Chopin Competition: End of day summary on PR2: October 18, 23:00

A: What impressions? B: I was pleased that all performances of the E-minor today represented satisfyingly different interpretations and the F-minor was presented in a way very different from all the E-minors. [Some general comments on the nature of the two concertos]. C: All four pianists took the concertos seriously (there is a tendency among pianists to take them as youthful, not very successful, not very important works). D: Yes. One sometimes sees that competitors who have gotten to the final stage end up taking the concerto lightly, relaxing as it were, if thinking that this was the easy part. Perhaps one could say that about today’s Bozhanov’s performance. A: Yes, after all he’d given us so far, this was a little less than we could have expected. B: The third movement, yes.

Kultyshev

A: What of his interpretation? B: I looked and… didn’t find any. No objections from any technical point of view; academically speaking, perfect. One can only have one complaint: that the performance did not succeed in overwhelming us. It didn’t knock us out, it didn’t elevate us. But it was not in any way bad; it did not sound ugly. C: What do we say? Colorless? Dispassionate? B: One could try to be more specific. In the first part there are these games… now sixth degree, now third, now Neapolitan… A: You mean harmonies. B: Yes. It’s all very charming. But here these were not emphasized as especially beautiful in this performance. Or in the final section there is a kind of rocking-horse figure (hums) and it is possible to play it in such a way that listener’s mouths will just open unawares in a smirk, but that did not happen. We just had (hums) and nothing more. Two sixteenths and an eighth, that’s it. C: Alright, but the refrain in the rondo is a kind of Kujawiak and it begs at least a minimum rubato; and if one does not give it at the outset then, I suppose, consequences follow naturally. A: I wrote “unclear dynamic”. B: Color, too. D: Kultyshev seems unable to move us. Perhaps it’s because he isn’t moved himself. He plays with perfection, but the perfection of a pianola. Remember Gerald More: tempo markings aren’t made of steel. One can show some differentiation. He also plays with a kind of mannerism — and in his rendition it irritates: the base of a chord comes just a little ahead of the upper voices. A: That was a virtuoso mannerism at the turn of the last century. The competition was meant to uproot it. D: Yes, yes, but those virtuosi widly moved, hypnotized their audiences. A performer must, so to speak, be born again to the work he is playing, he must himself be amazed by its power and beauty so that he can convey some of that sense to us. B: There is one very good aspect of his play and it is that he has not undermined simplicity. A: Very true. B: The themes of the first part were presented with the simplicity of Harry Neuhaus from the 1940’s. A: Yes, I wondered if that was the inspiration.

Trifonov

A: Played on a Fazioli. His first performance of that concerto with an orchestra. B: He moved me deeply with his love and feeling for the music he plays. His treatment of the middle movement was full of great poetry. If there is any complaint, I would say that the left hand was not sufficiently emphasized. But very beautiful performance, hard to believe it was his first. His colors of sound are wonderful. And his modulations — that’s really the heart of this concerto. C: Yes. Delicate, legattissimo. Very touching. And his ability to create colors of sound, especially in the high register. D: Like baby bells. C: Yes. We have heard Fazioli several times at the competition, but it has never sounded this beautifully. Hats off! B: Yes, hats off. I didn’t like this performer during his first appearance, but each time I like him better, it’s a magnificent thing when it happens, when one is surprised positively. And special ability to manipulate tempi. There was one interesting solo moment during the rondo when he suddenly sped up — surprised the conductor and the orchestra — I spoke to a member of the orchestra and she said it did not happen during the practice session; this was completely spontaneous, on the spur of the moment — but he did it so well that the orchestra was able to follow him.  His ability to manipulate the tempi is wonderful.  While his predecessor played as if he had a metronome in his heart, he was able to give each theme and each repeat a slightly different tempo and do it well.  C:  And yet avoid cheesy sentimentality.  D:  There was no doubt all this came from him, not from his teacher, not from years of playing, but from him.  It was very fresh, very youthful, very virginal almost, very moving.  A very promising artist. Only 19!

Wakarecy

A:  Very delicate performance, unlike so many others who have at this competition played too fast and too loud.  But to me there seemed to be an absence of rhetoric.  His colors are beautiful, very beautiful sound, but the tempo was sometimes confused and there were moments of… well, kind of gurgling.  B:  Well, the use of the rubato in this concerto is supposed to soften up the written tempo somewhat, but in a manner that’s accessible, comprehensible and clear.  and I think this performance did this well.

Bozhanov

A: After all the brilliant performances this pianist gave us earlier, but I have to say I was disappointed  B:  It was a bit matter of a clash with the orchestra; perhaps better I should say that it was a little as if the orchestra acted as a restraining corset.  But there were things he did wrong himself.  For instance, his idea that every time you repeat the same phrase you must play it differently, well, yes, it’s a good idea but his execution of it seemed a little excessive at times.  The second question was the left hand:  I think his left hand was too marcato, too dominant.  C:  Too loud.  B:  I did not like his treatment of the theme of the third movement:  H H E Gis, the first Krakowiak motif, the Gis must be delayed; there is a film footage of Wit demonstrating this to Argerich; but he did not do it.  A general remark:  this is a great artist in a class of his own, but perhaps we could say that his style of play belongs in the category of artificialis.  And artificalis, I think, is not in keeping with Chopin’s aesthetic ideals which are simplicity and naturalness.  Which does not change the fact that I think he is a great pianist and a fascinating personality.  D:  To me he remains amazing, though not always in positive sense.  There were elements of the rondo that sounded almost wooden.  The middle section did not sound interesting — there were sections which seemed to beg to please be played appasionato, but he didn’t.  Yet, he also did absolutely brilliant things: the transposed the c-dur etude (number 1) which appears in the finale was absolutely phenomenal, for instance.  A:  I had the impression that the fantastic machinery — technical and interpretative — which amazed us in Stage 3 somehow disappeared.  B:  Problem cooperating with the orchestra?  C:  I have seen him play Weber with orchestra before in which he was able to actually lead the orchestra.  D:  I wrote to myself that the dialogue of the first theme of the first movement was over-dramatized; but then immediately noted also that the second theme was wonderfully sweet and calm.  And the rondo, I think he made an elementary mistake there:   there are all sorts of emotions in the rondo, but there is no tragedy and I had this feeling that Bozhanov really wanted to find — or put in — tragedy there.  But, he is a great pianist and he knows why Chopin writes octaves in the middle section.  Octaves were used to increase the power of the old piano; ergo, where there are octaves there is supposed to be storminess, agitato.  No other interpretation of a cantilena written in octaves is possible. And he does that.  Today, everyone melts into some sort of sweet sound, no, no, that’s wrong and Bozhanov is right.  C:  but the dialogue of left and right… for instance, there is a half-note with a dot in the right hand, then the left hand takes the lead and realizes stress;   and if in a syncopation the first note of the melody is in the right hand, then the left hand dictates the pulse, etc.  A:  Yes, yes C: No other pianist did that!  Only Bozhanov.  Well, OK, sometimes he exaggerated the dynamic or volume.  B:  Yes, manipulation of tempo and volume which he did so brilliantly in the 3rd stage, today sometimes his piano sounded like forte or forte as mezzo-forte.  C:  A great artist and a great personality.  We could say that he came out in order to meet Chopin but the meeting didn’t take place.  A:  Not in the final stage.  C:  No, not in the final stage.