Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner 2013 Van Cliburn International Piano Competition Megathread

Of course not! I think mockery is indeed the intention.

It's "The Emperor's New Clothes" for the Van Cliburn Competition.

I use "it's just your opinion" in regard to your posts because you regularly, in literally thousands of posts, express your opinion as if it were fact. Virtually never as "I think". Often just as "I'm right...you're wrong". This is incredibly arrogant.

I didn't even write what you quoted above. The "it's just your opinion" clearly applies to what you wrote, and I already explained several posts ago why I think your specifics are not relevant for the two Grieg Waltzes. Of course, I never said the specifics were never important to any piece which is what you keep implying.

I certainly don't think it's a fact...yes, it's just your opinion that the first two Grieg Waltzes have enough musical substance to allow the performer to show enough in the way of interpretation that makes these appropriate for this competition.

=========================================================

From a single post your wrote to another poster in this thread:

"AZN, I could not disagree with you more.

I'll take it further: You're being flat-out unfair to the contestant, and you're just wrong...

And anyway, again assuming that you mean him, I simply cannot make any sense of what you said...

I am at a total loss to understand your being so intensely negative about it."

More of the same arrogant, repetitive, "I'm right , you're wrong, and I'm shocked anyone could think that way" approach.

OK - Let's try this again. Does it strike anyone as a bit odd that Juilliard and Curtis students/grads are so prominently represented??????

You think that's what Alessandro Taverna is doing?

and Ruoyu Huang!

An article about the competition from yesterday's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/a...ntest-goes-on-without-him.html?ref=music

Not that I'd like to get too into the Grieg debate - after all, we're discussing roughly 4-5 minutes of music from a recital that, I believe, should last 50-60. However, there are some things worth pointing out. Looking through the program of that round, you clearly see that there's an idea behind of playing various pieces in 3/4 time. The Arietta of 111 ain't no real waltz (and yes, it's notated in 9/16), but both the Grieg pieces and the Liszt are. Given the very heavy-weight stuff in the beginning of the program (111 and Ligeti - by the way, a program combo some of you might have experienced in Jeremy Denk's recent recitals - friend of mine heard him doing this in NY), I totally understand why someone would choose to contrast with some emotionally lighter pieces that showcase what you can do in the smaller format, after a Beethoven sonata that doesn't do any of that but rather shows your abilities in the larger format. Also, what I think it all comes down to is how well this particular pianist will be able to make the program work as a whole. I'm having difficulties understanding how these Grieg pieces (lasting no more than a few minutes!!!) are taken as such a serious issue in a program that includes VERY demanding music by Beethoven, Ligeti and Liszt. After another preliminary recital including Gaspard and Scriabin op 65.


Words coming from someone who just called a main PW contributor "mind-bogglingly arrogant" - interesting, as it sounds like words one could describe the above comment with Whether one agrees or not with Rach's interpretations, few would disagree that ANY of his recordings are on anything but the highest artistic level. Considering the general legacy of Rach's recordings, I actually cannot think of a single recording of his that couldn't be described "a great and musical performance. He had such great insight and ideas in [insert any piece recorded by Rach here]". I would argue that it goes for this 'little piece' too. Surely this is a more straight-forward piece formally than a Liszt ballade, but the rhythms are handled elegantly (like the opening theme, the subtly rushed triplets in bar 11 and elsewhere), the slight tempo changes (at the theme in bar 10 for example) I found effective, and the lyrical major episode is phrased dreamily and more freely. In short, many of the hallmarks of Sergei's playing can be found in this tiny trifle.

Not quite. The entire point Mark made was that in the light of the remaining repertoire played by this candidate, it's hard to understand why anyone could criticize him for having a few 'easy pieces' in the program. He's blazing through Scriabin, late Beethoven, Ligeti, Liszt, and all you guys are complaining about is that there's 4-5 min of "easy stuff" in that 1.5+ hour of intricate piano music? Just as Mark, I am at total loss to understand the reasoning here. Is it because this is a competition and we're supposed to merely demonstrate how many demanding works we can play at the highest possible level? What if not 100% of the candidates feel that way? You may be surprised but I know musicians with top prizes in huge competitions (Rostropovich, tchaikovsky, sao paolo cello competition, leeds etc) who try their utmost to make a competition seem just like any other normal performance they have as performers. Now, let's assume that the poor pianist doing Grieg pieces in the Cliburn competition feels similarly and that he feels that those pieces are just what he needs to provide contrast between other larger works? Why are you looking down at him so badly before you've even heard him play a note?

Of course Rachmaninov played this piece well, but I think you've exaggerated what he did with it in terms of how much greatness it reveals.

Arrogance is related to thinking one's opinion is the only correct one or better than someone else's opinion. Arrogance is related to presenting one's opinions are facts. Arrogance is not related to how true or false one's opinions are. My posts virtually always use phrases like "I think" or "IMO" as opposed to the posts of the member I criticized. I am particularly careful to not make it sound like my opinions are facts.

It was the tone of his post that I objected to, and I think my description of it is valid. Regarding the first two Grieg Waltzes, you happen to agree with Mark and other posters have agreed with me.

As I said in my first post about this, I certainly don't disagree with your idea of having contrast in between highly demanding or virtuosic pieces. My only objection, for reasons I already mentioned, was to this pianist's choice of pieces to use as contrast.

We'll agree to disagree as so often before and that'll be it. Remember to turn off the computer when those dreadful and pointless 3/4 trifles pop up! Now let's discuss something else than Grieg. What candidate has the coolest hair-style, anyone?

How cute First Mark gets called mind-bogglingly arrogant and then you're making it sound as though I'm the only one taking his side while other posters agreed with you. I'll let PW members speak for themselves

Fnork: Thanks for those posts.

My final word on that programming thing (I hope, and I'm sure a few others do too) ....is that those who feel the Grieg is ridiculous just don't realize or don't appreciate the truly infinite range of rhythmic treatments that are possible and the levels of skill that can be shown and enjoyed in them -- and that only very high-level performers can do this the greatest justice.


Thanks for the link. Very good article, except (IMO) for featuring much of anything from Norman Lebrecht whose writings have never seemed to me to be particularly knowledgeable or well-taken.

To wit get a load of this:

"Mr. Lebrecht suggested that one solution might be to allow online audience voting to factor into the judges’ decision."

(Yes, terrific idea.)

No need to point out that he's suggesting only that it would "factor into" the judges' decision. The thing is, common sense tells us what kinds of things get into online voting, and experience tells us that those common-sense things hold true. It is an utterly awful idea. If it were to be adopted, it might serve some purposes (particularly, publicity and e-mail lists for the organization) but it wouldn't at all serve the purpose that the article talks about.

But I didn't say at all that you were the only one agreeing with Mark. I said you agreed with Mark and some other posters agreed with me(which is true). This was in response to your post that also expressed shock that anyone could object to the Grieg.

In fact, I was not even the first person to say the Grieg Waltzes were not a good choice. But you didn't bother quoting any of the anti Grieg posts. Also, I think the last two posts you quoted are not really relevant. The last only discusses the poster's like for Grieg as a composer and the one before only discusses the brevity of the Grieg.

A genius has spoken! And guess what, there is at least one international piano competition, where this has been done, in Almaty, KAzachstan At least I was told that it was more of an American Idol-type of thing where all candidates weere also interviewed, seen on (national?) TV etc, and people picked their favourites.

In Sweden we recently had a multi-instrumental competition with the finals with a major swedish orchestra, broadcasted on the radio (and online) with an "audience prize" as a part of the win. However, one of the finalists happened to be playign for the 3rd time with that very orchestra, while the two other finalists had their first gig with the orchestra...guess who won the audience prize

It's indeed completely true and a very nice way of leaving out information (namely, that it wasn't only me who took Marks side) Turning it the other way around, I don't think you'd consider it a fair description if Mark would say that X (as in one person) agreed with you and "other posters" (in plural) agreed with him, would you?

In other words, you again say that those who don't think the Grieg is a good choice are not as knowledgeable as you. We just don't realize or appreciate things.

I wonder how long it will take pianoloverus to respond that Mark does that all of the time! Which he does indeed!

He (Mark C) and you (fnork) are nonetheless 100 % right!

You had covered that area already by saying that 'other posters' agreed with you. I wanted to cover up things you simply neglected to mention by saying me and Mark (without mentioning anyone else) were on the pro-Grieg track. As for things said by other PW members, I wouldn't hesitate that all those that I quoted clearly take side for Grieg rather than against.

PL, IMO, your posts, calling posters arrogant, because they did not include words like "IMO", "I think" is as arrogant as it gets.
Now, what difference would it make if I hadn't put the "IMO" word in my above sentence. It is still apparent that this is my sentence and my point of view.
I don't need to add those words. So please stop basing your argument on that.

Also, any poster has the right to disagree with you, similarly you have the same right. It doesn't make a poster arrogant just because he disagrees with another poster. This is an open forum. I am free to express my views the way I like.
You are not a moderator and you are not expected to behave as a teacher who judges the comments of other posters.

Instead of calling other people arrogant, why not stay focused on the topic? IMO, you are the arrogant one around here. Is my last sentence okay since I put the IMO in the beginning? No.

You, see, I can continue forever. Does this way of posting contribute any value to this thread? No. It is all useless bla, bla, bla...

I hope you get what I am trying to show.