The Old Masters

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 21, 16 April 1927, Page 23 (Supplement)

The Old Masters

Mischa Elman Shuns New Music

I AM sometimes asked why I do not play more “modern” works, writes Mischa Elman, the famous violinist for the “Daily Chronicle.” There are many reasons, chief of which is that little music of outstanding merit has been written for the violin recently. Again, learning a new work is no light task. My memory has already stored in it s°nie two or three hundred pieces, and to add new works to this store every year is almost impossible. Yet I would attempt even this if I could be sure "that the pieces would be appreciated. Only too often I have memorised a modern work to find that it fell absolutely flat at the first concert. I dared not play it again, and my tim e and effort were wasted. More and more one has to turn to the old masters. There are some who think this playing and appreciation of the old favourities a sign of indifferent or uncultured taste. Now, no one is more ready than I am to study new music, but I love the old masterpieces which have withstood the test of time. Charm of the Old Masters. The charm of these old pieces never stales —one discovers new beauties in them at every hearing. It is the same as with poetry. Every time you read a passage by Shakespeare, for instance, you find something new in it. You may think you have, probed its meaning to the full, but read it again a few weeks later, and you will find something fresh. That is because — although you may do it subconsciously—you always apply your own experiences and feelings to the words. It is the work of the artist, whether he be poet, painter or musician, to bring out these little details. It is impossible to bring out every detail in a

piece at every performance. Sometimes you emphasise one, sometimes another beauty, and thus give variety and keep the interest alive. Even the moat hackneyed piece can be made beautiful again by a fresh interpretation. The artist who discovers these beauties for himself, instead of taking them ready-made, from the interpretations of other artists, always keeps his audiences interested. The justification for playing these old favourites—or any other pieces—is that they are beautiful and give pleasure. At many of my concerts I play a violin concerto accompanied only by the piano, and many have condemned the practice. A piece is written for violin or orchestra, they say, and it should not be arranged for violin and piano. Piano as Orchestra. -- Now there are only one or two violinists in the world who can afford to pay an orchestra at every concert they give, and we are faced with the problem either of playing a programme of only small pieces or adding a concerto arranged for piano. Personally, I think no programme that does not include one big work is satisfying and therefore I do not hesitate to use a piano in place of the orchestra. There are some concertos I would not think of arranging fa this way. But others, notably hy Mendelssohn, are admirably suits! to this treatment. In not a cases the composer himself has made an arrangement, thus justifying the practice. It is foolish to deny an artist and his audiences pleasure by making purely academic objections. Many concertos would only be performed once in 10 years, if arrangements were not used. The test is—does the work sound beautiful, satisfying? If ft does, the arrangement is. I think. leetified.