"The revisional work of the master violinist is of very great
importance, but often great artists and distinguished teachers hold
radically different views with regard to practically every detail of
their art. And it is by no means easy for an editor like myself, who is
finally responsible for their editions, to harmonize a hundred
conflicting views and opinions. The fiddlers best qualified to speak
with authority will often disagree absolutely regarding the use of a
string, position, up-bow or down-bow. And besides meeting the needs of
student and teacher, an editor-in-chief must bear in mind the artistic
requirements of the music itself. In many cases the divergence in
teaching standards reflects the personal preferences for the editions
used. Less ambitious teachers choose methods which make the study of the
violin as _easy_ as possible for _them_; rather than those which--in the
long run--may be most advantageous for the _pupil_. The best editions of
studies are often cast aside for trivial reasons, such as are embodied
in the poor excuse that 'the fourth finger is too frequently indicated.'
According to the old-time formulas, it was generally accepted that
ascending passages should be played on the open strings and descending
ones using the fourth finger. It stands to reason that the use of the
fourth finger involves more effort, is a greater tax of strength, and
that the open string is an easier playing proposition. Yet a really
perfected technic demands that the fourth finger be every bit as strong
and flexible as any of the others. By nature it is shorter and weaker,
and beginners usually have great trouble with it--which makes perfect
control of it all the more essential! And yet teachers, contrary to all
sound principle and merely to save effort--temporarily--for themselves
and their pupils, will often reject an edition of a method or book of
studies merely because in its editing the fourth finger has not been
deprived of its proper chance of development. I know of cases where,
were it not for the guidance supplied by editorial revision, the average
teacher would have had no idea of the purpose of the studies he was
using. One great feature of good modern editions of classical study
works, from Kreutzer to Paganini, is the double editorial numeration:
one giving the sequence as in the original editions; the other numbering
the studies in order of technical difficulty, so that they may be
practiced progressively.