further with them. He had very original ideas for developing technique and very good methods for achieving results with a large number of students. I think that’s why he had such great success as a teacher-trainer in this country. That’s what all great teachers do: They take what they’re given and then they go further and do something original with them. You can always trace your heritage, but I mean—it’s got to be just like , right? You know, Bartók studied the music of Mozart and Haydn and Beethoven and Brahms, but his music doesn’t sound like them. Paul Kling had the Franco-Belgian influence in Teresenstadt, but he was also a huge fan of David Oistrakh and followed him all over the place, so he was heavily influenced by the Russian School as well. So, there again, the greatness of his teaching came from his taking concepts from both schools. I also felt that way about Galamian and about Karen Tuttle, too, so I think all these teachers, while coming somewhat out of a tradition, went on to be very much not just a “parrot” of a tradition.

18

CB: Again using the 1 to 5 scale, to what extent do you view your own playing and teaching as being associated with a particular school or schools of violin playing: “1” being closely associated, “3” being somewhat associated, and “5,” not associated? BK: Well, I guess I’d have to put myself at about a “3” because I definitely take material from all of them. I definitely quote them and use it, but I’m definitely teaching in a way that none of them taught because I’m using materials from other schools. I’m not a “single-school” person; I’m a combo.

CB: Again choosing from 1 to 5, in your experience with other professional violinists, to what extent do you generally perceive violin playing and teaching today as being associated with violin schools? BK: Between “1” and “2.” I see people teaching in a very—kind of “pigeon-holed” way. I certainly see, even on the college level, that the teachers send students to other teachers from the same school. So, in a certain way it’s disadvantageous to the kids because they’ll go straight through and have only [for instance] Galamian-trained teachers. Even the same can be said for the Karen Tuttle School because she has so many students all over the country in string quartets and at colleges teaching and in all the . You can’t go anywhere without—I mean, it’s just huge—her influence. And all of them network and send each other their students, so it’s pretty hard to be a violist in this country and not come into that school, because there are so many of them. My complaint is that these teachers don’t explore enough in other traditions. If the teacher just takes what they’ve been taught, and they don’t go further, sometimes the teaching can get very sterile.

CB: Do you recall specific technical advice which your mentors regularly emphasized to many of their students? Please cite any examples you would like, especially if they are hallmarks of a particular school. You have mentioned a lot already; anything else? BK: There is a great difference from teacher to teacher in how much the musical principles are taught, and that’s another thing that has me greatly concerned. I think there has been a tendency to divorce the violin teaching from the music itself and leave the musical part of the instruction to the teachers or something like that, which I think does a vast disservice to the concerto and solo repertoire. I think it’s one of the reasons why it’s so hard to tell the soloists apart. In ’s book Indivisible by Four, he mentions how in the old days when he was growing up, none of the big famous soloists sounded like each other. Heifetz was completely—you know, you could distinguish his sound, vibrato; Elman was his own; Kreisler was his own. They didn’t sound like each other. And Arnold made the complaint, with which I somewhat agree, which is that you turn on the radio [today] and you hear these soloists and they all sound wonderful and have incredibly high virtuosic style, but there’s a kind of “sameness” of standards. And this is not just in the violin world, this is going on throughout music. Eric Rusk, a fantastic horn player, says that there’s a kind of “internationalization” of standards in horn playing. There used to be different schools of horn playing, different sounds in different parts of the world, and now you can’t tell where a horn player was trained because they’re all sounding the same. In one way it means that there’s a much higher technical standard all over the world, but in another way, it takes out the different flavors. It makes kind of a uniformity, which is somewhat

19

distressing. I think that the kids are encouraged to come up to this very high technical level without being given the tools for finding out how to play the music in a way that makes what they have to say very special and very individual and unique, and frankly, it’s much easier to teach the technique than it is to teach the stuff that I’m talking about. But the teachers that I mentioned to you—Paul Kling and Felix Galimir, and to some extent Karen Tuttle—were constantly teaching about the musical principles, and for me, that’s the reason to be in music: to make what’s in the music come alive. All this technical stuff, as fascinating and wonderful as it is, and as helpful as it is, it’s just a means to an end, and a lot of times you can get the “end” by emphasizing the musical principles. A lot of the teaching that I received was kind of teaching from “a” viewpoint. Karen Tuttle did teach musical principles, but most of what she gave me was the physical coordination. Likewise, George Neikrug gave me tremendous technical and physical help. We didn’t talk a whole lot about the musical things that were going on because he was basically fixing my tendonitis problem. Galamian, likewise—once I asked him about a musical phrasing and he said, “I am a doctor of the violin. If you have a problem, I fix it. The musical stuff is up to you.” He just came right out and said that. So, if you had the musical talent and the curiosity, then you could take what he gave you and apply it to the music, but he was not interested in that. I can’t teach that way. I have to teach the way Paul Kling taught me, which was always from the standpoint of what you’re trying to do— what you’re trying to express in the music. You start with the score; start with the musical idea because you can’t even begin to make your technical decisions unless you know what it is you’re going for. What character do you want? That determines the sound that you want; that determines the bow hold you’re going to use, and the amount of bow that you will use. It all springs from the musical impulse.

CB: That’s in contrast to the way most of your teachers taught, except for Paul Kling? BK: I would not say most of my teachers, but certainly Galamian, and a lot of the violin teaching that I am seeing, based on the people who come and audition for Tanglewood and for Boston University, where you get this wonderful cleanliness and you get this strong sound with a steady bow speed right next to the bridge, and you don’t get colors and musical ideas. See, Galamian had this belief that you teach the technique when they’re young and then later on, much later on, after they’ve learned all the concertos and everything and they’re all completely fabulous violinists, then you teach them musical stuff; then they can easily develop that. I think that if you start out teaching them the technique, very often something that needs to be encouraged and nurtured at an early age just will not really develop fully. When you’re trying to teach all these different things, it’s very difficult to get all of these concepts. That’s one of the reasons I give [students] a lesson a week, and undergraduates also get an extra lesson a week with my assistants. Then, they all come to studio class for an hour and a half each week, and I give them handouts: I have to give them a lot of information so that they can get the whole system. My kids are kind of snowed under with—I mean if I could, I’d like to do the Russian thing, where they just come to lessons the whole day. Yuri Mazurkevich told me that when David Oistrakh was not touring, when he was teaching, all the students went to all the lessons. It was an immersion into the system. There’s a lot to be said for that kind of thing, rather than just one hour a week. I can’t teach them what they need to know in one hour a week.

20

[With students] I tend to use études that I enjoyed playing and listening to. They’re just some of the Dont and Kreutzer études that I enjoy the sound of, so it’s something fun to practice. You can give pleasure to yourself while you’re working on a specific problem. The advantage with the études is that there are usually far fewer problems than you might have in even a first movement of a concerto, where you have many different problems in a row. With an étude, you can basically concentrate on one or two aspects and fix those things inside of the étude. And I must say that I use scales much more than I used to. I use scales, arpeggios, and double stops because the problems that show up in the pieces always show up in the scales as well. When you have them in the scales, you can fix them without the additional complications of the musical ideas, and then when you go back into the pieces, your technical foundation is good. So I teach far more technique than, for example, Paul Kling taught me.

CB: Generally more than your other teachers, would you say? BK: Well, Galamian was a total scale fanatic, so I don’t believe I do as much as he did, but none of my teachers taught scales and technique the way that I do except for Galamian. Generally speaking, scales and this kind of technical work is uniform with the bigger teachers—you know, like the Vamos’s and David Cerone and the Juilliard Prep School.

CB: Do you perceive significant differences between your mentors’ approach and your own approach to violin playing and teaching? BK: Yes, I guess so, mainly because of the fact that I’m trying to do all of the things [laughs], which is why I’m at a university instead of a conservatory, I suppose. Certainly I start from the musical characters, which is not like Galamian. But I do incorporate a great deal of the technical, specific things which I think can really enhance—I remember I was playing the Chaconne for Felix Galimir (I studied with him after I got out of Curtis and moved to ) and I was playing one of the arpeggiated sections. The notes in the middle of the chord were not speaking, so I asked him what to do, and he had no idea. He didn’t know, and he simply said, “I don’t know; you’ll just have to figure that out yourself.” And, you know, if you’re very talented, and just naturally physically gifted, you can figure these things out yourself, but if you happen to have a teacher who knows exactly what to tell you, it saves you hours! And so I do a certain amount of that kind of technical teaching. I show them a specific muscle group associated with a specific technical task, like string crossings or shifting. I try to get them to understand the way the muscle groups work in the most natural way possible. This also goes along with Karen Tuttle’s teaching because I try to make them very aware of what their bodies are doing, so that they won’t tense up inappropriately. Basically, I tell them that their bodies have to be free to vibrate so that the music can go through them, so that they can feel the musical impulses through their bodies and then coming out through the violin. So I get sort of mystical by that point. I feel like I will do whatever it takes to get somebody to sound good, and if what works is for me to tell them to think about their fantasies, that’s what I’ll ask them to do. If what works is for me to tell them to move their thumb on the bow and hold it in a different way, that’s what I’ll tell them to do. If what I have to do is scare them to death so they’ll practice, then that’s what I’ll do. Actually, Galamian said a wonderful thing in

21

one of his books: he said that the teacher’s job is to study the student and figure out the key to the student. I do take that advice to heart, and I don’t just mean technically. What you’re trying to do is bring the best out of the student, and there are so many ways into someone’s heart, just like there are so many ways into the music.

CB: Do you believe in the current existence of national schools, such as the German, Franco-Belgian, Russian, or even American? BK: Of all of those, I think the one that really has an identity still is the Russian. The others, I would say, have become extremely blended, and I think the American School is de facto a blend. It would be pretty hard to say distinguishing hallmarks of an American School in my mind, but the Russian is very clear.

CB: In your mind, Galamian follows the Russian very closely, at least as far as the bow arm is concerned? BK: It’s not identical, but I think it’s pretty close. It’s certainly far closer to Russian than it is to Franco-Belgian. I associate Galamian with the Russian bow hold because he basically “married” it to the Franco-Belgian hold.

CB: Back to the 1 to 5 scale; in your opinion, how important is it that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing? BK: “1,” very important, which goes back to the conversation earlier about how people unfortunately tend to be taught one method all the way through and they don’t get exposed to others. Well, it can take a long time, and you have to get around, so I don’t think you can expect a 20-year-old to be able to do this.

CB: Would you like to recommend any sources which would be helpful in becoming better acquainted with yourself or with your mentors, for example written interviews which may be difficult for others to find? BK: Michelle LaCourse is a viola professor at Boston University who has written articles about Karen Tuttle. She was also a former student of hers, and was her assistant for many years at Peabody.

CB: I’m aware of Dounis’ The Daily Dozen and The Absolute Independence of the Fingers; are there other publications by Dounis that you would recommend? BK: Actually, The Artist’s Technique of Violin Playing, Op. 12, is the one I use the most; it’s published. I’d also recommend a small yellow booklet that talks about useful principles and has musical examples: New Aids to the Technical Development of the Violinist, Op. 27. I should also mention Simon Fischer's Basics, which has great information about both Dounis and Galamian, also Dorothy Delay. It has lots of good pictures. There’s also the recent Eric Rosenbluth edition of Carl Flesch’s Art of Violin Playing.

22

MIKHAIL KOPELMAN Eastman School of Music (Rochester, NY) Telephone Interview March 31, 2004

Chris Baker: Who has most influenced your violin playing and teaching? You may mention more than one person, if you wish. Mikhail Kopelman: Maybe I’ll talk first about my influences, not as a teacher, but as a performer. When I was a student at Conservatory there were many great musicians. If talking about violinists, of course Oistrakh was, let’s say, the “god.” But I would say that I listened to all the recordings of, like, Heifetz, Elman, Kogan, and I was influenced by these people too. So I was influenced by the old generation of great violinists. I was fortunate to listen live to Oistrakh for many, many years, and Kogan. Talking about teaching—well, it’s hard to say because I didn’t learn, really, how to teach violin—I just learned during my many years of study at and before Moscow Conservatory. Then mainly I learned a lot when I started to play in string quartets. Of course, my teachers—Maya Glezarova and —they taught me, so I learned a lot from them, and then I learned a lot from different musicians, just [by] myself.

CB: Would you say there were one or two people who had the most influence on you, or would you say it was really a combination of all these artists that you were hearing, rather than just your teachers? MK: Mainly it’s a combination of the artists I was hearing. Also I learned a lot when I joined the —from the old members of the Borodin quartet. But it’s not “violin” playing—it’s mainly making music, you know.

CB: So would you say there are probably no one or two people who have influenced you the most? MK: That’s right.

CB: On a scale from 1 to 5, to what extent do you view Glezarova’s and Yankelevich’s influences as being associated with a particular school or schools of violin playing: “1” being closely associated, “3” being somewhat associated, and “5,” not associated? MK: I think without doubt it’s associated with the Russian School for sure, number “1,” because Yankelevich, he was really—it was real Russian School. His teacher was Nalbandyan, who was a pupil of Auer. I think he was an assistant of Auer, many years ago.

CB: Again using the 1 to 5 scale, to what extent do you view your own playing and teaching as being associated with a particular school or schools of violin playing? MK: Let’s say “2,” because I was also influenced in my early years before Moscow Conservatory, when I studied in Uzhgorod (the small city where I was born), and the teacher with whom I was studying was Efim Flomen, a pupil of Enesco. He had studied at Bucharest Conservatory. But mostly I was influenced by Yankelevich—by Russian School—because I studied there since I was thirteen years old.

23

CB: Again using the 1 to 5 scale, in your experience with other professional violinists, to what extent do you generally perceive violin playing and teaching today as being associated with violin schools: “1” being closely associated, “5,” not associated? MK: Well, we can put “2,” maybe.

CB: Do you recall specific exercises and/or repertoire which your mentors regularly assigned to their students? MK: Every day I was playing scales, arpeggios, double stops, and every day I played some Bach. It was really a very important thing to do. So I spent at least one hour every day to practice scales and different kinds of exercises. It was like, you know, it’s like a prayer. Still I’m doing this until now. I try, if I have a little time, I always play a little Bach or exercises, which is very important, I think.

CB: Do you recall specific technical advice which your mentors regularly emphasized to many of their students? Please cite any examples you would like, especially if they are hallmarks of a particular school. MK: I remember nothing specific because, well…specific it was in some points when, for example, I came to Moscow they started to change some things like my vibrato, so I spent much time to learn how to vibrate, but it was just a short period, so I couldn’t call this—you know—it was not “regular.” Nothing special, I think.

CB: I’m sure it depended on the individual students, too. MK: That’s true.

CB: But nothing sticks out in your mind as being something routinely emphasized? MK: No.

CB: Do you perceive significant differences between your mentors’ approach and your own approach to violin playing and teaching? MK: I think there are some differences, yes, because when I started, my teacher always gave advice for all students to use, let’s say, the same fingerings, bowings, you know. Everybody played so it was, let’s say, just one specific “edition.”

CB: Are you talking specifically about Yankelevich’s students? MK: Yes.

CB: So he would prescribe specific fingerings and bowings. MK: Yes, which is a normal thing, but it was very difficult to change anything if you had some of your own ideas, because it was—well, it was a sort of “system.” I am more flexible, I would say, with my students. I think that many things depend on physiology. Everybody has a different physiology, so some fingerings for some people are just not good. But I believe that fingering is also—when we put fingerings and bowings—it’s also not only [affecting the] technical aspect, but the musical aspect too, for sure. So, it’s quite a complex thing. And also, I think what I really learned during my many years playing

24

with string quartets—it’s a more detailed approach, let’s say, for colors; so I know how to use different kinds of colors because I learned a lot playing string quartets.

CB: Would you say that this was something you weren’t really “taught,” but that you sort of acquired yourself? Is this a difference in your approach to violin playing? MK: Yes, it’s just a more musical approach now. I’ve learned a lot of great music since I was studying as a student, so I think my musical approach now is completely different. My understanding of the music, and understanding of the sound production and quality, and different styles, you know—it’s different. So with my own experience, I can maybe teach my students technically how to make different colors.

CB: Using technique to teach those different colors? MK: Yes.

CB: Do you find that to be a difference between your own approach and Yankelevich’s approach, for instance? MK: I believe…something is different, yes. What I got from Yankelevich—it was a basis. The “school” which I got, it’s like a basic thing. Then you—let’s say, you build the “house.”

CB: So the details you acquired more on your own, maybe? MK: Yes, and you learn all your life.

CB: Are there any additional aspects of any violin school which influence your own playing and teaching—anything that we haven’t talked about that you would want to mention? MK: As I mentioned, I listened to all the recordings like Kreisler, Elman, Zimbalist, Heifetz, and well—these people: Kreisler was a different school, and, let’s say, Thibaud (French School) or Grumiaux (Belgian School). So I learned a lot from these great musicians, just listening to how they play…you can learn a lot if you listen. So I would say I was influenced by the old masters, too, just through the recordings. And also in the Russian School I was always told about making a great sound—beautiful sound like a voice; and I was listening to the old Italian singers, which I think also helped a lot to understand the nature of the sound.

CB: Do you believe in the current existence of national schools, such as the German, Franco-Belgian, Russian, or even American? MK: Yes, I believe they still exist, but these days I think it’s not so pure like it was before, not so clean. It’s a different world now. Everything is “mixed.” Many nationalities live in different countries, so I would say that it is sort of a mixture now.

CB: Back to the 1 to 5 scale. In your opinion, how important is it that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing: “1” being very important, and “5,” not important? MK: Well, I would say that it’s important, I think. It’s very important, so I would say “1.”

25

OLEH KRYSA Eastman School of Music (Rochester, NY) Telephone Interview March 24, 2004

Chris Baker: Who has most influenced your own violin playing and teaching? You may mention more than one person, if you wish. Oleh Krysa: Of course my great teacher David Oistrakh—but of course I was absorbing different ideas from different players...Jascha Heifetz, Kreisler, Nathan Milstein, many Russian players—but I think maybe because my nature is closer to the nature of David Oistrakh, I think the most valuable time for me was with him. Of course, great pianists and great singers as well, and cellists. One time I was very involved in . I liked opera, you know. I was sitting at many, many show[s] of opera because my first teacher was concertmaster in the opera theater, so I was very interested. But later on I switched to symphony music, solo music for violin, and chamber music.

CB: Was [Konstantin] Mikhailov your teacher who played in the opera? OK: Mikhailov, yes. He was a student of Korguyeff, and Korguyeff was [an] assistant to Auer, so I had a very good teacher from when I was six.

CB: You started with him when you were six years old? OK: Yes.

CB: Would you say that Oistrakh was your greatest influence? OK: Of course, because I am always saying that he was not only a teacher of violin, he was our godfather. He taught us how to live, how to manage, how to not only be a good violinist, but also a good man and good colleague; and he was incredible.

CB: To what extent do you view Oistrakh’s influence as being associated with a particular school or schools of violin playing? OK: Of course, he’s very Russian School. He presents a very, very valuable…example of Russian School: that singing technique, perfection, excellent style, etc. So I think he belongs to Russian School, of course.

CB: Most people associate Auer with the Russian School too, because of his work in St. Petersburg. Oistrakh was somewhere else [Moscow]. Do you maybe consider there to be two different Russian Schools—one with the Oistrakh School, one with the Auer School? OK: Well, yes, of course, they’re a little bit different. But it was very personal, his teaching and suggestions, but still very Russian School.

CB: To what extent do you view your own playing and teaching as being associated with a particular school of violin playing? OK: Well, you know, it’s an endless process because we are trying to get perfection and beauty, and I think Oistrakh got it. His art I am always comparing to the art of Mozart or Raphael in painting: beauty and perfection. My goal also is to keep these traditions and

26

somehow transfer them to my students. I am trying to do [this]—sometimes successfully, sometimes not—but [laughs] it’s a life.

CB: Obviously you do it very successfully, or I wouldn’t be interviewing you [we laugh]. But as far as your goal, would it be to pass on that same School? OK: Yes. Of course, I am not Oistrakh. I am Krysa, so I cannot do the same thing, but still, traditions—yes.

CB: So, as far as the extent that you view your own playing and teaching as being associated with the Russian School, would you say “closely associated”? OK: Yes.

CB: Do you recall specific technical advice which Oistrakh regularly emphasized to many of his students? OK: Yes—mostly the beauty of the sound, mostly without pressure. Just bow speed and a lot of air in sound and in the bow. There are very different approaches sometimes from other schools and from other teachers, but I am always following that advice.

CB: Do you recall specific exercises and/or repertoire which Oistrakh regularly assigned to his students? OK: Well, he was trying to balance, of course, regarding to every person, which is very different. But of course very standard classical repertoire with adjustments to different personalities, and balance of modern, romantic, and . Modern music was always part of my repertoire because he always said, “Here, we are living in twentieth century—you have to know that music and perform that.”

CB: Any other exercises or repertoire—if you noticed that there were certain things that he always used with every one of his students, or was it pretty individual? OK: It’s very individual. Every student has different repertoire in different order. I started, for example, from Goldmark Concerto, and I switched to Mozart, and I go to Bach, and Wieniawski, and Szymanowski—whatever.

CB: Do you perceive significant differences between Oistrakh’s approach and your own approach to violin playing and teaching? OK: Probably not. Of course, sometimes there are slight differences, but I think I am very strongly following Oistrakh.

CB: Are there any additional aspects of any violin school which influence your own playing and teaching that we haven’t talked about yet? OK: Well, as I said, I was trying to absorb different approaches from French School, from American School, from different countries, so I’m trying to mix. But still, I think I am a very strong representative of Russian School. Mostly I taught in Moscow, so I had many great colleagues in Moscow Conservatory and Kiev Conservatory. But also I am learning a lot from my colleagues here in United States: for example from my colleague, Professor Zvi Zeitlin, who is, you know, a living legend; from my friend Charles Castleman, who I know very well for a long time; Mr. Kopelman, who is the first

27

violinist in the Borodin Quartet and Quartet—he’s a great chamber music player—so I am always trying to get as much as I can from them. So, I can say that, of course, I have an influence from my colleagues. But again, I am mixing. I think it’s very important to keep your individuality very strong.

CB: In your experience with your colleagues and other professional violinists, to what extent do you generally perceive violin playing and teaching today as being associated with violin schools of the past? Do you think “closely” associated, or “somewhat” associated…? OK: Closely associated.

CB: Do you believe in the current existence of national schools, such as the German, Franco-Belgian, Russian, or even American? OK: Yes, but it’s not that separate like it used to be—because of communications and travelers—so it’s much wider and deeper.

CB: In your opinion, how important is it that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing? OK: Very important.

CB: Would you like to recommend any sources which would be helpful in becoming better acquainted with yourself…? OK: Other sources about myself?

CB: Yes. OK: Well, you know the [Applebaum] series The Way They Play?… It’s volume 14, so you can read something there.

28

VIOLAINE MELANCON Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD) Written Response Postmarked April 12, 2004

TREATISE QUESTIONNAIRE *If you would like additional writing space, please use the back side or a separate sheet.

The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine the extent to which schools of violin playing continue to affect prominent violin teachers/performers in the U.S. today.

[V. Melancon’s answers are typed in bold]

1) Who has most influenced your own violin playing and teaching? You may mention more than one person if you wish, and answer the following for each.

Claude Letourneau and Isadore Tinkleman

2) To what extent do you view your mentor’s influence as being associated with a particular school or schools of violin playing?

1 2 3 4 5 closely associated somewhat associated not associated

If applicable, which school(s)?

Letourneau: Galamian & French Tinkleman: studied with Bronstein but was himself largely “self-created” in his approach.

3) To what extent do you view your own playing and teaching as being associated with a particular school or schools of violin playing?

1 2 3 4 5 closely associated somewhat associated not associated

If applicable, which school(s)?

Galamian’s legacy (I also studied with him) in terms of organizing the bow arm, detailing strokes, efficiency of fingerings. Both my mentors had a way of integrating musical intent and technical means that went beyond any school, and that pushed me to constantly [be] “inventing” new technical approaches, to truly be imaginative. I also play professionally in a trio with cellist Natasha Brofsky, who studied with William Pleeth, and this is constantly influencing my concepts of sound and inflection. I like the fact that my Galamian training was “modulated” by a healthy dose of European influences: Letourneau’s French background (he also studied with

29

Jean Fournier, brother of cellist ), and my own association with Arthur Grumiaux.

4) In your experience with other professional violinists, to what extent do you generally perceive violin playing and teaching today as being associated with violin schools?

1 2 3 4 5 closely associated somewhat associated not associated

5) Do you recall specific technical advice which your mentor(s) regularly emphasized to many of his or her students? Please cite any examples you would like, especially if they are hallmarks of a particular school.

-Using contact point as “color” -Healthy set-up: straight bow, relaxed set-up, using the least amount of physical energy for the maximum intensity -Articulation

6) Do you recall specific exercises and/or repertoire which your mentor(s) regularly assigned to his or her students?

Lots of Études Solo Bach Mozart Concerti Scales & bow strokes (arpeggios, double-stops, the works!)

7) Do you perceive significant differences between your mentor’s approach and your own approach to violin playing and teaching? If so, please explain:

I like to think of my own evolution as an extension, continuation of my roots, but always adding details to the mix from my searching, listening, observing others. I enjoy very much drawing parallels between violin technique and other instruments: , piano, voice especially, and learn specific skills from them.

8) If there are additional aspects of any violin school which influence your own playing and teaching, please explain:

I think one should be curious and constantly experiment with new sound approaches, new ways to move. Listening and watching film clips of old masters is very important. Players were much more distinct and individual 80 years ago. It can give one the courage to step outside the box and truly experiment to broaden one’s palette. Making music is about making sound in time and the more ways to do it, the more varied the colors and possibilities.

30

9) Do you believe in the current existence of national schools, such as the German, Franco-Belgian, Russian, or even American?

Yes No Unsure

Feel free to explain, if you wish: I think this is less and less true. The world has shrunken, everyone hears everyone and travels. But there are still differences.

10) In your opinion, how important is it that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing?

1 2 3 4 5 very important somewhat important not important

You may comment further, if you wish: It is a question of being “literate” in your own field and informing your own choices and evolution.

11) Optional: Could you recommend any sources which would be helpful in becoming better acquainted with yourself or with your mentor(s), for example written interviews which may be difficult for others to find?

31

WILLIAM PREUCIL Cleveland Institute of Music; University of Maryland Written Response Postmarked December 15, 2003

TREATISE QUESTIONNAIRE *If you would like additional writing space, please use the back side or a separate sheet.

The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine the extent to which schools of violin playing continue to affect prominent violin teachers/performers in the U.S. today.

[W. Preucil’s answers are typed in bold]

1) Who has most influenced your own violin playing and teaching? You may mention more than one person if you wish, and answer the following for each.

Josef Gingold

2) To what extent do you view your mentor’s influence as being associated with a particular school or schools of violin playing?

1 2 3 4 5 closely associated somewhat associated not associated

If applicable, which school(s)?

Gingold

3) To what extent do you view your own playing and teaching as being associated with a particular school or schools of violin playing?

1 2 3 4 5 closely associated somewhat associated not associated

If applicable, which school(s)?

Gingold

4) In your experience with other professional violinists, to what extent do you generally perceive violin playing and teaching today as being associated with violin schools?

1 2 3 4 5 closely associated somewhat associated not associated

32

5) Do you recall specific technical advice which your mentor(s) regularly emphasized to many of his or her students? Please cite any examples you would like, especially if they are hallmarks of a particular school.

Beauty of tone

6) Do you recall specific exercises and/or repertoire which your mentor(s) regularly assigned to his or her students?

7) Do you perceive significant differences between your mentor’s approach and your own approach to violin playing and teaching? If so, please explain:

No

8) If there are additional aspects of any violin school which influence your own playing and teaching, please explain:

9) Do you believe in the current existence of national schools, such as the German, Franco-Belgian, Russian, or even American?

Yes No Unsure

Feel free to explain, if you wish:

10) In your opinion, how important is it that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing?

1 2 3 4 5 very important somewhat important not important

You may comment further, if you wish:

11) Optional: Could you recommend any sources which would be helpful in becoming better acquainted with yourself or with your mentor(s), for example written interviews which may be difficult for others to find?

33

DAVID UPDEGRAFF Cleveland Institute of Music Telephone Interview January 10, 2005

Chris Baker: Who has most influenced your own violin playing and teaching? You may mention more than one person, if you wish. David Updegraff: I would say two people: Paul Makanowitzky, who was perhaps the first prodigy of Galamian. Makanowitzky studied with him in Paris. I studied with Makanowitzky at Michigan, where I was his assistant. And the other would be Paul Kling, who I studied with in my undergraduate degree.

CB: To what extent do you view your mentors’ influences (both Paul Kling and Makanowitzky) as being associated with any particular school or schools of violin playing? DU: Basically I would say that I’m by far the most influenced by Makanowitzky’s mentoring, as I did become his assistant, and because the Galamian School is such a well thought-out and systematic way of training violinists. Makanowitzky was very much a “bow-arm” person, and he fashioned bow arms for strength, flexibility and depth. Naturally his bow arm was based on what he learned from Galamian, as I assume was the rest of his technique. Makanowitzky was a student of Galamian, so that would obviously be the direct link. I feel like my relationship to Kling was more of a musical one.

CB: To what extent do you view your own playing and teaching as being associated with any particular school or schools of violin playing? DU: Well, it would be the same: Galamian School. Obviously playing is a different thing. There’s the physical side of playing (which would be reflective of the Galamian-style training I had) and then there’s the interpretive side of playing, which is something quite different. My teaching is very “Galamian” oriented. I teach many of his fingerings and bowings. They tend to make the student learn to do many things they wouldn’t otherwise choose to do.

CB: In your experience with other professional violinists, do you generally perceive violin playing and teaching today as being associated with violin schools? DU: To a certain degree, yes. I think there’s a large body of “Galamian” teachers out there (many are students of the teachers that were Galamian’s “assistants”), but now you have quite a few Russian teachers that have come to this country. It’s not quite as dominated by the Galamian school as it was in the 1960s or 1970s.

CB: Do you recall specific technical advice which your mentors regularly emphasized to many of their students? Please cite any examples you would like, especially if you feel they are hallmarks of a particular school. DU: With Makanowitzky, it would have been sound production, projection, strength, depth and richness of sound.

CB: Do you think this was something carried over from Galamian, to him, to you?

34

DU: Well, to a degree I think it came about as a result of some comments that Galamian made to Makanowitzky. As I remember at one point, Makanowitzky was telling me that he had played a concert, and Galamian had come back stage afterward to share his reactions to the concert. As Russians tend to do (according to Makanowitzky), they make their largest points by understatement, and on his way out Mr. Galamian said to Makanowitzky, “Oh Paul, by the way, maybe you’re sounding just a bit thin.” Makanowitzky said then for the next five years all he did was pump up his sound. So, I know that really affected him for the rest of his life. I think also judging international competitions affected him because the players with big sounds in competitions tend to have more impact—the ones that really have a big sound. I think that Makanowitzky was always looking for students to be able to compete in those arenas, and that was what he was hoping I would do...until the need to support my family became a priority.

CB: Do you recall specific exercises and/or repertoire which your mentors regularly assigned to their students? DU: Well, sure. In terms of études it would almost always be Kreutzer, Rode, Dont (the hard Dont), Gaviniés, then Paganini, of course. Concertos—I mean I could give you a whole list of concertos in an approximate order, but I don’t know if that’s what you’re looking for.

CB: But the standard concertos, would you say? DU: Oh yes, though one that the Galamian School does that a lot of them do not is Conus. I actually don’t teach it that much, but it is still taught quite a bit, and I suspect that’s because Galamian played the premiere of it. But, I think the Galamian School probably teaches more Vieuxtemps than some schools.

CB: The fourth and fifth concertos, particularly? DU: Exactly. Other than that, I would say it’s probably pretty much standard repertoire: Mozart G, D and A Major, Bruch G Minor, Lalo Symphonie Espagnole, Barber, Saint- Saëns B Minor, Wieniawski D Minor (then Vieuxtemps No. 4 and No. 5), Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Prokofiev D Major and G Minor, Glazunov, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Paganini No. 1, Wieniawski F-sharp Minor, Beethoven, Brahms, Stravinsky, Berg, Bartók No. 2, Walton, Elgar, Shostakovich No. 1, and other twentieth-century repertoire. In the old days, not so many people played Ysaÿe; these days it’s rare that I don’t have students playing at least three different Ysaÿe’s at the same time. Certainly I’ve taught all six, and in a year have had students play all six, so that’s become more the norm. Of course these days the standard repertoire has really grown enormously. Think of all the concerti written in the 1930s and since: a large and important number of works.

CB: Do you perceive significant differences between your mentor’s approach and your own approach to violin playing and teaching? DU: I guess the biggest difference is that Makanowitzky was an extremely strong and somewhat tough character, so many people felt intimidated by him. I personally try to take the opposite approach, and have the students feel as comfortable as they possibly can in a lesson. I think that puts them in a position of being able to learn as much as possible.

35

CB: Are there any additional aspects of any violin schools which influence your own playing and teaching that we haven’t talked about, that you’d like to address? DU: Not really, other than we’re all the sum of the recordings we listened to growing up, and our heroes, right?

CB: That’s a good point. You learn a lot from just listening to recordings and going to concerts. DU: As a student, especially in the undergraduate degree, I think I mostly measured myself against professionals rather than against fellow students, and it was the most helpful to me.

CB: Do you believe in the current existence of national schools, such as the German, Franco-Belgian, Russian, or even American School? DU: I’m really not totally sure. I would guess that it’s so inter-mixed that it’s probably a little hard to tell. If you think of Galamian representing the Franco-Belgian School, then I would say that’s still very much a big influence. Many of the top teachers in the United States were taught in this method.

CB: Do you consider the Galamian approach to be a Franco-Belgian approach, or maybe one interpretation of the Franco-Belgian School? DU: Probably one interpretation—I’m not quite sure that everyone thinks the same when they talk about the “Franco-Belgian” School. I know what it means in the way of a bow hold and that sort of thing. Obviously Galamian was very much influenced by Capet, and so I think he got a lot of influence there, so I would say that would be the one school that is still fairly well-defined. I would say perhaps the Russian School is still defined to a certain degree, and there again, it depends on what “Russian School” means to different people. For instance, I know my friend Victor Danchenko of Peabody and Curtis studied with Oistrakh, and then taught at Meadowmount for years. Meadowmount was, of course, Galamian’s creation, and his camp for so many years—so you know there is a certain amount of crossover that’s going on.

CB: In your opinion, how important is it that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing? DU: I think if they can take things from each school that will make them more rounded violinists, then it’s really important. I know the Russians spend a lot of time on four- octave scales and arpeggios, and certainly my teacher did. In any case, I think that would be one of the things in that school that many people would benefit from. I think whatever helpful things people can take from whatever school is going to make them more complete players.

36

ZVI ZEITLIN Eastman School of Music (Rochester, NY) Telephone Interview May 3, 2004

Chris Baker: Who has most influenced your own violin playing and teaching? You may mention more than one person, if you wish. Zvi Zeitlin: I think I was influenced by just about every great violinist I’ve heard, but my very first teacher, her name was Elisheva Velicovski (Elisheva is Hebrew for Elizabeth). She was a pupil of Adolph Busch. She was from Germany, but she was in very early, from the late 1920s or early 1930s (before Hitler’s time), and that’s when I studied with her. I had a great deal of influence from her as far as the—well, the German school of how to be a musician. Later on, I had to study with others in order to work on polished technique and all of that. Already at the age of eight, I learned from her (that is, in retrospect; I didn’t even realize it at the time) to study music directly from scores, like a sonata of Mozart directly from the piano part, instead of that which over ninety percent of students everywhere do today: they study [only] the violin part, which I equate to their face as studying a play by only reading their own part. Then I studied with a woman by the name of Miriam Carmi, who was a pupil of Flesch. At the age of eleven, I came to New York, and my teacher there was a very great artist, Sascha Jacobsen (he came from Finland, so it’s a Scandinavian ending). He was a pupil of Franz Kneisel, who was the great violin teacher in America. He [Kneisel] produced more violinists, I think, than any other teacher at that time. His students also include Joseph Fuchs, Jacques Gordon, and many others who eventually became leaders. Sascha Jacobsen was of the Musical Arts Quartet in New York, which was the successor of the Kneisel Quartet, and they were very active in New York when I studied with Jacobsen from 1934 to 1939, age twelve to seventeen. I graduated from Juilliard the same year I graduated from high school. The two violinists at the time who had the greatest influence on me as performers were Fritz Kreisler and Heifetz. Around the same time, but from a different standpoint, Bronislaw Huberman exercised a great deal of influence on me, but I did not appreciate it until much later because his style was not popular in the United States. But he was one of the greatest artists of his time, and as you know, he is the founder of the Israel Philharmonic. He was a great star in Europe, and when Hitler started to kick out Jewish musicians from German orchestras, and eventually from Austrian orchestras purely because they were Jewish, Huberman (who, as I said, was a superstar in Europe), thought of forming an orchestra of displaced musicians—some of whom, needless to say, were the very best performers in Europe, and leaders of great orchestras like the and Vienna Philharmonics—to form the Palestine Orchestra which is now known as the Israel Philharmonic, launched by Toscanini in 1936. Huberman and Kreisler were opposites, but they had some of the greatest influences on me: Kreisler for elegance and projection of every single note straight to your heart, Huberman for keeping you on the edge of your seat in building a structure of a great work like the Brahms or Beethoven Concerti or some of the great sonatas. You know, he kept you on your seat because it was very suspenseful to hear him play, although it wasn’t always “pretty,” or as polished as what we expect today from violinists who very rarely (if ever) have anything of the kind of

37

spirit and meaning that men like both Huberman and Kreisler had in their playing. Another man on that level was Joseph Szigeti. But, both Szigeti and Huberman were very uneven in their performances, and so my teacher (Jacobsen) didn’t like either of them because they sometimes could play quite badly. Eventually he changed his mind, though, because he listened to recordings and all of that, you know. But those were the people who had the greatest influence on my ideals as a performer. Eventually, had a great influence on me. As a matter of fact, Pablo Casals and Sascha Jacobsen were two of the greatest influences as teachers; Casals wasn’t exactly a teacher but he certainly was a mentor for me, in understanding the (now almost extinct) art of knowing how to really play rubato in romantic music—actually all music, because there is no such a thing as absolutely straight values. Everything, to be expressive, is to some extent rubato, including Mozart and Bach, of course.

CB: Yes, even though many teachers say, “You need to practice with the metronome.” ZZ: Yes, it’s okay to practice with the metronome, but eventually you have to discard the metronome. Practice with the metronome in order to gain discipline, because a lot of students, in my experience—they don’t realize when they rush or when they slow down. It’s because they study the music directly with the instrument in hand, which I find very often a mistake, because before you have mastered the notes, you begin to study the actual music, usually just the violin part, and that very often has an almost indelible effect on your whole conception of the piece, which is very, very flawed. I tell my students: “Learn to study a piece like a conductor.” At first it comes to them like a wide-eyed surprise. Violinists do not have vertical hearing. Even when they play a Bach fugue, all they hear is the top voice. You can hear it the way they sound the bass, which is often inaudible. Okay, so these were my influences which shaped me—slowly, I would say—to what I became, both as an international concert performer and eventually as a teacher in a major school. I say, listen to the bass. Know the bass that the piano plays, the harmonies when you play a Beethoven Sonata. Otherwise you don’t really know the piece because you don’t know what is expressive and what is passing.

CB: Do you say that generally for all music, or more specifically for— ZZ: I say that generally for all music.

CB: Not just for Bach or Beethoven? ZZ: Of course in degrees, naturally. But if they do an Ysaÿe Sonata I certainly say the same thing. And I certainly say the same thing if they are advanced enough to do the solo Bartók Sonata or any of his violin and piano sonatas, or the Concerto, naturally. Most of the liberties that people seem to take with a piece of music are hinted at by the , and vice versa. The of Beethoven: you look at the score and you see very, very clearly where he wants absolutely strict tempo and where suddenly you have a little leeway. You know, the orchestra stops and you don’t have to be absolutely metronomic. But, changing tempo is one thing, and changing pulse is another because “pulse” is changing your own blood as it flows; it is not metronomic. If you look at the score of the Beethoven Concerto where the violin plays the melody, there’s no rhythm in the accompaniment at all. It’s an absolutely clear clue on the part of Beethoven that you are freer here than you were when the composer wrote…[sings rhythm]…, where you

38

have to keep time. And the rest is up to you—which is why, no matter how much discipline I exact from my students, none of them play like the other. They all play differently, even if they use the same fingerings and bowings, because it’s another person playing. One of the things I have to caution students who have ambitions, often spoiled or poisoned by vicarious ambitions of parents and teachers and sometimes other people who seem to have a vested interest in the future of the talented person: not to worry, because students can often be destructive to each other. You know, friends who (for some protection) would say, “Yeah, but you don’t play interestingly,” at which point the boy or girl gets very worried and says, “Well, I’ve got to be ‘interesting.’” And then comes sometimes the confusion between “personality” and “mannerism.” I say, personality is you, stripped of any mannerism. Manner is an external thing, which has nothing to do with your personality; it’s a cover-up, so forget it. A lot of people have what seems like a mannerism, but it is an indelible part of their own personality, or it has developed that way.

CB: Did you also study with Persinger and Galamian? ZZ: Oh yes. I studied one year with Persinger, because when I returned to the United States after World War II to do graduate work at Juilliard, I asked my former teacher who to study with, and he couldn’t give me a direct answer, but there was Persinger, there was Hans Letz (who used to play in the old Kneisel Quartet), there was Eduard Dethier (a French teacher), Galamian was there (I did not know Galamian). Persinger was a wonderful musician, but he used to sit at the piano and accompany (very, very well, too, you know), but as far as details are concerned, Persinger was particularly successful with very young, genius-level talents like Menuhin, Ricci. There was an Italian girl—Guila Bustabo (her problem was that she continued to perform under the Nazis in Germany and Italy, and so she kind of lost her chances for an extended career elsewhere after the war.) But he [Persinger] didn’t bother to discuss details much, you know. I would play and he would say, “Well, a lot of it sounds absolutely first-rate,” and I was not happy with that because I wanted to know why something didn’t sound first-rate. So at the end of the year I went to Galamian, and I was with him for three years. He was much more analytical; less of a musician than Persinger was, but a wonderful human being and a very devoted and attentive teacher from the standpoint of violin playing—the French School, or Franco-Belgian School. I adopted some of the principles of his, but then I amalgamated them into my own, so Galamian had definitely a very strong influence on my approach to violin playing and making things sound, especially attention to bow distribution, bow division and bow changes. Except that I try to be more sensitive to bow changes not affecting the line, because sometimes a composer would write a long slur mark over a number of notes, and it makes things a little too tight if you want to be orthodox about it, so you have to change bows. But if you change bows, you make an accent with the bow change, and that’s one of the things I work with my students to try to smooth out. This is very much part of the Franco-Belgian approach, the Franco-Belgian School, which I think is the most prevalent school today. Most people hold the bow the same way today, but 60-80 years ago there were different holds. There was the German School of Joachim, which is today pretty much discarded, and the old Auer School—Auer was a pupil of Joachim, and he started out with the old German bow hold, but he was also very

39

influenced by Wieniawski, who preceded him as the Royal Solo Violinist in St. Petersburg.

CB: That’s right, he and Vieuxtemps both. ZZ: Vieuxtemps before him, yes. Vieuxtemps was there for seven years and Wieniawski was there for twelve years. It was a tremendous Franco-Belgian influence on the Russian School, and German and Italian, of course. But I happen to have been privileged to be friends with Heifetz, who held the bow differently from most of the later violinists; did more or less the same. I think Milstein was closer to the second joint behind the stick of the violin, giving one extra joint to manipulate when moving the hand of the bow, and more finger control, which I think is the most prevalent way today. I’ve been all over the world, including Germany and some of the Slavic countries. Most people hold the bow more or less the same way today.

CB: Which you consider to be more of the Franco-Belgian School? ZZ: Yes. I think that is basically the accepted norm. This is the most flexible way of holding the bow…. I believe the upper arm, except when you play staccato, should always be limp, very relaxed, and learn how to make it relax in a split second. This is the problem of most violinists: tension from the shoulder down to the elbow.

CB: Even when playing softly, would you say? ZZ: Especially when playing softly. Starting a pianissimo at the frog, you know, I have had no problem of tremor either in myself (although I’ve had damage in my arms) or my students. If you know how to balance your bow, you can start with perfect control at the frog. You learn how to hold the bow, not too tightly. The tightness of the grip increases as you approach the tip of the bow, and decreases as you do an up-bow and approach the frog. When changing bows from up-bow to down-bow, a lot of people do not appreciate the significance of the French terms for “up” and “down” bow: tirer and pousser. Tirer means “pull” and pousser means “push”. And if you understand the meaning of “pull and push,” you know what to do when you finish an up-bow and start a down-bow: you have to finish the “push” position and start a down-bow position, which means you do not pull with the index finger; you pull with the lower fingers, like pulling a rope. So anybody who keeps the pinky straight at the frog does not understand that he’s not “pulling” on a down-bow, and that can create tension in the upper arm as well, which can be easily corrected if one begins to treat the upper arm like a gill, or like an outer lung, breathing in and out. Whenever you have a sixteenth-note rest, or even a thirty-second, drop the arm to a limp position, but don’t force it to your side. Just drop it naturally, which means that it’s the hand that creates the art of bowing, just as it is the hand that creates the art of drawing or painting, or for that matter, surgery, or any kind of delicate work with the hand. …I think we have made some changes since Galamian, simply because of changes in musical style. For example, he used to teach certain Bach movements in martelé, and I do not believe that Bach needs a martelé stroke. Martelé stroke is a typical early nineteenth-century stroke that was, if not invented, then at least developed by the great French violinists starting with Viotti, who came to France from Italy. But the French violinists like Rode and Kreutzer and Baillot—you know, martelé, more force at

40

the tip for an even sound. But an even sound was something that was unknown in the days of Mozart and even Beethoven. Beethoven was very interested in the French School, but the Italians, who are the great early masters of violin playing, they believed in fluctuation of sound and nuances within a bow stroke, instead of a siren-like evenness in the sound. I believe great teachers insist on evenness merely to know how to control it. If you want a very long note, you have to know how to make it even; but once you know how to make it even, you learn how to color the sound while you are doing it. I don’t know that this is easily understood unless you are a practicing concert violinist. There is no such thing as an absolutely even sound. Like a singer, it all comes with the air and with the phrase, but a steady, even sound from frog to point did not exist until the Franco- Belgian School started to teach it, and that has often been abused by people who are not sensitive musicians. I use the word “sustain,” but I don’t mean sustain like a siren. Everything has to fluctuate according to style, naturally, which is why I believe one should study what the musicologists teach you in Baroque, but then draw your own conclusions because the musicologists have no idea how people played 150-200 years ago. And besides, even today with CDs, no two noteworthy artists play alike. So you can imagine before there were recordings, they not only didn’t play alike, but played completely different from each other; or when they did, they certainly did not imitate. I learned from my teacher a certain feeling, so that when I heard a great performance, something told me, “Well, I’m going to do it a little differently when I’m able to play the piece.” Jacobsen told me that he had the same reaction when he listened to great artists play a piece: “I’ll do it differently.”

CB: To what extent do you view your mentors’ influences as being associated with a particular school or schools of violin playing? ZZ: I know who each of them studied with, and there are combinations. My teacher Sascha Jacobsen, he was born in Finland, but in his childhood he grew up for a number of years in St. Petersburg, and so he spoke Russian, and then he was educated in America with Kneisel. Kneisel was a Viennese violinist, Roumanian actually, but he was of the Viennese School; his teacher was [Jakob] Grün, a well-known Viennese violinist. But I know that my teacher [Jacobsen] was very, very influenced by Ysaÿe. Ysaÿe was a pupil both of Vieuxtemps and Wieniawski. But both Jacobsen and Galamian spoke Russian. Galamian was Armenian, from Uzbekistan, and he studied with [Konstantin] Mostras (who was a well-known violin teacher) and with Hrimaly (he has a famous book of scales; contemporary with Sevcik—they were both Czechs). Hrimaly taught in Moscow. In Moscow the Czechs had more influence than the Russians and in St. Petersburg. , a very great violinist—less known for some reason because he didn’t write as much as Wieniawski did, but he was apparently no less a virtuoso—he was the great influence in Moscow, whereas Wieniawski was the great influence in St. Petersburg. But both of them produced outstanding violinists from both conservatories, because both conservatories were run by brothers Rubinstein: founded the conservatory in St. Petersburg, his brother Nickolai founded the conservatory in Moscow. During the Soviet years of separation, there was a certain change in Soviet teaching, especially musically, because they had lost some of the great western traditions for a while. But in 1955, when Oistrakh, Gilels, and Rostropovich started to play in the

41

west, they all took a great deal of interest in the great artists of the preceding generations during the Iron Curtain era, like Kreisler, Huberman, and the German violinists like Adolph Busch and Szigeti (Hungarian), and Casals of course, the cellist, and they all were very, very much influenced. Within a year or two, I heard a great difference in the playing of Oistrakh, Gilels, and Rostropovich, and I’m sure that they would have admitted it themselves. There came this wonderful combination of the precision and exactness that the Soviet School had, plus the musical, stylistic approach of the great western artists. And today it’s a mish-mash, this whole thing; it’s up to the young player to learn to be discriminating. One of my tasks as a teacher is to make them aware of these differences primarily by learning to study a score instead of being a priori influenced by somebody’s performance of the piece. I know that even well-known teachers encourage their students to listen to recordings, but listening to a recording before you even know the music of the piece can have indelible effects on your understanding of the piece, because you understand it having heard it from somebody. All of us are somewhat influenced that way. But when we learn to read a score accurately, then we often revise our early influences to try and understand differently; then we see what builds itself inside us as far as a convincing interpretation of a work. I have a motto: Technique is conception, because studying technique without conception—somebody would play a scale for me, dry and inexpressive, and I would say, “Could you name one piece in the whole literature where you would play a scale like that?” “No.” “Well then why do you play the scale like that? What good is it?” A lot of music is made up of scales: Mozart, Bach—I mean, the G minor Adagio of Bach starts with a scale, the Beethoven Concerto starts with arpeggios and scales, and how do you play it? So, play the scale as if Beethoven wrote an accompaniment to it, even very slowly. Then you are ready to play Beethoven; otherwise, when you play Beethoven it sounds like scales.

CB: In your opinion, how important is it that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing? ZZ: I wouldn’t go out of my way to start to learn different schools. You study the music; you have an idea what it should sound like and then you work at it. There is no such a thing anymore as different “schools.” They’re all in the past. There is no such a thing anymore as the “German School” and the “French School” and the “Russian School” because they’ve all been amalgamated by media, by interchange. You hear the difference in personality, you hear an approach—sure, I can tell a French violinist, but he also is influenced by the other schools.

CB: One of my questions is actually whether you believe in the current existence of national schools, and you would answer “no,” from what you’re saying? ZZ: No, actually I wouldn’t say “no.” I mean, certainly somebody who’s lived all his life in the has the Czech School in his background. But whether the Czech School today is the same as it was before it was influenced by other schools—which there is no such a time. For example, great violinists like Ernst, his teacher Böhm, and Ferdinand Laub, are representatives of the Old Czech School; Czechoslovakia was part of the Austrian empire, so there was always a cross-influence. The school, or the approach to music, comes from the kind of music [the teacher] heard as a child, you know, Slavic melodies or Slavic folk music, or German folk music. The way they are sung, it affects

42

one’s approach to playing. So, I do not deny the existence of national schools, but I deny the isolation of a national school today. It doesn’t exist anymore, the isolated national school; I wouldn’t recommend anybody to go to an isolated national school, as represented by a teacher who doesn’t know anything except what his particular provincial teacher taught him. I think it boils down to that. One has to expand and understand differently the personality of the performer. I heard equally convincing performances, let’s say, of the G Minor Prokofiev Concerto from Heifetz and from Francescatti, and they couldn’t be more different than they are. You listen to them and you try to analyze what the difference is, but you find out eventually the difference is between two distinct human personalities who interpret the music differently, which boils down to Technique is conception. “I hear these notes longer than you; you hear them shorter than I. More clipped, or faster, or slower,” or you know. That’s what it is, and the rest falls into the realm of good taste. Good taste also differs in various civilizations. The French, for example, consider it good taste to be noisy at the table during dinner, you know, beat the table with the knives and forks. The English don’t consider that the best of manners.

CB: From what you said before, you don’t feel that it’s particularly important that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing? ZZ: I think the most important for violinists is to familiarize themselves with the music, and with the style of the music. If they know the style of the music, then with a good teacher they’ll know how to perform the various bow strokes and vibrato, you know. Vibrato for me is an enhancement of the expressivity of the bow. When vibrato is an isolated thing, to me it is a misconception. When people say, “I’m working on the vibrato,” they don’t realize to what extent the bow has a role in vibrato. When you listen to the great of people like Kreisler, you’re not aware of the vibrato, you’re aware of the sound. You’re a little more aware of it sometimes in Heifetz, especially as he got a little older, or Elman. But again, you’re aware of the sound; you’re not aware of the actual vibrato. If you’re aware of the vibrato it’s a flaw, like with a 60-year-old soprano. But there should never be a tone without any vibrato at all, unless it’s a special effect. In fast passages, I tell my students: use a finger-drop vibrato, like you drop a ball. You drop a ball and it reverberates; it bounces. If you place it, like your old grandmother used to place a hot cup of tea on the table, you don’t get any expressivity from the finger, not in moving passages.

CB: Do you perceive significant differences between your mentors’ approaches and your own approach to violin playing and teaching? ZZ: I have my own approach that has developed over the years, but I sometimes feel that my reaction to a person’s playing, usually from a musical standpoint, is very influenced by the way my teacher reacted when I played that same piece—let’s say, with personal differences, naturally—but that’s all, not as far as “approach” is concerned. I think I have a different approach to every student.

CB: Do you view your own playing and teaching as being associated with a particular school or schools of violin playing? ZZ: Not any more. Certain bow holds and certain bow techniques I would ascribe to the Franco-Belgian School. That’s about it. Left hand, yes: I believe that the wrist should go

43

forward, closer to the neck, and not hollowed backwards, not leading a downward passage with the wrist, especially when you come back down from the higher positions back to the third and first positions. The wrist should be relaxed forward, and be done so consciously, often enough to make sure that it doesn’t get rigid.

CB: Do you consider that to be brought to your attention by the Franco-Belgian School, this forward wrist? ZZ: I wouldn’t be surprised if it also existed in the Russian School. But of course the Russian School is also an amalgam because Rode visited Russia for lengthy periods in the eighteenth century, so he must have had an influence already. It’s all a matter of cross-influences. I personally do not ascribe anything purely to a school. “School” is a question of style—if Szigeti is a representative of the Hungarian School of violin playing, his teacher was Hubay, and Hubay and Ysaÿe were the two favorite pupils of Vieuxtemps, and they couldn’t be more different from each other. It branches in different directions from the same source. All of us may date back as part of the tree to Viotti, in one way or the other.

44

CHAPTER TWO

GENERAL RESPONSES AND CONCLUSIONS

The fundamental purpose of the questionnaire was to determine the extent to which schools continue to affect prominent teachers/performers today. Three of the ten respondents stated explicitly that they felt their own playing and teaching is closely associated with one or more schools or influences. Three others indicated that, although they ascribe some of their bow technique to either the Franco-Belgian or the Galamian School, much of their own playing and teaching is not associated with any particular school. All ten respondents felt that they had been influenced at least to some degree by one or more schools, and most of them felt they had been influenced by more than one. However, eight of the ten indicated that although they believe in the current existence of national schools to a degree, the boundaries have disintegrated and the schools have become co-mingled, due to increased globalization, ease of communication and travel. As for the remaining two respondents, Castleman did not mention this point explicitly, but did say he believed in the current existence of national schools “only in terms of the bow grip.” Preucil’s brief, written response only indicated than that he does believe in the current existence of national schools. No one stated decisively that he or she does not believe in the current existence of national schools. With reference to cross-influences between schools, it is evident from researching printed sources which address teacher/pupil relationships and locations of violinists and teachers in earlier centuries (see p. 90) that there has been significant cross-influence between schools—not just in the past century or so, but for hundreds of years. Zeitlin emphasized this point in his interview as well. It is clear, nonetheless, that these cross- influences have increased dramatically during the past century, proportionate with unprecedented technological advances in both communication and travel.

45

Five respondents replied that they felt their mentors had been influenced by more than one school of violin playing. The other five felt that their mentors were primarily influenced by only one school. Of those, two considered themselves representatives of the Russian School, two considered Gingold their primary influence, and one considered Galamian (through Makanowitzky) his primary influence. Two respondents mentioned that one of their most influential mentors (they both mentioned more than one) essentially represented no particular school: Castleman mentioned Szeryng; Melancon mentioned Tinkleman. Although there was a wide range of opinions from some respondents as to whether Galamian and Oistrakh are most affiliated with the Franco-Belgian, Russian, or a combination of schools, it appears that Galamian is generally considered at least somewhat associated with the Franco-Belgian School, and Oistrakh with the Russian School. However, some consider Galamian more affiliated with the Russian School, and still others consider Oistrakh more affiliated with the Franco-Belgian School. The interviewees were often hesitant to assign numeric or strictly yes/no answers to some of the questions asked from the written questionnaire. It was therefore determined in the process of interviewing that the most valuable information was to be gathered simply by allowing them to respond to the questions as they chose, and to press for a more specific answer only if the conversation could be comfortably turned in that direction. In this way, more personal, sincere, and complete responses were gathered, though the information at times is difficult to quantify. Only one respondent stated that he generally perceives violin playing and teaching today as being closely associated with violin schools. Four others generally perceive violin playing and teaching today as between somewhat associated and closely associated. The remaining five consider violin playing and teaching today to be either somewhat associated or slightly less; none perceived it as unassociated. When asked how important it is that violinists familiarize themselves with different schools of violin playing, seven responded that this was very important. Some reasons they gave for their responses are worth reiterating: Melancon responded, “It is a question of being ‘literate’ in your own field and informing your own choices and evolution.” Keyes replied, “My complaint is that [some] teachers don’t explore enough in other traditions. If the teacher just takes what they’ve been taught, and they don’t go

46

further, sometimes the teaching can get very sterile.” Although the other three teachers did not respond with a direct answer to this question, they certainly shared some thoughtful insight. Cardenes mentioned the need for “historical knowledge and understanding traditions, styles,” and that “violin playing should require discipline—a well-schooled knowledge.” Castleman stressed the importance of recognizing that “there isn’t a ‘right’ way of playing. Different schools have different advantages. Knowing what’s different among the schools is important, [but] I’m not sure you have to be able to understand all of them as they function.” Zeitlin replied, “I wouldn’t go out of my way to start to learn different schools…. Most important is for violinists to familiarize themselves with the music, and with the style of the music…then with a good teacher they’ll know how to perform the various bow strokes and vibrato, [etc.]” An observation by Albert Spalding comes to mind: “Much of what we have learned from tradition is not good. However, we must study with respect the principles which have been derived from the cherished performances of the past. But discard them when their usefulness is over. Tradition, in the study of a composition, is like the barnacles on a ship. Style, though, is everything.”9 When asked who most influenced their own violin playing and teaching, the most frequent responses were: Heifetz, Galamian, Oistrakh, Kreisler, Gingold, Szeryng, and Milstein. Four respondents mentioned Heifetz as a significant influence, although only one of these had actually studied with him. Three mentioned Kreisler, though none had studied with him. Three cited Galamian directly (an additional two named mentors who were students of Galamian). Three mentioned Oistrakh, two of whom had actually studied with him. Gingold, Szeryng, and Milstein were each mentioned by two respondents. Five of the ten respondents cited artists with whom they had not actually studied; five named artists who were not violinists, but were cellists, pianists, or singers. Three mentioned both: artists with whom they had not actually studied, as well as artists who were not violinists. This observation demonstrates that many current, highly respected violin teachers regard musicians other than violinists, and also musicians with whom they have not studied, among their most prominent influences.

9 Samuel and Sada Applebaum, With the Artists (New York: John Markert & Co., 1955), 99.

47

When respondents were asked whether they could recall specific technical advice which their mentors regularly emphasized to many students, the most common responses were 1) beauty of tone, including richness and depth of sound (five responses from different teachers), and 2) using strength and power to achieve a big sound projection (four responses from different teachers). Although the respondents who mentioned the first point represent collectively a variety of influences, all four who mentioned the second point were citing Galamian’s teaching. Other points that were mentioned by two respondents (different respondents for different points) include flexibility in the bow, articulation/clarity, the use of collé as a tool for developing bow technique (both respondents again citing Galamian), an emphasis on style, musicality, variety, imitating an excellent singing voice, and focus on “color.” When asked whether they recall specific exercises and/or repertoire which their mentors regularly assigned to their students, the individual responses were quite varied, but a few common responses included the use of scales, arpeggios, double stops, various études, and Bach. When asked whether they perceive significant differences between their mentor’s approaches and their own approach to violin playing and teaching, the responses again were varied, though a few of the respondents mentioned the following: they adapt their teaching to individual students and do not adhere to a “system” to the extent that their mentors had done; they combine a variety of influences, amalgamating them into their own; they have adjusted to new and current challenges, including a growing standard repertoire, more stringent audition requirements, and changes in musical style. It is apparent from the interviews that current perspectives and opinions pertaining to the influence of schools vary quite widely, even among noted and highly respected artists and teachers. Furthermore, it is impossible to quantify the influence of any given school, in part due to so much cross-influence, so many varied responses and generally a wide range of opinions. However, one may identify many significant influences by researching specific teacher/pupil relationships, locations where prominent artists and teachers were active (and by relating this knowledge to other influential teachers in other places at a given time), cultivating an awareness of the treatises which have most influenced violin playing and teaching, and researching other relevant literature—especially interviews with distinguished artists. Using these means, one may

48

develop a more discriminating sense of the importance of various schools in the history of violin playing and teaching. “Every great violinist embodies in his playing the influence of his predecessors; this shared inheritance, added to and subtly transformed by his own unique stamp, becomes in turn a legacy to future generations.”10 Many of the respondents emphasized that they use their earlier influences as a point of departure, and then continue to refine their approach. For instance, Keyes compared great instrumentalists and teachers to the great composers: “Bartók studied the music of Mozart and Haydn and Beethoven and Brahms, but his music doesn’t sound like them.” Melancon shared similar insight: “I like to think of my own evolution as an extension, continuation of my roots, but always adding details to the mix from my searching, listening, observing others.” Kopelman equated the school which one inherits to “a basis…a basic thing. Then…you build the ‘house’…and you learn all your life.”

10 Ruggiero Ricci in his forward to Margaret Campbell, The Great Violinists (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981), v.

49

CHAPTER THREE

A REPORT OF THE LITERATURE ADDRESSING VIOLIN SCHOOLS AND PROMINENT INFLUENCES ON VIOLIN PEDAGOGY

Treatises

Treatises on violin playing represent the largest body of literature pertaining to this topic. Because so many of these have been written in the course of the past few centuries, the principal objective here is to make reference to sources which address many of them, thus giving readers the opportunity to research those which they find most valuable. One source is found in a German article by Marianne Kroemer: Die Violinschule in Geschichte und Gegenwart (c1975). She provides commentary on dozens of major treatises, dividing her article into four distinct time periods: “1) precursors of the violin schools, 2) learning materials intended for the amateur’s self-instruction, from the middle of the 17th to the middle of the 18th century, 3) materials suitable for the development of the professional musician, from the middle of the 18th to the end of the 19th century, and 4) violin schools, which distinguish themselves through various ways with the problems of beginning studies, and that leave further (higher) studies, with little exception, to the études which have become popular, from the end of the 19th century until 1975.”11 Throughout her article, Kroemer's focus is primarily on the treatises, and not on the development of the various schools. Kroemer includes eight publications in her treatment of the first period, two of these exclusively written for stringed instruments; she includes eleven publications in her treatment of the second period. The most noteworthy treatises are found in her handling

11 Marianne Kroemer, "Die Violinschule in Geschichte und Gegenwart." Violinspiel und Violinmusik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Vienna: Universal Ed.; Symposium, , c1975), 235. Translation by the author, in consultation with Christina Guenther.

50

of the third period, as the focus of the treatises at that time generally shifted from the amateur player to the professional. Here she provides information on seventeen publications. In her treatment of the fourth period, Kroemer discusses twenty-one publications. Dr. Robin Kay Deverich maintains an internet website entitled How Did They Learn? An Overview of Violin Pedagogy with an Emphasis on Amateur Violinists (see www.violinonline.com/violin_pedagogy.htm). This site includes an index containing twenty-seven links, one link routed to a “Selected Chronological List of Traditional Violin Instructional Material.” Deverich explains that although her website generally focuses on the teaching of amateurs (in the best sense of that term), this particular link provides a list of traditional instruction material. The list is remarkable, and includes most of the major treatises listed by Kroemer, though Deverich does not provide commentary on the individual treatises as does Kroemer. In addition to the treatises, Deverich incorporates into her list volumes of études, caprices and other instructional material, such as those by Sevcik, Schradiek, Fiorillo, Rode, Dont, Gaviniés, Mazas (but curiously not Kreutzer), Wieniawski, Dounis, Suzuki, Paul Rolland, and Kato Havas. The other links in Deverich’s index are also of interest, among them: “Music Treatises for Amateurs,” “Early Violin Pedagogical Material,” and “Conservatory Class Instrumental Instruction.” She also includes a handful of musical examples, including MIDI sound files. Alexandra M. Eddy wrote an article for the journal American Music (Summer 1990) entitled “American Violin-Method Books and European Teachers, Geminiani to Spohr.” This article focuses on authoritative works written by European pedagogues which, according to her research, most influenced violin playing in America during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. She cites treatises by Geminiani, Campagnoli, Mazas, Spohr, the Méthode by Rode, Baillot and Kreutzer, and English methods popular during the eighteenth century. She describes in some detail how American violin method books borrowed ideas from each of these sources. She also includes an appendix which lists American violin method books published between 1769 and 1905. Another resource is inconspicuously tucked away in Frederick Neumann's book Violin Left Hand Technique, in which the selected bibliography at the end of the volume

51

includes most of the major treatises and methods on violin playing since Michel Corrette’s L’école d’Orphée (1738), up to the date of the book's publication in 1969. Neumann devotes a couple pages of praise to Principles of Violin Playing and Teaching (1962) by Ivan Galamian, with whom he had co-authored the volume Contemporary Violin Technique in 1966. A similar resource is found in An Encyclopedia of the Violin by Alberto Bachmann (former violin pupil of Eugene Ysaÿe). Chapter 25 of this Encyclopedia, entitled “A List of Music for the Violin,” includes a section devoted to “Violin Methods,” in which Bachmann lists many of the treatises, eminent and obscure. He also includes a “Biographical Dictionary of Violinists” in Chapter 22 which is quite thorough but outdated, since the original printing was in 1925. The dissertations by Tad Lauer (“Categories of National Violin Schools,” , 1997) and Andrea Tersigni (“The American School of Violin Playing—A Reality,” University of Washington, 1996) include references to many of the major treatises and methods. One may achieve a more discriminating sense of their current significance by comparing these dissertations and their bibliographies to the sources previously mentioned. Of historical value is the book by David D. Boyden, The History of Violin Playing from its Origins to 1761. Although he devotes only a fraction of the text to the treatises, Boyden includes some thoughtful discussion about the earliest ones, up to and including L’Abbé le Fil’s Principes du violon (1761). Also of historical interest is Chapter 28 of Baillot’s L’art du violon (1834; edited and translated into English by Louise Goldberg, 1991). This chapter, a “Catalogue of the Composers Whose Compositions are Used in the Violin Classes at the Conservatoire National in Paris,” lists not only compositions, but various méthodes which were used at that time by the Conservatory.

Sources Directly Addressing Schools of Violin Playing

Another essential body of literature consists of sources which directly address the different schools of violin playing. Though they contain some discrepancies, the most

52

recent and thorough of these sources are Great Masters of the Violin by Boris Schwarz (1983) and The Great Violinists by Margaret Campbell (1981). Both books endeavor to place the violinists into historical perspective by classifying them into their respective schools. This categorization is especially obvious throughout Schwarz’s book. Campbell includes a one-page chart at the beginning of her book: “Teacher-pupil relationships from Corelli to the present day.” Unfortunately, it is fraught with inconsistencies and omissions, and though intending to provide an overview of teacher-pupil relationships, it either spreads misconceptions or (if studied carefully) raises many more questions than it answers. Although any attempt to show these relationships is prone to inaccuracies (in part because even the most reliable sources contain discrepancies), it is hoped that the tables in the following chapter will provide a more complete representation both of the more prominent teacher-student relationships and also the relationships of those teachers to the schools where they were active. Campbell’s chart has the advantage of showing the relationships in pedigree form, but she does not account for one fundamental problem: each name must have its own pedigree going backward in time in order not to be misread. For this reason, the tables in Chapter Two include not only selected teacher-to- pupil relationships, but pupil-to-teacher relationships as well. Similar to the books by Schwarz and Campbell, but more concise (at the expense of detail) are two sources: Methodik des Violinspiels und Violinunterrichts by Joseph Bloch (1903), and the first half of the dissertation by Andrea Tersigni, The American School of Violin Playing—A Reality. The first section of Bloch’s book recounts some of the major exponents of national schools in the most straightforward fashion, each artist conveniently classified into his respective school. The book is of particular interest for readers who would like to compare current views on the great violinists of the nineteenth century to a perspective expressed soon after the close of that century, albeit from only Bloch’s point of view. The obvious drawback—the book includes only artists up to the twentieth century. The remainder of Bloch’s book addresses his own theories about violin teaching and technique. The first half of Tersigni’s dissertation reviews the history of national schools: Italian, French, German and Viennese, then Russian. The synopses are insightful, even if her ensuing argument for an “American School” is unconvincing.

53

David Boyden’s book (mentioned above in reference to the treatises) traces the early development of the violin, the bow, and violin technique. Separate nationalities (Italian, French, German, English and “Other”) are addressed, but only until 1761— before Viotti—and hence prior to any perceptible establishment of national schools beyond the Italian. In his dissertation Categories of National Violin Schools (Indiana University, 1997), Tad Lauer assumes the reader is already familiar with the national schools and their major exponents. He argues that the “classical category theory” (a term he borrows from George Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things)12 has been used throughout history to define schools of violin playing, but claims it is insufficient because of “changing criteria.” He proposes an alternative model called “prototype theory, which is based upon experimental data derived from studies by…Lakoff and others in the natural sciences”13 to more flexibly and accurately discuss national schools of violin playing. Lauer primarily concerns himself with taxonomy as it pertains to the schools, though he does include a generous amount of noteworthy historical commentary as well.

Sources Featuring Individual Artists

Sources which feature individual artists without necessarily attempting to categorize them by school represent another pertinent body of literature. The Way They Play by Samuel and Sada Applebaum (thirteen volumes, 1972-84) includes interviews with celebrated performers and teachers. Viewpoints on violin technique and occasional deliberations about the relevance of traditions and of schools in violin playing are among the many invaluable discussions. The first volume is essentially a subsequent edition of the Applebaum’s earlier book, With the Artists (1955). Frederick H. Martens’ String Mastery (1923) is a comparable work. In spite of its age, the insights shared by the great artists of that era are certainly well worth studying. Great Violinists in Performance (1987) and Violin Virtuosos from Paganini to the 21st Century (1997) by Henry Roth

12 Tad Lauer, "Categories of National Violin Schools" (DM diss., Indiana University, 1997), 5-6. 13 Ibid., 11.

54

contain critical evaluations of performers, as well as ample biographical information. In a classic but less scholarly reading, Carl Flesch recorded his encounters with musicians while living and traveling in various countries during his lifetime, and he includes his assessments of them in his Memoirs, encompassing the years 1873-1944. Scores of biographies, books, and articles have been devoted to individual artists, but for practical reasons these obviously cannot be addressed here. There are a few internet sites which provide information about individual artists: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~leonid/violinist_composers.htm includes short biographies of many well-known violinists, though some of the entries are incomplete at the time of this printing. A similar site is http://www.theviolinsite.com/violinists/index.html. Even though it only contains biographies of twentieth-century violinists, http://www.thirteen.org/publicarts/violin/index3.html is superior to the two mentioned above. Another site, http://www.angelfire.com/music5/violinistspage/B.html, provides an alphabetical listing of violinist’s websites, so it is useful in finding other sites devoted to some individual artists. Because anyone is free to add to this list (including him/herself), many obscure names find their way to the list while some of the more prominent violinists remain unlisted. The “site map” offers leads to some useful websites which address violin pedagogy.

55

CHAPTER FOUR

TABLES

Table 1: Abbreviations and Designations in the Tables acd. according to asst. assistant c circa [about] MGG Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart n.d. no date NGD New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians ( ) denotes significant influence without an official teacher/pupil relationship (?) denotes uncertainty

Questions may arise as to why some information is not found in the tables. Most living artists are not included because of the sheer volume of them, and also because it is a much simpler matter to investigate a living violinist’s immediate influences than it is to trace that genealogy of influences through the generations back to Corelli. Where possible, these more distant influences may be explored using the tables. In other instances, information is not found in the tables because that information is lacking in the sources. For example, many of the dates are incomplete or missing in the Selected Prominent Violinists/Teachers at Music Schools, Conservatories and Other Locations because this information is unavailable from the sources. Thus, the tables also provide a quick way to determine which factual information is not available from the sources.

56

Table 2: Life Spans of Selected Violinists

Accardo, Salvatore: b.1941 Dupont, Guillaume-Pierre: 1718-77 Alard, Delphin: 1815-88 Eck Auer, Leopold: 1845-1930 (1) Friedrich Johann E.: 1767-?1838 Baillot, Pierre: 1771-1842 [brother of (2)] Baltzar, Thomas: 1600-63 (2) Franz E.: 1774-1804 or 1809 Barcewicz, Stanislaw: 1858-1929 Elman, Mischa: 1891-1967 Bazzini, Antonio: 1818-97 Enesco, Georges: 1881-1955 Bell, Joshua: b.1967 Ernst, Heinrich Wilhelm: 1815-65 Benda, Franz: 1709-86 Facco, Giacomo: 1676-1753 Bennewitz, Antonín: 1833-1926 Farina, Carlo: c1604-39 Bezekirsky, Vassily: 1835-1919 Ferrari, Domenico: 1722-80 Biber, Heinrich Ignaz Franz von: Fiorillo, Frederigo: 1755-1823 1644-1704 Flesch, Carl: 1873-1944 Blinder, Naoum: 1889-1965 Francescatti, Zino: 1902-91 Böhm, Joseph: 1795-1876 Fried, Miriam: b.1946 Bridgetower, George: 1778-1860 Friedman, Erick: 1939-2004 Brodsky, Adolf: 1851-1929 Fuchs, Joseph: 1900-97 Bronstein, Raphael: 1896-1988 Galamian, Ivan: 1903-81 Brown, Eddy: 1895-1974 Galimir, Felix: 1910-99 Bull, Ole: 1810-80 Gaviniés, Pierre: 1728-1800 Buonamente, Giovanni Battista: Geminiani, Francesco: 1687-1762 late 1500’s-1642 Gilels, Elizabeta: b.1919 Burgin, Richard: 1892-1981 Gimpel, Bronislav: 1911-79 Busch, Adolph: 1891-1952 Gingold, Josef: 1909-95 Campagnoli, Bartholomeo: 1751-1827 Giornovichi, Giovanni Mane: 1747-1804 Cannabich, (Johann) Christian: 1731-98 Gitlis, Ivry: b.1922 Capet, Lucien: 1873-1928 Goldberg, Szymon: 1909-93 Cartier, Jean Baptiste: 1765-1841 Goldstein, Boris: 1922-1987 Chiabrano, Carlo (Chabran): Gordon, Jacques: 1899-1948 1723-after 1752 Grappelli, Stéphane: 1908-97 Chung, Kyung-Wha: b.1948 Graun, Johann Gottlieb: 1702(03?)-71 Clement, Franz: 1780-1842 Gregorowicz, Karol: 1867-1921 Conti, Giacomo: 1754-1805 Grün, Jakob: 1837-1916 Corelli, Arcangelo: 1653-1713 Grumiaux, Arthur: 1921-86 Corigliano, John: 1901-75 Guignon, Jean Pierre: 1702-74 Dancla, Charles: 1817-1907 Guillemain, Louis-Gabriel: 1705-70 Danner, Christian (Franz): 1757-1813 Gulli, Franco: 1926-2001 David, Ferdinand: 1810-73 Gusikoff, Michael: 1895-1978 De Bériot, Charles: 1802-70 Habeneck, Francois-Antoine: 1781-1849 Delay, Dorothy: 1917-2002 Haendel, Ida: b.1923 Dittersdorf, Karl Ditters von: 1739-99 Harth, Sidney: b.1929 Dont, Jacob: 1815-88 Hassid, Josef: 1923-50 Dounis, Demetrius: 1886-1954 Hauptmann, Moritz: 1792-1868 Dubois, Alfred: 1898-1949 Hauser, Miska: 1822-87

57 Table 2: Continued

Heerman, Hugo: 1844-1935 Leduc, Simon: 1742-77 Heifetz, Jascha: 1901-87 Léonard, Hubert: 1819-90 Hellmesberger Lipinski, Karol: 1790-1861 (1) George H., Sr.: 1800-73 [father Locatelli, Pietro: 1695-1764 of (2) and (3)] Lolli, Antonio: 1725-1802 (2) Joseph H., Sr.: 1828-93 [father of Lotto, Izydor: 1840-1927 (4)] Manfredi, Filippo: 1731-77 (3) George H., Jr.: 1830-52 Ma ák, Jan: 1870-1932 (4) Joseph H., Jr.: 1855-1907 Marini, Biagio: 1587-1665 Herrando, Joseph de: 1720/1721-63 Marsick, Martin Pierre: 1847-1924 Hess, Willy: 1859-1939 Marteau, Henri: 1874-1934 Hrimaly Massart, Joseph Lambert: 1811-92 (1) Jan H.: 1844-1915 Mayseder, Joseph: 1789-1863 (2) Vojtech H.: 1842-1908 Mazas, Jacques-Féréol: 1782-1849 (3) Bohuslav H.: 1848-94 Meerts, Lambert Joseph: 1800-63 [(1), (2) and (3) are brothers] Melkus, Eduard: b.1928 (4) Otakar H.: 1883-1945 [nephew Menuhin, Yehudi: 1916-99 of (1)] Mestrino, Nicola: 1748-89 Hubay, Jenö: 1858-1937 (Goto): b.1971 Huberman, Bronislaw: 1882-1947 Milanova, Stoika: b.1946 Jacobsen, Sascha: 1895-1971 Mildner, Moritz: 1812-65 Jansa, Leopold: 1795-1875 Milstein, Nathan: 1904-92 Jarnovick: see Giornovichi Mischakoff, Mischa: 1895-1981 Joachim, Joseph: 1831-1907 Mlynarski, Emil: 1870-1935 Kagan, Oleg: 1946-90 Mondonville, Jean-Joseph Cassanéa de: Kaufman, Louis: 1905-94 1711-72 Kneisel, Franz: 1865-1926 Montanari, Francesco: 1676-1737 Kochanski, Paul: 1887-1934 Monteux, Pierre: 1875-1964 Kocián, Jaroslav: 1883-1950 Moodie, Alma: 1900-42 Kogan, Leonid: 1924-82 Morini, Erica: 1906-95 Krasner, Louis: 1903-95 Moser, Andreas: 1859-1925 Kreisler, Fritz: 1875-1962 Mostras, Konstantin: 1886-1965 Kremer, Gidon: b.1947 Mozart, Leopold: 1719-87 Kreutzer, Rodolphe: 1766-1831 Mullova, Viktoria: b.1959 Kroll, William: 1901-80 Musin, Ovide: 1854-1929 Kubelik, Jan: 1880-1940 Mutter, Anne-Sophie: b.1963 Kulenkampff, Georg: 1898-1948 Nardini, Pietro: 1722-93 L’Abbé le Fils: 1727-1803 Neruda, Wilma (Lady Hallé): 1839-1911 Lafont, Charles Philippe: 1781-1839 Neveu, Ginette: 1919-49 Laredo, Jaime: b.1941 Nová ek, Ottokar: 1866-1900 Laub, Ferdinand: 1832-75 Odnoposoff, Ricardo: b.1914 Laurenti Oistrakh (1) Bartolomeo Girolamo: 1644- (1) David O.: 1908-74 1726 [father of (2)] (2) Igor O.: b.1931 [son of (1)] (2) Girolamo Nicolò: 1678-1751 Ondricek Leclair, Jean Marie: 1697-1764 (1) Franz O.: 1857-1922

58 Table 2: Continued

(2) Emmanuel O.: 1880-1958 Sivori, Camillo Ernesto: 1815-94 [brother of (1)] Somis, Giovanni Battista: 1686-1763 Paganini, Nicolò: 1782-1840 Spalding, Albert: 1888-1953 Pagin, André-Noël: c1719-20--c1787-99 Spivakov, Vladimir: b.1944 Perlman, Itzhak: b.1945 Spohr, Louis: 1784-1859 Persinger, Louis: 1887-1966 Stamitz Piastro, Mishel: 1891-1970 (1) Johann S.: 1717-57 [father of (2) Pieltain, Dieudonné-Pascal: 1754-1833 and (3)] Pikaisen, Viktor: b.1933 (2) Carl S.: 1745-1801 Pisendel, Georg Johann: 1687-1755 (3) Anton S.: 1750-betw.1796 & Pixis, Friedrich Wilhelm: 1785-1842 1809 Poliakin, Miron: 1895-1941 Stern, Isaac: 1920-2001 Powell, Maud: 1867-1920 Stolyarsky, Pyotr: 1871-1944 P íhoda, Váša: 1900-60 Suk Pugnani, Gaetano: 1731-98 (1) Joseph S.: 1874-1935 Rabin, Michael: 1936-72 (2) Joseph S.: b.1929 Rabinof, Benno: 1908-75 [grandson of (1)] Reményi (real name, Hoffmann), Ede Suzuki, Shin’ichi: 1898-1998 (Eduard): 1828-98 Szeryng, Henryk: 1918-88 Repin, Vadim: b.1971 Szigeti, Joseph: 1892-1973 Ricci, Ruggiero: b.1918 Tartini, Giuseppi: 1692-1770 Robberechts, André: 1797-1860 Telemann, Georg Philipp: 1681-1767 Rode, Pierre: 1774-1830 Temianka, Henri: 1906-92 Rolla, Alessandro: 1757-1841 Thibaud, Jacques: 1880-1953 Rosé, Arnold: 1863-1946 Thomson, César: 1857-1931 Rossi, Salamone: probably 1570-c1630 Torelli, Giuseppe: 1658-1709 Rostal, Max: 1905-91 Totenberg, Roman: b.1913 Rouma, August: 1802-74 Tua, Teresina: 1867-1955 Rust, Friedrich Wilhelm: 1739-96 Uccellini, Marco: c1603-80 Saint-Georges, Joseph Bologne: 1745-99 Urso, Camilla: 1842-1902 Sainton, Prosper: 1813-90 Valentini, Giuseppe: 1681-1753 Sammons, Albert: 1886-1957 Vecsey, Franz von: 1893-1935 Sarasate, Pablo de: 1844-1908 Vengerov, Maxim: b.1974 Sauret, Émile: 1852-1920 Veracini, Francesco Maria: 1690-1768 Sauzay, Eugene: 1809-1901 Vieuxtemps, Henri: 1820-81 Schmelzer, Johann Heinrich: 1621-80 Viotti, Giovanni Battista: 1755-1824 Schneiderhahn, Wolfgang: b.1915 Vitali, Tomaso Antonio: 1663-1745 Schop, Johann: ?-1667 Vivaldi, Antonio: 1678-1741 Schradieck, Henry: 1846-1918 Walther, Johann Jacob: 1650-1717 Schuppanzigh, Ignaz: 1776-1830 Weber, Joseph Miroslav: 1854-1906 Seidel, Toscha: 1900-62 Weist-Hill, Thomas Henry: 1828-91 Senofsky, Berl: 1925-2002 Westhoff, Johann Paul von: 1656-1705 Sevcik, Ottokar: 1852-1934 White, José: 1839-1918 Shumsky, Oscar: 1917-2000 Wieniawski, Henri: 1835-80 Sibor, Boris: 1880-1961 Wilhelmj, August: 1845-1908 Silverstein, Joseph: b.1932

59 Table 2: Continued

Wranitzky Yankelevich, Yuri: 1909-73 (1) Paul W.: 1756-1808 [brother of Ysaÿe, Eugene: 1858-1931 (2)] Zimbalist, Efrem: 1890-1985 (2) Anton W.: 1761-1820 Zukerman, Pinchas: b.1948 Yampolsky, Abraham: 1890-1956

60

Table 3: Selected Pupil-to-Teacher Relationships

Accardo: Astruc Bronstein: Auer d’Ambrosio Brown: Hubay Alard: Habeneck Auer

Astruc: Enesco Bull: Lundholm Milstein Poulsen (Paganini) Auer: Joachim Dont Burgin: Auer Lotto Baillot: (Viotti) Joachim Pollani Busch: Hess Baltzar: J. Schop, acd. Hartlib (NGD) Eldering

Barcewicz: Laub Campagnoli: Nardini J. Hrimaly Guastarobba A. Katski Dall’Ocha (Kreutzer) Bazzini: (Paganini) Camisoni, acd. Bachmann Cannabich: J. Stamitz

Bell: Gingold Capet: Maurin

Benda: Pisendel Carol: Zimbalist

Bennewitz: Mildner Cartier: Viotti Walraef Bezekirsky: Leónard Chung: Galamian Blinder: Fidelman Brodsky Clement: Giornovichi Kurzweil Böhm: Rode Corelli: Benvenuti(?) acd. Martini Bridgetower: Giornovichi (NGD) Brugnoli(?) acd. Martini (NGD) Brodsky: J. Hellmesberger Sr. B.G. Laurenti(?) acd. Burney Laub, acd. Slonimsky (NGD)

Bron: I. Oistrakh Corigliano: Auer Goldstein

61 Table 3: Continued (Pupil-to-Teacher)

Crickboom: Thomson Ernst: Böhm Ysaÿe De Bériot, acd. Campbell (Paganini) Dall’Ocha: Lolli Feher: Hubay Dancla: Baillot (Vieuxtemps) Fidelman: Auer Brodsky Danner: Cannabich Flesch: Grün David: Spohr Marsick Hauptmann Sauzay

De Bériot: Robberechts Francescatti, F.: Sivori Baillot (brief) Bazzini (Paganini) Francescatti, Z.: F. Francescatti (father) Delay: Persinger Bronstein Fränzl: (J. Stamitz) (Galamian) Frenkel: Auer Dont: Böhm G. Hellmesberger Sr. Fried: Gingold Galamian Dounis: F. Ondricek Friedman: Galamian Dubois: Ysaÿe Heifetz Cornélis Milstein

Dupont: Leclair Fuchs: Kneisel

Duranowski (Durand): Viotti Galamian: Capet Mostras Eck, Franz: Friedrich Joh. Eck (brother), acd. Bachmann Galimir: Flesch Adolf Bak Eck, Friedrich Joh.: Danner Garcin: Alard Elderling: Hubay Gaviniés: unknown Elman: Auer Leclair(?), acd. MGG Fidelman Geminiani: Corelli Enesco: White Marsick Gerke: Spohr, acd. Lauer J. Hellmesberger Jr.

62 Table 3: Continued (Pupil-to-Teacher)

Gilels: Yampolsky Gulli: Serato Stolyarsky his father

Gimpel: Flesch Gusikoff: Kneisel Pollak Habeneck: Baillot Gingold: Ysaÿe Graffman Haendel: Flesch Enesco Giornovichi: Lolli(?) Michalowicz

Gitlis: Enesco Harth: Piastro Thibaud Enesco Flesch Hassid: Flesch Goldberg: Flesch Michalowicz

Goldstein: Stolyarsky Hauptmann: Spohr Yampolsky Hauser: Kreutzer Gordon: Kneisel Heerman: De Bériot, acd. Bachmann Graffman: Auer Meerts

Grappelli: self-taught Heifetz: Auer Nalbandyan (Auer’s asst.) Graun, J.G.: Tartini Pisendel Hellmesberger, G. Sr.: Böhm

Gregorowicz: Bezekirsky Hellmesberger, G. Jr.: G. Hellmesberger Dont Sr. (father) Joachim Hellmesberger, J. Sr.: G. Hellmesberger Grün: Böhm Sr. (father) Hauptmann Hellmesberger, J. Jr.: J. Hellmesberger Grumiaux: Enesco (brief, and perhaps Sr. (father) only composition) Dubois Herrando: Facco(?)

Guastarobba: Tartini Hess: Joachim

Guignon: Somis Honigberger: Flesch

Guillemain: Somis Hrimaly, B.: Mildner

63 Table 3: Continued (Pupil-to-Teacher)

Hrimaly, J.: Mildner Krasner: Flesch Capet Hrimaly, V.: Mildner Sevcik

Hubay: Joachim Kreisler: Massart (Vieuxtemps) J. Hellmesberger Jr.

Huberman: Gregorowicz Kremer: D. Oistrakh Marsick Lotto Kreutzer: Viotti(?) Michalowicz A. Stamitz Markees (Joachim’s asst.) Kroll: Marteau Jacobsen: Kneisel Kneisel

Jarnovick: see Giornovichi Kubelik: Sevcik

Joachim: Böhm Kulenkampff: Hess G. Hellmesberger Sr. Hauser Kuzdo: Auer Hauptmann Lotto (Mendelssohn/David) L’Abbé le Fils: Leclair Kagan: D. Oistrakh Lafont: Kreutzer Katski, A.: G. Katski (father) Rode (brief) Paganini Laredo: Gingold Kaufman: Kneisel Galamian

Klingler: Joachim Laub: Mildner

Kneisel: Grün Laurenti, G.N.: B.G. Laurenti (father) J. Hellmesberger (Sr.?) Torelli Vitali K , And : Joachim Laurenti, B.G.: E. Gaibara Kochanski: Mlynarski Thomson Leclair: Somis(?), acd. Quantz (NGD)

Kocián: Sevcik Lecloux-Dejonc: unknown, acd. Lauer

Kogan: Yampolsky Leduc: Gaviniés

Korguyeff: Auer

64 Table 3: Continued (Pupil-to-Teacher)

Léonard: Habeneck Melkus: Moravec Rouma Prume Menuhin: Persinger Pieltain(?) Enesco Busch Lipinski, K.: Feliks Lipinski (father), but otherwise self-taught Michalowicz: Auer

Locatelli: (Corelli) Midori: Delay Veracini, acd. Martini (NGD) Zukerman Valentini(?) Montanari(?) Milanova: D. Oistrakh Ghilarducci(?) Mildner: Pixis Lolli: Nardini, but “practically self- taught,” acd. Bachmann Milstein: Stolyarsky Auer Lotto: Massart Mischakoff: Korguyeff Lundholm: Baillot Mlynarski: Auer Ma ák: Bennewitz Monteux: Maurin Markees: Joachim Berthelier

Marsick: Joachim Moodie: Flesch Léonard Massart Morini: Sevcik Dupont Moser: Joachim Marteau: Léonard Garcin Mostras: Sibor Joachim, acd. MGG (Auer)

Massart: Kreutzer Mullova: Kogan

Maurin: Baillot Musin: Léonard Habeneck Mutter: Stucki Mayseder: A. Wranitzky Honigberger

Mazas: Baillot Nardini: Tartini

Meerts: Lafont Neruda, W.: Jansa Habeneck J. Neruda (father)

65 Table 3: Continued (Pupil-to-Teacher)

Neveu: Flesch Pisendel: Montanari Enesco A. Vivaldi Torelli Nová ek, O.: Schradieck Brodsky Pixis: Fränzl Dont Viotti (2 months) M. J. Nová ek (father) Poliakin: Auer Odnoposoff: Flesch Pollani: Nardini Oistrakh, D.: Stolyarsky Poulsen: Viotti Oistrakh, I.: Stolyarsky D. Oistrakh (father) Powell: Dancla Schradieck Ondricek, E.: Sevcik Joachim William Lewis Ondricek, F.: Bennewitz Massart P íhoda: Ma ák Weber Prume: Habeneck Paër: Ghiretti Pugnani: Somis Paganini: Servetto Tartini, acd. Bachmann and Costa Campbell Rolla (brief, if at all) Ghiretti Rabin: Galamian Paër (Duranowski [Durand]) Rabinof: Auer Thibaud Pagin: Tartini Enesco(?) Kneisel Perlman: Galamian Kuzdo Delay Goldgart Reményi: Böhm

Persinger: Ysaÿe Repin: Bron Thibaud Hans Becker Ricci: Persinger Lackey (Persinger’s asst.) Piastro: Auer Piastro Kulenkampff Pieltain: Giornovichi Stassevitch

Pikaisen: D. Oistrakh Robberechts: Viotti Baillot

66 Table 3: Continued (Pupil-to-Teacher)

Rode: Viotti Shumsky: Zimbalist Fauvel Auer Max Senofsky (father of Berl) Rolla: Renzi Dounis (briefly) Conti Sibor: Auer or (Auer), acd. Schwarz Rosé: Heissler Silverstein: Zimbalist Rostal: Flesch Gingold Rosé Mischakoff (briefly) Dounis (briefly) Rouma: Pieltain Sivori: Paganini Rust: Benda Somis: Corelli Saint-Georges: Lolli(?) Spalding: Chiti Sainton: Habeneck Buitrago Lefort Sarasate: Massart Alard Spivakov: Yankelevich Sher Sauret: De Bériot(?) Vieuxtemps(?) Spohr: (Rode) Wieniawski(?) F. Eck Maucourt Sauzay: Baillot Kunisch Dufour Schneiderhahn: J. Winkler Sevcik Stamitz, A: C. Stamitz (brother) Cannabich Schradieck: Léonard David Stamitz, C.: J. Stamitz (father) Cannabich Schuppanzigh: A. Wranitzky Stamitz, J.: A. I. Stamitz (father) Seidel: Auer Stassevitch: Auer Senofsky, B.: Persinger Stassevich Stern: Blinder Galamian Persinger Pollak Serato: Sarti, acd. Bachmann Stolyarsky: Karbulka Sevcik: Bennewitz Mlynarski Barcewicz

67 Table 3: Continued (Pupil-to-Teacher)

Stucki: Flesch Urso: Massart

Suk, J. (grandfather): Bennewitz Valentini: Bononcini

Suk, J. (grandson): M. Hlounova Vecsey: Hubay A. Plocek Joachim Kocián (as a child) Vengerov: Bron Suzuki: And K Turchaninova Klingler Veracini, F.: A. Veracini (uncle) Szeryng: Flesch Thibaud, acd. Slonimsky Vieuxtemps: De Bériot Frenkel (Auer’s asst.) Lecloux-Dejonc (Thibaud), acd. Roth, Schwarz Gerke, acd. Lauer and Campbell (Enesco) acd. Schwarz Viotti: Pugnani (Kreisler) acd. Roth and Campbell Vitali, T.A.: G.B. Vitali(?) (father)

Szigeti: Hubay Vivaldi, A.: G.B. Vivaldi(?) (father)

Tartini: self-taught Weber: Laub (F. Veracini) Bennewitz

Temianka: Flesch Weist-Hill: Sainton Boucherit Hess White: Alard Blitz Wieniawski: Massart Thibaud: Marsick Wilhelmj: David Thomson: Vieuxtemps Léonard Wranitzky, A.: P. Wranitzky (brother) Wieniawski Massart Yampolsky: Korguyeff

Torelli: Brugnoli(?) Yankelevich: Yampolsky B.G. Laurenti(?) Nalbandyan (Auer’s asst.)

Totenberg: Flesch Ysaÿe: Vieuxtemps Enesco Wieniawski Monteux Michalowicz, acd. Schwarz Zimbalist: Auer Nalbandyan (Auer’s asst.) Tua: Massart Sevcik (briefly)

68 Table 3: Continued (Pupil-to-Teacher)

Zukerman: Galamian Feher

69

Table 4: Selected Teacher-to-Pupil Relationships

Alard: Sarasate Brodsky: Blinder Garcin Nová ek White Bron: Vengerov Auer: Elman Repin Heifetz Milstein Bronstein: Delay Zimbalist Oliveira Shumsky Brown Cannabich: A. Stamitz Bronstein C. Stamitz Piastro Seidel Capet: Galamian Korguyeff Krasner Stassevitch Poliakin Corelli: (Locatelli) Graffman Somis Mlynarski Geminiani Kuzdo Gasparini Rabinof Michalowicz Costa: Paganini Sibor or (Sibor), acd Schwarz Sivori (Mostras), acd. Schwarz David: Wilhelmj Baillot: Habeneck Albrecht Dancla (Joachim) Lundholm Maurin De Bériot: Vieuxtemps Mazas Sauret(?) Robberechts Ernst, acd. Campbell De Bériot (brief) Heerman, acd. Bachmann

Bennewitz: Sevcik Delay: Perlman F. Ondricek Midori J. Suk (grandfather) Mintz Ma ák Dont: Auer Böhm: Dont Gregorowicz Joachim Nová ek Ernst G. Hellmesberger Sr. Grün, acd. Bachmann Reményi

70 Table 4: Continued (Teacher-to-Pupil)

Enesco: Menhuin Graun: W.F. Bach (son of J.S. Bach) Haendel Neveu Grün: Flesch Harth Kneisel Gitlis Astruc Habeneck: Léonard Grumiaux (brief, and perhaps Alard only composition) Maurin Rabinof(?) Sainton (Szeryng), acd. Schwarz Meerts Prume Feher: Zukerman Mintz Hauptmann: David Joachim Flesch: Szeryng Grün Rostal Haendel Hellmesberger Hassid (1) George H., Sr.: Joachim Moodie Dont Neveu Joseph H., Sr. Krasner George H., Jr. Temianka Auer* Gitlis Ernst* Galimir (2) Joseph H., Sr.: Auer* Honigberger Brodsky Stucki Kneisel (or Jr.?) Joseph H., Jr. Galamian: Perlman Grädener Zukerman Nikisch Rabin Rappoldi Fried Schrammel Laredo (3) Joseph H., Jr.: Kreisler Chung Enesco Senofsky *acd. Evidon (NGD) and Slonimsky (in Friedman the entries for “Hellmesberger” only), (Delay) but this is doubtful, as there are no other indications that Auer or Ernst studied Gingold: Bell with either G. or J. Hellmesberger. Fried Laredo Hess: Busch Preucil Kulenkampff Silverstein Temianka

Giornovichi: Bridgetower Clement Pieltain

71 Table 4: Continued (Teacher-to-Pupil)

Hubay: Szigeti Marsick: Huberman Brown Thibaud Eldering Enesco Feher Flesch Vecsey Ormandy Massart: Marsick Kreisler Joachim: Hubay Wieniawski Marsick Sarasate Auer Thomson Gregorowicz F. Ondricek Hess Lotto Vecsey Tua Markees Urso Moser Klingler Michalowicz: Huberman And K Haendel Marteau, acd. MGG Hassid Totenberg, acd. Schwarz Kneisel: Jacobsen Gordon Mildner: Laub Gusikoff Hrimaly, B. Kroll Hrimaly, J. Kaufman Hrimaly, V. Rabinof Bennewitz

Kreutzer: Massart Montanari: Pisendel Lafont Locatelli(?) Hauser (Campagnoli) Nardini: Pollani Lolli Leclair: Gaviniés(?) Campagnoli L’Abbé le Fils Dupont Oistrakh, D.: I. Oistrakh Pikaisen Léonard: Marsick Kremer Schradieck Kagan Thomson Milanova Musin Marteau Paganini: Sivori Bezekirsky Katski, A. (Bazzini) Lolli: Giornovichi (Bull) Dall’Ocha (Ernst) Saint-Georges(?) (De Bériot)

72 Table 4: Continued (Teacher-to-Pupil)

Persinger: Menhuin Spohr: David Ricci Hauptmann Stern Gerke, acd. Lauer Delay Senofsky Stamitz, A.: Kreutzer

Piastro: Ricci Stamitz, C.: A. Stamitz (brother) Harth Stamitz, J.: C. Stamitz (son) Pieltain: Rouma Cannabich Léonard(?) Toeschi Fränzl Pisendel: Benda Cramer J.G. Graun Stassevitch: Ricci Pugnani: Viotti Senofsky Borghi Bruni Stolyarsky: D. Oistrakh Polledro I. Oistrakh Conforti Milstein Goldstein Robberechts: De Bériot Gilels Tiby Tartini: Nardini Rode: Böhm Pugnani Lafont (brief) Manfredi (Spohr) Ferrari Pagin Schradieck: Powell Guastarobba Nová ek J.G. Graun

Schuppanzigh: Beethoven Thibaud: Persinger Rabinof Sevcik: Kubelik Gitlis Morini Szeryng, acd. Slonimsky Kocián (Szeryng), acd. Roth, Schwarz Krasner and Campbell E. Ondricek Schneiderhahn Thomson: Kochanski Zimbalist (brief) Crickboom

Somis: Pugnani Torelli: Pisendel Leclair(?), acd. Quantz (NGD) G.N. Laurenti Giardini Guignon Veracini: (Tartini) Guillemain Locatelli, acd. Martini (NGD)

73 Table 4: Continued (Teacher-to-Pupil)

Vieuxtemps: Ysaÿe Wieniawski: Ysaÿe Thomson Thomson Weist-Hill Gregorowicz Sauret(?) Sauret(?) (Hubay) (Dancla) Wranitzky, A.: Schuppanzigh Mayseder Viotti: (Baillot) Rode Yampolsky: Kogan Kreutzer(?) Gilels Robberechts Goldstein Pixis (2 months) A. Markov Duranowski (Durand) Cartier Yankelevich: Spivakov Poulsen Tretyakov

Vitali, T.A.: G.N. Laurenti Ysaÿe: Gingold Senaillé Persinger E.F. Dall’Abaco Primrose L.A. Piediere Dubois Crickboom Vivaldi, A.: Pisendel Zimbalist: Shumsky Silverstein Ashkenasi Carol

74

Table 5: Selected Prominent Violinists/Teachers at Music Schools, Conservatories, and Other Locations (Alphabetical by School)

Berlin Hochschule (founded 1869) Germany/, 17th & 18th Joachim (1869-?) Centuries14 Moser (1888-1925) Buonamente Marteau (1908-15) Baltzar Busch (1918-?) C. Farina Flesch (1921-22; 1928-34) Schmelzer Kulenkampff (1923-26) Biber Walther Brussels Conservatory (1832) Westhoff De Bériot (1843-52) Telemann Léonard (1853-66) Pisendel Vieuxtemps (1871-73; 1877-79) Graun Wieniawski (1875-77) Benda Hubay (1882-86) Stamitz Ysaÿe (1886-98) L. Mozart Musin (1897-?) Cannabich Thomson (1898-?) Rust Dubois (1927-49) Dittersdorf Grumiaux (1949-?) Italy, 17th & 18th Centuries* Curtis Institute (1924) Rossi Flesch (1924-28) Marini Auer (1928-?) Uccellini Zimbalist (1928-68) Corelli Galamian (1944-81) Torelli Shumsky (1961-65) Cazzati Galimir (1972-?) Vitali Facco France, 18th Century* Vivaldi Leclair Valentini Guignon Somis Guillemain Geminiani Mondonville Veracini Pagin Tartini Chiabrano (Chabran) Locatelli L’Abbé le Fils Gaviniés 14 List is chronological by birth year; for more Leduc specific locations, see Selected Prominent Saint-Georges Violinists/Teachers at Music Schools, Viotti Conservatories, and Other Locations: Alphabetical by Cartier Violinist/Teacher (p. 78). Dates included under other headings indicate years that teachers taught at specific institutions, if known.

75 Table 5: Continued

Nardini Ferrari Paris Conservatory (1795) - previously Lolli the Inst. National de Musique Pugnani Kreutzer (1793-1826) Manfredi Baillot (1795-1842) Mestrino Rode (1795-?) Campagnoli Gaviniés (1795-?) Habeneck (1825-48) (1930) - previously Alard (1843-75) the Institute of Musical Art, N.Y. Massart (1843-90) Kneisel (1905-26) Dancla (1855-92) Kroll (1922-38) Sauzay (1860-92) Thomson (1924-27) Marsick (1892-1900) Auer (1926-30) Thomson (1914-?) Kochanski (1924-34) Maurin (dates not found) Persinger (1930-66) Lefort (dates not found) Bronstein (c1940s) Berthelier (dates not found) Galamian (1946-81) Gingold (annual master classes 1970-81) Delay (1948-2002) Shumsky (1953-78) (1811) Galimir (1962-99) Weber (first director of the school; dates not found) Leipzig Conservatory (1843) Pixis (1810-?) Hauptmann (1842-68) Bennewitz (1865-1901) David (1843-73) Sevcik (1892-1906) Schradieck (1874-82) Ma ák (1897-1932) Brodsky (1883-91) Marteau (1923-34) Kocián (1921-43) Moscow Conservatory (1866) Mildner (dates not found) Schradieck (1865-68) Laub (1866-74) St. Petersburg (Imperial) Conservatory J. Hrimaly (1869-1915) (1862) Brodsky (1875-?) [Vieuxtemps taught in St. Petersburg O. Hrimaly (1909-22) before the Conservatory was founded Sibor (1922-?) (1846-51)] Mostras (1922-?) Wieniawski (1862-68) Blinder (1923-25) Auer (1868–1917, acd. Schwarz in NGD) Yampolsky (1926-56) Kochanski (1915-?) D. Oistrakh (1934-?) Korguyeff (dates not found) Poliakin (1936-?) Yankelevich (1961-?) Gilels (1967-?) Tretyakov (1984-?)

76 Table 5: Continued

Vienna Conservatory/Music Academy (1817) Böhm (1819-48) G. Hellmesberger Sr. (1821-67) J. Hellmesberger Sr. (1851-93) Dont (1873-?) Grün (1877-1909) J. Hellmesberger Jr. (1878-?) Rosé (1893-1924) Sevcik (1909-19) E. Moravec (1930-66) Schneiderhahn (1939-50) P íhoda (1950-60) Melkus (1958-?)

77

Table 6: Selected Prominent Violinists/Teachers at Music Schools, Conservatories, and Other Locations (Alphabetical by Violinist/Teacher)

Alard: Paris Conservatory (1843-75)

Auer: Curtis Institute (1928-?) Institute of Musical Art, New York (1926-30) Norway (1915-17), acd. Slonimsky (1912-14) London (1906-11, summers) St. Petersburg Conservatory (1868-1917, acd. Schwarz in NGD)

Baillot: Paris Conservatory (1795-1842)

Baltzar: Lübeck (Germany), Sweden, England

Benda: Berlin

Bennewitz: Prague Conservatory (1865-1901)

Biber: Salzburg

Böhm: Vienna Conservatory (1819-48)

Brodsky: Royal Manchester College of Music, England (1895-?) Leipzig Conservatory (1883-91) Moscow Conservatory (1875-?)

Bronstein: Juilliard (taught Delay, 1941) Manhattan School of Music

Buonamente: Assisi (1633-?) Vienna (1626-31)

Busch: Organized the Marlboro School of Music in Vermont (1950) Berlin Hochschule (1918-?)

Campagnoli: Italy, Germany, Sweden

Cannabich: Mannheim (1774-?)

Chiabrano (Chabran): Paris, London

Cartier: Paris

78 Table 6: Continued

Corelli: Rome

Dancla: Paris Conservatory (1855-92)

David: Leipzig Conservatory (1843-73)

De Bériot: Brussels Conservatory (1843-52)

Delay: Juilliard (1948-2002) New England Conservatory of Music in Boston (1978-87) College of the Performing Arts (1977-83) Univ. of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music (1974-?) Aspen Music School (1971-?) Sarah Lawrence College (1948-87) Meadowmount (1948-70)

Dittersdorf: Vienna

Dont: Vienna Conservatory (1873-?)

Dounis: Moved to Los Angeles, in 1954 Established his private studio in New York in 1939 Salonika Conservatory, Greece (after World War I)

Dubois: Brussels Conservatory (1927-49)

Enesco: Mannes (New York) University of Illinois American Academy of Music at Fontainebleau Summer courses at Brighton Summer courses at Bryanston Accademia Musicale Chigiana (Siena, Italy) Bucharest École Normale in Paris Yvonne Astruc’s “Institut Instrumental”

Farina, C.: Dresden, Danzig, Vienna Briefly in Parma and Lucca

Ferrari: Paris, Stuttgart, Cremona

79 Table 6: Continued

Flesch: Lucerne Conservatory (1943-44) Summer courses in Baden-Baden (1926-34) Berlin Hochschule (1921-22; 1928-34) Curtis Institute (1924-28) Berlin, private teaching (1908-13) Amsterdam Conservatory (1903-08) Bucharest Conservatory (1897-1902) [Flesch went to London in 1934 to flee Hitler’s regime, then to the Netherlands (until the Nazi invasion in 1940), then , then Lucerne (from 1943).]

Galamian: Juilliard (1946-81) Curtis Institute (1944-81) Founded the Meadowmount Summer Violin School in Westport, New York (1944-81) Henry St. Settlement School, New York (1941) École Normale de Musique, Paris (1936-39) Russian Conservatory in Paris (1925-39, acd. Slonimsky); (1925-29, acd. Galamian Principles, ed. Green)

Galimir: Mannes (1977-?) Curtis (1972-?) Juilliard (1962-99) Marlboro Festival and Music School, Vermont (1954-?)

Gaviniés: Paris Conservatory (1795-?)

Geminiani: Rome Dublin (1737-40; 1759-62) London (1714-37; 1740-59)

Gilels: Moscow Conservatory (1967-?)

Gingold: Indiana University (1960-95) Meadowmount (1955-81) Annual master classes at Paris Conservatory (1970-81) Western Reserve University (1950-60)

Graun: Berlin

Grumiaux: Brussels Conservatory (1949-?)

Grün: Vienna Conservatory (1877-1909)

Guignon: France, Italy

Guillemain: Lyons and Dijon (France); Italy

80 Table 6: Continued

Gulli: Indiana University (1972-2001) Lucerne Conservatory Accademia Musicale Chigiana (Siena, Italy; 1964-72)

Habeneck: Paris Conservatory (1825-48)

Hauptmann: Leipzig Conservatory (1842-68)

Heifetz: University of Southern California, Los Angeles (1962-72)

Hellmesberger (1) George H., Sr. [father of (2)]: Vienna Conservatory (1821-67, first as Böhm’s asst.) (2) Joseph H., Sr. [father of (3)]: Vienna Conservatory (1851-93; he also founded the Hellmesberger Quartet) (3) Joseph H., Jr.: Vienna Conservatory (1878-?)

Hrimaly (1) Jan H. [uncle of (2)]: Moscow Conservatory (1869-1915); wrote Scale-Studies, Doppelgriff-Übungen and Tonleiter Studien (2) Otakar H.: Moscow Conservatory (1909-22); taught violin according to Slonimsky, but not according to Tyrrell (NGD)

Hubay: Conservatory (1886-1934) Brussels Conservatory (1882-86)

Joachim: Founded Berlin Hochschule (1869)

Kneisel: Institute of Musical Art, New York (1905-26) He also established a summer school of violin and chamber music at his home in Blue Hill, Maine.

Kocián: Prague Conservatory (1921-43, first three years as Sevcik’s asst.) Conservatory (1907-09)

Korguyeff: Leningrad Conservatory (1900-25) St. Petersburg Conservatory

Kreutzer: Inst. National de Musique, which became Paris Conservatory in 1795 (1793- 1826)

Kulenkampff: Lucerne Conservatory, (1943-?) Berlin Hochschule (1923-26)

L’Abbé le Fils: Paris

81 Table 6: Continued

Laub: Moscow Conservatory (1866-74) Stern Conservatory, Berlin (1855-57)

Leduc: Paris

Lefort: Paris Conservatory

Léonard: Brussels Conservatory (1853-66)

Locatelli: Rome Amsterdam (1729-64)

Lolli: Italy, Germany, France, England, Scandinavia, Russia

Lotto: Music Institute (1880-?) Strasbourg Conservatory, France (1873-80)

Manfredi: Madrid, Paris, Genoa, Lucca

Marini: Venice, Brescia, Parma, Milan, Ferrara, Neuberg

Marsick: Paris Conservatory (1892-1900)

Marteau: Prague Conservatory (1923-34) Berlin Hochschule (1908-15) Conservatory (1900-08)

Massart: Paris Conservatory (1843-90)

Maurin: Paris Conservatory

Mazas: Directed a music school in Cambrai, France (1837-41) Orléans, France (1831-?)

Menuhin: Founded the Menuhin School in Stoke d’Abernon (Surrey, England; 1963)

Mestrino: Esterházy (under Haydn), Pressburg (now Bratislava), Paris

Mildner: Prague Conservatory

Moser: Berlin Hochschule (1888-1925)

Mostras: Moscow Conservatory (1922-?) Moscow Philharmonic School (1914-22)

Mozart, L.: Salzburg

82 Table 6: Continued

Nardini: Florence (1768-93) Livorno (1766-68) Brunswick (1765-66) Stuttgart (1762-65)

Odnoposoff: Zürich Hochschule für Musik (1975-84) Stuttgart Hochschule für Musik (1964-?) Vienna Hochschule für Musik (1956)

Oistrakh, D.: Moscow Conservatory (1934-?)

Persinger: Juilliard (1930-66) Cleveland Institute of Music (1929-30)

Pisendel: Dresden

Pixis: Prague Conservatory (1810-?)

Poliakin: Moscow Conservatory (1936-?) Leningrad Conservatory (1928-?)

P íhoda: Vienna Music Academy (1950-60) Munich Akademie der Tonkunst (1944) Salzburg Mozarteum (1936-?)

Pugnani: Turin, Paris, London

Robberechts: Paris

Rode: Berlin (1814-18) Paris Conservatory (1795-?)

Rossi: Mantua

Rust: Dessau

Sauret: Trinity College of Music, London (1908-?) Musical College in (1903-06) , London (1890-1903)

Sauzay: Paris Conservatory (1860-92)

Schmelzer: Austria, Southern Germany

83 Table 6: Continued

Schneiderhahn: Salzburg Mozarteum (1938-56) Vienna Conservatory (1939-50) Lucerne Conservatory (1949-?)

Schradieck: American Institute of Applied Music, New York (1912-?) South Broad Street Conservatory in Philadelphia (1899-1912) National Conservatory, New York (1898-99) Cincinnati College of Music (1882-89) Leipzig Conservatory (1874-82) Moscow Conservatory (1865-68)

Sevcik: Guildhall School of Music, London (1933-?) Prague Master School (1919-21) Vienna Music Academy (1909-19) Prague Conservatory (1892-1906) Imperial School of Music, Kiev (1875-92) Summer School in Pisek (Southern Bohemia) Master classes in the U.S. (1920, 1924, 1931) Master classes in London (1932)

Shumsky: Yale School of Music (1975-?) Curtis Institute (1961-65) Juilliard (1953-78) Peabody Conservatory (1942-?) [Shumsky retired from teaching in 1981 to concentrate on his performance activities.]

Sibor: Moscow Conservatory (1922-?) School of the Moscow Philharmonic Society (1914-?)

Somis: Turin, Paris

Spohr: Kassell

Stamitz (1) Johann S. [father of (2)]: Mannheim (2) Carl S.: University in Jena, Germany (c1795)

Stolyarsky: Odessa State Conservatory (1920-?) Founded his own music school in Odessa (1911)

Suzuki: Founded Sain Ky iku Kenky -kai in Matsumoto, Japan (1950)

Szeryng: University of Mexico (1946-?)

84 Table 6: Continued

Tartini: Founded the School of the Nations, Padua (from 1728 until at least 1767) Prague (1723-26)

Telemann: Leipzig, Sorau, Eisenach, Frankfurt,

Thomson: Institute of Musical Art, New York (1924-27) Conservatory of Ithaca, New York (1924-27) Paris Conservatory (1914-?) Brussels Conservatory (1898-?) Liege Conservatory (1882-97)

Torelli: Bologna, Vienna, Ansbach

Uccellini: Modena

Veracini: London, Florence, Dresden

Vieuxtemps: Brussels Conservatory (1871-73; 1877-79) St. Petersburg Conservatory (1846-51)

Viotti: Paris, Versailles, Provence, London

Vivaldi: Pio Ospedale della Pietà (la Pietà), a girl’s orphanage in Venice (1703-09; 1711-c1718) [Vivaldi continued composing for la Pietà, but his frequent travels prevented him from further teaching.]

Walther: Dresden

Westhoff: Dresden

Wieniawski: Brussels Conservatory (1875-77) [retired due to a heart condition] St. Petersburg Conservatory (1862-68)

Wilhelmj: Guildhall School of Music (London, 1894-1908)

Yampolsky: Moscow Conservatory (1926-56) Ekaterinoslav Music School, Russia (1913-20)

Yankelevich: Moscow Conservatory (1961-?)

Ysaÿe: Brussels Conservatory (1886-98)

Zimbalist: Curtis Institute (1928-68)

85

Table 7: Significant Treatises on Violin Playing (Chronological by Publication Date)

Corrette, Michel: L’école d’Orphée (Paris, 1738; Eng. trans. Carol Reglin Farrar, 1978)

Tartini, Giuseppe: L’arte del arco (38 variations on Gavotte from Corelli’s op.5 no.10) (Paris, 174-?)

Geminiani, Francesco: The Art of Playing on the Violin (London, 1751)

Tartini, Giuseppe: Trattato di Musica (Padua, 1754)

Herrando, Joseph de: Arte y puntual explicación del modo de tocar el violín (Paris, 1756; Eng. trans. Mark H. Jasinski, 1974)

Mozart, Leopold: Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule (Augsburg, 1756; Eng. trans. Editha Knocker, 1948)

L’Abbé le Fils: Principes du Violon, pour apprendere le doigté de cet instrument, et les differérends agréments dont il est susceptible (Paris, 1761)

Tartini, Giuseppe: Traité des agréments de la musique (Paris, 1770)

Corrette, Michel: L’art de se perfectionner dans le Violon (Paris, 1782; Eng. trans. Carol Reglin Farrar, 1978)

Cartier, Jean Baptiste: L’art du violon (Paris, 1798)

Baillot, Pierre, , and : Méthode de violon (Paris, 1803)

Campagnoli, Bartolomeo: Nouvelle méthode de la mécanique progressive du jeu de violon, op. 21 (Leipzig, 1824; Eng. trans. 1856)

Mazas, Jacques-Féréol: Méthode de violon (Paris, 1830; ed. Georges Enesco, Paris, 1916)

Spohr, Ludwig: Violinschule (Vienna, 1832; Eng. trans. John Bishop, 1843)

Baillot, Pierre: L’art du violon: nouvelle méthode (Paris, 1834; Eng. trans. Louise Goldberg, 1991)

Habeneck, Francois-Antoine: Méthode théorique et pratique de violon (Paris, c1835)

Mazas, Jacques-Féréol: L’école du violoniste (Paris, 1839)

Alard, Delphin: Ecole du violon (Paris, 1844)

86 Table 7: Continued

Dancla, Charles: Méthode élémentaire et progressive pour le violon (Paris, 1850; Eng. trans. Theodore Baker, 1903)

De Bériot, Charles: Méthode de violon (Paris, 1858; Eng. trans. George Lehmann, c1899)

David, Ferdinand: Die hohe Schule des Violinspiels (Leipzig, 1864?)

Sauret, Emile: Gradus ad Parnassum du violiniste (Leipzig, c1896)

Wilhelmj, August and James Brown: A Modern School for the Violin (London, 1898)

Joachim, Joseph and Andreas Moser: Violinschule (Berlin, 1902-05; Eng. trans. Alfred Moffat, c1905)

Flesch, Carl: Urstudien (Berlin, c1911)

Capet, Lucien: La technique supérieure de l'archet (Paris, 1916)

Auer, Leopold: Violin Playing as I Teach It (New York, 1921)

Flesch, Carl: The Art of Violin Playing (New York, 1924)

Marsick, Martin Pierre: La Grammaire du Violon (Paris, c1924)

Auer, Leopold: Graded Course of Violin Playing (New York, 1926)

Galamian, Ivan: Principles of Violin Playing and Teaching (New York, 1962)

De Bériot, Charles: Ecole transcendante de violon (Mainz, [n.d.])

Dont, Jacob: Gradus ad Parnassum [n.d.]

Léonard, Hubert: L’école Léonard pour le violon [n.d.]

87

Table 8: Significant Treatises on Violin Playing (Alphabetical by Author)

Alard, Delphin: Ecole du violon (Paris, 1844)

Auer, Leopold: Graded Course of Violin Playing (New York, 1926)

Auer, Leopold: Violin Playing as I Teach It (New York, 1921)

Baillot, Pierre, Pierre Rode, and Rodolphe Kreutzer: Méthode de violon (Paris, 1803)

Baillot, Pierre: L’art du violon: nouvelle méthode (Paris, 1834; Eng. trans. Louise Goldberg, 1991)

Campagnoli, Bartolomeo: Nouvelle méthode de la mécanique progressive du jeu de violon, op. 21 (Leipzig, 1824; Eng. trans. 1856)

Capet, Lucien: La technique supérieure de l'archet (Paris, 1916)

Cartier, Jean Baptiste: L’art du violon (Paris, 1798)

Corrette, Michel: L’art de se perfectionner dans le Violon (Paris, 1782; Eng. trans. Carol Reglin Farrar, 1978)

Corrette, Michel: L’école d’Orphée (Paris, 1738; Eng. trans. Carol Reglin Farrar, 1978)

Dancla, Charles: Méthode élémentaire et progressive pour le violon (Paris, 1850; Eng. trans. Theodore Baker, 1903)

David, Ferdinand: Die hohe Schule des Violinspiels (Leipzig, 1864?)

De Bériot, Charles: Ecole transcendante de violon (Mainz, [n.d.])

De Bériot, Charles: Méthode de violon (Paris, 1858; Eng. trans. George Lehmann, c1899)

Dont, Jacob: Gradus ad Parnassum [n.d.]

Flesch, Carl: The Art of Violin Playing (New York, 1924)

Flesch, Carl: Urstudien (Berlin, c1911)

Galamian, Ivan: Principles of Violin Playing and Teaching (New York, 1962)

Geminiani, Francesco: The Art of Playing on the Violin (London, 1751)

Habeneck, Francois-Antoine: Méthode théorique et pratique de violon (Paris, c1835)

88 Table 8: Continued

Herrando, Joseph de: Arte y puntual explicación del modo de tocar el violín (Paris, 1756; Eng. trans. Mark H. Jasinski, 1974)

Joachim, Joseph and Andreas Moser: Violinschule (Berlin, 1902-05; Eng. trans. Alfred Moffat, c1905)

L’Abbé le Fils: Principes du Violon, pour apprendere le doigté de cet instrument, et les differérends agréments dont il est susceptible (Paris, 1761)

Léonard, Hubert: L’école Léonard pour le violon [n.d.]

Marsick, Martin Pierre: La Grammaire du Violon (Paris, c1924)

Mazas, Jacques-Féréol: L’école du violoniste (Paris, 1839)

Mazas, Jacques-Féréol: Méthode de violon (Paris, 1830; ed. Georges Enesco, Paris, 1916)

Mozart, Leopold: Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule (Augsburg, 1756; Eng. trans. Editha Knocker, 1948)

Sauret, Emile: Gradus ad Parnassum du violiniste (Leipzig, c1896)

Spohr, Ludwig: Violinschule (Vienna, 1832; Eng. trans. John Bishop, 1843)

Tartini, Giuseppe: L’arte del arco (38 variations on Gavotte from Corelli’s op.5 no.10) (Paris, 174-?)

Tartini, Giuseppe: Traité des agréments de la musique (Paris, 1770)

Tartini, Giuseppe: Trattato di Musica (Padua, 1754)

Wilhelmj, August and James Brown: A Modern School for the Violin (London, 1898)

89

Table 9: Primary Sources Consulted for the Tables

Applebaum, Samuel and Sada. The Way They Play. 13 vols. Neptune City, N.J.: Paganiniana Publications, Inc., 1972-1984.

Bachmann, Alberto. An Encyclopedia of the Violin. New York: Da Capo Press, 1966.

Bloch, Joseph. Methodik des Violinspiels und Violinunterrichts. Strassburg, Germany: Süddeutscher Musikverlag, 1903.

Blume, Friedrich, ed. Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 14 vols. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1949-68. Suppls., 1973 and 1979. Index, 1986.

Campbell, Margaret. The Great Violinists. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981.

Lauer, Tad. "Categories of National Violin Schools." DM diss., Indiana University, 1997.

Roth, Henry. Violin Virtuosos from Paganini to the 21st Century. Los Angeles, CA: California Classics Books, 1997.

Sadie, Stanley, ed. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. 20 vols. London: Macmillan, 2001.

Schwarz, Boris. Great Masters of the Violin. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983.

Slonimsky, Nicolas, ed. Baker’s Biographical Dictionary. 8th ed. New York: G. Schirmer, Inc., 1992.

Tersigni, Andrea. "The American School of Violin Playing—A Reality." DMA diss., University of Washington, 1996.

90

APPENDIX

91

92

93

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Applebaum, Samuel and Sada. The Way They Play. 13 vols. Neptune City, N.J.: Paganiniana Publications, Inc., 1972-1984.

______. With The Artists. New York: John Markert & Co., 1955.

Auer, Leopold. Graded Course of Violin Playing. 8 vols. New York: Carl Fischer, 1926.

______. Violin Playing As I Teach It. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd. Hinrichsen Edition Ltd., 1960.

Bachmann, Alberto. An Encyclopedia of the Violin. New York: Da Capo Press, 1966.

Baillot, Pierre Marie Francois de Sales. The Art of the Violin [1834]. Edited and trans. Louise Goldberg. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1991.

Bloch, Joseph. Methodik des Violinspiels und Violinunterrichts. Strassburg, Germany: Süddeutscher Musikverlag, 1903.

Blume, Friedrich, ed. Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 14 vols. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1949-68. Suppls., 1973 and 1979. Index, 1986.

Bookspan, Martin. “A Conversation with .” Journal of the Violin Society of America, USA III/2 (1977): 5-26.

Boyden, David D. The History of Violin Playing from its Origins to 1761. London: Oxford University press, 1965.

Campbell, Margaret. The Great Violinists. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981.

Capet, Lucien. La technique supérieure de l’archet: pour violon [1916]. Paris: Salabert, 1952.

Cartier, Jean Baptiste. L’art du violon [1798]. New York: Broude Brothers Ltd., 1973.

Church, Allan H. and Janine Waclawski. Designing and Using Organizational Surveys: A Seven-Step Process. : Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series, 2001.

94

Corrette, Michel. L’école d’Orphée [1738]. Genève: Minkoff Reprint, 1972.

Dancla, Charles. Elementary and Progressive Method for Violin, Op. 52 [1850]. 2 vols. Trans. Theodore Baker. New York: G. Schirmer, Inc., 1931.

David, Ferdinand. Die hohe Schule des Violinspiels [1864?]. 2 vols. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, [19--].

De Bériot, Charles. Method for the Violin [1858]. 2 vols. Trans. George Lehmann. New York: G. Schirmer, Inc., 1935.

Deverich, Robin Kay. How Did They Learn? An Overview of Violin Pedagogy with an Emphasis on Amateur Violinists. http://www.violinonline.com/violin_pedagogy.htm.

Directory of Music Faculties in Colleges and Universities, U.S. and Canada, 2001-2002. 23rd ed. Missoula, MT: The College Music Society.

Eddy, Alexandra M. “American Violin-Method Books and European Teachers, Geminiani to Spohr.” American Music vol. 8, no. 2 (Summer 1990): 167-209.

Farrar, Carol Reglin. “Seven Treatises of Michel Corrette: Translation with Commentary.” Ph.D diss., North Texas State University, 1978.

Flesch, Carl. The Art of Violin Playing. Trans. Frederick H. Martens. 2 vols. New York: Carl Fischer, 1924-1930.

______. Memoirs. New York: Da Capo Press, 1979.

______. Urstudien. Berlin: Ries & Erler, 1911.

Galamian, Ivan. Principles of Violin Playing & Teaching. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985.

Galamian, Ivan and Frederick Neumann. Contemporary Violin Technique. New York: Galaxy Music Corporation, 1966.

Geminiani, Francesco. The Art of Playing on the Violin [1751]. London: Oxford University Press, [1951?].

Hill, U. C., ed. Spohr’s Grand Violin School. Boston: Oliver Ditson & Co., 1852.

Jasinski, Mark H. “A Translation and Commentary on José Herrando’s Arte y Puntual Explicacion del Modo de Tocar el Violin (1756)” MA thesis, Brigham Young University, 1974.

95

Joachim, Joseph and Andreas Moser. Violinschule. Trans. Alfred Moffat. Vol. 3. Berlin: N. Simrock, G.m.b.H., 1905.

Kroemer, Marianne. “Die Violinschule in Geschichte und Gegenwart.” Violinspiel und Violinmusik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Vienna: Universal Edition; Symposium, Graz, c1975): 235-56.

L’Abbé le Fils. Principes du Violon, pour apprendere le doigté de cet instrument, et les differérends agréments dont il est susceptible [1761]. Paris: Centre de documentation universitaire et S. E. D. E. S. Réunis, 1961.

Lauer, Tad. “Categories of National Violin Schools.” DM diss., Indiana University, 1997.

Malcolm, Noel. George Enescu: His Life and Music. Exeter, Britain: Tocatta Press, 1990.

Martens, Frederick H. String Mastery. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1923.

Mnatzaganian, Sarah. “Lessons from Life.” The Strad 112 (Sept. 2001): 978-979.

Mozart, Leopold. A Treatise on the Fundamental Principles of Violin Playing [1756]. Trans. Editha Knocker. London: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Neumann, Frederick. Violin Left Hand Technique. Urbana, IL: American String Teachers Association, 1969.

Roth, Henry. Great Violinists in Performance. Los Angeles, CA: Panjandrum Books, 1987.

______. Violin Virtuosos from Paganini to the 21st Century. Los Angeles, CA: California Classics Books, 1997.

Sadie, Stanley, ed. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. 20 vols. London: Macmillan, 2001.

Sametini, Leon. “Old and Modern Violin Playing.” MTNA Proceedings 28 (1933): 90-98.

Schwarz, Boris. “Beethoven and the French Violin School.” The Musical Quarterly 44/4 (Oct. 1958): 431-447.

______. Great Masters of the Violin. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983.

______. “The Russian School Transplanted to America.” Journal of the Violin Society of America III/1 (1977): 27-33.

96

Slonimsky, Nicolas, ed. Baker’s Biographical Dictionary. 8th ed. New York: G. Schirmer, Inc., 1992.

Szigeti, Joseph. A Violinist’s Notebook. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1964.

Tartini, Giuseppe: L’arte del arco ou l’art de l’archet: Contenant 38. Variations Composées sous la plus Belle Gavotte de Corelly [174-?]. New York: Performer’s Facsimiles, 1996.

Taylor, Hollis. “A Teacher at the Top.” Strings vol. 16, no. 2:96 (Aug.-Sept. 2001): 40- 47.

Tersigni, Andrea. “The American School of Violin Playing—A Reality.” DMA diss., University of Washington, 1996.

Uscher, Nancy. The Schirmer Guide to Schools of Music and Conservatories Throughout the World. New York: Schirmer Books, 1988.

Wilhelmj, August and James Brown: A Modern School for the Violin [1898]. 6 vols. London: Novello & Co., Ltd., 1899.

97

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Christian M. Baker joined the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra and the Rockefeller String Quartet in September, 2004. Since that time, he has also taught violin at Hendrix College in Conway, Arkansas. He began studying piano at age six and violin at age ten. Christian received his Bachelor of Music degree in Violin Performance and Pedagogy from Brigham Young University (1998), and his graduate degrees in violin performance from Florida State University (M.M. 2000, D.M. 2005). His primary teachers have included Nell Gotkovsky, Eliot Chapo, and Igor Gruppman. Christian and his pianist- wife Michelle are the happy parents of three energetic little boys: Clyn, Russell, and Hyrum.

98