THE PIANIST.COM - making pianists feel at home » pianist

The Busoni Piano Competition – When the Jury doesn’t find the Winner…

Roberta Pili — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 23:40:11 +0000

Ferruccio Busoni / Source: Wikipedia

The 58th Ferruccio Busoni piano competition in Bozen just concluded. This was a good opportunity for me to think about different outcomes of the competition. As usual the most interesting aspect of this event was the decision of the jury. This year I noticed again that the members of the jury expressed a vote which was weird and totally out of any kind of quality, intended in both pianistic and artistic sense. Let us look more inside the competition. Antonii Barishevskyi, Anna Bulkina, Tatiana Chernichka were the three finalists of the last competition evening. By listening very carefully to their performance of piano concertos by Liszt, Rachmaninoff and Prokofieff I had enough material to be able to create a profile of each single artistic personality.

The Finalists

Antonii Barishevskyi – The young competitor from Ukraine played Liszt’s piano concerto No.1 for his first final performance with orchestra. I immediately noticed a particular artistic individuality in his playing, when performing Liszt and later also Rachmaninoff piano concerto No.3. He demonstrated to understand the polyphonic structure of the musical score, but his technical skills were not developed enough to use them with a better knowledge for the interpretation. We come to the conclusion that Barishevskyi is still looking for his own pianistic identity, but his approach to a polyphonic playing could guide him to a good development according to the good old German-Russian piano tradition.

Anna Bulkina – The young Russian lady showed her pianistic character right after performing Liszt’s piano concerto No.1. I missed a certain long-vibrating piano sound, her playing was generally too dry, nevertheless her technique could perfectly fit to Prokofieff’s concerto No.2.
Conclusion: Bulkina’s performance was too accurate, no musical shaping of the Prokofieff’s concerto, her musical expression was just based on a technical aspect. Appropriate to Prokofieff’s style, not for the other works of the wide piano literature.

Tatiana Chernichka – Clear technique, appropriate pedalizing, a good team-work with the orchestra. Chernichka performed well both with Liszt’s piano concerto No. 2 and Rachmaninoff concerto No.3. Sometimes her playing was too “nice”. Rachmaninoff Concerto No.3: her interpretation was not creative enough, her playing remained closed but not intrinsic, which is actually a demanding character particularly by Rachmaninoff.

The “other” prize winners

Three further participants were not admitted to the great final stage of the Busoni competition: Alessandro Taverna, Min Soo Hong, Sun-A Park. It was not difficult to guess their artistic profile just by listening to the orchestral performance with Liszt’s piano concertos. Each of them presented a very personal interpretation of the work, according to a romantic Franz Liszt’s style. Particularly Alessandro Taverna showed sometimes polyphonic playing.

The jury’s decision

The international jury at the last Chopin piano competition in Warsaw 2010 (Martha Argerich was joining the jury), expressed an absolutely incompetent vote by awarding Evegeni Bozhanov only fourth prize. His playing was brilliant, of a high-professional polyphonic technique and a maturity in his interpretations.
We have a similar combination at Busoni competition: the jury, with Argerich as a president and other members as Mrs. Stephanovich, showed again their limited art of voting, especially when they did not recognize the polyphonic signs in Barishevskyi’s or even Taverna’s playing. This led finally to a not-awarded first prize.
Ferruccio Busoni was acclaimed and recognized as the most polyphonic pianist all-time. Right for the Busoni competition I would have wished a jury with a deeper pianistic knowledge.

Busoni-Wettbewerb – Wenn die Jury keinen Sieger findet…

Roberta Pili — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 23:12:04 +0000

Ferruccio Busoni / Quelle: Wikipedia

Der 58. internationale Klavierwettbewerb “Ferruccio Busoni” in Bozen ist gerade zu Ende gegangen. Dies gab mir wieder eine gute Gelegenheit, um über verschiedene Facetten des Klavierwettbewerbs nachzudenken. Das brisanteste und immer noch aktuellste Thema rund um den Wettbewerb ist und bleibt die Jury-Entscheidung.
Auch in diesem Jahr scheint es mir so, dass die Jury, in pianistischer und künstlerischer Hinsicht , eine ziemlich eigenartige und überaus qualitätsfremde Entscheidung getroffen hat. Fragen und Hintergründe dazu betrachten wir nun unter der Lupe. Antonii Barishevskyi, Anna Bulkina, Tatiana Chernichka – diese drei jungen Pianisten waren die Protagonisten der entscheidenden Finalrunde. Das Anhören und Beobachten ihrer Darbietungen, mit den jeweils präsentierten Klavierkonzerten von Liszt, Rachmaninoff und Prokofieff, haben mir ausreichendes Material geliefert, um ein umfassendes Bild ihrer pianistischen Persönlichkeit zu erörtern.

Die Finalisten

Antonii Barishevskyi – Der junge Ukrainer spielte in der ersten Finalrunde das Klavierkonzert Nr.1 von Liszt. Schon nach dieser Darbietung war mir klar, was sich auch in seinem Rachmaninoff (Klavierkonzert Nr.3) gezeigt hatte: deutlich erkennbare künstlerische Eigenständigkeit, kleine Ansätze von Verständnis der polyphonischen Struktur in der Partitur. Da aber seine technischen Fähigkeiten noch nicht vollständig ausgereift sind, war ebenfalls ein fundiertes Einsetzen der technischen Mittel für die Werkinterpretation nicht möglich (sowohl bei Liszt als auch bei Rachmaninoff).
Fazit: Barishevskyi vermittelte mir den Eindruck, dass er sich als “Pianist” noch sucht, jedoch spricht sein angedeutetes polyphonisches Spiel für eine weitere pianistische Entwicklung im Sinne der guten alten deutsch-russische Klaviertradition.

Anna Bulkina – Die pianistischen Merkmale der Russin waren nach ihrer Liszt-Darbietung (Klavierkonzert Nr. 1) sofort klar: ein gewisse Tragweite ihres Tones hat mir gefehlt , das Spiel war generell zu trocken. Da aber ihre technischen Mittel durchaus einwandfrei sind, konnte sie diese beim 2. Klavierkonzert von Prokofieff perfekt einsetzen.
Fazit: Eine zu korrekte Spielweise, keine wirkliche Werkgestaltung, der musikalische Ausdruck wird auf ein nüchternes, technisches Kalkül fokussiert. Dies mag für Prokofieff sehr wohl geeignet sein, jedoch nicht für die weitere Bandbreite der Klavierliteratur.

Tatiana Chernichka – Ein technisch klares Ausspielen, eine angemessene Pedalisierung, gutes Zusammenspiel mit dem Orchester. Sowohl mit dem 2. Klavierkonzert von Liszt, als auch mit dem 3. Klavierkonzert von Rachmaninoff gab die Russin eine gute Darbietung, teilweise fast “zu brav”. Besonders bei Rachmaninoff hätte sie interpretatorisch mehr gestalten können, jedoch blieb ihr Spiel verschlossen aber nicht intrinsisch, ein Nachteil, aus meiner Sicht, für den verlangenden Werkcharakter bei Rachmaninoff.

Die Preisträger am Rande

Drei weiteren Kandidaten wurden nicht zum großen Finale zugelassen: Alessandro Taverna, Min Soo Hong, Sun-A Park. Somit blieb mir als einzige Möglichkeit ihre Darbietung der Liszt-Klavierkonzerte, um daraus ihr pianistisches Profil zu erkennen. Das fiel mir nicht besonders schwer. Jeder einzelne hat seine persönliche Gestaltung des Werkes dargelegt, sehr romantisch und dem listzschen Stil absolut gemäß. Insbesondere bei Alessandro Taverna konnte ich wiederum Ansätze eines polyphonischen Spiels erkennen.

Die Entscheidung der Jury

Die internationale Jury, zu der auch Martha Argerich gehörte, hat schon beim letzten Chopin-Wettbewerb in Warschau 2010 ein – pianistisch – absolut inkompetentes Urteil in der Preisvergabe gegeben, indem man einem überlegenen Evgeni Bozhanov, welcher mit ausgereiftem polyphonischen Spiel und interpretatorischer Reife brillierte, nur den 4. Platz zukommen ließ.

Auch beim diesjährigen Busoni-Wettbewerb gab es eine ähnliche Jurykonstellation. Wieder haben Frau Argerich, diesmal sogar als Juryvorsitzende, Frau Stefanovich, und auch die restlichen Mitglieder gezeigt, dass das polyphonische Klavierspiel ausserhalb ihrer pianistischen Reichweite ist. Ansätze beim Spiel von Antonii Barishevskyi oder auch bei Alessandro Taverna wurden von der Jury nicht erkannt, und so führte dies schlussendlich zur nicht-Vergabe des ersten Preises.
Gerade bei einem Wettbewerb dem Ferruccio Busoni gewidmet, der als polyphonischster Pianist aller Zeiten gilt, hätte ich mir eine hochkarätigere, bzw. pianistisch kompetentere Jury gewünscht.

Alfred Brendel – Master of Cloning

Roberta Pili — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:51:24 +0000

Master and disciple meet together. Kit Armstrong is a Taiwanese-British young pianist. A couple of years ago he was invited to visit his mentor Alfred Brendel at his London domicile, to be introduced into the tradition of piano playing and interpretation of the masterworks of the Viennese Classicism.
The team work between Brendel and his pupil shows a totally common and non-exciting piano lesson, which is characterizing the daily routine of a pretty boring piano masterclass at the Music University in Vienna.
Both are working on a repertoire which is devotedly related to the Vienna piano tradition, that we finally should expect, of course, from a master of interpretation of the Viennese Classicism as Brendel is. Talks and questioning about Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, a little Liszt, some known works by Bach belong in conclusion to this ring of selected composers.

Brendel is talking about his young pupil as an “extraordinary talent”. He will be his mentor as long as the young man will be able to express his artistic personality and his passion in piano playing.
A quite interesting TV-documentation, yet not extended enough to discover talent and capabilities of this young pianist, which I could nevertheless recognize. Kit Armstrong’s approach to music is unprejudiced, he is open-minded for new things, his analytic thinking and artistic creativity are can be found in his already clearly expressed compositions. Maybe a new “Glenn Gould”-similar personality is arising? Yes, but his mentor should not be Alfred Brendel.

Brendel’s teaching style reminds me of a typical Viennese piano lesson, hedging around interpretation of Schubert, encouraging to use more pedal for the upper voice without giving exact advice on pedalizing technique, glorification of the beautiful, rounded piano sound, as this topic would be the ultimate truth about piano playing. Why not explaining in details how a really beautiful and cultivated piano sound can be produced?

Dear Mr. Brendel, sound esthetic originates from a profound knowledge of polyphonic playing ( !!! ).
You are mentioning polyphony when teaching your pupil, but any of Your performed works in a polyphonic way is totally outside of my knowledge.
Why?

There is one question without answer:
What is “Viennese piano tradition”? What is “Viennese piano school”?

After 6 years I spent at the Wiener Musikhochschule for further musical education, at that time, I deeply regret about Viennese piano teachers as Paul Badura-Skoda, Hans Petermandl, and, last but not least, Alfred Brendel. They used a teaching method consisting in “cloning” their students.
Not even a single one has any idea about polyphony or polyphonic piano playing, let alone knowledge about the right piano technique. Last was always considered as a tabu, like topics about sex or money…
No dedication into depth, no exploring the truth in music, only a superficial imposing of a pseudo Viennese style has been done. In other words: didactic razzle-dazzle.

“Moaning” on the piano, this is the impression I immediately get when Viennese pianists play Schubert.
Or the typical textual fidelity on Beethoven-Sonatas: “Everything is written in the score, nothing more is required…”
Perhaps we will find out what real Viennese Piano tradition has once represented. But we should get back to Leschetitzky, Paderewski, Schnabel, Moiseiwitsch, Friedman…
And this is another story.

Sergei Wassiljevitsch Rachmaninoff – 1873-1943

Roberta Pili — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:53:33 +0000

He was one of the most inspiring pianists of the twentieth century. His remarkable personality as a unique artist was perfectly reflected in all his compositions. Sergei Rachmaninoff charcterized the last Romantic piano tradition with his charming, lyric and expressive playing and creative interpretations.
A virtuoso technique, rhythmic precision, colorful tone, polyphonic clarity of inner voices, incomparable sense of lyricism, accurate interpretation of different musical styles, force of expression through every detail of a composition: Rachmaninoff was in absolute possession of all these peculiar “instruments” for his performing.
The great charisma of this pianist came through especially when he played his own works. Due to his personal composing style, which was first influenced by Tschaikovsky, he further developed a contrapuntal writing and a distinguished variety in the chromatic harmonic structure, both deriving from Bach and Chopin.
He certainly dedicated a profound study, work and way of musical thinking from those great composers, becoming idiosyncratic when he created his own music.

It is known that Rachmaninoff suffered from a severe depression, caused by a breakdown after the premiere of his First Symphony. An unproductive period of about three years stressed him that much, but finally he recovered through a hypnotic therapy by the psychologist Nikolai Dahl. He was able to compose again and he wrote his gorgeous Second Piano Concerto, which was dedicated to his therapist. He recovered from that deep psychological crisis, finally being successful with the premiere of the Concerto.

Nevertheless a sort of darkness characterized the soul of his following works. Even his playing changed and became the idealized source of sadness of his inner being.
Probably because of his emotional power Rachmaninoff´s music has been often criticized by puristic tendencies, reduced just into sentimental patterns.
Of course we would face his works on the wrong side when accepting this theory, rather a deep understanding of his personality and his highly-structured music would bring us to a more faithful interpretation of the great composer.
In conclusion, Rachmaninoff remains an Immortal in the universe of great pianists.

When the piano “is playing” the pianist

Roberta Pili — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:40:25 +0000

Be aware of getting a good piano for your practicing or performances. Otherwise you will be not playing the piano but the piano will be playing you! One of the essential requirements pianists should take care for is their instrument, both for practicing and performing. The well-regulated action of the piano is as important as a perfectly tuned car for a driver of Formula 1. Pianists happen to be often facing some problems with the instrument, particularly regarding the action, which can reveal unevennesses in the technical adjustment of the keyboard in relation to the other workpieces.
It is essential to recognize that the piano action is like the anatomy of the instrument, as arm, wrist, hand and fingers are the anatomy of a pianist. Both mechanisms are based on the leverage principle. Knowing how the action works on this system means understanding our own anatomy by playing.
A well-regulated action has to be sensitive and responsive in order to fit the variety of touch and technical abilities of the player. A professional piano technician usually works in direct relationship and communication with the pianist, in doing so he can operate on the action as far as the pianist is demanding this kind of technical support to meet his own needs. The further positive aspect of this work leads in a balanced tone production. The pianist can then build up his work on a perfect instrument, which is the starting point for a performance on a high artistic level.

Sometimes, having a high-developed piano technique can depend on a perfect piano action. And a perfect piano action depends on a very good technician. If we can find a good technician, we can develod our technique…

Being a competitive pianist

Roberta Pili — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:34:25 +0000

Competitions, competitions, competitions.
Almost every piano student has tried to participate at least in one piano competition during his music education.
A motivating piano teacher is mostly the first impulse to prepare a specific program of different piano works to perform in front of a jury. The more “pressure” the student is receiving from his teacher, the more he will get his adrenalin pumping for the competition. In other words preparing the program for a high-level performance will create the strong feeling of being compared with other competitors’ playing.
Setting those goals as “I want to be the best pianist” truly chracterizes the striving for a perfect performance to show the achieved abilities on the piano. It happens very often in piano competitions that not the best prepared pianist is the winner, but the one who wants to be the winner. The pianist who is able to reflect his strong winning desire through his most expressive playing and interpretation of the selected works will be probably be awarded first prize by the jury.

Do piano competitors want to simply impress the jury, or are they seeking for attention in order to get upcoming engagements through artist’s management, or do they even want to verify their level of stage-fright while performing before an audience?
Each of them will certainly have different personal purposes to decide to go to a competition.

This kind of competitive thinking can be also turned as profitable for the further development as a musician. In fact we can create our own competition in mind to spread the wings of a unique maturing process.
A concert career inevitably involves the performing pianist into a competition with other concert pianists. So we never stop to be compared with our colleagues. But who is the jury in this case? The audience, of course, and maybe the critics as well.

Finally, the true path of this challenge for pianists seems to be only one: being competitive with themselves, working every day to play better and better, searching and researching for new inspiration, improving the communication with the composer, producing an individual standard of excellence.
Pianists! Never be happy of your achievements today, but set them as the essential step to build up your mastery for tomorrow.

2008 A. Rubinstein Competition – Final Round –
Israel Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Uri Segal at Mann Auditorium in Tel Aviv, Israel –
Roman Rabinovich, pianist

When the pupil is ready for his master

Roberta Pili — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:47:52 +0000

It has been said that the best teacher always recognizes when his pupil is ready to learn something new.
In other words a really good teacher can be as good as his pupil is able to understand and to apply new knowledge upon particular topics related to the learning process.
As usual students are tending to model his master, whithout thinking about the quintessential purpose of those teaching methods.
But how long does it take to step further from the level of simple modeling to the consciousness of active learning and finally reaching at least the same level of the master? When are students ready to develop theirselves and become masters of their own, last but not least to even try to pursue the path which the master has shown?

Individuality, a strong personality, the power of determination are actually the main requisites to reach mastership.
Doubtless we are speaking here about a work-in-progress, during the entire life.
Being a pianist for a choice of profession is a lifelong task, to which we are personally committed to achieve the peak of mastership in being a musician.
Who is the best master that we can find in order to reach this level?
Practicing is the best master to us, and we are never-ending students…

Shura Cherkassky – 1909-1995

Roberta Pili — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:39:15 +0000

A terrific singing piano tone, a sublime technique, always serving the purpose of the musical message, and a perfect seducing interpretation.
Alexander Isaakovic Cherkassky, known as Shura Cherkassky, was one of the leading personalities among the generation of great pianists of the 20th century. He started his early piano education with his mother Lydia. Later on he became pupil of Jozéf Hofmann.
His concert career lasted through his long life, in fact he was actively performing until his death 1995.

What made his approach to the piano that singular?
He was able to focus on the keys with astonishing concentrating power, his interpretations were full of inventive musical atmosphere, he always created inspiring piano recitals for the audience.
Shura never played the same piece the same way. Spontaneity and freshness characterized his playing, the purpose of creating the music in every single moment drove this excellent artist to the highest level of musicianship.

One of the best recordings of Shura Cherkassky to be absolutely mentioned is Tschaikovsky Piano Concerto No.1 B-Flat minor. The best Maestoso of this concerto ( first movement ) ever played.
No other other pianist could reach this peak in this particular piece like Shura Cherkassky. Hard to believe, but true.

A tribute to his teacher Hofmann: Kaleidoscope

“Pardon me for sitting down while I play…”

Roberta Pili — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:24:54 +0000

This week our cover story is dedicated to a wonderful pianist, who actually was more a fantastic entertainer: Danish pianist, conductor and comedian Victor Borge.
His funny point about famous piano pieces and telling several music jokes have been characterizing his performances.
It is interesting to notice that Victor Borge enjoyed the best music education when he was a child, his teachers were Liszt´s student Frederic Lamond and Busoni´s pupil Egon Petri.
But he discovered quite early that he didn´t really like the serious concert business, so he rather took the more funny path of a music career.
As he said, “Laughter is the shortest distance between two people”.
If you look at his videos, you will certainly not be able to contain your laughter…Victor Borge was right!
In music it´s often about fun…

2010 – Schumann meets Chopin

Roberta Pili — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:50:53 +0000

Next year 2010 two great romantic composers share the celebration of their year of birth, obviously 200 years later.
Robert Alexander Schumann ( June 8th, 1810 ) and Frédéric François Chopin ( March 1st, 1810 ) marked the Romanticism in its musical and mostly piano tradition for a couple of decades in the middle of the 19th century.
Both defined a very personal style of musical expression.

Schumann’s art of composing was focused on the strong character of German cultural influence “Sturm und Drang”, perpetuating Beethoven’s message of a universal impact of music. Due to his early education, Schumann further developed a more personal style between literary ideas and musical representation. This can be heard in his pieces Papillons Op.2 and mostly in the Carnaval Op.9.
Pianists have generally a problem by interpreting Schumann, especially when they have to follow the indications of Tempi in his piano works. Schumann also characterized his state of mind by regularly changing the speed related to the different thematic expositions. In fact this was the way how the composer perfectly reflected his tormented soul. The pianist should be able to immerge in Schumann’s divided psyche, otherwise the execution of his works will remain nothing but a distorted interpretation which is dispraising the author’s intention.

Chopin was the eternal romantic poet of the black and white keys.
His entire inner being was dedicated to his instrument, the piano. His style is particularly known for the rubato (Italian stolen time ), a special feeling by playing musical phrases in the balance between speeding up and slowing down the tempo.
Chopin’s nature was introverted. Like Schumann he also perfectly reflected this character into his music, creating a very personal and unique art of musical painting.
Chopin was definitely inspired by Bach and Mozart. Bach delivered him the understanding of polyphony and motivic thorough-composition, instead Mozart offered him the simplicity and clarity of a melodic line. Nevertheless Chopin was able to be idiosyncratic enough to personalize his compositions.

Many pianists will get their hands full next year with these two masters.
A question still remains: who will be finally able to pay the most respectful interpretative tribute to Schumann and Chopin?
We will listen full of expectation…