Hello- I’m Isabel Park, a first-year U-M piano student attending several UMS piano performances this season and sharing my thoughts here on UMS Lobby after. If you’d like to read more: http://www.umslobby.org/index.php/2014/11/student-spotlight-u-m-first-year-student-isabel-park-sets-out-to-explore-piano-15982 I’d love to hear your responses!

Richard Goode’s program was ambitious in an artistically subtle way. The pieces he performed are some of the lesser performed works and for the most part, required a – for lack of a better word – childish innocence. I’ve often been told that you can only play Mozart well if you are either a child or an elderly person. There must be something about middle-aged people that’s too complicated for the purity expressed in Mozart. In Richard Goode’s rendition of the Mozart, I heard a youthful innocence with the maturity and intellect of an adult. The combination was quite special.
Another difficult aspect of Mozart is that it is stripped down to the core. There isn’t much grandeur or technical flourish to “hide” behind, unlike Liszt or Beethoven, but Mr. Goode didn’t need anything to hide behind. From the opening phrase, he garnered the audience in with an intimacy that made me feel like we were having a personal conversation. With every sforzando, I felt a jab in the chest – as if he were telling me about a sad experience. It was amazing how the rubato, essentially an imperfection in the pulse, could be used so tastefully to make it a perfect artistic gesture. Unlike mediocre pianists, the ends of phrases were attended to just as carefully as their peaks. Seeing a lone pianist on such a big stage made the experience that much more memorable for me. Sure, the massiveness and overwhelming presence of a symphony is something indescribable on its own; however, by the end I felt as if I had experienced pure joy, harrowing ordeals, and sadness. It was an interestingly introspective encounter that I think I owe to Mr. Goode’s willingness to make himself vulnerable as both a person and performer in order to provide this magical experience that’s so hard to come by.
The Beethoven was a stark contrast from the Mozart. The lyricism in the first movement made Mr. Goode’s sound come across as more vocal than percussive and the phrases were beautifully contoured. In moments where he came out of a forte section followed by a suspenseful break, and re entered with a piano sound were like walking into an enchanted forest. There was a sense of wandering throughout that kept me emotionally engaged throughout. The final movement ended with a refreshing rush of vitality. Some of the chords that ran up the register reminded me of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto and especially in those instances, Mr. Goode really seemed to dominate the piano.
When he returned on stage for the Brahms and began to play, it seemed as if he had aged 20 years. The expressiveness of the sound was so experienced and packed from the purity he had shown us in the previous pieces. From the full textures to the articulations, his unlimited range of emotions was evident. My favorite was the last Intermezzo because of how he brought out the richness of the beautiful harmonies. The moments of key change were like flowers blooming. I also liked the final Capriccio for how uninhibited and raw it was.
But my favorite piece from the entire program had to be Debussy’s Children’s Corner. I played parts of it when I was younger, but I could have barely recognized them because they were so masterfully played – no one would have guessed they were for children aside from how humorously Mr. Goode played them. Despite the repetition in Doctor Gradus ad Parnassum, the momentum was continuous and played with so much conviction. There were parts in The Snow is Dancing where the repeated notes in his right hand seemed to be talking and an unbeatable spirit dominated through Golliwog’s Cake-walk. The only childish aspect of it all was the unpredictability and excitement during the performance.
The Schumann was a thought-provoking way to conclude the unique program. It reaffirmed my opinions that Mr. Goode is truly an artist that understands that music is more than an admirable performing arts, but that it is human expression and communication. At the cost of his comfort, I was able to experience the multi-faceted nature of human emotion and experienced a reflective evening that I will not forget.

Hello- I’m Isabel Park, a first-year U-M piano student attending several UMS piano performances this season and sharing my thoughts here on UMS Lobby after. If you’d like to read more: http://www.umslobby.org/index.php/2014/11/student-spotlight-u-m-first-year-student-isabel-park-sets-out-to-explore-piano-15982 I’d love to hear your responses!

I had to wonder: would Mr. Denk’s playing be as thoughtful and engaging as his writing? He certainly surpassed my hopes, to say the least. The opening movement of the Bach concerto was nothing short of breathtaking. There was a contagious energy that was viscerally stimulating throughout the duration of the performance. Bach is difficult in that sense – to add a dimension of emotional appeal without tarnishing its paradoxically complex simplicity. But Mr. Denk played with such a conviction that undoubtedly did the concerto justice.

Each individual melody was attentively crafted, and delivered with eloquent contour. He was clearly aware of the homophony as shown through his well-executed decisions to bring specific lines to the forefront of his sound. The only aspect that I didn’t fully agree with were the tempi, which seemed rather fast in the quicker movements, but it was relatively minor and didn’t present much of an issue.

The second movement was contemplative and introverted in just the appropriate ways. It was sensitively played, yet uninhibited in terms of artistic flourish and expression. He didn’t fall into the tendency to polarize Bach by either oversimplifying it, or unnecessarily complicating it. Personally, it was my favorite movement – although the final movement was also phenomenal.

There was a relentless focus as Mr. Denk played the last movement. The result was a more channeled, directed energy which reflected in the intimacy of the ensemble. Unlike many concerto performances, the soloist didn’t seem to be isolated but rather a featured member of the group. The result was a special effect that was especially memorable during an interlude in which the orchestra held various harmonies under Mr. Denk’s technical passages. The members of the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields only augmented the performance with their seamless ensemble. Not to mention, their sound was incredibly full and satisfying without any excess thickness or residue that enabled them to create the intimacy of a string quartet while delivering the depth of sound of a bigger orchestra.

For me personally, the most admirable thing about Mr. Denk tonight was his dual role as both a soloist and ensemble director. His depth of understanding for the music was enviable and his unique musical intelligence really shone through today’s performance. Tonight, I left Hill Auditorium very inspired as a pianist.

Hello- I’m Isabel Park, a first-year U-M piano student attending several UMS piano performances this season and sharing my thoughts here on UMS Lobby after. If you’d like to read more: http://www.umslobby.org/index.php/2014/11/student-spotlight-u-m-first-year-student-isabel-park-sets-out-to-explore-piano-15982 I’d love to hear your responses!

It was interesting to hear Ravel juxtaposed with Tchaikovsky. I have to say, the former half of the concert was more appealing than the latter. It was my first time hearing Ravel’s Mother Goose Suite live, and I wasn’t disappointed. Nézet-Séguin and the Rotterdam Philharmonic really did justice to the artistic nature of Ravel’s music. French music is especially distinguished in the way it paints vivid scenes. A lot of it is inspired by nature, contrary to the music of the Russians and Germans, which typically invokes a more emotional response.
Nézet-Séguin conducted the Suite with a sophisticated artistry to convey contained drama, to effective success. He was clearly aware of the subtler harmonic depth, both as written in the score and aurally. There was a transparency in the sound throughout the suite, which I thought was appropriate overall, but personally, distastefully timed on a few occasions. For example, I thought the thinner texture would have been really magical in the opening of the final movement, but instead it was carried out with a thicker, too-complicated sound. It somehow came across as too jumbled and I couldn’t focus on any one line, or perceive it as a collective one either. However, it was extremely effective in the climax of the final movement, which made the ending truly satisfying. Also, the animalesque noises added a complete touch to the various scenes they attempted to portray – my personal favorite was final movement: Le Jardin Féerique, or the Enchanted Forest.
The concerto, featuring pianist Ms. Grimaud, was nice in that it is not nearly as overplayed or as heavy as most other piano concertos. The opening was charmingly nonchalant, and she seemed to comfortably and confidently dominate the piano. For the most part, the genuine simplicity of the music was honored through the character and sound that she delivered; but in a couple sections, it seemed tarnished with unnecessarily excited bodily movement or thickened texture. The ends of phrases sometimes lacked the grace and elegance they called for, which made them seem carelessly terminated. Nevertheless, the highlight features of her playing – relentless power and undeniable clarity – shone throughout the movement.
There was something unsettling about the jointness of Ms. Grimaud and the orchestra throughout. I couldn’t quite place my finger on it, but the soloist seemed too “separate” from the rest of the ensemble and conductor. I think there was a lack of communication, or perhaps just that Ms. Grimaud was so focused and immersed in her own playing. Of course, this goes beyond simply “good music,” is a lot to ask for from a performer. It may even be a problem innate in the nature of the concerto’s orchestration, but I felt that it could’ve been a more unified performance.
Again, the opening of the middle movement had some complications that could’ve been avoided, given the beautiful simplicity that she could’ve chosen to bring to the forefront of her playing. The attempt to deliver depth sometimes came across as plodding and just seemed unnecessary. Only two or three times did both her hands align time-wise, so that a lot of “ba-dunk” was happening. The orchestra entrance was also not too convincing. I would say the main attraction of this movement was Ms. Grimaud’s intimate interaction with the bassoonist, which I truly had nothing to say about. The sound was pure and lucid, and the key change was nothing short of beautiful.
The final movement was an exciting finish to the first half of the concert.
As mentioned earlier, the Tchaikovsky naturally called for a more emotional focus, rather than an aesthetic or visual one. I felt that Nézet-Séguin’s strength was really in the aesthetic aspect of music, which is why the French part of the program was so much more effective. The Tchaikovsky symphony was very dramatic, and well executed technically, but there was something missing… I don’t think it was visceral enough. At no point did I think that the performers crossed the bounds of what constitutes “musical” and aesthetically pleasing in order to give the audience a real jab in the chest, which I think music of composers like Tchaikovsky ought to do at one point or another. Besides that, it was a thrilling evening of great music.

Hello- I’m Isabel Park, a first-year U-M piano student attending several UMS piano performances this season and sharing my thoughts here on UMS Lobby after. If you’d like to read more: http://www.umslobby.org/index.php/2014/11/student-spotlight-u-m-first-year-student-isabel-park-sets-out-to-explore-piano-15982 I’d love to hear your responses!
I was curious how Yuja Wang’s soloistic performance style would play out in a chamber music setting; last night, she proved that her versatility as a musician falls nothing short of professional. The opening of the Brahms was presented so intimately, which set up a proper atmosphere for the duration of the concert. The tones of both Wang and Kavakos complemented each other in such a way that the warmth of Brahms was undeniably present. Despite the thick textures of Brahms, the duo’s interpretation was subtly adorned with tasteful rubato, a contained excitement, and flawless accuracy that ultimately provided what seemed to be an effortlessly simple performance of the sonata.
The recurring descending melody in the Ziemlich langsam — Lebhaft of the Schumann was beautiful and perhaps the most memorable part of the entire concert. The contained excitement built up in the Brahms seemed to bloom in the final movement and even more so in the coda, which was so dramatically Schumann-esque.
Ravel’s sonata, again accumulated a refined energy — which was diffused only slightly in the subtle, but satisfying final chord. The energy sustained the duo through a thrilling delivery of their final piece, Respighi’s b minor Sonata. Wang took advantage of the piece to showcase her unmatched finger power and the clarity with which she can play difficult passages that challenge even the most adequate player’s technical facility. Throughout, she was able to give the audience an impressive soloistic sound while maintaining a tight-knit sense of ensemble.
As a pianist myself, this chamber performance reminded me of the intimate interaction that goes on through music, both amongst the performers and between the performers and the audience. I think this connection is crucial to a good performance, despite all the objective aspects. I will certainly be looking for this in the upcoming performances that I attend.