What makes a "master" violinist?

[tchaikovsgay]

Hi. Recently I'm trying to find that "master" element causing certain violnists to be highly praised, or regarded as "masters". It's like when you hear them play anything, you don't need to actually know their background or whatever, but you can realize it's a "master" that is playing. (like Heifetz, Oistrakh, Kavakos, Mutter, Chung, Midori, etc.) other violinists are as technically efficient or maybe even more "accurate" in certain pieces — what makes them stand out? You get what I mean right?

[JonnyFW]

I would take a wild guess that there isn't an identifiable "'master' element" but just lots of little things all coming together.

Being good technically. Ability to think intelligently about a piece, and come up with a convincing interpretation of it. Ability to actually make that interpretation come across to the listener clearly. All of those steps involve loads of little subtleties. When they all come together, you hear the cumulative effect and think "wow".

[Stephen Fine]

As far as classical training is concerned, maintaining a level of tone quality in sections of difficulty while displaying style makes a master I think.

But as I've mentioned before, if the style is good enough you don't need tone quality.  (My example was seeing Bobby Mann near the end of his career... bow control was not great, sound wasn't particularly good, but it was an absolutely arresting chamber music performance.  His knowledge shone through.)

[tchaikovsgay]

10 minutes ago, Stephen Fine said:

As far as classical training is concerned, maintaining a level of tone quality in sections of difficulty while displaying style makes a master I think.

But as I've mentioned before, if the style is good enough you don't need tone quality.  (My example was seeing Bobby Mann near the end of his career... bow control was not great, sound wasn't particularly good, but it was an absolutely arresting chamber music performance.  His knowledge shone through.)

ok so style is a big part in the the ingredient

[tchaikovsgay]

15 hours ago, JonnyFW said:

I would take a wild guess that there isn't an identifiable "'master' element" but just lots of little things all coming together.

Being good technically. Ability to think intelligently about a piece, and come up with a convincing interpretation of it. Ability to actually make that interpretation come across to the listener clearly. All of those steps involve loads of little subtleties. When they all come together, you hear the cumulative effect and think "wow".

u think the intelligence channels through with the music right

[skelly]

A master violinist is someone who plays the music you like the way you want it to be played.

[Stephen Fine]

It is true that in some ways mastery is in the opinion of the listener.  In some ways...

My ears are very finely tuned to listen for a bunch of things.  But different genres of music are like different languages.  Sometimes there are vowels and consonants that you can't quite even understand or identify.  It takes a lot of listening before you can understand the subtleties.  Sometimes before you understand that concept it's hard to know what you don't know.

[Altgeiger]

Frederick Martens wrote an entire book titled, "Violin Mastery". In its interviews he discusses violin playing in general and what violin mastery means with many of the great players of the early twentieth century. It's an important book for string players to read, and contains a deeper discussion of this topic than is likely to occur in this thread.

[Victor Roman]

On 1/31/2025 at 9:25 AM, tchaikovsgay said:

Hi. Recently I'm trying to find that "master" element causing certain violnists to be highly praised, or regarded as "masters". It's like when you hear them play anything, you don't need to actually know their background or whatever, but you can realize it's a "master" that is playing. (like Heifetz, Oistrakh, Kavakos, Mutter, Chung, Midori, etc.) other violinists are as technically efficient or maybe even more "accurate" in certain pieces — what makes them stand out? You get what I mean right?

I do not get what you mean. How do you realize one is a master without actually knowing what "mastership" is ?

Tentatively, one could qualify as a "master" a player of inspired musicianship and sufficient technical ability who's command over the piece resembles natural, gifted speech.  On listening, you "get the idea" ( his idea...) and you are also convinced. The ideal would then look like the cellist Emanuel Feuerman. The performance is less of a decoration and more of an work of art.

Personally, I do not subscribe to the above definition.

 

 

[Spelman]

Ain't no such thing 

[Shunyata]

Technical perfection + musicality (the ability to communicate emotion through articulation, phrasing, dynamics, vibrato, etc. is a way that is consistent with the piece and pleasing to the listener.)