Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner went to Marc-Andre Hamelin's recital last night

I'd have to give it a c-. I really was not impressed, especially with the hype that surrounds him.

For starters he had a surprisingly harsh, brittle sound. Mainly in the forte sections. Anything above mezzo forte was poorly voiced and lacked richness. I found this surprising because as we all now Hamelin as an incredible technique and is a highly educated musician and yet his forte lacked a mature understanding of nuance in dynamics. Now his pianissimo was good. It was light, crisp and in the pianissimo sections his balance between the bass a treble was very good. The problem was it never changed in character from piece to piece or section to section. Every time a piece required a soft singing tone you could expect the same sound. Often this led to a repetitive and unconvincing performance. So I must say I was surprised to the lack of quality and variety in his sound.

My biggest complaint is that he was unconvincing musically. He gave a fairly sterile performance. The rhythm lacked vitality. Hard to follow the structure. Poor dynamic control. No sense of drama. It is hard to even say he was having an off night cause so many basic things he wasn't even doing.

I was also unimpressed by his program:

Bach-Busoni:Chaconne from violin partia in d minor

Shumann: Fantasiestuk

Hamelin: Excerpts from Con Intimissimo Sentimento

Alkan: Symphony for solo piano

Don't ask me why I didn't like the program...I just think that four big pieces at a recital isn't a smart way to go and I don't think Hamelin did a good job of keeping interest.

Half the time I felt like I was just watching somebody play the piano for me. Nothing great...just some guy playing the piano...that's how I felt.

Now all of this is aside from the fact that his technique is in a league of it's own. But this concert proved to me that you can have all the control in the world, but it does not do any good when the music is not there. Even during the fastest and loudest passages of the Alkan, octaves everywhere, hands flying, I was bored to tears.

I am bummed because I had high hopes for this recital but Hamelin didn't do it for me.

snap_apple:

Thank you for posting your impressions; they are disappointing to those of us who are Hamelin fans. I suppose one could not even use a poorly prepped piano as an excuse?
I have heard him only in a small, intimate recital where he was showcasing as much an Estonia 190 for Cunningham Piano as he was his own talent.
Let us hope that this was indeed an off night for him and that it is not the results of over-exposure and/or over-hype.
Thanks again for posting.

Regards,

an interesting impression. I'm not really a fan because I just haven't heard enough of his stuff. have you two heard much of his recordings? I have just one CD of his and it has Schumann's Fantasie in C and the symphonic etudes on it. The Fantasie is really good IMO but I haven't heard any other versions really. I don't know what the definitive performance of it is. His etudes on the other hand, I really don't like. I prefer Schiff. That's the only other version I've heard but it's much better than Hamelin.

The problem with Hamelin is that most of what he performs is quite obscure, and not everyone enjoys some of the stuff he plays. He is the definative performer of Alkan (just a shame that he probably wont record the rest of op.39..) and for many pieces where the virtuosity outweighs the music (and he makes it so you can enjoy the music not the virtuosity).

Except that these:

Bach-Busoni:Chaconne from violin partia in d minor

Shumann: Fantasiestuk

Are not obscure and are not pieces where the virtuosity outweighs the music.

I have pirate recordings of Hamelin playing all of those pieces and they are all very good in my opinion. He must have simply had an off night.

Well..

You got me there

haha, i am gonna restrain my FUUUUUUUURY here, and soberly mke a couple of points

'He is the definative performer of Alkan (just a shame that he probably wont record the rest of op.39..) and for many pieces where the virtuosity outweighs the music (and he makes it so you can enjoy the music not the virtuosity). '

ok...so clarify what you mean by virtuosity..

i am assuming you mean that in the alkan piece - the difficluty of the work outweigh's it's musical worth.

this is very offensive to dre, alkan, and me - whos favourite work THIS IS!

this is in my opinion on e of the greatest piano works ever composed, and alkan's greatest work in both my, and dre's opinion.

sure , dre has off-nights - we all do.

he has been hyped as some kind of superhuman - when in fact he is HUMAN and capable of mistakes like the rest of us - fact is he just does less than any of us

ive heard his bach-busoni chaconne and was stunned - so i put your critique down to either your tastes or dre on an off-night.

ive heard both live recordings, and the studio recordin of dre's alkan symph and all i can say is - i CANNOT imagine this music being palyed any better.

his recordin of the 1st mvt in particular is a marvel of the modern recorded era

btw - ive met him and he is the nicest and friendliest musician imaginable - totally free from ego and full of warmth - i encourage everyone to take the opportunity after any of his concerts to go and meet him - hes a great guy

But this is a very common type program(although it may not be to your personal liking) and several of the pieces(the Schumann for example) are composed of contrasting movements. Having heard Hamelin twice and read the unamimously rave critical reviews of his recordings, I am curious about the review of the concert in the paper. Did the reviewer have the same reservations that you did?

Has anyone else noticed that Hamelin's concentration is so intense that (I think) it is the cause for the side of his face to continually tense up as if he was clenching his jaw (I find it quite distracting)?

Hello, I can't help but ask you if English is not your first language? No problem if it isn't, but I wonder who dre is? His Alkan is superb, as are most of the music he plays, but his Busoni I like the least. I think it's because he has a tendency towards light and fast playing. Perfect for Alkan and Mozart, but I find Busoni needs enormous and heavy tone and slower tempos. Like a huge organ in a cathedral. He is a great guy, but he has taken to really downplaying virtuosity, in music and his own playing. I think because he has been piqued too much by most reviews/program notes going on about him being a 'super-virtuoso'. And "virtuosity" is such a bad thing in music (of all things!) :rolleyes:
He should take the attitude that Cziffra had, when confronted by this attitude from American critics on his first tours to the states: he expressed simple bewilderment as to what is wrong with virtuosity?

B.

I mean that in other recordings (of the symphony for example) theres inaccuracy and bits of it sound rushed - where as Dre has a clean tone, always pronounces, plays it as it should be.

I feel rather obligated to reply.

1.) The Forte, it can very possibly because of the piano, because Hamelin is not a very picky person (as he wouldn't just play his own piano even it takes a jet to transfer it like Horoiwtz) (Neither does he play the complete Symphonic etude to determine which piano he likes like Paderwiski does) He simply play a scale or a very small fragment of the passage he is gonna play, if the piano is not good, he is not gonna complain, and he would just try his best to bring out the music.

2.) Is that becuase u don't like the programme? If u don't like the programme then why do u go? Solely because of what other people say about him? That will sure lead to a dissapointment as u have so little knowledge about the music or the pianist's point of view of those programme. (That is, u haven't done your homework before u go, that's your fault)

3.) I have quite a few private recording of Hamelin and all those pieces are there (quite oftenly more than just one recording, for eg the Alkan symphony i have 3 private recording, the busoni and schumann i have 2). And they are all quite wonderful, except the Schumann fantasiestuke which i don't really like. And that's because I don't like the way Hamelin approach Schumann overall (i have his Schumann CD). But all others, especially The Alkan is simply superb. Try to listen to it more (get his recording if u are not yet completely disgusted), give it some more listening u will like it.

But as u say the Busoni/Bach and Schumann are 'uncommon' pieces. I am assuming you are still on the 'Chopin' or 'Liszt' stage of music appreciation.

thank you to all who responded,

I first discoverd Hamelin when I got his Godowsky etudes at the library a while back. I learned more about him...dug up some info, got some more of his recordings, etc. He is an interesting pianist because he is able to tackle some obscure repertoire that usually goes unnoticed cause of the demands put on the pianist.

This concert was to be an interesting one...and I was very excited to go. He doesn't tour very much and I never thought I'd get to see him...but I got season tickets and he appeared as the season opener.

I knew what his program would consist of...I know his style, his preferances, I knew what music to expect...that does not mean I thought it was the right choice or that he did a great job with it.


His sound was one of many musicianship factors that was lackluster during the night. This is no matter of a pianos brightness...he just was not voicing his chords well. He was not bringing out dynamic contrast. If you are a performer it is your job to do what needs to be done to say what you want to say. If the piano is to bright then compansate. His sound sounded as though there was no arm weight or properly applied pressure, it was not a ringing sound. His sense of musical structure was off. Some things he did were terrible. His rests weren't tight, his rythm didn't have drive. He didn't build to a climax well. He didn't varey his musical ideas on repeated sections. His pianissimos and lyrisism sounded identical in every slow passage of every piece. It was very predictable. There was no character variety. No difference between a slow section of the bach and of the Alkan. Lack of drama...

Program wise:

It was not well balanced

The Bach-Busoni was too much. I do not think much of the virtuoso passages were unnessasary and didn't add much substance to the music. I don't think he did a good job of making sense of the piece. If he wanted Bach he should have given us a couple of preludes and fuges. You could say a lot more and keep many of the listeners attention if you performed a few short pieces rather then one long one.

Shumann: again a big, long piece....back to back. It's not a smart way to keep an audience focused. I see many little kids and their moms and dads. Many of these people want a fun entertaining time. I love Fantasiestuk and I have no problem with it being programed...but please if you do keep in mind the amount of large multi-movement pieces you have in the program.

Hamelin: Sorry Hamelin these compositions were not very interesting. Not only that they were all very soft and very slow...not a good thing to play after an intermission and after the Shumann. They lacked in a solid structure. They lacked a solid melody or motivic material. They lacked interesting harmony. It just was not very interesting. I have no problem with him trying to get his compositions out to the public but please if you do look over the rest of your program...if your going to play some obsure pieces you should balance it with some familiar ones for the rest of the audience.

Alkan: I couldn't get into it. Sorry, some of it just didn't make sense. It ran on, didn't have much of a point or say much. There were some really odd and abrubt transitions that Hamelin did not bring out well. It was confusing. Too much artifical drama. Just didn't connect with me and I don't think Hamelin pulled it off well. Yes his scales and arpeggios were all very nice and clean but I was bored to death.


But you know I don't really mind the program. When I complain about the program I am questioning his motivation. He is a bussiness man. He has to take into consideration the public when he programs his performance. He has to realize that many people out there are just there for a night out and some music appriciation. They want to be captivated. I don't think it was smart.

But my problem is that I found it boring because

A) 2 of the 4 works he played I thought were just medicore compositions that just weren't very excited or interesting.

B) he wasn't very exciting. I was not sucked in to the performance. I felt nothing in my soul. I felt no communicating and that is why I was bored and dissapointed.

You know what? That's one of the reason I respect Hamelin SOOOOOOOO much.

He is not a businessman, he is a musician, he earns his living, but money is not what's on his mind.

He doesn't want to be captivated if no one appreciate his music.

He is here to promote the lesser known music, to promote them, to educate the audiecne, to broaden our view. This is what he is doing. If u think he plays just to 'please the audience' or 'get rich', you are sadly mistaken. He is a true artist, he does what he believes, he doesn't play the CHopin etudes, he doesn't play the Pictures in Exhibition becuase they are so overly played. And the piano literature is 1000 time more vast then most of the 'audience' thinks. ANd he is here to illustrate this point. I feel sorry you don't communicate with Alkan, in my opininion it's one of the greatest work of the piano literature. ANd I am most thankful that hamelin educates me and broaden my view. Now I know Alkan and love it, so is other composre he introduceds me to (Ives, Roslavet, Sorabji, Bolcom, Rzewski, Medtner, Kapustin, Dukas, Godowsky, Henselt, Ornstein, Reger, Marx........)

He is a teacher, an educator. He is more than a musician and DEFINATELY more than a businessman.

'Great Musician is important, but great audience is as essential.'

And if u think it's not good since u are 'bored' or the music is not for u. That's ok, music is art, it's very subjective.

And if u don't like Hamelin's playing, it's fine too, (I don't like his scriabin or schumann anyway)

But please PLEASE don't insult Mr. Marc-Andre Hamelin by calling him a 'business man'.

I feel very angry about it.

It's no insult...it's true. He is selling his performances, he is selling his cd's, he is selling his compositions. It's his way of making a living and spreading his musical ideas. All the best and most famous artists were business savy.

Horowitz: brilliant

Rubenstien: he knew what he was doing

Rachmaninoff: said the acoustics are good if the money is good

Cziffra: master performer

Liszt: come on...

These people knew the importance of selling there art to the public. They knew how to give the public what it wanted while not sacrificing there integrity. Art and business can and do go together. It's no insult, if you want to make it as a successful performer you need to find the balance.

I didn't see your above post

Listen I completely understand Hamelins intentions and what he is about. I understand that he has taken it into his hands to use his technique and his musicanship to explore and perform neglected works I am happy for that too. But I look around the audience and I see a bunch of uncomfortable kids and bored adults. So is he really doing a good job of selling these neglected works and his art. If it were me I would program a few easy to take pieces and a few neglected but still good compositions. If you can keep the audiences attention you have a much better chance of persuading them that this music is good.

Yes
Every performer is a 'business man' to some extend.

But being a pianist to make money is a absolutely stupid idea. Pianists are bounded to be one of the poorest profession on earth.

They are in this business solely for a passion.

ANd in Hamelin's case, he chose the most difficult path, to promote and educates the audience the most 'unpopular' music of the piano literature (which is unpopular enough already these days). For sure he is not doing it for the money, otherwise he can choose to play Chopin or Liszt (which he does, not very oftenly), instead he plays Mednter, Kapustin, Rzewski or Alkan, which no one gives a damn. You know what is the first CD he put out? it's the Sorabji, how silly can u be to put out a Sorabji CD to gain your reputation (especially you were no one), Hamelin slowly worked his way to this point of his life, and he never really care much about reputation (look at his discography or concert notes, all are very obscure pieces), if he is in for the money, he would have play all those 'big and popular' pieces, instead, he selflessly chose to share wonderful music which are underrated, sacrificing gaining money in a more simple way. He worked extra extra hard to this point of his life. And he obviously is not here to earn money, he is just earning a 'living' there is a big difference (you can argue, 'you need money to live', but i don't think will be interested in replying in that). Of course everyone needs money to survive, but money is not what Hamelin concentrate on. Otherwise he can put out DVDs and talk about how formidable his techniques are, and play a lot of really really showy tunes (for eg, like Wibi Soerjadi makes Lion King transcription or National Anthem virutosic arrangement, and look how rich he is now). Instead, Hamelin subtly working his way, to promote the music, to make recordings, to educate the audiences. And if u fail to see that, and say 'all musicians are businessman', then I am afraid you wouldn't be able to understand anything about music at all.