This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Freelance translator and/or interpreter, Verified site user
Data security
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Czech to English: Playing Concertos the Sevcik Way General field: Art/Literary Detailed field: Music
Source text - Czech “Playing concertos the Sevcik way.”
Clanek Endreho Granata ve vasem listopadovem cisle mne zaujal z mnoha duvodu. Myslim, ze muzu rict ze jsem produktem ceske Sevcikovy houlove skoly protoze muj prvni ucitel pan Josef Povysil, koncertni mistr opery v Ostrave, byl zakem Julia Remese, U profesora Remese ktery byl Sevcikovym zakem jsem na konservatori v Brne sudoval 7 roku.
Uz sam nadpis clanku je diskutabilni, protoze ”Practicing concertos the Sevcik way” by asi byla presnejsi definice vzhledem k obsahu clanku. Sevcikovy analyzy houslovych koncertu jsou mi zname a bezesporu jsou obdivuhodnym dilem co se tyce analytickeho postupu pri studovani. Mam ale skutecne zatezko najit dukazy pro tvrzeni pana Granata, ze “ through these works, Sevcik included his own musical interpretation, sometimes taking greater liberties than any present-day teacher or performer would dare to try.” A rozhodne si myslim ze IT IS NOT WORHT AT ALL EXAMINING Flesch’s comments about Sevcik. The matter of their works is The Only important and interesting object.
Myslim si ze studie mohou byt velikou pomoci pro houslisty, jejichz technicka uroven neni zdaleka na vysi pozadovane pri studiu del jako jsou koncerty Cajkovskeho, Mendessohna, Brahmse nebo Paganiniho. Jsem si ale jisty, ze nutnou technickou uroven pro uspesne provadeni techto koncertu se ma dosahnout pred zapocetim studia techto del. To je mozne kombinaci technickych cviceni, etudami a promyslenou volbou skladeb, ktere neustale zvysuji naroky na mlade adepty houslove hry, ale soucasne mohou byt realizovane s vybornym vysledkem. Tim zpusobem se da stimulovat jak chut do cviceni tak hudebni fantazie davajici nasi praci smysl. To je uciteluv ukol. Nedovedu si predstavit ze sam Sevcik by nechal vsechny sve studenty hrat analyzy od prvniho do posledniho taktu. Bohuzel se prilis casto setkavame s faktem, ze nekteri ucitele davaji hrat zakum skladby ( v mnoha pripadech program pro souteze ) ktere jsou naprosto mimo jejich technicke moznosti. Studuji je prilis dlouho a se spatnym vysledkem coz musi bez pochyb znemoznit vybudovat smysl pro kvalitu. Vzdycky jsem v takovych momentech myslel na to jak by asi dopadl vystup na Mount Everest pro obyvatele Ohia, ktery by si odletel do Nepalu a pokusil se o to.
Myslim si, ze kazde nekompromisni tvrzeni (Sevcik cvicit 8 hodin, Flesch 4) se neda brat doslova, protoze kazdy jednotlivec si musi, s pomoci ucitele, najit optimalni formu prace prinasejici vyzadovany vysledek. Jakekoliv generalizovani nedava smysl.
Robert Jourdain ve sve knize Music, The Brain and Ecstasy pise: “The sheer quantity of practice is also important. To no one’s surprise, studies have found strong correlation between quality of performance and amount of practice.” Later the question: “ Is it possible to play well without practicing at all? The great violinist Fritz Kreisler claimed he had never practiced, even as a child. Conversely, at forty-six Jascha Heifetz estimated that he had played the violin for 100.000 hours, roughly an eight-hour day six days per week from early childhood.” I kdyz je tezke verit ze by Kreisler dosahl sveho mistrovstvi bez cviceni, v podstate je to nezajimave. Kvalita vykonu pri koncerte je jediny zajimavy faktor a je naprosto nezajimave kolik hodin prace bylo do vykonu investovano. Psychologicka prace se studenty hraje bezesporu velikou roli a ja si myslim ze prilis casto pouzivame slovo “problem”. I v clanku o Sevcikovi ho pouziva pan Granat mnohokrat. Slovo PROBLEM pochazi z reckeho pro-balló a je to adjektivum oznacujici v logice vyrok ktery muze byt pravdivy ale jejz vyslovne za pravdivy neprohlasujeme. V beznem zivote ma ale spis negativni character a vyjadruje neco nejisteho a obtizneho. Vyraz challenge, ktery nema zadny negativni contents a naopak vice stimulujici character je daleko zpravnejsi. Ve sve knize Flesch nekde pise, ze hra na housle nema nic spolecneho se sportem. Hluboce nesouhlasim. Jako ve sportu tak i ve hre na housle se jedna o to byt vstavu v urcitem casovem prubehu podat nejlepsi vykon. Take citace zaznamu Fleschova deniku, kde pise velice negativne o Sevcikovych pedagogickych metodach povazuji za ne stastne. Rad bych poznal cloveka ktery za sveho zivota nerekl neco ne chytreho. Oba dva byli velikani houslove pedagogiky a na mnoha mistech sam Flesch doporucuje Sevcikovy technicke studie. Jak jsem se uz zminil, jak Flesch tak Galamian davaji bohatsi verbalni navody ke zdokonalovani hry na housle.
Z vlastni zkusenosti ale vim, ze jen omezeny pocet studentu tyto knihy opravdu studuje a je zase na ucitelich aby stimulovali touhu po vedeni, protoze ta je jednou z nejdulezitejsich motivaci pro veskery pokrok. Einstein rika sam o sobe ze nebyl nijak mimoradne nadany ale nesmirne zvidavy. Vysledky kazde dobre metody od starych mistru po Suzukiho jsou zavisle na tech kteri je uci a kazde jejich odsuzovani je jen dukazem nasi omezenosti.
A nakonec- naprosto souhlasim s poslednim odstavcem clanku ve kterem pan Granat pise o kreativite a vymysleni si vlastnich form pro cviceni a prstokladu. Myslim si ze hledani vlastnich prstokladu jsou jedinou moznou cestou k vytvoreni intimniho kontaktu ke studovanemu dilu a Sevcikovy studie, jak vim z vlastni zkusenosti, tomu velice napomahaji.
Translation - English “Playing concertos the Sevcik way.”
The article by Endre Granat featured in your November issue caught my attention for a number of reasons.
I think I can safely say that I am a “product” of the Czech Sevcik violin school, since my first teacher was Mr. Josef Povysil, the concert master of the Ostrava opera house. He was the student of Julius Remes, who was a pupil of Sevcik’s. I subsequently studied 7 years with Prof. Remes at the Conservatory in Brno.
The very title of the article is debatable, because ”practicing concerti the Sevcik way” is the most succinct way to describe the content of his article. I am familiar with Sevcik’s analyses of violin concerti, and they are without a doubt an admired study regarding an analytical approach to studying, when not applied slavishly. However, I find it very difficult to find proof for Mr. Granat’s contention that “through these works, Sevcik included his own musical interpretation, sometimes taking greater liberties than any present-day teacher or performer would dare to try.” As regards fingerings and interpretative instructions they are an interesting testament to the past, but hardly used at all in the present in their original form. And I certainly think that it is not in the least worthwhile to examine Flesch’s comments about Sevcik. Only the contents of the technical studies [musis pokazde vymenit “technical studies” s titulem Sevcikovich del o kterych mluvis] are important and interesting.
I think that the studies can be a of great help for violinists, whose technical capabilities are far short of the skills needed in order to effectively learn violin concerti such as, e.g., Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn, Brahms or Paganini. I am nonetheless certain that the technical proficiency to successfully perform these and other concerti has to be acquired before attempting to study such pieces.
This is possible through the intelligent choice of a combination of technical exercises, etudes and progressively difficult compositions, which constantly raise the bar for young violin students, but which can be learned with excellent results. In this manner, one encourages the student to practice because it is engaging, while at the same time also allowing a reserve for musical expression, thus creating a well-rounded and sensible result.
This is the teacher’s main task and challenge.
I cannot imagine Sevcik himself allowing his students to play the [technical studies] from beginning to end. Certainly, neither of my teachers, who had studied under Sevcik’s “method” had me performing such a senseless task. Unfortunately, we too often encounter the fact that some teachers let their students play compositions (in many cases entire competition programs), which are entirely beyond their technical abilities. They study such works for far too long and with such poor results, that it makes building their perception of quality playing an impossible endeavor. Witnessing such examples, I have often thought of how someone living in the Midwest their entire life would fare if they took the plane to Nepal and tried to climb Mt. Everest the next day without any preparation other than walking around at home.
Any absolute statements, e.g., that Sevcik required practicing 8 hours, Flesch 4 hours, can, in my opinion, not be taken literally, because every individual has to define the optimal amount of work leading to the best results in consultation with his or her teacher. General quantifications simply do not make sense. As Robert Jourdain writes in his book “Music, the Brain and Ecstasy,” “The sheer quantity of practice is also important. To no one’s surprise, studies have found strong correlation between quality of performance and amount of practice.” Later the question: “Is it possible to play well without practicing at all? The great violinist Fritz Kreisler claimed he had never practiced, even as a child. Conversely, at forty-six, Jascha Heifetz estimated that he had played the violin for 100,000 hours, roughly an eight-hour day six days per week from early childhood.”
Whether or not one finds it difficult to believe that Kreisler reached his level of mastership without practicing is, essentially, uninteresting. The qualitative result in concert is the only factor of interest. How many hours of effort have gone into the effort is completely meaningless if the qualitative result is excellent. Working with the psychological preparation of students plays as great, if not a greater, role as the time spent on practicing.
In my opinion, we too often use the word “problem.” In his article about Sevcik, Mr. Granat uses the word frequently. The word “problem” is derived from the Greek “probállein” which, used as an adjective in logical terminology, denotes a concept which may be true, but which we do not unequivocally declare to be true. In current usage, the word has rather negative connotations, meaning that something is uncertain and difficult. The term “challenge,” which does not have a negative implication, but rather a stimulating one, is a much better one to use when discussing teaching and learning music.
Flesch writes in his book that playing the violin has nothing in common with sports. I emphatically disagree. In sports as well as in playing the violin, the challenge is to produce the optimal effort within a given space of time. Also, the quote from Flesch’s diary, where he writes very deleteriously about Sevcik’s pedagogical methods, is one which I consider somewhat maladroit. I would very much like to meet someone who has not said something unfortunate in his or her life. Both Flesch and Sevcik were giants in the field of violin pedagogy, and Flesch himself recommends Sevcik’s [technical studies] on a number of occasions. As I have already mentioned, both Flesch and Galamian provide richer verbal instructions in perfecting the art of playing the violin [than does Sevcik (?) [KDE to jiz rekls? Smysl?] ]
From my own personal experience, I nonetheless know that only a limited number of students truly peruse the [technical studies], and it is up to their teacher to foster a desire for knowledge, because knowledge is one of the essential motivators for any kind of progress. Einstein himself said that he was not a particularly bright individual, but a very curious one. The results of any teaching method, beginning with the old masters and going up to Suzuki’s method, depend for their success on those who teach by them. Thus any condemnation on our part, without being first hand witnesses, merely indicates a lack of understanding.
For this reason, the reply to Mr. Granat’s article by Ms. Helen Pink is more indicative of frustrations endured during her student days, for which reason it is difficult to take her seriously. I am 72 years old. Sevcik died 4 years before I was born, and it is rather unlikely that Ms. Pink would have studied with him. Rather, she should recollect who her teacher was during the time when her animosity towards Sevcik was engendered. To me, Sevcik is like a pharmacy, where one can find the remedies for many maladies. But what applies to drugs applies to Sevcik; an overdose may be dangerous to your health or your violin studies.
In conclusion, I completely agree with the last paragraph of Mr. Granat’s article, where he writes about creativity and the need for developing one’s own method of practicing and fingering. I believe that developing one’s own fingerings is the one and only path towards developing an inherent “feel” for any given piece one is studying. Sevcik’s [technical studies], as I know from practice, are of great help in developing precisely this concept of a personal “feel” for a composition in young violinists.
Danish to English: Auschwitz-dagen: Farlige forestillinger General field: Art/Literary Detailed field: Social Science, Sociology, Ethics, etc.
Hvert år den 27. januar markerer Danmark Auschwitz –dagen, som er den officielle danske mærkedag for Holocaust og folkedrab.
I år er temaet farlige forestillinger og flere steder i landet vil emnet blive sat på dagsorden – og heldigvis for det, for Auschwitz er en skamplet i vores historie som skal fortælles igen og igen så vi husker.
Især nu, hvor man har kørt på frygten – frygten for “det andet” - er det stadig relevant at huske på og lære af historien. Lære om, hvordan stigmatiseringer og fordomsfyldte ord kan skabe farlige forestillinger om minoriteter dvs. “de andre”.
Når man ser tilbage på den smertefyldte episode i vores historie, vækker det gru, forargelse og kvalme. I dag kan vi ikke forestille os, at sådan noget kunne ske. At ganske almindelige borgere blev gjort til syndebukke fordi en psykopat og en manipulator havde syge tanker om et “rent” samfund. En farlig forestilling om at der kun er en “ren” race er ikke alene frastødende men også skræmmende. Men mange almindelige mennesker blev ofre for denne syge tanke. De lod sig forføre af et så usympatisk og inhuman menneskesyn, og i dag kan man ikke andet end at have ondt af medløberne. Deres manglende indsigt refleksioner og tavshed gør dem til stakler.
Den syge forfører havde også en enkel, overbevisende og effektiv metode for sin hadske politik; kort fortalt gik det ud på at man skulle finde en gruppe der kunne gøres til syndebukke. Tilføj dertil brugen af ukorrekt og nedlandende retorik og endelig umenneskeliggør dem ved at sammenligne dem med skadelige dyr. Vupti så får du den effektive formel til at skade en hel gruppe af uskyldige mennesker. Og millioner af døde jøder, og andre minoriteter. Metoden var netop overbevisende fordi “mennesket” holdt op med at tænke og stille det mest indlysende spørgsmål: Hvorfor?
Det gør ondt at blive konfronteret med farlige forestillinger, fordomme der former ens verdensbillede og angsten der stille og roligt vokser i en – indtil den har ædt hele sjælen op. For angst æder sjælen såvel som fornuften op.
Måske er det derfor ekstra svært at forklare eller forstå denne tragedie, der hændte mod menneskeheden i hjertet af Europa.
Det er altid godt at læse og få en større indsigt i, hvad der skete i 30’ernes Europa. Men det er ligeså vigtig at lære af den og ikke gentage de samme fejl eller indirekte skabe lignende farlige forestillinger om “de andre”. Og selv om forestillingen om “de andre” ikke nødvendigvis fører til folkedrab, skaber det dog fastlåste billeder og stigmatiseringer endda absolutte sandheder, som man vil kæmpe for at bliver udbredt.
Med fare for at blive anklaget for at spille offerrollen, vil jeg alligevel fremhæve “jøde-testen”. Den om nogen viser, hvor hurtigt retorikken kan skabe en glidebane og styrke den farlige forestilling. Uden at drage en direkte parallel mellem nazitysklands metoder og den danske offentlige og politiske retorik er der alligevel værd at lave denne lille test.
Tag en artikel f.eks. den højaktuelle indlæg fra Langballe i Berlingske. Prøv at erstatte ordene “muslim” med jøder og læs artiklen igen. Og det retoriske spørgsmål lyder, er det en værdig tone i et demokratisk samfund?
Men i disse tider, hvor man i ytringsfrihedens navn konkurrerer om hvem der kan sige det mest radikale eller nedlandende om “de andre” så er det svært at tale om den gode tone. Faren er da også at blive anklaget for at være en intetanende pladderhumanist eller én der prøver på at indskrænke ytringsfriheden.
I dag er det mindedagen for Auschwitz og vi skal bruge dagen til at huske på, hvordan farlige forestillinger let kan dominere det offentlige rum og til tider endda tage patent på sandheden. Men vi har ikke råd til gentagelser – vi må ikke lukke øjnene for begivenheder, for ord, der kan drage en vis parallel til fortiden…
Mindedagen er til for at advare mod fortiden og mod gentagelser.
Men mindedagen skal også bidrage til at skabe ny viden og dybere indsigt og “tvinge” os til at stille endnu flere spørgsmål således at vi lærer at forholde os sagligt, sobert og kritisk til fortiden, nutiden og ønsket om hvilken samfund vi vil have sammen i fremtiden.
I det nye årti skal vi lære at stille masser af spørgsmål. Og huske hinanden på, at vi aldrig, aldrig må glemme Auschwitz, Bosnien, irak, Rwanda….Aldrig mere Auschwitz.
Every year on January 27th, Denmark observes Auschwitz-day, the official Danish memorial day for commemorating the Holocaust and other genocides.
This year the theme is “dangerous pretensions” and this theme will be put on the agenda in several locations across the country – fortunately so, because Auschwitz is a shameful blot on our history that needs to be told again and again so we remember.
It remains relevant to remember and learn from history. Especially now, when we have been driven by fear - fear of “the "other" - in order to learn how stigmatization and prejudice-filled words can create dangerous ideas about minorities, i.e., "the others".
Looking back at that painful episode in our history reawakens the horror, disgust and revulsion of it. Today, we cannot imagine that such things could happen. Ordinary citizens were turned into scapegoats, because a psychopath and demagogue had sick pretensions about a "pure" society. An idea that there is only one "pure" race, is dangerous and not only repugnant but also terrifying. However, many ordinary people became victims of this sick idea. They let themselves be seduced by this repugnant and callous view of humanity, and today, one cannot help oneself but feel sorry for those who willingly concurred. Their lack of insight, deliberation and silence makes them pathetic wretches.
This sick seducer also had a simple, convincing and effective method for propagating his politics of hate; briefly put, the idea was that one had to find a group that could be turned into scapegoats. Add to that the use of inappropriate and derogatory rhetoric and then finally dehumanization by comparing them with harmful animals. Voila, and you have an effective formula for harming an entire group of innocent people and millions of dead Jews and other minorities. The method was particularly persuasive because “human beings” stopped thinking and asking the most obvious of questions: Why?
It is painful to be confronted with dangerous pretensions and prejudices which shape one's world view, and the fear that imperceptibly starts to grow within oneself - until it has devoured one’s entire soul. For fear consumes the soul as well as reason.
Perhaps that is why it is so much more difficult to explain or understand this tragedy, which happened in contravention of humanity in the heart of Europe.
It is always beneficial to read about, and gain a greater insight into, what happened in Europe during the thirties. But it is equally important to learn from this example in order to not repeat the same mistakes, or to indirectly create similarly dangerous notions about "the others." And even if the notion of "the others" does not necessarily lead to genocide, it does create rigid perceptions, stigmatization and even absolute truths, which people will strive to propagate.
At the risk of being accused of pretending to be victimized, I would nevertheless highlight the "Jew-test". This test, if anything, shows how quickly rhetoric can create a slippery slope and strengthen dangerous ideas. Without conjuring a direct parallel between Nazi Germany's methods and Danish public and political rhetoric, it is nonetheless worth conducting this little test.
Take, e.g., an article, the highly topical blog by Langballe in Berlingske . Try replacing the words "Muslim" with “Jew” and read the article again. The rhetorical question is, whether this is a decent tone in a democratic society?
But in these times, when, in the name of freedom of speech, people compete regarding who can say the most radical or degrading things about "the others," it becomes difficult to talk about maintaining a decent conversational tone. The danger of doing so is to be accused of being a naive humanist who is “full of it,” or someone who tries to restrict free speech.
Today is the memorial day of Auschwitz and we should use this day to remember how easily dangerous ideas can dominate public rhetoric, and sometimes, even take on a semblance of truth. But we cannot afford to repeat the past - we must not ignore events, and words, which can carry with them a certain parallel to the past ...
The memorial day exists as a warning about the past and against repetition.
But the memorial day should also help us to develop new knowledge and deeper insights, and to "compel" us to ask even more questions so that we learn to deal objectively, reasonably and critically with the past, the present and the ideals that we have in common regarding our future society.
In the new decade, we must learn to ask lots of questions. And remind one another that we must never, never forget Auschwitz, Bosnia, Iraq, Rwanda .... Never again an Auschwitz.
For more information about Auschwitz Day look here.
More
Less
Experience
Years of experience: 52. Registered at ProZ.com: Feb 2010.
Expertise