c.g.: Are those the only choices I get? Scylla and Charybdis? :-} I find bad singers and lifeless singers both difficult to listen to, though the latter less so. I have some fiddle records that I listen to as a source of tunes and stylistic pointers, but cannot really enjoy, because the scraping, rhythmic errors and bad intonation make my toes curl.


Unless you're a musical wiz and play several hours each day, a few months is NOT sufficient time to get a good foundation on the fiddle. It takes years to develop proper bowing technique and intonation, and there's so much else to learn beyond that.

Classical training focuses on technique more than repertoire; folk training generally does the reverse. Even if you only intend to play folk, you're likely to develop more control and proficiency if you start with a classical approach.

As for the dreaded "conversion", it's easily avoided. My formal study is classical; my recreational playing is fiddle tunes. Keep in mind that folk music comes from folk--people who, by and large, had little formal musical training of any sort. It's not rocket science--its characteristics are relatively easy to recognize and replicate, and it tends to be less demanding or diverse than the classical repertoire. If a violinist has a real feel for the music, there is no reason why he can't play it as well as--or even better than--a folk-trained fiddler. And if a person doesn't have that feel, it doesn't matter what approach he takes.