San Francisco Institute of Music

A student of the SF Institute of Music plays Liszt's Mephisto Waltz...

http://www.thestrad.com/advice-instrumental-teachers-5-str/ Maybe teachers should seriously study how the greatest players played as would be done in any sport, for example--video analysis, experimentation. They would find that there are reasons that can be understood about why one player excels another, both musically and technically, and that all is not by any means left to the vague explanation of "talent." Feuermann attempted to do this, but died before he could finish.... But I offer this remarkable insight from his treatise: "It is surprising how few rules and principles there are and still more surprising how completely they change the entire style of playing. Beleive it or not...the really outstanding string players, whether Kreisler, Casals, or Heifetz, are similar to each other in the way they use their musular systems and handle their instruments and bows. The main difference lies in their different personalities, talents and ideas, and only to a very small extentin their techniques, for which again, physical differences are accountable." He was never able to write down these few principles, dying before he could finish. But unless a string teacher understands these basic principles, which I would suggest are the opposite of what is currently taught, the teacher is simply destroying students' talent, albeit unknowingly. That this is so common is a result of the fact that institutions and teachers, in general, do not seriously analyze great players and publish the results of their findings. Imagine what the progress of science would be if each individual scientist could only advance from what he was personally taught. We would barely have fire. See more

http://www.thestrad.com/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-v/ Not one piece of actual information that could help anyone understand the subtleties of vibrato has been given here. This is quite typical of normal violin teaching--lots of obscure, superficial observation delivered up as deep, meaningful insight. This mystifies students, and quite correctly, but for reasons they don’t understand. The fact is that the teachers generally have very little idea of what they are doing.... And why is this so? The field does not seriously examine and study how the greatest players actually play because there is a common belief that "talent" cannot be explained, that talent is by its essential nature, unexplainable. If "talent" and great playing cannot be explained, what is anyone teaching? They are merely teaching what they know, what they do, what their teachers told them. No wonder the field does not advance. Why would anyone want to be limitd by how their teachers play, unless their teacher is Milstein or Heifetz? But all students are limited by what they are taught. And what they are taught is largely unexamined, as this selection of comments on virbrato illustrates. This means that students are learning in a system of "accidental" education. Most will have porr results. I suggest that if you want to destroy the future of the art and your audience base at the same time, this is a very good method to use. See more

Audrey (11 years old) plays Chopin, Waltz Brilliante, SF Institute of Music

Kaia plays "In the Garden."

Nicky plays Chopin at SF Institute of Music concert yesterday: Green Room, SF War Memorial Arts Center

Gabrielle plays at SF Institute of Music concert yesterday

Sarah plays Liszt, Consolation #3 at SF Institute of Music concert yesterday

Willem, Drew, Winston and Gigi play in SF Institute concert two days ago

Bellina plays Kuhlau in SF Institute of Music concert 6/16

A student of the SF Institute of Music plays Liszt's Mephisto Waltz...

very interesting. She's really good...

Very interesting

Our 17th Season.

http://www.thestrad.com/technique-a-dangerous-concept-for-/ From my over 16 years of research into the playing methodology of Heifetz, Milstein, Oistrakh and even pianists such as Horowitz and Glenn Gould, it is clear that although they seem outwardly quite different, they operate fundamentally from the same foundational settings. There are not many roads to playing at the highest level because the body is constrained, as is I would suggest the mind, by innate structural re...alities. The further one moves from these biases the further one moves from high potential. Additionally these great players of the past play in almost every way the opposite of how people are currently taught. An analysis of any successful performer from today shows that what they do well aligns with the foundational biases of these past masters. Where they struggle, they deviate. That is what is interesting about this study. Emanuel Feuermann agreed with this idea. In an unfinshed treatise on cello playing, he wrote: "It is surprising how few rules and principles there are and still more surprising how completely they change the entire style of playing. Believe it or not...the really outstanding string players, whether Kreisler, Casals, or Heifetz, are similar to each other in the way they use their muscular systems and handle their instruments and bows. The main difference lies in their different personalities, talents and ideas, and only to a very small extent in their techniques, for which again, physical differences are accountable." He was never able to write down these few principles, dying before he could finish. But unless a string player understands these basic principles, which I would suggest are the opposite of what is currently taught, he will fall short of his potential. That was also what Feuermann believed. These foundational settings are little understood and basically forgotten today. Institutions do not seriously study great players, neither do teachers. Unlike the field of science, there is little or no attempt to bring "best practices" to teaching. Most students are only taught what a teacher happens to know personally. Imagine if science class was based only on the personal experience of the teacher. That would be laughable. Unfortunately, this is not a laughing matter when thousands of students' development is shortchanged by legions of teachers who can only teach what they can do--and none of them are Heifetz or Milstein. Our "accidental" methods destroy the future, the traditions of the past, and the development of an audience base. And we wonder why interest in classical music is dwindling. See more