Segovia criticism - secrets people don't want you to know

[60moo]

Imagine if somebody else instead had done all the work that Segovia had done to advance the cause of the guitar - with Segovia limited to being purely a stage performer and recording artist.

He'd still be deeply admired by music connoisseurs and anybody who has ears. 'Worship' - given the reality of what he achieved in total - is therefore deservably justified.

[Dillan_S]

John Williams (in 1999) has called him "a very limited teacher and a limited musician"

Related to this point, I would like to add a comment about Bach on the guitar made to me by Yehudi Menuhin, the great American violinist, in Jerusalem in March 1979. He said, "the Segovia playing of the Bach Chaconne in D minor was, in a word, thick;" and when I asked him to explain he said: "the transcription to guitar of this work didn't seem to work because there is too much contrast in tones, too much rubato in shifting positions and dreadful phrasing."
(sources for the above 2 can be found in the original post - see the links)...

Greg Smallman: John Williams, of course, doesn't make excuses for how hard it is to play the guitar, like Segovia, and if the rhythm should be like...completely driving in a dance music, he doesn't slow down because it's difficult.
Source for the above:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... an/2939302

Quotes by Reginald Smith Brindle: viewtopic.php?t=62343

[60moo]

Dillan, if you read the above extract, viewtopic.php?t=62343, of the article by Reginald Smith Brindle, then nowhere does he actually criticise Segovia - only those who mindlessly follow his unconventional playing style.

Also, there are those who believe that interpretations of certain works by Segovia outshine those very same pieces as played by Menuhin and Williams. Speaking of Bach, the BWV 1002 Bouree comes to mind with the former, and a whole host of works can be easily argued against the latter. No god is perfect!

[Pete Morrison]

And let's not mix Segovia as CG player and Segovia as personality.

I agree with Vlad in that this debate does seem to have somewhat taken that turn. However, I think many followers will believe you cannot realistically do otherwise. I myself think that these two qualities, the player and the personality that the player has are mixed in such an optimum and subjective way as to produce what we perceive as genius. It is this interplay and its changing ratio with time that we absorb and reveals a depth of charisma that makes the man what he is/was. There is no doubt that his masterclass with Michael Chapdelaine was tough on the student. Segovia noticed the fingerings/interpretation differences and being of a particularly critical state of mind said his rather abrupt piece. He was having a bad day but had some points to make which were initially accepted ("this is for you" he said) but disproved by Micheal's following attempts to continue accordingto Segovias way of thinking and the masterclass was over for that day (and two days that followed). The fact that Segovia's mood made it pan out in this way does not mean that at some other time he may not have advised Micheal of the same improvements in a more fitting manner. This was simply his teaching made through the available filter of his personality at that time.

The interview with Micheal after the masterclass was particlarly interesting in that it showed that he was deeply shocked by the whole experience but had clearly taken the internal decision to grin and bear it and try to get something from the whole experience. This was proven correct on the fourth day of the masterclass where the recital was successful and Micheal left feeling presumably shaken but having felt he had truly learned something. On the whole a rough ride but with a successful outcome. Occassional turbulence in the wake of Segovia's journey is/was an inevitable consequence i feel of the mans innate genius and is something that needs to be lived with rather than used as a means to demean his achievements.

[tuk]

John Williams (in 1999) has called him a very limited teacher and a limited musician

limited musician? ..What rubbish! ...& williams seemed to turn out ok as a pupil of Segovia

Related to this point, I would like to add a comment about Bach on the guitar made to me by [b]Yehudi Menuhin, the great American violinist, in Jerusalem in March 1979. He said, "the Segovia playing of the Bach Chaconne in D minor was, in a word, thick;" and when I asked him to explain he said: "the transcription to guitar of this work didn't seem to work because there is too much contrast in tones, too much rubato in shifting positions and dreadful phrasing

what does a fiddler know about guitar playing anyway ..purist snobbery

John Williams, of course, doesn't make excuses for how hard it is to play the guitar, like Segovia, and if the rhythm should be like...completely driving in a dance music, he doesn't slow down because it's difficult.

more unsubstantiated hate by jealous people who will never make the same impact or be as famous as Segovia, ego bs, Segovia got there before you, get over yourself

[Chimensch]

My guitar teacher gave me a great compliment when he said I had the hands of Segovia... well, actually what he said was, "don't despair, even Segovia had fat hands and stubby fingers like yours."

[robin loops]

And let's not mix Segovia as CG player and Segovia as personality.

I agree with Vlad in that this debate does seem to have somewhat taken that turn.


The interview with Micheal after the masterclass was particlarly interesting in that it showed that he was deeply shocked by the whole experience but had clearly taken the internal decision to grin and bear it and try to get something from the whole experience. This was proven correct on the fourth day of the masterclass where the recital was successful and Micheal left feeling presumably shaken but having felt he had truly learned something. On the whole a rough ride but with a successful outcome. Occassional turbulence in the wake of Segovia's journey is/was an inevitable consequence i feel of the mans innate genius and is something that needs to be lived with rather than used as a means to demean his achievements.

I agree with Vlad and Pete and add that there is little to be gained from doing this with anyone... A person's personality doesn't change their contribuation to a field... You don't see scientists sitting around discussing whether Carl Sagan was a 'nice guy'... It would serve no point. If we're to base the importance of one's contributions to a field based on personality and "questionable political views", we'd might as well go back to square one and start over again because human consciousness and morality has evolved quite a bit along the way. I wonder if the man that invented the wheel was 'morally correct'.

Pete makes some good points about the masterclass (that's the video I saw too). How can someone hold Mr. Segovia's 'treatment of a student' against him, when that same student says it was just what he needed to hear, and holds no grudge himself?

As far as reevaluating Segovia's importance and contribution, etc. well, that may be a edifying topic of discussion/debate but the original post that sparked this discussion falls under the category of bashing and was a list of things that had no bearing on his contribution, etc. i.e. A couple of musicians don't like him - he had questionable views - his teaching methods were questionable - etc.

Some topics for further discussion might be:
Stroking a students ego or 'tough love: Which is the best teaching method?
Rubato and other methods to 'cover mistakes' or must we have perfection in playing?
CG technique, changes and evolution from the days of Sor to now
Blindly following iconic figures (from the past) and it's limitations on evolution
When a student surpasses the teacher does this show the teacher as 'limited'?
Surviving the minefield of political turmoil or taking a stand / An examination of the rise of fascism in Europe

[Pete Morrison]

Robin Loops said:

I wonder if the man that invented the wheel was 'morally correct'.

. A sufficient reduction to absurdity of the premise of the OP. Nuff said.

Also said:

Some topics for further discussion might be:
1. Stroking a students ego or 'tough love: Which is the best teaching method?
2. CG technique, changes and evolution from the days of Sor to now
3. Blindly following iconic figures (from the past) and it's limitations on evolution
4. When a student surpasses the teacher does this show the teacher as 'limited'?
5. Surviving the minefield of political turmoil or taking a stand / An examination of the rise of fascism in Europe

I like ideas 2. and 4. Robin.
2. Would teach a lot about the core thread of CG and its evolution that is evasive/time consuming to extract otherwise for the non formally guitar musically trained such as myself.
5. Would be fascinating but not sure if this forum would allow it ultimately. It could get heated.

[Vlad Kosulin]

Related to this point, I would like to add a comment about Bach on the guitar made to me by Yehudi Menuhin, the great American violinist, in Jerusalem in March 1979. He said, "the Segovia playing of the Bach Chaconne in D minor was, in a word, thick;"

Who made this comment? Violinist? Of course, it is thick for him!!! Everybody knows how thin the violin sound is, especially compared to cello
, could not resist.

P.S. I believe that those who designed the famous Marshall sound were heavily influenced by cello

[David_Norton]

At a masterclass with Thomas Kirchhoff (Amadeus Duo) some years ago, a student presented Segovia's piece "Estudio sin luz". Kirchhoff's immediate remark, even before the piece was played, was to say something to the effect of "Segovia was a terrible human being, so arrogant, why would you want to play anything written by such a man?" The student replied "Mozart was a [bleep] as well. Shall we no longer play HIS music?"

Kirchhoff had no response to that one.

[Praeludium]

I don't think the OP was saying that since Segovia was arrogant and so on, we should stop considering him as a great guitarist and major artist of the XXth century. He just said it made him more human, less god-like.

[tuk]

I don't think the OP was saying we should stop considering him as a great guitarist and major artist of the XXth century.

the OP implied and reinforced the view that segovia was a limited musician that struggled technically with the guitar ..if this was true it would be difficult to consider him as a great guitarist and major artist of the XXth century ...without some degree of irrationality

[mainterm]

Segovia was able to create magical moments on the instrument. He filled concerts halls with thousands of seats. He loved the music.

And yeah, I don't listen to his recordings unless I'm curious about it. Not to my taste. Too much fuss about the man in my opinion.

[Stefan]

When I listen to Segovia play I hear how a guitar is supposed to sound.
When I hear the majority of "new" players I cant help but think they are trying to emulate how a piano sounds.

His somewhat brusque personality and confidence is what made his playing so great. Without eccentric geniuses such as Gould, Scriabin, Rachmaninov, Segovia and other interesting characters the classical music scene would be even more dry than it is today.

[Jstanley01]

...Nay it's information that makes me worry, why it's not known more widely!
Information that others probably want to withhold from you, because it's so controversial!!!...

I got it from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...

As far as Michael Chapdelaine, before forming an opinion on "the Segovia incident," why not listen to what he has said within the last couple of years?

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=52421