- Position‹6 of 7›
- János Starker is the greatest cellist
- Argument
János Starker's musical perfection
Starker believed that much of the performance of music got in the way of the music, like a wide vibrate hiding bad intonation. Starker focused on the music alone.
The argument
The case for János Starker rests on the claim that he did not merely play the cello exceptionally well but changed what the instrument was understood to be capable of, bringing its sound, tone and play to the next level. Proponents present this as a difference in kind: a great performer executes the existing repertoire superbly, while Starker altered the standard against which cello playing was afterwards measured. The evidence offered is the consistency between how he treated others and how he treated himself. He was known for being a demanding teacher, and the argument's point is that the demands were not those of a taskmaster applying to students a discipline he had relaxed for himself. He applied the same elevated expectations to his own playing, and held himself to those standards throughout his career rather than in the period when he was establishing a reputation. The results are offered as confirmation. At fifteen he was already principal cellist in the Budapest orchestra, a position that in the ordinary course is reached after years of professional work rather than before adulthood, which proponents take as evidence that the standard he set himself was producing results long before it produced recognition. What completes the argument is what he did with the career once it was accomplished. After an accomplished performing life, Starker stopped performing in order to teach, choosing to spend his remaining working years transmitting the technique rather than continuing to display it. His contribution to the generation of cellists who followed cannot be understated, and proponents treat this as the reason his influence outlasts the recordings: the playing shaped a repertoire, but the teaching shaped the players. Taken together, the unrivalled dedication and the twofold contribution, as performer and as teacher, are what confirm his status as the greatest cellist of all time.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Starker was an excellent teacher, but in his pursuit of perfection some of the creativity and art of the cello was lost. He may have been a great cellist in technical terms, but he was not a great cellist artistically speaking.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The first claim is the conclusion restated. That he raised the instrument's sound, tone and technique "to a new level" is the judgement to be established, and rigour as a teacher speaks to the standards he set rather than to his standing among cellists. [Rejecting P2] The two results point in different directions and neither settles the question. A principal seat at fifteen is evidence of early accomplishment, and shaping a generation of players is a claim about pedagogical influence — which is the counter's reading, that technical mastery came at the expense of interpretation. A superlative about performance has to be argued over recorded performances, and the argument cites none. [Rejecting C] "Musical perfection" is also the wrong criterion for the claim being made. Greatness in performance is normally argued from interpretation, sound and influence taken together, and against the other cellists the position stands opposed to — none of whom the premises mention.