Amelia Chan

violinist | Creator, First Principles Violin

Amelia Chan is currently concertmaster of the City Chamber Orchestra of Hong Kong (CCOHK).

She came to this position from her tenure as concertmaster of the West Virginia Symphony Orchestra (US). An experienced leader, Amelia has served in the concertmaster chair under acclaimed conductors such as Sir Neville Marriner, Michael Tilson Thomas, Manfred Huss, Sergiu Commissiona, Anton Coppola, Zdeněk Mácal, Jorge Mester, Julius Rudel, and Gerard Schwarz. She has also performed with the New York Philharmonic extensively. As a chamber musician, Amelia has served as first violinist of the Montclaire String Quartet, and has collaborated with guitarist Sharon Isbin, accordionist Richard Galliano, violinist Lara St. John, the Ying Quartet, members of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, and the Jupiter Symphony Chamber Players (NYC), among others. She has appeared as soloist with orchestras including the West Virginia Symphony, the International Virtuosi Orchestra on tour in Central America, the New Amsterdam Symphony Orchestra (NYC), the Brooklyn Symphony Orchestra (NYC), and the City Chamber Orchestra of Hong Kong. She has shared the stage as co-soloist with acclaimed flutist Sir James Galway, and frequently acts as director for the City Chamber Orchestra. She has performed at the Costa Rica Music Festival, the Guatemala Music Festival, Cooperstown Chamber Music Festival in New York and the Pacific Music Festival (Japan).

Amelia has been heard on WQXR, New York; WQED, Pittsburgh; West Virginia Public Broadcasting; BBC Radio Scotland, Scotland; and RTHK Radio 4, Hong Kong.

As an educator, Amelia approaches the teaching of technique through the lens of whole-body biomechanics, and on the principle that techniques of playing an instrument need to be relational to the body, and to how it moves, instead of relying on a static one-size-fits-all method. She believes in a focused and deep education that goes beyond rote training, where the student learns discernment and critical thinking, while sifting through the layers of intellect needed to decipher the depths of the musical art, to get to the natural, joyful simplicity of music-making.

Amelia holds undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate degrees from the Mannes College of Music and Manhattan School of Music (NY). She began her violin studies in the junior school at the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts. Her major teachers included Thomas Wang, Alice Waten, Albert Markov, Shirley Givens, Lisa Kim, Yoko Takebe, Sheryl Staples, Glenn Dicterow, and double-bassist Julius Levine.

For more information on Amelia, please go to her Instagram page at https://www.instagram.com/ameliachanviolin/ 

——————————————————————————-

"Concertmaster Amelia Chan in particular played with passion, acting as the vibrant soul of the ensemble.” South China Morning Post 

“…gutsy solo violin throughout [by] concertmaster Amelia Chan…” theprickle.org

What Makes a Genius?

January 30, 2024  /  Amelia Chan

At work, we’ll be playing with someone who is sometimes described as a genius. A discussion ensued about what makes a genius, which compelled me to put down some thoughts.

Given that genius is extraordinary, it would be arrogant of me to try to slap on a definition from my vantage point. This is, of course, subjective—but I find it meaningful to at least try to put into words some of the qualities surrounding it. In our conversation the other day, someone said a genius is a person who can do things that nobody else can. But the human race is eternally evolving. Paganini’s supposed technical wizardry is probably nothing special nowadays; people are running faster and doing more difficult things as time passes. There are many particularly talented individuals who help push the natural progress of the human race forward. Genius has got to be more singular than that.

A point was made that genius means having a distinct voice: how Mozart created his own language, how Schubert always sounds like Schubert, and Mendelssohn likewise. I feel that is certainly a mark of genius. You can’t fake having an individual voice; what is unrecognizable will stay unrecognizable. It is even worse when something sounds like a copy-and-paste amalgamation of many different personalities, dotted with self-conscious gestures that the composer believes will make others think they’re brilliant, too—something “clever.” It becomes a pretense of sophistication and a convolution of non-expression. I ask, what’s the point?

It’s the same with any other form of expression. When writers construct complicated sentences and use big, hollow words just to impress, they only muddy actual communication—obliterating any possibility of a signature voice in their pretension.

Does having a distinct voice alone make a genius? After all, if one tries hard enough to be outrageous, one could indeed be plenty distinct. (If you write clunkily and pretentiously often enough, that alone can become an identifying signature.) Instead, I feel that genius lies in where this distinct voice comes from: a profound inner vision that is somehow linked to a quality of connectedness, in an infinite multitude of ways. A genius uniquely sees possibilities of what being human is and what it could mean—possibilities that few others have seen—through the lens of their work. I feel Einstein is a genius not just because of his (albeit revolutionary) scientific achievements, but because of his vision of a much grander humanity, without which he would not have been able to achieve what he did. His genius lies not in cleverness and innovation, but in the vision behind that innovation. Innovation alone improves; but innovation stemming from an unselfconsciously lofty and singularly insightful vision inspires (not to mention taking the innovation to a whole different level).

In the end, genius and its effects evade strict definition precisely due to their nature. It wouldn’t be genius if it fit a preconceived notion, was predictable, or had bounds. That is why it offers hope and elevates us: it provides visions of humanity beyond the utilitarian. It births possibilities beyond ordinary sight.

Comment