violinist as the one mentioned, in spite of his tone and technic, was
never meant for an _ensemble_ player.

"I have never believed in a quartet getting together and 'reading' a
new work as a preparation for study. As first violin I have always made
it my business to first study the work in score, myself, to study it
until I knew the whole composition absolutely, until I had a mental
picture of its meaning, and of the interrelation of its four voices in
detail. Thirty-two years of experience have justified my theory. Once
the first violin knows the work the practicing may begin; for he is in a
position gradually and tactfully to guide the working-out of the
interpretation without losing time in the struggle to correct faults in
balance which are developed in an unprepared 'reading' of the work.
There is always one important melody, and it is easier to find it
studying the score, to trace it with eye and mind in its contrapuntal
web, than by making voyages of discovery in actual playing.

"Every player has his own qualities, every instrument its own
advantages. Certain passages in a second violin or viola part may be
technically better suited to the hand of the player, to the nature of
the instrument, and--they will sound better than others. Yet from the
standpoint of the composition the passages that 'lie well' are often not
the more important. This is hard for the player--what is easy for him
he unconsciously is inclined to stress, and he must be on his guard
against it. This is another strong argument in favor of a thorough
preliminary study on the part of the leading violin of the construction
of the work."


THE FIRST VIOLIN IN CHAMBER MUSIC VERSUS