Finding the magic
Did we hear the winner last night? I wonder…
Emma Baker 12:46am GMT 20th October 2010
As if it’s not hard enough playing a concerto in the make-or-break final of a huge competition with live TV cameras trained on your every move, just imagine how perturbing it would be if there were to be some sort of technical hitch. This was exactly the scenario for the first two of the three finalists last night. The Philharmonic Hall’s lighting rig flickered and flashed and twice we were plunged into almost-darkness. The Warsaw Philharmonic Orchestra and Antoni Wit kept going like the consummate professionals they are, as did the brave young Russians Nikolay Khozyainov and Yulianna Avdeeva; if being confronted by what looked like a candlelit keyboard put them off, they didn’t let it show.
All three competitors chose the E minor Concerto. Far from it being a chore to listen to three times over, it’s actually fascinating to compare each performance directly. First to play, Nikolay Khozyianov – only 18, full of youthful promise and plenty of potential to grow yet. Then Yulianna Avdeeva gave us a thrilling, slightly dangerous performance, full of her own willful, creative ideas. Exciting stuff, but was it authentic Chopin?
After the interval, there seemed to be a weight of expectation resting on Ingolf Wunder’s shoulders, especially after the surprisingly unsubtle performance of the other competition favourite, Evgeni Bozhanov, on Monday. I had the feeling that people were willing Wunder to indeed work wonders.
Were we ever in any doubt? From the start the Austrian was in control, consistent, confident and professional. Most important of all, he had that subtle extra magic, and, even before the last chord had finished sounding, the audience erupted. Could he be the one? Unless something miraculous and unexpected happens tonight, I think perhaps so.
Comments
I am aware that concert critics do not have an easy job putting into words that which is next to impossible to verbalise. Still - I think nearly all the reviewers of this competition, while trying to convey "colourful" and "interesting" material for the readers on a daily basis and within a certain limit of words, are forgetting (if the thought had ever crossed their minds) to keep their tools of analysis sharp. If one works in an opinion shaping medium, should one not feel responsible to one's audience to offer a balanced perspective? There is little space and time to put in a huge debate about this semi-quaver in this bar or this counter-melody in this other bar, but I cannot help noticing that opinions are given without the slightest veil of self-doubt. One cannot become another person with other opinions, or indeed a sum of all possible people and opinions, but if there was at least a signal of intent from a critic to reanalyse his own deep-rooted convictions and present material in a more rational (and, as I said before: balanced) manner.
One case study: "Exciting stuff, but was it authentic Chopin?" Please, but please stop writing such "clever and readable" material just for the sake of it and take 2 seconds to think.
Authentic Chopin...
I (Chopin's Grandpa) cannot say it, you cannot say it, the pianist cannot say it, the jury cannot even say it. Maybe Chopin could, but he has had the fortune of passing away before he could read such nonsense
The problem with blogs is that there are always self opinionated, dogmatic bloggers ready to vent their sarcasm, anonymous ones being the worst. It's a pity since I thought Gramophone readers were on a higher plane.
Personally I would like to thank Emma Baker for keeping us posted throughout the competition with her succinct reports, and indeed thank Gramophone for bringing our attention to the competition and where to locate the competition website.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience and am looking forward to hearing the result. Hope we will be able to see the announcements as they are made.
Trevor Urwin.
If you will read my comment without placing emphasis on the final, less polite part, you will notice that I am not "venting my sarcasm" but merely calling for a more balanced approach to musical criticism. I should perhaps have shown more restraint in my critical formulation concerning the "authentic" quote - but such things seem to me in turn dogmatic and opinionated (for, let us be honest, how can we be 100% sure about what a piece SHOULD sound like, or what the composer REALLY wanted). We should perhaps try to keep an open mind, as far as possible, and I think the efforts were rather meek in the present case.
I should be highly interested to know how you came to consider that which I have written opinionated and dogmatic.
This is a blog, not a critical absolute; it is by definition a day-by-day account of one observer's experiences and impressions of a competition. It's about what I thought, not what to think, and I'm all for sparking a well-argued debate. Avdeeva's E minor Concerto was indeed exciting – clearly the Jury thought so too as they awarded her first prize. But was it authentic? It's a rhetorical question. For example, I found Daniil Trifonov's concerto performance far more moving and thought-provoking than Avdeeva's (although that doesn't mean he should have won first prize – there are other factors to consider). Does that mean that Trifonov was closer to the authentic spirit of Chopin, however you wish to define that? In my opinion, yes, it does.