Surprise, Surprise
Overstimulated by yesterday’s events, I didn’t sleep very well last night. This is my first time attending the “real” Cliburn Competition — as opposed to the Amateur Competition, beloved by those of us who have played in it — and a long day of music and writing had left my brain in a whir.
I calmed down a bit during a pleasant lunch at the home of my friends Dave and Anna Hibbard. Dave is another alumnus of the Amateur Competition, and all three of us share a near-religious fanaticism for great piano playing. Our tastes are pretty similar — in food as well as pianists; Anna’s delicious beef stroganoff and cheesecake evaporated in short order. After gorging ourselves, it was time to hear the second day of the Cliburn Semifinals.
It turned out to be an afternoon of surprises.
Jie Chen’s recital opened the session. I had heard her at the screening auditions in New York and was left with mixed feelings. She had ease, fluency, and natural musicianship, but also a tendency to drift into flat interpretations. Her performance of Albeniz’s Evocacion at the screening was so sleepy that her selection as a contestant struck me as somewhat dubious.
I hereby withdraw my earlier opinion.
Chen’s performance today was the nicest surprise of the competition so far. She began with Schubert’s posthumous A major Sonata, D. 959, which is arguably the most abstruse of all the Schubert Sonatas. It’s a difficult work to hold together; far more so than its predecessor — the angry and frenzied C minor (D. 958) — or its successor, the justly celebrated B-flat (D. 960). But Chen worked small wonders here, with finely graduated tone color and a deep sympathy with the music. One might quibble with some points, such as an intermittent inattention to detail. While Chen’s long phrases were lovingly shaped, sub-phrases were sometimes glossed over. The slow repeated notes in the second theme of the first movement lacked direction, for example.
A more significant problem was that Chen’s performance was small-scaled. I was sitting fairly close and could hear every note easily, and I hope this was true on the webcast as well. Others in the hall, however, complained that the playing was sometimes so soft as to be almost inaudible. If this is the way the jury heard it, Chen is probably out of the finals. That would be a shame.
The remainder of Chen’s program was also impressive. Like Ning An yesterday, Chen chose Currier’s “Scarlatti Cadences + Brainstorm” as her commissioned piece. Chen’s performance was more colorful than An’s, though many might prefer An’s driving rhythms in Brainstorm.
Chen closed her recital with an increasingly popular finger twister, the Strauss/Schulz-Evler “Blue Danube.” Pianistically, the performance was marvelous, full of bright colors and considerable flair. There were several breathtaking moments at the entry of gentler themes. A nontrivial problem, however, was the lack of a real Viennese lilt: the charm of the stretched meter was missing. Despite these minor and not-so-minor complaints, Jie Chen is my favorite of the semifinalists so far.
(An interjection concerning the Schulz-Evler: Most pianophiles know this piece through Josef Lhevinne’s recording, which is indeed outstanding. Many of us, however, prefer Jan Smeterlin’s version, which to my ears is more gracious and more Viennese.)
This afternoon’s chamber performance came from Maria Mazo and the Takacs Quartet. (As Steve Cumming reminded us, the correct pronunciation of the quartet’s name is “TOH-kotch.” Color me ignorant.) Mazo chose to play the Schumann Quintet, which is by far my least favorite of the Big Four piano quintets (Brahms, Dvorak, Franck, and Schumann). I have no argument with those who consider the Schumann a great work, but have never been able to keep my mind on it from start to finish, finding my thoughts wandering to more interesting subjects like income taxes or the average daily temperature in Budapest.
(”Average daily temperature in Budapest. Budapest, Hungary. Hungarian. Oh, the Takacs Quintet is Hungarian. And they’re playing right now. I’d better listen; I’m supposed to be writing about this. All right, there’s a four-bar phrase. And another four-bar phrase. And yet another four-bar phrase. Phrase. How will I phrase my description of Jie Chen’s Schubert? Let me see ….”)
All of this is by way of apology to Maria Mazo, who — as far as I could tell — did quite a good job in the Unmentionable Quintet. The playing was energetic and vivacious, and all of the players seemed to be enjoying themselves. Here is a dummy sentence to make this paragraph seem longer than it really is.
The final recital of the afternoon was the most eagerly awaited and the best attended. 19-year-old Joyce Yang, the youngest player in the competition, has been widely perceived as the potential gold medalist. I heard her screening audition in New York and was very impressed. I assumed she would be the selection jury’s top pick among all the New York pianists, and would definitely be admitted as a contestant unless the world came to an end before the jury announced their selections.
The world didn’t end, and the jury did indeed choose Yang as one of the golden 35.
Let me admit that Yang was not my personal top choice in New York. I ranked Soyeon Lee and Elizabeth Joy Roe higher, but this was at least partly due to choice of repertoire. As the centerpiece of her screening recital (and during the preliminary round here in Fort Worth), Yang played Liszt’s Don Juan Fantasy. It is an appalling piece of appalling difficulty, based on themes from Mozart’s “Don Giovanni.” Using melodies from a Mozart opera in a Liszt fantasia is like using a bottle of 1945 Chateau Latour in a fruit punch made with Kool-Aid.
Nonetheless, I very much enjoyed Yang’s playing in New York. She has real charisma and great rapport with the audience. Yang plays with tremendous ease and pleasure, and it is a joy to watch her. I agreed with those who already had her pegged as the probable gold medalist.
Until this afternoon.
Yang opened her program with an effective combination of two Scarlatti Sonatas (Kk. 492 and 141) followed without pause by Sebastian Currier’s “Scarlatti Cadences + Brainstorm.” It was a great idea that worked as well as it sounds. Yang’s fingers and vitality were stunning in Kk. 141, the dangerous D minor Sonata in repeated notes. The only difficulty was an extramusical one: ANOTHER cell phone incident. It rang “only” once, but that was way too much. I’m going to suggest that ringing cell phones be confiscated and broken in half.
Yang’s Scarlatti, though very good, was not her absolute best playing, and I was hoping the recital would get even better as it progressed.
Unfortunately, the opposite was the case.
Yang followed her Scarlatti with Beethoven’s cheerful Sonata in E-flat major, Op. 31/3. I’d like to report otherwise, but the performance was simply … well, bad. Almost the entire first movement was played in a perverse non-legato. Irritating enough in itself, this approach also undermined the thrust of the whole second movement, a Scherzo in near-perpetual staccato. Yang handled the Scherzo much better than the first movement, despite an uncharacteristic finger fumble in the rapid repeated thirds. Unfortunately, the third and fourth movements were back down to the level of the first movement, and it’s too painful to write any more about them.
The rest of Yang’s program was much better. She played Australian composer Carl Vine’s Sonata No. 1 with wild abandon. More atmospheric subtlety would have been appreciated, but the performance was strong nonetheless. Yang closed with Liszt’s familiar Sixth Rhapsody, dazzling everyone with her octaves in the blistering final pages. She drew a huge ovation from the crowd, who seemed more than ready to forgive the problems in the Beethoven.
I assume that Yang will still make the finals, but in my mind she’s no longer the overwhelming favorite. Make no mistake: she is an enormous talent, but competitors have to be judged on how they actually performed.
- Carl Tait
6:43 PM, 27 May 2005
May 27th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
I ABSOLUTELY agree with Carl. I am surprised that I share the very similar music taste with him, I hope I will share the same taste of food too. I don’t want to repeat my opinion since he has said almost of mine. I think Sa Chen will be gold medalist since she is more competant, complete, and she has stage charactor. In today’s music world, what else do we need. Joyce Yang is very promising. I wish when we see her in 2009 in Fort Worth, she will know how to connect music with her virtuoso. She is now the same type with Lang Lang. But I wish she will be more intellectual than Lang Lang.
May 27th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
just out curiosity, could you readers judge from one-ten the following musicians based on technique, individuality, tone, and musicality?
Jie chen-
Joyce yang-
chu-fang huang-
Thanks
May 27th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
Carl,
Thanks for sharing your view on each pianist with us. I like to read your blog(of course, Mike’s too)
This is not comment about what you’ve written but I don’t know where else I can send it …
I watch/hear(with my family) the whole competition through webcast(great for cliburn.org!). However I’ve found the sound quality in semi is unbearable. I wonder whether the streaming engineer changes the coding settings between preliminary and semifinal. I checked the stats and found that the whole stream is still 300Kbps with audio 64kbps,44Hz, stereo. Don’t know what were the settings for preliminary. Even though Microsoft claim this format is better than 128kbps MP3, I really don’t think so. The piano just does not sound like piano at all.
I’ve found that the audio cast from KTCU for the competition is better(even though my network connection to that site is worse) with only 44Kbps(I believe preliminary from cliburn.org, or I should say wm.reflectsystems.com, still better). The other down side of KTCU is that it prefers livecast ballgames over cliburn competition!
If others want to try KTCU, go to http://www.ktcu.tcu.edu/ktcu/index.html
May 27th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
As a university professor of piano and a performer for nearly half a century, I must say that I am shocked by such a condescending evaluation of Ms. Yang’s performance this afternoon. It is astonishing to me that anyone involved with a competition as august as this one would give more attention to minutiae like the occasional cell-phone chirping or (perish the thought!) a muffed passage than to the sensational presentation of a remarkable young artist. The idea of musical amateurs–no matter how skilled–reviewing performances at this level is preposterous. Next we will have those who read anatomy books scoring surgical techniques! For the record, I have never heard a more articulate performance of Beethoven’s Op. 31, No. 3–a far cry from the “schmearage” so often associated with all but the Menuetto. Let us not forget that this performer is 19 years old, and I am willing to speculate that her playing is infinitely more animated, refined, and interesting than that of the vast majority of players twice her age–and more. While intending no disrespect, how many of us honestly believe that most of the jurors could do as well? My own opinion is that all the self-appointed critics of our art should concern themselves with something far less subjective where they will do less harm–perhaps the proficiency of electricians or plumbers.
May 27th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
I fell in love with Joyce when I saw her prelim performance, but I do not see her winning the gold medal this year. In four years, she could take it, but I think either Sa Chen or Davide Cabassi will win this year… maybe Alexander Kobrin.
To Clara, I still have not heard Jie Chen, but I’d put Joyce at an 8 for technique, 6 for individuality, 7 for tone, and 9 for musicality. For Chu-fang, 7 for technique, 9 for individuality, 8 for tone, 10 for musicality. Chu-Fang’s Rachmaninoff Sonata was absolutely brilliant in the prelims… didn’t get to hear her Semifinal performance though.
May 27th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
i agree with you completely about joyce yang’s recital. there is too much hype about her and i don’t think it’s fully deserved and will be, in the long run, more damaging to her growth…
May 27th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
i hear from many insiders that the competition has been set up before it even started and the winner is going to be Joyce Yang. anyone else know anything about this?!
May 28th, 2005 at 5:21 am
Mr. Tait, as much as I enjoy reading your commentary, don’t you think that some of your statements are, well, extreme? What do you mean, calling the Schumann Quintet “unmentionable”?! Personal taste is all fine and good - and yes, I like the Brahms Quintet better too - but the Schumann is still a great piece and worthy of one’s undivided attention. I also disagree with your overly harsh assessment of Joyce Yang’s Beethoven. I wasn’t crazy about it, I play it differently, but bad it was not, and painful - no way. I thought that was just too unkind. I thought her Scarlatti and Currier were wonderful, the Vine and Liszt phenomenal. During the last movement of the Vine I could just watch, listen, and invocate the Lord. This is a tremendous young pianist. But, BUT…in my book, a great Beethoven counts more than a great Vine or Liszt in the long run. And it was Martinez in the first round who played superb Beethoven. The “perception” of Yang as the potential gold medalist does nobody a favor, least of all Joyce Yang. Already such a wonderful pianist, there is a lot more there, and the only thing in the way is time. I would like to be able to hear Yang as a great artist 10, 20 years from now. You wouldn’t want to drink the 1945 Chateau Latour too soon either. If the jury has the wisdom to think “whoa, she’s only 19″ rather than “wow, she’s only 19″ maybe that not-quite-there-yet (not BAD!!) Beethoven might turn out to be the blessing in disguise. Because of the time difference, I miss the evening sessions and unfortunately can’t hear everybody. But I’m looking forward to more!
May 28th, 2005 at 6:35 am
I can’t wait to get to Fort Worth, even though it will only be for June 5th (alas!).
Having been on various sides of the keyboard (to paraphrase Groucho, I can play the piano, and in an emergency, move it — but I’ve also served jury duty in competitions), I’m no longer the slightest bit surprised at wildly varying opinions. “She played just the Hammerklavier for the opening round? What insanity and arrogance! How brilliant and daring!”
Personally, I love an incisive and informed points of view, both in the performer and in the listener (go, Carl!). It keeps me thinking differently. On juries, and in the narrow world of classical piano playing, it’s so often the case that a daring and dramatic stab by a performer causes a love/hate split among jurors: players with big personalities are simply averaged out.
Because I can’t be there for the semifinals, I am especially enjoying the blogs (even when I am sure I disagree completely with Carl), and get a kick out of all the prickly details, and strong-minded opinions.
Cheers,
Mike
May 28th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Hey, folks, this is a blog. It’s not an Alex Ross column in The New Yorkier. Deal with the strong opinions and snarky writing. Carl drew this gig on the basis (I presume) of his past writing about piano performance, which has just as much character as he puts in here. He is fulfilling this assignment with true blogging spirit. If these reviews were more polite or withholding, I wouldn’t bother reading.
May 28th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
On blogs, critiques, etc. in general:
It is much to easy to forget that an online blog, a printed critique, … each of these is simply the OPINION of ONE person. It is not meant to be fact and, hence, there will always be differences in opinions. I take exception to the comment that “amateurs” (a word which has various shades of meaning!!) are not fit to critique an event such as this. What background do the professional critics from the various newspapers have — and I am not necessarily referring to just the Dallas-Fort Worth area papers, but larger and more “prestigious” papers. Must they have had music degrees to write a knowledgeable critique or would they be able to do a credible job if they are good and passionate music listeners? I dare say that those who have such passion for music that they listen to and attend a large variety of concerts by artists with different styles of playing would be in a better position to critique performances than performers themselves who may have a very narrow, constricted view. I do feel, however, that music critics have a responsibility which does include being careful when it comes to overly negative comments. Blogging is a new “culture” and it seems that bloggers have prerogatives that are a bit different from the critics whose articles are printed on paper.
On Joyce Yang:
Carl was a bit harsh on calling Yang’s playing of the Beethoven was “bad.” However, I do agree that the Beethoven was the one piece that she did not play well. Unlike all the other pieces which she had played so far, she just did not seem to “own” this one. It is impossible to judge the sound, etc. from watching and listening to the streams — if only KCTU would not preempt the competition for baseball! I did not get the impression from the streams that she played the first movt practically all nonlegato. However, Yang’s body language when she played this piece did not communicate that she was convinced of her own interpretation. But, I am speaking only of the Beethoeven. She was magnificent otherwise.
In addition to all the wonderful things that have been said and written about Yang, she must be commended for some wonderful programming. Her programming the Currier after the Scarlattis was very effective — good programming instincts! Then, too, for all her amazing technigue, she chose to start off (prelims) with Bach’s French Overture, which requires quite a bit of maturity more than technical prowess. My hats off to her for that.
On the video streams:
This is not meant to be a criticism. Rather, I assume that the Cliburn folks would like some feedback. I do prefer what the camera folks have been showing this afternoon (Saturday) compared to previously. It looks like there are many more cameras taking pics at various angles? I love the occasional close-ups and this time, too, they showed other members of the quartet, not just the first violinist.
May 28th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
I think since this is suppose to be a world class competition they should be looking for real artists, not just an impressive player, while joyce yang does have a very nice youthful energy and exuberance I think it is obvious, comparing her for a mature musician, she still has a lot to learn. Her program was smartly put together to disguise her short comings, such as depth, colors, sound, and at often times a convincing interepetation, for example a Beethoven sonata shouldn’t just be enjoyable, there are always a lot of layers to a great piece of music, and classical music is about more than ‘crowd pleasing’, I think you should also be able to touch people souls and move them in addition to being exciting because of certain technique impressiveness, which quite frankly, you can find in everyone of the 35 in Cliburn, and at age 19, she really isn’t a teenager anymoe so the prodigy factor no longer really excists, and this competition had a lot of already mature musicians and potential artists that was knocked out from the first round, for me I think Joyce has really gone as far as she should go in a competition like this, and I hope audience, judges and the press would divide their attention to the other worthy contestants instead of hyping a young person, which has a long way to go before she is truly worthy of a cliburn gold medal, to the point where it might hurt her more than it helps her. Do any of you remember how truly artistic and complete of a musician some of the finalists from 2001 are?
May 28th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Thank you very much for the blog. I found it very informative. I think it is nearly impossible to produce a bias-free review on any artistic event.
What the piano professor commented was condescending to our blogger - “The idea of musical amateurs–no matter how skilled–reviewing performances at this level is preposterous.” Many amteur performers actually understand music better than some of the so-called professionals. I strongly believe that if that professor were our blogger, he would’ve been even more opinionated.
May 28th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Viva Cliburn-blogging with a point of view and no stiffness. I want to know what people
think, and here I get it. No starch.
As for Yang, I unfortunately did not hear the semifinalist set but did hear the prelims
and was a bit stunned by how without-dance and with no subtlety of varied length
given important and unimportant beats, the playing of the Bach AND the Chopin was.
Sorry for that sentence. She exudes personality and joy, but her playing is sometimes
like fluent sight-reading. Each note given the same volume and length
even in the more improvisatory-style passages (usually) of the Chopin, which should
(to me) sound more spontaneous. The Liszt was lackluster for someone playing at
this level of competition. So I can see why Carl was a bit taken aback. Again,
I didn’t hear the 2nd set, but the first set was acclaimed by many and I just could
not help but wonder at that.
Of course, all of these performers play at an extremely high level, and I personally
feel this Cliburn competition has the highest number of excellent pianists (some of
whom fell by the wayside already — Mariya Kim, Esther Park, Ilya Rashkovskiy) I’ve
heard in its broadcast history. And we are lucky to be watching and hearing all this.
Nevertheless, it’s a competition and we’re speaking in relative terms.
- Andrys
May 29th, 2005 at 8:54 am
I just can’t believe there’d be any setup. I think they are looking, though, for
a combination of features — superlative pianism, a stage presence that grips
the audience, and whatever undefinable thing it is that draws audiences to the halls.
She seems to get people’s attention, probably with an unusual dose of
positive youthful energy. Without any necessary setup, I do know that piano
forums with people who listen closely to piano music are getting lots of notes
of approval for her performances. While I find her readings much too literal
for my own taste, I think the ‘hype’ comes from people’s reactions to both
seeing and hearing her. She creates real enthusiasm in many listeners.
Myself, I am with Carl on Plano - the best overall set I’ve heard, though there
were times I thought perhaps there was a bit too much sweet quiet lyricism, but
then I would be snapped back and surprised by an otherwise rather subtle
handling of dynamic changes. No banging, just strong playing with beautifully
clear articulation in the toughest passages, fleet, light, and yet able to sustain
slow movements in a very songful way where other contestants seemed to just
play the notes, or overplay them in some other cases.
His Dvorak Quintet with the Takacs Quartet totally stunned me with the
beauty of the ensemble’s handling of the slow, almost suspended
portions while they played the more adamant sections with vigor, wonderful
building of the material and rather incredible ensemble, considering Plano
had not played with them before. (I heard the opposite of the latter in
tonight’s Schumann quintet with Xiaohan, which made the function of the chamber
component of the competition clearer.)
I had enjoyed Cabassi a great deal in the Soler (wonderful) and did feel most of
his Beethoven was really well structured, though the last movement seemed
insecure, but his Liszt La Valse lacked the dance and the sensuous descent into
madness — it felt heavy handed to me. Still, I think even the best pianists
will approach some pieces in a way that doesn’t meet with our individual
expectations but this shouldn’t keep people from advancing if it isn’t a general
approach to all music. This is a competition decided by a computerized
calculation of votes, so we will probably be more surprised than usual.
At any rate, during Plano’s Dvorak, I thought “This is a Musician” and tonight
I felt the same way.
May 29th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
I completely disagree with Mr. Tait’s opinions on Joyce. She was brilliant in every sense.
And, as for all of the “setup” rumors, it’s obviously a bunch of stirred gossip started by stupid people who apparently just can’t keep their mouths shut…ever.
May 30th, 2005 at 12:03 am
Jennifer,
Your commens were an incredibly well written and thought out response to the “university professor.” I am glad I never had any piano teachers with his attitude when I was in college, only fabulous teachers who valued each student as an individual, each with their own instrinsic value and personal gifts to give to the music.
May 30th, 2005 at 6:51 am
i agree what Matt’s said 100% about Joyce Yang. I think Joyce deserves applaud for being so young and playing well. But Jie Chen is at the same age and is more mature and polished in terms of technical and music merits. I did not hear Joyce’s performance in preliminary and sem-final. I liked her performance of Dvorak’s quintet. But I caught the last perfomance of her performance of Liszt paraphrases of Verdi’s opera, which was plaqued with wrong notes. I was surprised that she got past the filtering audition in NYC. Especially her performance was followed by Chu-Fang Huang’s performance in NYC of wonderful Chopin 2nd sonata, Haydn sonata and dazzling Ravel’s La Valse ( actually i think Chu-Fang did a much better La Valse in NYC than in Fort Worth). But I was a little bit suspicious of the adulation that piled on Joyce. Make no mistake I won’t deny Joyce has talent. But such hype might destroy a pianist stead of promoting one.
May 30th, 2005 at 11:38 am
I am enjoying every minute of listening to the performances, reading the commentaries, looking at the photographs and viewing the documentaries. I stayed up until 1:30 a.m. to watch the announcement of the finalists. This brought back memories of my experiences taking part in the amateur competitions, waiting for the annoucements. My regret is that I was unable to be there in person to experience all the excitement. I won’t miss the next competition!
I would like to congratulate all the contestants and especially the finalists for their accomplishments and to thank them for the pleasure they have given to so many of us. Some of he most memorable performances for me so far have been Davide Cabassi’s exquisite Debussy Estampes, Roberto Plano’s Venezia e Napoli by Liszt (I was spell-bound by his beautiful interpretation) and Alexander Kobrin’s wonderful Schumann and Rachmaninoff selections last night. Bravo!!!