Talk:Lists of violinists

A Key is needed here

Excuse me, but we have a definite problem here- the asteriks and crosses beside the dates (e.g. - Johann Sebastian Bach *1681) don't really have a key so one could explain why there is a cross and/or an asterik beside the years in the first place. If you are the one who put the crosses and asteriks on the page, can you please add a key? Thank you, if you did so.

TL 00:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the star indicates year of birth, and the cross (or dagger,) the year of death. I just spent some time looking through various style manuals along the lines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions without finding anything on the subject...

Just plain Bill 03:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (aha! just found it. Click on star or dagger above.)

I just eliminated all those stars and daggers, as well as the rampant date overlinking. The marks are overly fussy formatting that is neither in keeping with other lists here (Wikipedia) nor helpful; readers can make out that, with few exceptions, dates in the form (xxxx - yyyy) indicate birth & death dates). (The one exception I can think of is PDQ Bach, whose dates are given in reverse order.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bravo. Another blow struck for truth and good sense, which amounts to a similar thing to the elimination of foolishness and fussiness. Thanks, L2BA, & I mean it. Best, Just plain Bill 05:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Indian violinists needs checking

Anybody else notice that these links are almost all red? Can someone who actually knows something about this genre check these names for a) notability and b) spelling? I'm skeptical that these are all "good" names. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Electric Violinists

I understand this instrument to be quite different to acoustic violin and hope to find other electric violinists who share this opinion. This appears to be a new profession but there are clearly examples of violinists playing electric violin, in many genres of music. Currently studying electric violin in classical educational establishments (in the UK) is not generally acceptable on the grounds that there are no teachers and it is not strongly enough associated with classical music... an interesting discussion of its own, maybe.

Would it be unacceptable of me to post a brief article outlining my work? I notice Vanity articles do not always rule out self-written pieces. Thank you. BAH 10:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is it you want to add here—a link to your site? or an addendum to the article? And what exactly would either one add to the article in terms of information?

As I've pointed out in messages on your user page, it's a bit unseemly for someone to appear anxious to post links to their site here. Not saying that your contribution isn't possibly valuable, but it still doesn't look good. Better if material is added by disinterested parties. ILike2BeAnonymous 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. Not a link to my site, no (but considering my site does contain a compendium of hundereds of violinists and their recordings, it would add to the article). Nor did I mean an addendum to the article I think (other than adding violinists I can think of, as of course there are some names missing here. I will get around to that if no one else does). Why would a disinterested party bother? Sorry, I don't understand you. What I meant was, is it at all possible for me to add a few words of basic detail from the red link under the electric violinist heading knowing that would mean writing about myself or, is that always considered unseemly? BAH 07:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would adding a few words about a violinist necessarily entail writing about yourself? Do you suffer from a case of compulsive vanity? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't and no. I shall hunt further afield for an anwser to my question, thanks anyway ILike2BeAnonymous BAH 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why not go ahead and add your information to the article? What's the worst that could happen? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe boring beyond belief but it needs to be said: We need a cutoff calibration for who is notable enough and who is not.

This page is in danger of becoming a list of "famous violinists and people who want to be on the list, as well as people who have a fan who wants them on the list."

I applaud the efforts of ILike2BeAnonymous as he tries to keep things from sprawling out of hand, Maybe it's time to delete all the red links, saving the list for violinists who have an article on this wikipedia. I'm willing to entertain the suggestion that an article on any other language's pedia qualifies the person for inclusion... __Just plain Bill 04:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the latter (red links), I'm going to tag all of them with {{fact}} to indicate lack of supporting evidence for their inclusion. After a fair interval—say a couple weeks?—those entries still tagged can be removed. This gives people a chance to provide citations. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, sounds like a plan to me... __Just plain Bill 12:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why were violinists with Wiki links eliminated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.120.201 (talk • contribs) 6:40, 17 March 2007

Having a wikilink only means there is a 'pedia article about the subject. Consider the wiki process, and tell me, please, if having a wikipedia article is proof of notability... articles get deleted all the time for that exact reason. __Just plain Bill 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also criteria relevant to musicians. Given the nature of violin pedagogy, winning several awards, local concertizing, and studying (for however long or brief a time) with a famous teacher, all are good first steps, but not indicators of notability. To put it more brutally, not every kid that goes to Julliard or Berklee belongs on this list just yet. Just plain Bill

i'm probably late to the game on this subject, but i think the benchmark should be based on a google search from reputable source. of course that leaves 'reputable' up for interpretation, but at least it is measure of minimum standards, and verifiable. --emerson7 | Talk 01:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Who actually belongs on this list?

Some recent edit summaries:

(Remove name of young violinist. Not of same caliber as other notable artists here. This is not a list of *every* performing violinist.)

(Not every violinist who ever soloed at Tanglewood needs to be on this list. Need a lot more exposure, a lot more than newspaper clippings from western Mass.)

( ...Actually check www.yevgenykutik.com and you will see Boston Globe, New Times, and Indianapolis Star articles that bring acclaim to this young artist)

Here are some names that definitely belong on the list, in my opinion:

Apap, Bell, Brava, DeLay, Flesch, Galamian, Gitlis, Grumiaux. Haendel, Hahn, Heifetz, Kennedy, Kreisler, Kremer, Menuhin, Midori, Milstein, Mutter, Oistrakh, Perlman, Shaham, Stern, Szeryng, Szigeti, Vengerov, Zukerman.

I don't know about a lot of the others. The list could probably use further pruning, and will probably not benefit from having every competent soloist add their name to it, or have one of their fans do so. I don't have time to chase every link several steps on. A clipping from the Globe or any other paper local to a recent performance is still a clipping. A substantial article is something else entirely. Please show me some of that. __Just plain Bill 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As to Joshua, I'm sorry. That was a mistake. I think this list has become opinionated and has lost any objectivity. I also believe certain members have become disrespectful to others opinion. I know many of these artists personally as friends and fellow artists. I know the playing levels of most listed on this page quite well. I have attempted to add, in particular, one name that is with little doubt at the same general level that you have determined by what this list represents; yet, continually you take this name off. I purpose that either 1) you let opinion be opinion, and if you believe that a person is worth recognition, add his name. I love to learn about new artists and what they are up to. So let us all learn. Will it hurt us? OR: 2) Get rid of over 1/2 of these names and make this list a real representation of great artists that play violin. Apap, Brava, Delay, Galamian dont count as do many others. They were all wonderful players or pedagogues, but they dont hold up to Heifetz, Oistrakh, Gitlis, Grumiaux, Perlman, and many others. Also, where is Hope, Znaider, Senofsky, etc? Please, lets just have some honesty with what we post and with ourselves. No one person knows everything. Either leave these names and let others add with general freedom, or make a much much higher standard. We can all learn from this exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaywalkin12 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I speak for the congregation here when I say that we're going for quality, not quantity here. But that's no reason to get into a tizzy if your favorite violinist is not considered notable enough for inclusion here, and retaliatory edits as a result aren't appreciated. Just trying to keep the list from becoming meaningless by having every Tom, Dick and Harriet who ever picked up a fiddle in it is all. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in a tizzy. If you read what i had to say, I really dont care who is added. Its how and why they are added that i care about. You just said yourself you dont want Tom, Dick, and Harriet and all their friends on this list. I agree. User JustplainBill I believe said basically the same. So we all agree. However, Tom, Dick, and Harriet are still on this list. So to me it seems like you dont know what you are talking about. For example: Galamian was and is one of the greatest pedaguoges. However, he was never a great player. Ask any student of his. The same can be said about DeLay. Lucia Lin is on this list. I know her very well. A wonderful player. Has a great job. But i think she will tell you herself she isnt Heifetz or Perlman. Jia Feng is a great violinist and has recently performed very well receiving a 2nd place award at Sibelius. Not Oistrakh, at least yet. Renate Eggebrecht, William Fitzpatrick, Sayaka Shoji, and so many others are i am sure great, but they are nobody to be considered as GREAT violinists of our century. I'm not throwing a fit or "tizzy", I just think Wikipedia has many great pages with valuable information. So lets keep a certain level of professional liability with what we post. I happen to be a talented violinist (not to be put on this list) who knows enough about this market to know fact from bull. If you want a list of noted violinists, keep it as is, they all are, but so are my additions, I promise you. If you want it to be Great Violinists of the Post-19th Century, you need a lot more honesty and knowlege. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaywalkin12 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems as if we have a winner here, folks. I'd be happy to see the post-19th century list divided, for example, into established artists, outstanding pedagogues, and prodigious up-and-comers. I don't object to Kutik going into that last category. The only reason I have been timid about deleting a lot of others, is that I don't know that much about the scene, and will frankly admit as much.

I do, however, think that a list including the likes of Milstein, Heifetz, & so forth, should be a very short one. If you like, in several dozen hours I'll have time to do some fairly brutal triage of the list, formatting it into the three sub-headings I just suggested, or some other that seems better to us all. Then we can have a great time "discussing" who goes where and why. The "why" needs to be demonstrable, as we all know. Best, __Just plain Bill 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about:

• Post-19th century violinists
  • Great artists*
  • Notable pedagogues
  • Other notable players

I'm serious about that *; what better term for the recognized "best of the best"? +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"I think I speak for the congregation here when I say that we're going for quality, not quantity here." I'm not sure why this statement is valid, or whether it holds true elsewhere on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be a moratorium on listing 2nd tier actors, pop music groups, porn stars, or Congressmen from "unimportant" districts. I have heard some outstanding violinists who haven't had the publicity bug necessary to turn them into international phenomena. They're still great musicians -- what's wrong with listing all the Sibelius winners, just as all the National League Rookies of the Year are listed?

The problem with higher volume is that the list will get quite long, just as if all major league baseball players were listed on one page. Oh wait, there is a wiki page for that: List of Major League Baseball players. I guess Brian Falkenborg is more deserving than Lucia Lin. MLB players are listed because they have reached a certain level of prominence and expertise; I would say many of the "sub-Heifetz" players have as much prominence within the violin world as Mr. Falkenborg has amongst ballplayers. Worrying that Heifetz will be denigrated if Ms. Lin is listed is akin to suspecting that Barry Bonds loses his notoriety by Falkenborg's inclusion. I like the idea of having a special page for the most notable violin deities, but I also appreciate reading about the minor and up-and-coming stars who will be playing in my neighborhood.

PedEye1 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I Think this is some wonderful discussion. Thank you. I think both approaches could work very well (having the catagories of Tried-and-true greats on one side and then excellent up-and-coming players on the other; or, listing anyone of note (Note defined as being professional and pursuing a solo violin career with recent successes)) and, in the end, is a great education for all of us, professionals and non-professional music lovers alike. I just want to see every violinist that is deserving of our attention get his name at SOME level on this list. If its blatantly obvious something doesnt belong, we will all know. So perhaps, to make it clear, listing great violinist who have recording contracts, mass media coverage, and historical weight should be in one catagory. The other side should be kept for us to really bring awareness to those, like i said, professional SOLO violinists that are either up-and-coming or right on the tipping point (we can put Znaider, Jia Feng Chen, Kutik, and many others here--they are all great, but not historic yet). In the end, we all win. I think you guys put this in the right direction for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaywalkin12 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How about four categories? Them being:

• Great Artists (or Historical Titans, or Stellar Violinists, or...)
• Notable violin soloists (with a well-established track record)
• Notable rising violin stars (or some such nomenclature...)
• Notable masters of violin pedagogy (or paedagogy in the UK)

I applaud the inclusion of master soloists who are capable musicians and well-regarded, but, for whatever reason, not in the uppermost tier of stardom. I'd much rather hear almost any one of our local fiddlers in a small venue, than a superstar from sitting somewhere back in a sea of heads, but that's personal taste. I like live music, unreinforced is best, in small to medium sized halls. __Just plain Bill 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! Lets go with 1) Master Solo Artists 2) Notable Violin Soloists 3) Notable Rising Stars 4) Master Violin Pedaguoges. My only issue, is that lets make sure we keep it restricted to soloists. If we want to mention great chamber or orchestra players (while they could be argued, in some cases, as superior to some on these lists), we can do that on another page (Notable chamber musicians, Great Concertmasters of the Post-19th Century, etc), not this one. There is enough to cover just within solo artists and in this way we can make the guidlines easier to apply when judging merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaywalkin12 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just one smal quibble: I think categories 2 and 3 are so similar as to be problematic; why not just combine them, leaving three categories? I won't fight this, but just think it makes a lot more sense; imagine the battles over "She's a Rising Young Star!" "No, she's just a Notable Violin Soloist!" and so on. How about my original idea: list Great artists, Notable pedagogues, and then everyone else can go into the "Other notale violinists" bin. Or something like that. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Something exactly like that is OK by me. __Just plain Bill 01:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

---

So, I wuz bold and started the Great Splitting-Up Project. One question: I put Joe Szigeti in the "pedagogues" category, thinking he's better known as a teacher than a player. Others may have different opinions (and more information) on this. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! Good work so far. I do have a few issues though, sorry. I'm not sure Midori, Hahn, Zuckerman, and Igor Oistrakh count as Historial UNLESS you also add Maxim Vengerov, Joshua Bell (like him or not), Kremer, Mutter, and Rabin. Then George Enescu should be in the 1st group regardless as well as Leonid Kogan. Suzuki should be under pedagogy. Finally, Joseph Szigeti should definately also be in the 1st category as an incredible player. Many of these soloist later became teachers, but 1st and primarily as players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaywalkin12 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How would you feel about moving Gil Shaham, Vadim Repin, or Viktoria Mullova to the greats list? Might there be others, such as (gasp) Nigel Kennedy? I'm not about to do any such thing without asking someone knowledgeable first. Anybody care to comment on how that line ought best to be drawn? __Just plain Bill 03:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

oops. just read Jaywalkin's edit summary. went ahead and moved those two. _Just plain Bill —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I Think this looks great! I'm satisfied. There are many people in the notable list that play like some Greats we have up (Ferras, Haendel, Hirschhorn, Kavakos, Ricci, Rosand, Suk, and Zimmermann) but for somereason just got the short end of the media stick. So I'm not saying or suggesting to change anything, just be aware of them. Mullove and Kennedy are great, but not 1st tier artists. They were great for their time. Looks great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaywalkin12 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for my part, I'll be happy just so long as nobody tries to put Eugene Fodor into the "Great artists" category. I've actually played on the same stage with the guy, and he's as second-rate as they come. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

New headings, i.e. "Great artists"?

Comment. "Great artists"? These new headings are merely subjective and and violate WP:NPOV. Do all that are listed have sources that say specifically that they are a "great artist"? I think not. And who will check these entries as fact for a lifetime? This is a simple list of violinists and should be kept as such, probably just in alpha order, maybe some splitting of the genres, eras but that is it. (See List of drummers as an example.) Any sourced discussion about "great artists" should be on the Violinists page. Anyone who is a violinist and has a well-sourced article within Wikipedia is notable enough to be mentioned here. As far as red links, I typically first check "what links here" (works on red links too) and/or a quick check of Google could determine if red links should stay for future articles. ♫ Cricket02 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

• Listing unmistakeable titans separately from "other notable players" will make Wikipedia more useful to non-specialist readers, in my opinion.
• "sources that say specifically that they are a 'great artist'" Point taken. Where and how to draw the line is a question that won't go away soon.
• Consider "Great artists" a working heading title until we find something more accurate or supportable.
• (Future maintenance of the list over its lifetime, or the lifetimes of players as they develop, will be the concern of its future editors... this medium isn't chiseled in granite.)

__Just plain Bill 23:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly applaud your efforts Bill, and would definately agree to some amazing violinists out there that are worth elaboration. But again, I think I would discuss that on the violinists page instead and keep this a simple list. Otherwise, everyone will list their favorite violinist under the "great artists" heading on this list - heck, why not right? I am certainly guilty of being tempted to do just that with additions I've added in the past (i.e. a few of my favs Charlie Bisharat and Karen Briggs). And it will be a nightmare to keep up with. At least on the Violinist page argument for inclusion can be avoided when there are sources backing up the discussion. And I wouldn't say the sources have to specifically say "great" per se, but there are plenty of Grammy winners and artists who have toured and recorded extensively with well know acts that are considered great. I'm not an expert on violinists, but if I can be of any help, please let me know. ♫ Cricket02 18:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the whole issue of "verifiability" of Great Artist-ness for any particular violinist, I put it to you that it is not a matter of finding a citation that says explicitly that so-and-so is a "great artist". I think the category can be treated as one whose existence, first of all, is self-evident. As to who should and should not be included in that category, I further posit that there are some fairly objective standards that could be applied here which would pretty clearly reveal whether a violinist is worthy of inclusion here:

• A full and continuing solo career: the violinist regularly appears as a soloist with known, top-notch orchestras, and at recitals in major metropolitan areas.
• A recording career: the violinist has an extensive discography with major record labels.
• Length of career: the violinist's career spans decades.

Regarding that last criterion, it's a matter of not necessarily knowing at the outset of a violinist's career whether or not they're "great", just as, say, U.S. presidents are judged by history long after they're out of office. But no "great artist" should be included who hasn't had a long and stellar career. For all we know, there may be future "great artists" in that list of "others", but we won't know until many years have passed and they have proven themselves to be more than a flash in the pan.

And lastly, I think we could improve things by including a short statement at the top of this list which explains these criteria in a nutshell, for those who look askance at this listing. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can happily go along with what ILike2BeAnonymous said there. For an example of something totally neutral, see Cello#Cellists and List of cellists. The article says almost nothing about the undisputed greats other than Slava, and the list lumps the likes of Rostropovich, Maisky, DuPre, Ma, and other giants right in with the rest, without distinction. At the moment, Violin doesn't name a lot of players outside the Jazz genre. The way it is right now seems to be working, with the POV kept mostly neutral and verifiable. Mostly.

The violin article is already pretty bulky, and adding a section on "great" players will only bulk it up further, as well as risking going down the primrose path that Viola#Violists has done sometimes. Briefly, I don't think it's so badly broken the way it is that we need to go rushing to fix it. __Just plain Bill 15:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's get rid of "great artists."

Who are we to judge these "other notable violinists"? If Hilary Hahn and Midori made the "great artists," what about Sarah Chang and James Ehnes? James Ehnes's Korngold and Barber concertos are equally as good as Hilary Hahn's. Also, consider his Paganini's caprices album. Tell me why not Ehnes? If Anne Sophie-Mutter made the list, what about Leonidas Kavakos? I highly consider Kavakos as a better violinist compared to Sophie-Mutter. What about Christian Tetzlaff who released a gorgeous Bach Sonatas and Partitas album? I don't even see him on the "other notable violinists." As you can see from my examples above, the list of "Great artists" is merely a result of different personal tastes as well as violinists' popularity and more frequent stage presence. Therefore, I think someone needs to step up and consolidate these two categories into one. I don't really like to see this discrepancy between "great artists" and "notable violinists." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndvkwon (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just added Tetzlaff to the "other notable violinists" since, at the moment, his English and German wikipedia articles are very stubby. Someone more knowledgeable may decide whether he (or Chang, Ehnes, or Kavakos) belong with the "great artists." I think it is useful to separate the legendary from the "merely" brilliant, as difficult as that line may be to draw, Like it or not, frequent stage presence is one factor in assessing "legendary" (or, if you like, "mightily notable") status. I freely admit that I do not know where to draw that line, but I'm not sure that the likes of Heifetz, Menuhin, Milstein, and a few others, or even Kreisler, should be lumped in with "the others." __Just plain Bill (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious: What is the definition of a great artist? I nominate Leila Josefowicz to the great artist list, she played at Carnegie at 23 w/ St. Martin, plays w/ major symphonies nationally and internationally, has numerous recordings, etc. If "Great Artists" has some kind of Objective criteria, she meets it! http://www.cmartists.com/artists/leila_josefowicz.htm http://www.leilajosefowicz.com/ Mikepiehl (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Violinist redirect to Violin?

A request has been made to move Violinist to Violinist (disambiguation), in order to then make Violinist a redirect to Violin. See Talk:Violinist#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)