AndreiKrylov wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:41 pm
despite all of these I could see that classical guitar players had same problems discussed in this topic
I believe it.
Part of the problem is that classical guitar is predominantly a solo instrument, so players don't enjoy many opportunities to collaborate with other instrumentalists in chamber music or orchestral music — a necessary experience for instrumentalists to learn how to listen attentively to other musicians.
The rigor of your studies in the former USSR was typical of the entire Russian conservatory training even under the czar. Heifetz, for example, studied with Auer at the St. Petersburg Conservatory (giving his debut there at the age of 10), and I was interested to learn that he was also a very good pianist, often accompanying other students during their group lessons with Auer.
In terms of musicianship, some of the best guitarists I've met have been studio musicians, playing either acoustic or electric instruments, because they're constantly put in the situation of playing with other musicians (often with a conductor): they have to keep time and they have to listen closely to the other musicians . . .
. . . which brings us to the old, intractable problem of the classical guitar: the lack of a large, substantive, repertoire. Some of this can be blamed on Andres Segovia, who — while reviving the great tradition of the instrument and re-popularizing congenial works by Sor, Tarrega, etc. — nevertheless opted for original compositions by "2nd tier" 20th-century composers such as Ponce and Castelnuovo-Tedesco, rather than "1st-tier" 20th figures like Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Vaughn Williams, et al.
I mentioned earlier how important I think it is for classical guitar students to listen to other kinds of music (classical and non-classical), but there's a potential danger to this: After listening to the works of Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, and others, it's easy to become disheartened by the dearth of first-rate, high quality material for the guitar. With few exceptions, most of the best works in the standard repertoire are transcriptions (mainly Bach and Scarlatti). And anything else that's transcribed, often has the appearance of a "gimmick", rather than a solid contribution to the potential programs of other players. For example, some years ago, I heard about a Japanese guitarist who played his own transcription of Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition." Is this a true contribution to the repertoire, or an impressive "one-off" parlor trick? We might compare that to Vladimir Horowitz's amazing transcription of Sousa's "Stars and Stripes", with crashing octaves in the left hand and brilliant flourishes (originally for piccolos) in the right. Lots of fun to hear — especially for a Carnegie Hall audience immediately after WWII; war-weary but patriotic — but it wasn't a contribution to the piano repertoire (nor was it meant to be, by the way). By contrast, Busoni made a famous arrangement of the Bach Chaconne that has become standard for pianists to include on programs.