Richard Putter wrote: >Janos Starker has been an impressive player...as cold as ice in >performance...almost an arrogance and disdain to his playing...favorably >impressed by the performance as well as the piece. Maybe that whole >experience of performing a commissioned, dedicated work had a humbling, >humanizing effect on him that the average recital didn't.... To me Starker's playing has always been of the highest technique and musicianship, and less "romantic" than that of other players. He appears businesslike in performance, doesn't sway back and forth when playing, has few overt facial mannerisms, and doesn't wave his bow around with flourishes. I have seen him live 2 or 3 times, performed in an orchestra when he was soloist (Saint-Saens and Vivaldi), and audited two of his master classes. He has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has very intense eyes. When he is observing you it has something of the entomologist examining an insect for dissection. You feel good when he finally cracks a smile. He always had sensible, positive things to say about participants' performances, and was able to give suggestions that worked. One of the comments that stuck with me (from the 70s) was to a student who wasn't getting a very professional sound. He said that one of the objectives was to reach a minimum level of professionalism in one's playing, and once reached one can go farther than that, but one should never fall below it. We've all heard or produced the occasional awkward or unmusical sound on our instruments, even when we have learned how to make good sounds. I would call them "lapses." He was against having "lapses" in playing. So if you're not inspired, you are always at least professional. That is what I took him to mean. I think that is good advice for the student. The next task of course is how to learn the difference between the professional's approach and the approach of the person who is content merely to make sounds, and who is lucky enough sometimes to make a decent one. Chris Bonds