I'm assuming he means Haochen Zhang.

I don't know why everybody is having a problem with Zhang's name, either.

Just think if you were This Guy.

Thanks for the belly laugh, Kreisler!

Edit: Please ignore the question below. I just figured out there are two different picutres of the same person and one has the concerto while the other has the solo recital.

Have some of the performances been removed for the 2009 contest? If I click on "finals" and then go to one of the pianists I get either the concerto performance or the solo recital but don't seem to be able to locate both. Same problem for the semis. I get either the chamber performance or the recital but not both.

It can make a good pianist (or musician) name!

Lang Lang, Yo YO, Zheng Zheng, or Zhang Zhang.

Are you ready? I was told Nio Nio, Lei Lei, Peng Peng are coming ... fasten your seatbelt!

No those are panda names.

Here's some recent follow up press coverage to chew on--any responses to this contrarian article that challenges the jury, orchestra and finalists ?? For the record, I followed as much as I could of the online coverage, was astonished at the dropping of Lifits, Rank and Lam, and appalled that Vocatello did not receive a medal!

ec, where is the link of "some recent follow up press coverage"?

What do you guys think of this article from the Wall Street Journal about the Cliburn? I don't know who this Benjamin Ivry fellow is, but he sounds pretty bitter about the results. Can he say anything nice about anyone?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458728669699751.html

wow, what an article! it just proved this year, everything is controversial in Cliburn, not just the top 3.

i really agree about the comments on the orchestra and chamber group selection.

on another thought, the jury shouldn't be the same on the next Cliburn, with all current jurors excluded.

I have to agree with Mr. Ivry. The jury got things upside down. Di Wu, Evgeni Bozhanov, and Mariangela Vacatello were much more interesting, imaginative, and risk-taking artists than the three who got medals. Plus, some in the preliminaries and semi-finals deserved to be in the finals. The Fort Worth Symphony was exhausted at the end. Mr. Ivry seems to know the local music scene well since he can recommend two alternatives to the Fort Worth Symphony for the next competition. I'll have to take his word for it.

I suspect by now the Van Cliburn Foundation is hearing an earful about this year's decisions. If they get defensive enough one of the jurors is going to have to come out with an explanation. One other thing they are going to have to consider. The webcasts opened up the competition to tens of thousands of informed and passionate observers, which also means there are many more people who can get upset at the jury's decisions. This exposes piano competitions to more criticism than they are used to receiving, making the whole structure of these competitions open to question. Who knows, they may wind up one day deciding winners by public vote like American Idol. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them tries it.

That would be the worst. I wouldn't want to see it!

I just read the WSJ editorial about the Cliburn by Ivry and thought he hit the nail exactly on the head. I also agree with Numerian's comment about the Cliburn results being criticized a lot more this time since most of the performances are easy to assess online.

Quite a bitter article. While I agree with most of it, and am also disappointed with the results, I believe he crosses the line when he opines that Tsujii "[and other soloists] who cannot see a conductor's cues should not be playing concertos in public." Unnecessarily malicious in my opinion.

Daniel

I don't think they need any explanation other than they awarded the prizes based their stated criteria of ready to perform in the concert series sponsored by Cliburn and artistic merit.

There always will be people who will disagree with the jury. At PW there have been a large number of varying opinions from the prelims until the end.

When someone is this negative about everything(quality of the orchestra, quality of the quartet, order of the finalists, choices for the finals and semifinals)I think they lose credibility.

Agreed ... filled with half-truth like most things are in life, especially in the WSJ ... I think our president already took notice .

He had nice things to say about Di Wu.

Sour grapes. He can try to be part of the jury next time. *wave*

It's a great idea as long as they can find piano jury members who are the equivalent of Randy Johnson, Simon Cowell, and Paula Abdul. Any suggestions?

Well, Elton John obviously. Stevie Wonder would be another good choice. As for the Paula Abdul equivalent, where is Liberace when we need him?

Could be modeled after Iron Chef, where they often have judges that aren't food experts.

Daniel

"I just read the WSJ editorial about the Cliburn by Ivry and thought he hit the nail exactly on the head. I also agree with Numerian's comment about the Cliburn results being criticized a lot more this time since most of the performances are easy to assess online."

Having the competition online was one of the more admirable things, in my view--- one of the big things the Van got right, and I'm thankful to them for doing it. The criticism was mainly about the quality of the jurying, with a sidelight on the Fort Worth orchestra's ability to hold up under an assignment that proved to be too much for them. Fair enough, and his suggestions of other nearby orchestras were worth consideration.

I'm less sure about Ivry's comment on the blind pianist's ability (as such) to perform with an ensemble. There should be some way to make this work out in a country with the Americans with Disabilities Act (even for Japanese competitors; fair is fair).

But Ivry's comment about how Heflin himself would have fared under this season's jury is cause for pause. He ends by wishing well to those who were worthy but passed-over. Nothing so negative about that; I would have to join him in it.

I read the article by Mr. Ivry, and at the same time was listening to the Rach 2 performed by Nobu, and I have to agree with Ivry. Although the competition is more than just one concerto, Nobu's playing sounds amateurish in his tempo selections and not much tonal control or variety in the 2nd movement. There are other comments on the Cliburn blog that blame conductor Conlon on the major miscues in the opening of the first movement, but there were also misfirings in the final big section of the 3rd as well. All in all, not an overall gold medal standard to my ears, compared to Di Wu or Vacatello. Zhang is very talented, but still a maturing pianist, not yet finished. Perhaps he is too young for the rigors of the concert stage as well? Hope he doesn't burn out.
I still think the jury was out to market a "hook" to the general, non-discerning public. For $$$$ of course, with any artistic inclinations on the side. Look how the movie "Shine" took off-- the general public will eat it up!
Regarding Ivry's comments on Van Cliburn himself, that was a little questionable. Most piano cognoscenti know that Cliburn unofficialy retired from concertizing, following an extended sabbatical. But there is some irony in wondering if the namesake of the competition could even get out of the first round of his own competition (assuming he was still playing in his prime).
But overall an insightful article, and a definitive critical response to all the bloggers so enamored of a blind pianists abilities, that they disregard far more competent and musically interesting talents.

Zhang must the most notably "not finished" 19 yo in the whole of human history.

Replacing the Van Cliburn jury ...

Let's use a market based pricing mechanism.

Set up a futures market with derivatives backed by future revenues of the recordings of the pianists' performances in the Van Cliburn competition.

The pianist whose recordings' futures got priced the highest in the open market at the end of the competition wins. :p

I think "not yet finished" is the new "doesn't put enough feeling into it".

The thing about bloggers, critics, and armchair jurors and competition coordinators is that none of them have to deal with the reality of holding a competition.

It's easy when you don't have to pay and schedule an orchestra four years in advance, arrange for jurors, keep the financial backers happy, recruit competitors, arrange management and recording contracts for the winners, handle ticket sales, book the hall, and produce internet and radio broadcasts.

I say this because I'm coordinating a competition this year, and I started receiving phone calls from people regarding the lack of fairness ten days after I accepted the position, three months before the applications are due, and five months before the competition is being held!