Someone who has come so far upwards has many envious and the discussion about it is this "has probably already wasted his talent in the heat of marketing I can no longer to follow his performances -. The suffering is too great.". one of not so few critical voices.
The conscious, you can confront his activities impartially?
It's hard, because on the other side takes place a massive advertising: "Designed as a virtuoso recital, is 14 an insight into the incredible technique and musicality of the youngest artist in the history of Deutsche Grammophon".
If the performance would have been so incredible, why were the recordings not published as "Garrett" was still no brand?
So what I hear? A safe amazing violinist. Clean, technically perfect, in the tone sometimes a little timid, what you can in the face of age not be evaluated negatively, sometimes a bit sentimental, me too much portamento.
Why then the three points?
Anyone who has ever attended a violin competition, is a great wealth to meet: really good, very good, even excellent violinists.
A film about the competition in Hannover about once rotated from other competitions, such as Brussels, there are sound documents. Opposite these impressions stings Garrett for me not out. He's a good violinist, like many others. Because he makes afterwards a great career, is his performance in 1995 no other. We perceive them today, because he has become a big star, while all the other good to excellent violinists have not made such a career.
That one with a young age has those skills, is also not uncommon to show special talents but generally very early.
Why should the assessment reflect what was then added: a young good violinist. One of many.
