This entry was posted
on Sunday, May 31st, 2009 at 10:18 pm and is filed under 2009 Competition.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Sounds like maybe here we go. Anyone remember about what time they announced in 2005? It was a relatively quick decision that year, if I recall correctly, but chances of my not recalling correctly are high.
WOOHOOOOO!!! HUGE CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF THE FINALISTS!!!!! And the greatest of respect and heart-felt congrats to all of the semi-finalists as well. THANK YOU.
Didn’t expect to be this happy! Got my essential four. Thrilled that Vacatello is in there. Can’t wait for her Prokofiev 3rd, which I expect will be lethal.
(Still don’t think Son has the dynamic range, but as Alan said, her consistent execution puts her on a successful track.)
Excellent picks all around by the jury, couldn’t be more pleased with the competitors. Of course all of them are still incredible. Can’t wait for the concertos!
I must admit I was also unsure of Vacatello, I don’t really like her style. She obviously plays well, but I just can’t tell for sure if I would want her as a medalist.
Vacatello plays extremely well, but I wish she were a bit more…happy(?) in public? She always seems a bit disgruntled. Though it could be because of the competition, though I’m not sure..
Haven’t had a chance to see her ‘Performer Portrait’ b/c the viewer is still amok…
“Vacatello caught me by surprise. Unfortunately, I suspect that’s what bumped Andrea Lam.”
Is it unfortunate? Vacatello is freaking amazing. I’m surprised so many here seem to be forgetting her. Lam is delightful but really, honestly, truly does not have the hardware to be a Cliburn finalist. The judges have got to worry about launching a total package into the world.
At my little neighborhood party here, I picked 5 of the 6 — I wasn’t sure if Yeol Eum Son or Dank would have the sixth spot. It will be an interesting week.
Do we get to vote (on their Web site) just once, period, or once per round?
(Another note to official bloggers: If you edit your message at the top of the page, those of us who keep refreshing and scrolling down, down, down, will never see it. Hence my request that you post a comment at the end like the rest of us mortals.
Looks like I was six for six on predictions. I also felt that if Vacatello wasn’t chosen to be a finalist, Andrea Lam potentially would have been. However, I guess that’ll remain a mystery to us. In any case, all six finalists were deserving and all the other semifinalists were awesome as well — congratulations to all and thanks so much for sharing your musical talents.
@Jim- We get to vote once per round is my understanding. Its interesting that the reported online vote matched the jury exactly. When I voted I had the same as the jury, but Lam had Son beat out for 6th place by 9.2% to 8.5%. Son must have pulled up at the very end. Anyone know what the final difference was between them for the online vote?
Concerning what bumped Lam for the jury, I rather think it was Son in the end. Vacatello is another whole unique quantity from those two, and I think she may have been in before Son or Lam.
Congrats to all the finalists. And congrats to all of the incredibly talented pianists that entered and were selected for the Cliburn competition this year. You guys are all winners in my book!
They missed the mark tonight. Eduard Kunz would have rocked the world for the Cliburn Competition. The much needed new blood and shot in the arm was sadly overlooked. They just won’t take the chance on progress.
How sad to think of what they will miss in having someone to represent them that attracts interest from all over the age spectrum. For me the incompetence was in the choice of the blind competitor. This should not be a free ticket to success. The emotion behind Kunz’s talent will find itself somewhere great, and the Cliburn will have to live with what will probably be one of it’s most devastating wrong judgements.
T Williams comments are correct. I must expound further. Kunz on his worst day is a far superior artist to all of the rest. There is not a single work in the entire competition of all the other pianists that I would ever bother to download much less purchase. The Kunz interpretation are worthy of listening many times over even with minor slips. Not only can he play softly which is concept that seems to evade the rest, but he goes a step farther and plays with delicacy and knows how to caress a notes. He is not afraid to play so softly so as to miss a note or care if the person in the back of the theatre can hear it. His Scarlatti alone should have put him straight into the finals. No one else has come close to this level of artistry. Even in the Dvorák he demonstrated superb spacing and breathing. in fact it was rather the reverse, the quartet should have been listening more to what he was doing. They were metronomically bulling their way ahead instead of taking, and accepting, some of his clues. He intuitively knew what to do but in those places he was often a fraction of a second behind the quartet.
I will not critique the other pianists as it is a non issue. Despite their immense techniques none of them exhibit the artistic traits necessary to become a future great musician. There is no Rubinstein, Rachmaninoff, Gould, or Solomon to be found here. that said I wish them all well with the remainder of the competition.
Speaking of, Kunz should abandon the competitions and go straight to the studio. Like Gould, he should begin archiving works. He should get a piano with a great voice and record under the extreme scrutiny of close microphones so that we can all fully explore what he is truly trying to convey. The rest can continue the competitive races with the judges awaiting at the finish line stopwatches in hand.
As far as the competition is concerned and the huge amount of money that is really involved why don’t they award the winner with the piano they performed on? This would truly be a dream for most of them that never even play much less practice on a great piano. They should also eliminate the commissioned works as they are not worthy of being compared in a competitive fashion. If they wanted to test their jazz mettle why not pick an Art Tatum arrangement. I would rather hear them play Scott Joplin for all that matters.
T Williams, I loved the “new blood” that was chosen, with the exception of the solidly capable Son, who never moved me but had a fantastic closing starting with the restatement of the big March theme in the Brahms Quintet, leading the quartet on a charge that was just amazingly played by all as a unit on fire.
She apparently jumped ahead of Lam in the Internet Cliburn-watchers polling right after that, showing after the announcements, actually, and may well have also in the over-long jury deliberations too that were apparently difficult choices for them. Most of us were aware of Lam’s weaknesses in her semi-final set but something in her music-making in general made what seems the majority here to wish she somehow made it.
I love that 5 of 6 of the favorites of most of us WERE chosen. Maybe there’s less chance of strange voting results with less people in the mix splitting votes.
From a group of pianists, all 12 of them amazing pianists, as it is, it’s unexpected to have this much unanimity among the intense followers of the event.
Anastasia, I was struck by the fact you detailed so well what exasperated you in Son’s playing in the Quintet before Son lit a match under all of them in the last 3rd. I went to your site and heard your Scarlatti and Mozart cuts and I wish that Kunz would have done the Scarlatti as well — and really liked your Mozart. As far as Kunz goes, I loved his handling of the Bates.
Kudos to the judges for the Semi-Final results and a semi-final reminder that they made a horrendous mistake with Zuo somehow. And I’m sorry not to see her in the lineup for the Piano Marathon.
About what I expected.
Bozhanov and Son - those were clear choices, imo. Bozhanov may win the Alfred Brendel Facial Gymnastics award, but his Schubert was divine.
Tsujii, also very clear, especially after that out-of-this-world Beethoven. He made us LISTEN. (”Free ticket to success”…how cynical can you GET?)
I am very happy about Vacatello; she’s the real deal and I am really looking forward to her concerti! For those of you who keep complaining she doesn’t look “happy” enough - what is this, a Miss America pageant? Some of the boys didn’t smile either, and I don’t see anyone complaining about that.
Sorry about Kunz - very intriguing performer, but I suppose too polarizing for any consensus. REALLY sorry about Lifits - there were so many beautiful and telling moments in his recital…but he wasn’t “perfect” enough, I guess.
Di Wu IS perfect enough, but IS that enough? -
If the jury is looking for a “total package” I do hope they realize that Zhang, for all his phenomenal ability, is still a work in the making.
I wish everyone great luck and a joyous time of music making in the finals!!
And for those who didn’t, quote unquote, make it, remember you are ALL amazing pianists and have touched our hearts immeasurably. Thank you!!
I favored Kunz through the prelims, but things changed as semis unfolded. Now that we are in the final round, it feels like Bozahnov is for me the front runner.
I am shocked by those responses to Lifits’ recital that focus on his “problems” in the Liszt sonata.
That tiny slight moment on the opening, within the huge and beautiful world of sound that he creates, is nothing. A great artist cannot play the same way twice, and is not a machine. Their creativity is like a breathing, living organism and such tiny things occasionally happen. If it is note-shooting machines that are wanted, well, ok. Then he does not fit. Has anybody ever been to a recital that was inspiring and telling, without a single imperfection? I doubt it. (Unless you heard the genius Grigory Sokoloff. ) Lifits and I studied together with the wonderful Boris Petrushansky in Imola. I am very happy for Misha, and wanted to see him advance.
I think the judges made a perfect choice coninciding with the consensus of the viewers. I think Vacatello was sort of glossed over by the broadcasters on the Internet and yet still ended up as one of the favored six by the audience. She is super talented, memorized the Hagen piece (which some others did not do) and gave the most emotional interpretation to the Liszt sonata and a perfect performance of the Schumann stylewise. I also thought her Scriabin was great. The blogger who described that piece as having to be played “carnally” was using inappropriate language in my opinion!
I had Lifits on my six list–loved his tonal palette, dynamic range, and meltingly beautiful dolces and ppps. But they pulled him, I believe, because of snags in Liszt. Feel bad for him because of cell phone interruptions which he apparently mentioned to Cummings. But the jurors probably figure, if you are going to the big leagues, that is part of the cosmos you have to contend with.
As far as cosmetics, fashionista, happy or sad faces, I don’t think that is of relevance to the performances. The true test, is closing ones eyes, and listening.
Got six out of six as well. Never convinced by Lam and I’m glad Vacatello made it instead. I still wish Zhang was given four more years to mature but I guess realistically it would have been unfair to leave him out.
Kim had no shot due to her massive Pictures memory slip, which unfortunately our esteemed bloggers under-played a bit. I’m fine with the others, although I have a soft spot for Lifits I think he just lacks the technique of some of the others. He wins the “best slow movement” prize from me though. I’ve always liked Wu and Boz. Nobu hasn’t entirely convinced me but he definitely deserves to be there.
Adele Marcus also told us that “We are never happier than when we are proven correct!” So I am correspondingly pleased that I was accurate in predicting the six Cliburn finalists. For any who are disgruntled, I would remind you of Prof. Kaplinsky’s comment yesterday (which is very similar to my own philosophy) that CONSISTENCY is of great importance. We are all obviously human–and therefore imperfect; but a reliable standard of performance is essential in a competition which sends winners on extended engagements to hinterlands as well as metropolitan areas. Let’s hope some of these young artists can elicit some interest from the reasonably educated public (I’ve given up on the masses). As it is, many areas already have nothing to offer but what can politely be called “junk” in the way of performances. If this younger generation is unsuccessful, those of us devoted to the art of music may wind up as the very relics we fear becoming!
Sakamoto, Vondracek and Kunz will meet this month at another competition!
The all thing is being great due to the pianists and the audience - what dedication to the piano.
I feel that the general level is not as high as in previous years - but maybe I feel this way because I only new the highlights from previous editions.
Seeing it all, one catches some problematic moments.
I feel sorry for Kunz, Lam and Dank - but thats life - maybe they were not at their best.
Good luck everybody.
Wonder why they made it so that Son has to perform in three consecutive concerts without a break (Thursday and Friday night, Saturday matinee; nobody else even performs on three consecutive days).
Was struck by a segment filler between competition performances.. where one of the principles said that the jurors “know everyone’s bio,” and this awareness allegedly assists their judging. In a perfect world, I would hope entrants would not be required to reveal so much to the judges in the way of whom they studied with, etc. Just get a sense that where students leave one teacher for another, perhaps, there are always hurt feelings, and professional rivalries. Let’s just say, “politics” can sometimes creep into these proceedings, though I am not making that assumption in this round..The other issue is factoring in what judges have taught whom in the past or even present and the effects of that …
I have to say, this is much less controversial than the semi. I believe the jury picked the best of the 12. However, if anything could be undone, I really think Lukas and spencer would suit the finals better than Haochen Zhang and Tsujii.
In a perfect world, the judges would be behind screens, wearing earplugs during the announcement of the pianist, and evaluating performances by number.
I am glad Vacatello got in. I think she was sort of glossed over by some of the commentators. Remember, she played Haydn elegantly, Stravinsky to perfection, great performance of the Liszt Sonata and I liked the Scriabin works as well. She topped it off with an excellent Schumann Quintet. She also memorized the Hagan piece which some of the other competitors did not do. I also agree with the other choices. The judges picked the Internet audience consensus. While one of us can be wrong, it seems that as a group we knew what we were doing.
@ Kevin C. - I just noticed that about Son’s scheduling as well. I can’t imagine performing three consecutive days. It will be the ultimate test of stamina.
Di Wu has to perform two consecutive days. But everyone else seems to be scheduled conveniently. I think whoever was scheduling the finalists should have avoided these situations.
@Kevin and Jasmine: I believe - if my logic below is correct - that someone playing on three consecutive *days* - but not necessarily sessions - is unavoidable, if we hold to the requirement that all the classical/romantic concerti are played together.
Consider the Saturday sessions. We will make the reasonable assumption that nobody should play *both* Saturday sessions (a requirement that I would imagine we all agree is an even higher priority), so fill them out as follows:
Saturday aft - concertos A B, recital C
Saturday eve - concertos D E, recital F
Now, since all the romantic concerti are being played together, that means that C and F must be playing concerti on Sunday afternoon. Who plays the recital? We’ll get to that. Our partial schedule now looks like this:
Friday - concertos ?1 ?2, recital ?3
Saturday aft - concertos A B, recital C
Saturday eve - concertos D E, recital F
Sunday - concertos C F, recital ?4
Two things immediately stand out about the question marks. The first is that C and F cannot be any one of them; otherwise, they’d be playing three consecutive days. The second is that the question marks must all be different candidates, for the same reason. So, the question marks need to be filled by A, B, D, and E.
Now, moving back even further: who plays the Thursday recital? It can’t be C, F, ?3, or ?4, since we already have them playing recitals. So it must be ?1 or ?2. But that candidate would then be playing a recital Thursday evening, a concerto Friday evening, and a concerto sometime on Saturday.
As an addendum to that - every competitor is playing consecutive *days* at least once, although only Wu and Son are playing consecutive sessions. The consecutive days are as follows:
Bozhanov - Fri: recital - Sat eve: Rach 2
Son - Thu: recital - Fri: Chopin 2 - Sat aft: Prok 2
Tsujii - Sat aft: Rach 2 - Sun: recital
Vacatello - Fri: Beethoven 4 - Sat eve: Prok 3
Wu - Sat eve: recital - Sun: Rach 3
Zhang: Sat aft: recital - Sun: Prok 2
Side note: pretty interesting watching Tsujii in his one-on-one rehearsal. Conlon is asking him to play huge portions of his concertos uninterruptedly, including accompaniment figuration and pauses. You don’t often hear the piano part naked this way.
With the online voting result accurately predicting the exact jury decision for the final it seems no unique feat for all of us who did so. And truly, it does make those of us who did accurately all 6 RIGHT. Just b/c I got all my 6 picks in the finals, I know I could be dead wrong about a few of them.
Several are lamenting the horribly wrong decision to eliminate Kunz. He IS a uniquely gifted muscian and you may all be right in the end. Some of us feel the FAR greater outrage than that over Kunz is over leaving Zuo out of the semis. I’m in that camp. But in the end that could have proved wrong. Concerning the decision making of the jury I would like to agree a bit with scarlatti lover in the concern that possibly too much is known and exposed about the contestants and that this can sometimes allow politics or external matters to influence what should be mostly a musical decision.
One thing to consider regarding how the jury chooses the final 6…They have to pick six people who will consistently represent Cliburn as they concertize over the next four years. Yes, contestants like Kunz are very unique and interesting from an artistic standpoint, but as the competition moved on, Kunz began to show more loss of focus and polish. Remember that great artists like Perahia, Lupu or the like, are not only fascinating musicians, but also extremely gifted pianists. I think this is where the jury had to let go of certain people. Many previous jurors have always said: It’s not about who is the best artist necessarily, it’s who will survive the unbelievably punishing schedule following the competition. Some compromises have to be made, but in the end, they’ll hopefully have a set of very reliable and artistically developed medalists to lead the competition from now on. I only say this out of experience being a professional touring concert performer.
I wasn’t suprpised at all that Kunz didn’t make it to the finals. There were too many places in both the Beethoven and Rachmaninov where he just ignores the composers’ clear intentions. For example, legato octaves. In the Beethoven, mvt. 3, he often broke up octaves clearly marked with legato articulation. Is this an option? No more than changing the notes would be and the truly great artists find a way to make their own stamp on a piece without rewriting it. Also in the second Rach Moment Musicaux — the two note slurs beginning the main motiff were ignored and the groups of 4-eighth-note octaves were chopped up and non-legato. Again, is this an option where the composer clearly indicates legato?
I can’t really comment on any specific contestant being omitted since I did not hear all of the preliminary recitals. There were obviously many good ones, but second-guessing has always been a staple of competitions once decisions are announced. Personally, I have no problem with the finalist selections, at least partially because they appear to have been the ones who gave greatest evidence of CONSISTENCY. Any one who has ever performed knows that lay persons are not always aware of stylistic nuances, but even they can tell when we’re making a mess! And these winners will be playing for a LOT of lay people when they go on tour.
About politics and competitions–what else is new? We can’t even get a certain degree of politics out of local and state auditions, much less those at the level of the Cliburn. I am far more concerned about the STRUCTURE of many juries, which are frequently composed of people who do not (and some who could NEVER) function on the level of the most mundane preliminary contestant. Please do not suggest that I “don’t understand” because I absolutely DO! I am not opposed to experienced teachers being jurors (or I would never accept such invitations myself), nor do I believe that an occasional nod to “related” areas (such as, God forbid, “music criticism”) is necessarily inappropriate. The big problem is the nearly total absence of jurors who DO WHAT THE CONTESTANTS DO or at least HAVE done it during the past few decades! Why not a Feghali or Ioudenitch as a juror? Is there some valid reason that such young artists are only allowed to judge the “amateurs?” Would we rather be operated upon by someone who USED to be a surgeon, by someone who had READ and WRITTEN a lot about surgery or by someone who was a currently practicing SURGEON?
ALAN - by your reasoning, then, the great Sol Hurok should never have been an impresario. You don’t have to be a baseball player in order to call ‘em as you see ‘em, etc.
@Varda: 1. Mme. Lhevinne talked about “the exception that proves the rule.” No one would suppose that there aren’t (and haven’t been) those who defied reasonable logic. One has to look no further than Mr. Tsujii for a prime example.
2. No one is suggesting (at least I’m not) that the expertise of the older and more experienced be IGNORED or EXCLUDED–only that it might be helpful (and certainly provide a boader spectrum of evaluation) to INCLUDE jurors who have developed and/or performed somewhat more recently.
3. We may call ‘em as we see ‘em, but is that the way the BASEBALL players see ‘em?
One thing to remember about Kunz is that the jury already gave him a huge gift, by advancing him to the semis after his frightening collision with the Bach-Busoni.
In the semis he affirmed his intent to bend all music into his narrow sonic universe. Fascinating, sometimes ravishing, but sometimes unclear whether the composer was invited inside. And way too sloppy. If you’re going to slap you hands around the keyboard that carelessly, you better be a reincarnation of Cortot.
If I’m not mistaken the jury has Menahem Pressler, a very gifted performer, teacher, and chamber musician (Beaux Arts Trio) of long standing.
And I believe Jade interviewed a German pianist, who had a significant performance background.
As to Veda Kaplinski, all I know is that she is a well known, and respected teacher.
There are so many teachers at the conservatory level around the country, who were performing musicians, and then elected to teach primarily. Lillian and Irwin Freundlich (no long living) were both examples. They did quite a bit of judging in International competitions. And one will always find conductors, who started out as pianists, who judge various concours. Surely, if you pick a former Cliburn winner, there are always going to be those who questioned their having received whatever medal at the time. It can become an endless controversy of whom deserves to be on the jury. As it is I believe I saw a judge (from China) in the prelim filler segment who was an entrant/winnner in a Cliburn competition. Seems like they have a variety of judges with varying backgrounds.
@scarlatti lover: You are absolutely correct! There is a great deal of diversity on this jury, which includes numerous individuals for whom I have great respect. My point was NOT that they shouldn’t be there, but that it makes sense ALSO to include those who are performing the type of repertoire required by the competition NOW (or at least have done so recently). One has only to listen to recordings of pianists of the past to see how styles change. Would we go to a club today in a “zoot suit” or travel in a Model T?
The most contemporary pieces of Bates, Hagen, et al , are unpublished, if I am correct, so anyone on the jury can take the raw score and read, analyze, whatever. The preponderance of repertoire is Classical, Romantic, expressionist.. etc. so I don’t see how your premises support your opinion. In fact, many would say that seasoned musicians such as Pressler are a perfect fit to judge this event.
Great music of any style is truly ageless.. and good musicians are not only become young lovers when they pay, but their great performances make age differences irrelevant.
sorry for my typos that may elicit laughter, and be viewed as double entendres.
Great music of any style is ageless, and good musicians not only become young lovers when they play, but their great performances make age differences irrelevant.
@scarlatti lover: I have great respect for your opinion, just as I have for those on the distinguished jury I am privileged to know. I can only repeat that my ideas are NOT an attempt to discredit the viability of such accomplished individuals, but to ADD an evaluative element which is not already represented. In fact, I agree with their choices in this case–as I have indicated earlier. I simply do not see the harm in adding greater diversity to an evaluative process. After all, I tell my students to play for as many guest artists and master clinicians as possible. None of us can be exactly like anyone else, but we can only benefit by the exposure–even if on occasion it involves discovering what NOT to do!
About what I expected for the finals. In regards to Kunz, I am not surprised he didn’t make it, nor should he have. My impression about his playing is that it is all about Kunz and not about the music. This was no more apparent than in his performance of the Scarlatti sonatas in the prelims. Actually I was surprised he made it to the semis. Zou should have been chosen over him, but I think her lack of “pedigree” as compared with his past successes are what made the difference.
In some sense there is too much focus on the performer bios, and the fact that jurors are made aware of these as part of their evaluations. At least that’s the sense I got from one of the interlude fillers, played and replayed ad nauseum.
Alessandro Deljavan. He really should have dressed better than he did. I was shocked how casually he was dressed for such an important performance as this competition. I’m sorry, but this was unacceptable! Van Cliburn himself and other important guests were in the audience. How you are dressed says a lot. I could swear he had the same clothes on for both sem- final performances! I wonder if that hurt him?
It certainly hurt me…to see an Italian look so sloppy (and sound it sometimes too!) I said he should’ve untucked his ponytail and tucked in his shirt in the prelims…couldn’t believe he made it to the semis!
We’ll miss you Eduard Kunz! Beautiful imaginative playing that breaks the mold is a tough sell in these contests. You are the only one I would pay to hear though….
I agree with the comments regarding Eduard Kunz. He has a rare quality in the way he conceives the music. I’ve been dazzled by several of the other competitors, but none has moved me, and he’s the one I would travel to hear. I felt the same way about Roberto Plano.
Rui, please tell us what competition later this month you referenced for Kunz and other pianists.
Note that Bozhanov is currently scheduled for Cleveland Competition in late July. clevelandpiano.org. So if Evgeni does not medal here, he can at least play with the Cleveland Orchestra and pick up the big prize winnings like Chu Fang Huang did in 2005. Concert management is not up to the Cliburn but there is Carnegie Hall debut with the $50K prize. They broadcast entire competition as recorded sound over internet on WCLV radio. (BTW, Spencer Meyer was in Cleveland finals 2005 and Ran Dank was #4 in 2007. )
For Leeds in late August/Sept we have Bozhanov, Kunz, Dank, Wu, Kudo listed as accepted. Against a field other strong names from competition circuit not appearing in Fort Worth.
So all is not lost for some contestants that did not advance.
Vacatello made the semis in Sydney last year but was not included in the last 6. In my opinion a serious error.
She has Ravel Gaspard and the Shostakovitch prelude and fugue in her final recital at Cliburn. If she plays these like she did in Sydney, you’re in for a real treat. Wish I was there to see but it’s half way round the world. She played the p and f in the 1st round at Sydney and it was truly a bar raiser. Her Chopin Scherzo 4 was fantastic too but she’s left that out in Texas.
As a Brit turned Aussie I’m also disappointed to see Lam left out.
Should the Cliburn invite Martha Argerich to be on the jury ? She is a regular juror at the Chopin International in Poland every 5 yrs. She has also served on juries at various competitions in Europe as well.
Other potential jurors for future Cliburn:
Marc Andre Hamelin
Richard Goode
James Levine
Lang Lang
Radu Lupu
Vladimir Viardo
Just one question to everyone regarding the schedule for the last day of finals as advertised on the web site (pasting below): How can the jury decide on the prizes and announce the winners at 5:00 pm after the record short 35 minutes of deliberations following Di Wu’s performance???
May 31st, 2009 at 10:32 pm
It’s 11:33pm now Texas time. Who are the six finalists??!! I can’t get the webcast.
May 31st, 2009 at 10:38 pm
We’re still waitin’ here in Texas…just so you know.
May 31st, 2009 at 10:38 pm
So exciting…I’ve only started following today, and there’s so much great music to listen to! Good luck to all the competitors!
May 31st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Who are the juries Les Six?
May 31st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I think they are late on schedule. I am watching the webcast right now and it hasn’t announced yet.
May 31st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Internet favorites for the Cliburn-watcher votes (video page) so far:
(top 6 are my own top 6)
http://andrys.com/semi-internet-vote.jpg
May 31st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
AGH
WHY DON’T THEY ANNOUNCE?!?!
May 31st, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Buddy Bray is such an engaging commentator - I would like to see more of him in front of the camera, no?
Almost midnight…I’m ready to turn in - but let’s here the finalists, bitte!
May 31st, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Sounds like maybe here we go. Anyone remember about what time they announced in 2005? It was a relatively quick decision that year, if I recall correctly, but chances of my not recalling correctly are high.
May 31st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Jade Simmons lied! They are not announcing…
May 31st, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Jade Simmons lied! They are not announcing…
She wants to go home
May 31st, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Here comes Kunz, looking angry as ever.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Thats cause they dont sell vodka after 9
May 31st, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Have you noticed Kunz always looks a tad bit upset over something?
May 31st, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Anyone going to the Marathon recitals by some of those who did not make the semis? How I wish I were there to see Sakamoto play in person.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:01 pm
So……..SLEEPY!
May 31st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I was planning to…then I learned what time it takes place.
The timing has been bad for me this year - but that’s why I’m so happy about the streaming!
May 31st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
oh God…
May 31st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Kunz is probably still pissed about being carded on camera.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Haha, I know, right? He should’ve gone to the Saucer - they’d have been much more obliging…
May 31st, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Interesting how Son was the only one clapping along with the audience for her fellow competitors.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Announcing it in alphabetical order kind of took the suspense out of it…as soon as Son was announced second the other four were already known.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Got all my picks, and so did many others. Congrats to the finalists.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:15 pm
I got 5 of the 6 and am overjoyed at the jury’s incredible choices. Thank goodness - I was starting to get really nervous.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Five out of six…not too shabby.
I was banking on Kim instead of Son.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I thought the choices were fair…
May 31st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Bozhanov
Son
Tsujii
Vacatello
Zhang
Wu
(just for the blog-record)
May 31st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
WOOHOOOOO!!! HUGE CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF THE FINALISTS!!!!! And the greatest of respect and heart-felt congrats to all of the semi-finalists as well. THANK YOU.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
No major surprises, all safe choices.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Didn’t expect to be this happy! Got my essential four. Thrilled that Vacatello is in there. Can’t wait for her Prokofiev 3rd, which I expect will be lethal.
(Still don’t think Son has the dynamic range, but as Alan said, her consistent execution puts her on a successful track.)
May 31st, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Excellent picks all around by the jury, couldn’t be more pleased with the competitors. Of course all of them are still incredible. Can’t wait for the concertos!
May 31st, 2009 at 11:19 pm
I’m surprised Lifits didn’t make it. I kinda knew Kunz had a bad day. Now I jave to go back and listen to these people again…
May 31st, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I would swap Son with Lifits or Kunz, just because they are better musicians, though may be not as clean, but whatever…
May 31st, 2009 at 11:23 pm
All understandable. Vacatello caught me by surprise. Unfortunately, I suspect that’s what bumped Andrea Lam.
Interestingly, the judges rankings aligned with the internet vote.
— Mike
May 31st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Vacatello caught me by surprise. Unfortunately, I suspect that’s what bumped Andrea Lam.
My thoughts exactly.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Well, the finals should be announced in random order instead of alphabetical. No more suspension when Son was announced.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
I must admit I was also unsure of Vacatello, I don’t really like her style. She obviously plays well, but I just can’t tell for sure if I would want her as a medalist.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Vacatello plays extremely well, but I wish she were a bit more…happy(?) in public? She always seems a bit disgruntled. Though it could be because of the competition, though I’m not sure..
Haven’t had a chance to see her ‘Performer Portrait’ b/c the viewer is still amok…
May 31st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
“Vacatello caught me by surprise. Unfortunately, I suspect that’s what bumped Andrea Lam.”
Is it unfortunate? Vacatello is freaking amazing. I’m surprised so many here seem to be forgetting her. Lam is delightful but really, honestly, truly does not have the hardware to be a Cliburn finalist. The judges have got to worry about launching a total package into the world.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
At my little neighborhood party here, I picked 5 of the 6 — I wasn’t sure if Yeol Eum Son or Dank would have the sixth spot. It will be an interesting week.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Brad, I agree with you! She is crazy!!! Crazily amazing!!! But she should not have played Liszt Sonata… But prelims were incredible!!!
May 31st, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Do we get to vote (on their Web site) just once, period, or once per round?
(Another note to official bloggers: If you edit your message at the top of the page, those of us who keep refreshing and scrolling down, down, down, will never see it. Hence my request that you post a comment at the end like the rest of us mortals.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Looks like I was six for six on predictions. I also felt that if Vacatello wasn’t chosen to be a finalist, Andrea Lam potentially would have been. However, I guess that’ll remain a mystery to us. In any case, all six finalists were deserving and all the other semifinalists were awesome as well — congratulations to all and thanks so much for sharing your musical talents.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:31 pm
@Jim: Request seconded - though hopefully next year the blog will be in a more accesible forum format?
May 31st, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Scarlatti lover- thank you for your comments on my website!!!
May 31st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
@Jim- We get to vote once per round is my understanding. Its interesting that the reported online vote matched the jury exactly. When I voted I had the same as the jury, but Lam had Son beat out for 6th place by 9.2% to 8.5%. Son must have pulled up at the very end. Anyone know what the final difference was between them for the online vote?
Concerning what bumped Lam for the jury, I rather think it was Son in the end. Vacatello is another whole unique quantity from those two, and I think she may have been in before Son or Lam.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:04 am
Congrats to all the finalists. And congrats to all of the incredibly talented pianists that entered and were selected for the Cliburn competition this year. You guys are all winners in my book!
June 1st, 2009 at 12:56 am
They missed the mark tonight. Eduard Kunz would have rocked the world for the Cliburn Competition. The much needed new blood and shot in the arm was sadly overlooked. They just won’t take the chance on progress.
How sad to think of what they will miss in having someone to represent them that attracts interest from all over the age spectrum. For me the incompetence was in the choice of the blind competitor. This should not be a free ticket to success. The emotion behind Kunz’s talent will find itself somewhere great, and the Cliburn will have to live with what will probably be one of it’s most devastating wrong judgements.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:41 am
T Williams comments are correct. I must expound further. Kunz on his worst day is a far superior artist to all of the rest. There is not a single work in the entire competition of all the other pianists that I would ever bother to download much less purchase. The Kunz interpretation are worthy of listening many times over even with minor slips. Not only can he play softly which is concept that seems to evade the rest, but he goes a step farther and plays with delicacy and knows how to caress a notes. He is not afraid to play so softly so as to miss a note or care if the person in the back of the theatre can hear it. His Scarlatti alone should have put him straight into the finals. No one else has come close to this level of artistry. Even in the Dvorák he demonstrated superb spacing and breathing. in fact it was rather the reverse, the quartet should have been listening more to what he was doing. They were metronomically bulling their way ahead instead of taking, and accepting, some of his clues. He intuitively knew what to do but in those places he was often a fraction of a second behind the quartet.
I will not critique the other pianists as it is a non issue. Despite their immense techniques none of them exhibit the artistic traits necessary to become a future great musician. There is no Rubinstein, Rachmaninoff, Gould, or Solomon to be found here. that said I wish them all well with the remainder of the competition.
Speaking of, Kunz should abandon the competitions and go straight to the studio. Like Gould, he should begin archiving works. He should get a piano with a great voice and record under the extreme scrutiny of close microphones so that we can all fully explore what he is truly trying to convey. The rest can continue the competitive races with the judges awaiting at the finish line stopwatches in hand.
As far as the competition is concerned and the huge amount of money that is really involved why don’t they award the winner with the piano they performed on? This would truly be a dream for most of them that never even play much less practice on a great piano. They should also eliminate the commissioned works as they are not worthy of being compared in a competitive fashion. If they wanted to test their jazz mettle why not pick an Art Tatum arrangement. I would rather hear them play Scott Joplin for all that matters.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:14 am
T Williams, I loved the “new blood” that was chosen, with the exception of the solidly capable Son, who never moved me but had a fantastic closing starting with the restatement of the big March theme in the Brahms Quintet, leading the quartet on a charge that was just amazingly played by all as a unit on fire.
She apparently jumped ahead of Lam in the Internet Cliburn-watchers polling right after that, showing after the announcements, actually, and may well have also in the over-long jury deliberations too that were apparently difficult choices for them. Most of us were aware of Lam’s weaknesses in her semi-final set but something in her music-making in general made what seems the majority here to wish she somehow made it.
I love that 5 of 6 of the favorites of most of us WERE chosen. Maybe there’s less chance of strange voting results with less people in the mix splitting votes.
From a group of pianists, all 12 of them amazing pianists, as it is, it’s unexpected to have this much unanimity among the intense followers of the event.
Anastasia, I was struck by the fact you detailed so well what exasperated you in Son’s playing in the Quintet before Son lit a match under all of them in the last 3rd. I went to your site and heard your Scarlatti and Mozart cuts and I wish that Kunz would have done the Scarlatti as well — and really liked your Mozart. As far as Kunz goes, I loved his handling of the Bates.
Kudos to the judges for the Semi-Final results and a semi-final reminder that they made a horrendous mistake with Zuo somehow. And I’m sorry not to see her in the lineup for the Piano Marathon.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:28 am
Well, it will be one more not terribly exciting winner…one more, one less who cares?
June 1st, 2009 at 4:31 am
About what I expected.
Bozhanov and Son - those were clear choices, imo. Bozhanov may win the Alfred Brendel Facial Gymnastics award, but his Schubert was divine.
Tsujii, also very clear, especially after that out-of-this-world Beethoven. He made us LISTEN. (”Free ticket to success”…how cynical can you GET?)
I am very happy about Vacatello; she’s the real deal and I am really looking forward to her concerti! For those of you who keep complaining she doesn’t look “happy” enough - what is this, a Miss America pageant? Some of the boys didn’t smile either, and I don’t see anyone complaining about that.
Sorry about Kunz - very intriguing performer, but I suppose too polarizing for any consensus. REALLY sorry about Lifits - there were so many beautiful and telling moments in his recital…but he wasn’t “perfect” enough, I guess.
Di Wu IS perfect enough, but IS that enough? -
If the jury is looking for a “total package” I do hope they realize that Zhang, for all his phenomenal ability, is still a work in the making.
I wish everyone great luck and a joyous time of music making in the finals!!
And for those who didn’t, quote unquote, make it, remember you are ALL amazing pianists and have touched our hearts immeasurably. Thank you!!
June 1st, 2009 at 7:08 am
I favored Kunz through the prelims, but things changed as semis unfolded. Now that we are in the final round, it feels like Bozahnov is for me the front runner.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:12 am
I am shocked by those responses to Lifits’ recital that focus on his “problems” in the Liszt sonata.
That tiny slight moment on the opening, within the huge and beautiful world of sound that he creates, is nothing. A great artist cannot play the same way twice, and is not a machine. Their creativity is like a breathing, living organism and such tiny things occasionally happen. If it is note-shooting machines that are wanted, well, ok. Then he does not fit. Has anybody ever been to a recital that was inspiring and telling, without a single imperfection? I doubt it. (Unless you heard the genius Grigory Sokoloff. ) Lifits and I studied together with the wonderful Boris Petrushansky in Imola. I am very happy for Misha, and wanted to see him advance.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:12 am
I think the judges made a perfect choice coninciding with the consensus of the viewers. I think Vacatello was sort of glossed over by the broadcasters on the Internet and yet still ended up as one of the favored six by the audience. She is super talented, memorized the Hagen piece (which some others did not do) and gave the most emotional interpretation to the Liszt sonata and a perfect performance of the Schumann stylewise. I also thought her Scriabin was great. The blogger who described that piece as having to be played “carnally” was using inappropriate language in my opinion!
June 1st, 2009 at 7:27 am
I’m so annoyed Lifits wasn’t chosen..he had an awesome chamber music round. I guess anyone who plays the Liszt sonata gets cut..sheesh.
As for the remaining competitors, I think it will go to either Bozhanov or Tsujii.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:36 am
I had Lifits on my six list–loved his tonal palette, dynamic range, and meltingly beautiful dolces and ppps. But they pulled him, I believe, because of snags in Liszt. Feel bad for him because of cell phone interruptions which he apparently mentioned to Cummings. But the jurors probably figure, if you are going to the big leagues, that is part of the cosmos you have to contend with.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:38 am
I agree with T. Williams about Kunz. He has something truly out of the ordinary.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:41 am
As far as cosmetics, fashionista, happy or sad faces, I don’t think that is of relevance to the performances. The true test, is closing ones eyes, and listening.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:41 am
Got six out of six as well. Never convinced by Lam and I’m glad Vacatello made it instead. I still wish Zhang was given four more years to mature but I guess realistically it would have been unfair to leave him out.
Kim had no shot due to her massive Pictures memory slip, which unfortunately our esteemed bloggers under-played a bit. I’m fine with the others, although I have a soft spot for Lifits I think he just lacks the technique of some of the others. He wins the “best slow movement” prize from me though. I’ve always liked Wu and Boz. Nobu hasn’t entirely convinced me but he definitely deserves to be there.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:42 am
Adele Marcus also told us that “We are never happier than when we are proven correct!” So I am correspondingly pleased that I was accurate in predicting the six Cliburn finalists. For any who are disgruntled, I would remind you of Prof. Kaplinsky’s comment yesterday (which is very similar to my own philosophy) that CONSISTENCY is of great importance. We are all obviously human–and therefore imperfect; but a reliable standard of performance is essential in a competition which sends winners on extended engagements to hinterlands as well as metropolitan areas. Let’s hope some of these young artists can elicit some interest from the reasonably educated public (I’ve given up on the masses). As it is, many areas already have nothing to offer but what can politely be called “junk” in the way of performances. If this younger generation is unsuccessful, those of us devoted to the art of music may wind up as the very relics we fear becoming!
June 1st, 2009 at 7:48 am
I got 5 out of 6 correct. And I agree with 3 out of the 6. Substitute Bozhanov with Kunz and Wu with Lam, and that would be a great final.
I am so thrilled that Vacatello and Yeol Eum Son got in! These two ladies have become my new musical heroes. I do hope that both of them get a medal.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:00 am
Sakamoto, Vondracek and Kunz will meet this month at another competition!
The all thing is being great due to the pianists and the audience - what dedication to the piano.
I feel that the general level is not as high as in previous years - but maybe I feel this way because I only new the highlights from previous editions.
Seeing it all, one catches some problematic moments.
I feel sorry for Kunz, Lam and Dank - but thats life - maybe they were not at their best.
Good luck everybody.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:24 am
Wonder why they made it so that Son has to perform in three consecutive concerts without a break (Thursday and Friday night, Saturday matinee; nobody else even performs on three consecutive days).
June 1st, 2009 at 8:38 am
Was struck by a segment filler between competition performances.. where one of the principles said that the jurors “know everyone’s bio,” and this awareness allegedly assists their judging. In a perfect world, I would hope entrants would not be required to reveal so much to the judges in the way of whom they studied with, etc. Just get a sense that where students leave one teacher for another, perhaps, there are always hurt feelings, and professional rivalries. Let’s just say, “politics” can sometimes creep into these proceedings, though I am not making that assumption in this round..The other issue is factoring in what judges have taught whom in the past or even present and the effects of that …
June 1st, 2009 at 8:42 am
I have to say, this is much less controversial than the semi. I believe the jury picked the best of the 12. However, if anything could be undone, I really think Lukas and spencer would suit the finals better than Haochen Zhang and Tsujii.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:48 am
agreed
June 1st, 2009 at 9:13 am
In a perfect world, the judges would be behind screens, wearing earplugs during the announcement of the pianist, and evaluating performances by number.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:19 am
I am glad Vacatello got in. I think she was sort of glossed over by some of the commentators. Remember, she played Haydn elegantly, Stravinsky to perfection, great performance of the Liszt Sonata and I liked the Scriabin works as well. She topped it off with an excellent Schumann Quintet. She also memorized the Hagan piece which some of the other competitors did not do. I also agree with the other choices. The judges picked the Internet audience consensus. While one of us can be wrong, it seems that as a group we knew what we were doing.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:47 am
100% agree with T. William’s remarks about Kunz.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:10 am
@ Kevin C. - I just noticed that about Son’s scheduling as well. I can’t imagine performing three consecutive days. It will be the ultimate test of stamina.
Di Wu has to perform two consecutive days. But everyone else seems to be scheduled conveniently. I think whoever was scheduling the finalists should have avoided these situations.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:34 am
@Kevin and Jasmine: I believe - if my logic below is correct - that someone playing on three consecutive *days* - but not necessarily sessions - is unavoidable, if we hold to the requirement that all the classical/romantic concerti are played together.
Consider the Saturday sessions. We will make the reasonable assumption that nobody should play *both* Saturday sessions (a requirement that I would imagine we all agree is an even higher priority), so fill them out as follows:
Saturday aft - concertos A B, recital C
Saturday eve - concertos D E, recital F
Now, since all the romantic concerti are being played together, that means that C and F must be playing concerti on Sunday afternoon. Who plays the recital? We’ll get to that. Our partial schedule now looks like this:
Friday - concertos ?1 ?2, recital ?3
Saturday aft - concertos A B, recital C
Saturday eve - concertos D E, recital F
Sunday - concertos C F, recital ?4
Two things immediately stand out about the question marks. The first is that C and F cannot be any one of them; otherwise, they’d be playing three consecutive days. The second is that the question marks must all be different candidates, for the same reason. So, the question marks need to be filled by A, B, D, and E.
Now, moving back even further: who plays the Thursday recital? It can’t be C, F, ?3, or ?4, since we already have them playing recitals. So it must be ?1 or ?2. But that candidate would then be playing a recital Thursday evening, a concerto Friday evening, and a concerto sometime on Saturday.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:46 am
As an addendum to that - every competitor is playing consecutive *days* at least once, although only Wu and Son are playing consecutive sessions. The consecutive days are as follows:
Bozhanov - Fri: recital - Sat eve: Rach 2
Son - Thu: recital - Fri: Chopin 2 - Sat aft: Prok 2
Tsujii - Sat aft: Rach 2 - Sun: recital
Vacatello - Fri: Beethoven 4 - Sat eve: Prok 3
Wu - Sat eve: recital - Sun: Rach 3
Zhang: Sat aft: recital - Sun: Prok 2
June 1st, 2009 at 11:18 am
Side note: pretty interesting watching Tsujii in his one-on-one rehearsal. Conlon is asking him to play huge portions of his concertos uninterruptedly, including accompaniment figuration and pauses. You don’t often hear the piano part naked this way.
Oh, Bozhanov just started his session.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:59 pm
With the online voting result accurately predicting the exact jury decision for the final it seems no unique feat for all of us who did so. And truly, it does make those of us who did accurately all 6 RIGHT. Just b/c I got all my 6 picks in the finals, I know I could be dead wrong about a few of them.
Several are lamenting the horribly wrong decision to eliminate Kunz. He IS a uniquely gifted muscian and you may all be right in the end. Some of us feel the FAR greater outrage than that over Kunz is over leaving Zuo out of the semis. I’m in that camp. But in the end that could have proved wrong. Concerning the decision making of the jury I would like to agree a bit with scarlatti lover in the concern that possibly too much is known and exposed about the contestants and that this can sometimes allow politics or external matters to influence what should be mostly a musical decision.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:13 pm
One thing to consider regarding how the jury chooses the final 6…They have to pick six people who will consistently represent Cliburn as they concertize over the next four years. Yes, contestants like Kunz are very unique and interesting from an artistic standpoint, but as the competition moved on, Kunz began to show more loss of focus and polish. Remember that great artists like Perahia, Lupu or the like, are not only fascinating musicians, but also extremely gifted pianists. I think this is where the jury had to let go of certain people. Many previous jurors have always said: It’s not about who is the best artist necessarily, it’s who will survive the unbelievably punishing schedule following the competition. Some compromises have to be made, but in the end, they’ll hopefully have a set of very reliable and artistically developed medalists to lead the competition from now on. I only say this out of experience being a professional touring concert performer.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I wasn’t suprpised at all that Kunz didn’t make it to the finals. There were too many places in both the Beethoven and Rachmaninov where he just ignores the composers’ clear intentions. For example, legato octaves. In the Beethoven, mvt. 3, he often broke up octaves clearly marked with legato articulation. Is this an option? No more than changing the notes would be and the truly great artists find a way to make their own stamp on a piece without rewriting it. Also in the second Rach Moment Musicaux — the two note slurs beginning the main motiff were ignored and the groups of 4-eighth-note octaves were chopped up and non-legato. Again, is this an option where the composer clearly indicates legato?
June 1st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
?????, ??????!! ??? ??? ? ??? ? ???????? ?????!
Go, Evgeni!! We are with you and keeping our fingers crossed!
June 1st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Davai, Evgeni!! Nie sme s teb i stiskame palci!
Go, Evgeni!! We are with you and keeping our fingers crossed!
June 1st, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I can’t really comment on any specific contestant being omitted since I did not hear all of the preliminary recitals. There were obviously many good ones, but second-guessing has always been a staple of competitions once decisions are announced. Personally, I have no problem with the finalist selections, at least partially because they appear to have been the ones who gave greatest evidence of CONSISTENCY. Any one who has ever performed knows that lay persons are not always aware of stylistic nuances, but even they can tell when we’re making a mess! And these winners will be playing for a LOT of lay people when they go on tour.
About politics and competitions–what else is new? We can’t even get a certain degree of politics out of local and state auditions, much less those at the level of the Cliburn. I am far more concerned about the STRUCTURE of many juries, which are frequently composed of people who do not (and some who could NEVER) function on the level of the most mundane preliminary contestant. Please do not suggest that I “don’t understand” because I absolutely DO! I am not opposed to experienced teachers being jurors (or I would never accept such invitations myself), nor do I believe that an occasional nod to “related” areas (such as, God forbid, “music criticism”) is necessarily inappropriate. The big problem is the nearly total absence of jurors who DO WHAT THE CONTESTANTS DO or at least HAVE done it during the past few decades! Why not a Feghali or Ioudenitch as a juror? Is there some valid reason that such young artists are only allowed to judge the “amateurs?” Would we rather be operated upon by someone who USED to be a surgeon, by someone who had READ and WRITTEN a lot about surgery or by someone who was a currently practicing SURGEON?
June 1st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
ALAN - by your reasoning, then, the great Sol Hurok should never have been an impresario. You don’t have to be a baseball player in order to call ‘em as you see ‘em, etc.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
When Eduard Kunz was carded, I laughed. A lot.
“But I’m twenty-EIGHT years old!!!”
June 1st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
@Varda: 1. Mme. Lhevinne talked about “the exception that proves the rule.” No one would suppose that there aren’t (and haven’t been) those who defied reasonable logic. One has to look no further than Mr. Tsujii for a prime example.
2. No one is suggesting (at least I’m not) that the expertise of the older and more experienced be IGNORED or EXCLUDED–only that it might be helpful (and certainly provide a boader spectrum of evaluation) to INCLUDE jurors who have developed and/or performed somewhat more recently.
3. We may call ‘em as we see ‘em, but is that the way the BASEBALL players see ‘em?
June 1st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
One thing to remember about Kunz is that the jury already gave him a huge gift, by advancing him to the semis after his frightening collision with the Bach-Busoni.
In the semis he affirmed his intent to bend all music into his narrow sonic universe. Fascinating, sometimes ravishing, but sometimes unclear whether the composer was invited inside. And way too sloppy. If you’re going to slap you hands around the keyboard that carelessly, you better be a reincarnation of Cortot.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
If I’m not mistaken the jury has Menahem Pressler, a very gifted performer, teacher, and chamber musician (Beaux Arts Trio) of long standing.
And I believe Jade interviewed a German pianist, who had a significant performance background.
As to Veda Kaplinski, all I know is that she is a well known, and respected teacher.
There are so many teachers at the conservatory level around the country, who were performing musicians, and then elected to teach primarily. Lillian and Irwin Freundlich (no long living) were both examples. They did quite a bit of judging in International competitions. And one will always find conductors, who started out as pianists, who judge various concours. Surely, if you pick a former Cliburn winner, there are always going to be those who questioned their having received whatever medal at the time. It can become an endless controversy of whom deserves to be on the jury. As it is I believe I saw a judge (from China) in the prelim filler segment who was an entrant/winnner in a Cliburn competition. Seems like they have a variety of judges with varying backgrounds.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:44 pm
@scarlatti lover: You are absolutely correct! There is a great deal of diversity on this jury, which includes numerous individuals for whom I have great respect. My point was NOT that they shouldn’t be there, but that it makes sense ALSO to include those who are performing the type of repertoire required by the competition NOW (or at least have done so recently). One has only to listen to recordings of pianists of the past to see how styles change. Would we go to a club today in a “zoot suit” or travel in a Model T?
June 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
The most contemporary pieces of Bates, Hagen, et al , are unpublished, if I am correct, so anyone on the jury can take the raw score and read, analyze, whatever. The preponderance of repertoire is Classical, Romantic, expressionist.. etc. so I don’t see how your premises support your opinion. In fact, many would say that seasoned musicians such as Pressler are a perfect fit to judge this event.
Great music of any style is truly ageless.. and good musicians are not only become young lovers when they pay, but their great performances make age differences irrelevant.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
sorry for my typos that may elicit laughter, and be viewed as double entendres.
Great music of any style is ageless, and good musicians not only become young lovers when they play, but their great performances make age differences irrelevant.
June 1st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
@scarlatti lover: I have great respect for your opinion, just as I have for those on the distinguished jury I am privileged to know. I can only repeat that my ideas are NOT an attempt to discredit the viability of such accomplished individuals, but to ADD an evaluative element which is not already represented. In fact, I agree with their choices in this case–as I have indicated earlier. I simply do not see the harm in adding greater diversity to an evaluative process. After all, I tell my students to play for as many guest artists and master clinicians as possible. None of us can be exactly like anyone else, but we can only benefit by the exposure–even if on occasion it involves discovering what NOT to do!
June 1st, 2009 at 5:17 pm
About what I expected for the finals. In regards to Kunz, I am not surprised he didn’t make it, nor should he have. My impression about his playing is that it is all about Kunz and not about the music. This was no more apparent than in his performance of the Scarlatti sonatas in the prelims. Actually I was surprised he made it to the semis. Zou should have been chosen over him, but I think her lack of “pedigree” as compared with his past successes are what made the difference.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:05 pm
In some sense there is too much focus on the performer bios, and the fact that jurors are made aware of these as part of their evaluations. At least that’s the sense I got from one of the interlude fillers, played and replayed ad nauseum.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Alessandro Deljavan. He really should have dressed better than he did. I was shocked how casually he was dressed for such an important performance as this competition. I’m sorry, but this was unacceptable! Van Cliburn himself and other important guests were in the audience. How you are dressed says a lot. I could swear he had the same clothes on for both sem- final performances! I wonder if that hurt him?
June 1st, 2009 at 8:09 pm
It certainly hurt me…to see an Italian look so sloppy (and sound it sometimes too!) I said he should’ve untucked his ponytail and tucked in his shirt in the prelims…couldn’t believe he made it to the semis!
June 1st, 2009 at 8:18 pm
We’ll miss you Eduard Kunz! Beautiful imaginative playing that breaks the mold is a tough sell in these contests. You are the only one I would pay to hear though….
June 1st, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I agree with the comments regarding Eduard Kunz. He has a rare quality in the way he conceives the music. I’ve been dazzled by several of the other competitors, but none has moved me, and he’s the one I would travel to hear. I felt the same way about Roberto Plano.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Rui, please tell us what competition later this month you referenced for Kunz and other pianists.
Note that Bozhanov is currently scheduled for Cleveland Competition in late July. clevelandpiano.org. So if Evgeni does not medal here, he can at least play with the Cleveland Orchestra and pick up the big prize winnings like Chu Fang Huang did in 2005. Concert management is not up to the Cliburn but there is Carnegie Hall debut with the $50K prize. They broadcast entire competition as recorded sound over internet on WCLV radio. (BTW, Spencer Meyer was in Cleveland finals 2005 and Ran Dank was #4 in 2007. )
For Leeds in late August/Sept we have Bozhanov, Kunz, Dank, Wu, Kudo listed as accepted. Against a field other strong names from competition circuit not appearing in Fort Worth.
So all is not lost for some contestants that did not advance.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:33 pm
For those of you competition fans, please check out this link:
http://www.alink-argerich.org/resultslist2009.htm
You can track your favorite performers.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 am
Vacatello made the semis in Sydney last year but was not included in the last 6. In my opinion a serious error.
She has Ravel Gaspard and the Shostakovitch prelude and fugue in her final recital at Cliburn. If she plays these like she did in Sydney, you’re in for a real treat. Wish I was there to see but it’s half way round the world. She played the p and f in the 1st round at Sydney and it was truly a bar raiser. Her Chopin Scherzo 4 was fantastic too but she’s left that out in Texas.
As a Brit turned Aussie I’m also disappointed to see Lam left out.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Should the Cliburn invite Martha Argerich to be on the jury ? She is a regular juror at the Chopin International in Poland every 5 yrs. She has also served on juries at various competitions in Europe as well.
Other potential jurors for future Cliburn:
Marc Andre Hamelin
Richard Goode
James Levine
Lang Lang
Radu Lupu
Vladimir Viardo
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Just one question to everyone regarding the schedule for the last day of finals as advertised on the web site (pasting below): How can the jury decide on the prizes and announce the winners at 5:00 pm after the record short 35 minutes of deliberations following Di Wu’s performance???
Sunday, June 7
Matinee Performance:
1:30 pm- 2:20 pm – Recital - Nobuyuki Tsujii
2:45 pm- 3:25 pm – FWSO (full) with Haochen Zhang (Prokofiev #2, Op. 16)
3:45 pm- 4:25 pm – FWSO (full) with Di Wu (Rachmaninoff #3, Op. 30)
5:00 pm – AWARDS CEREMONY
All times are listed for Central Time zone.