As I had earlier predicted, Hong Kong’s inaugural international piano concours would be a showdown between Asians and the Russians. And so it is – with three Chinese (one each from the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong and Malaysia), one Korean, one Russian and one Belarussian in the Grand Final – vying for the 25 thousand US dollar first prize.
Each pianist would perform two concertos – one by Mozart and one by a Romantic / 20th century composer – consecutively with the London Chamber Orchestra (LCO) and members of the Hong Kong Sinfonietta conducted by Christopher Warren-Green. This crazy practice of playing two varied concertos at a single sitting is not new. The Russians have done it for decades at the Tchaikovsky Competition and more recently in this year’s Sviatoslav Richter Piano Competition. But what does that prove?
That a pianist needs nerves of steel and the endurance of marathoner to carry it out? Or is it a rite of passage all young pianists have to go through to prove they are worthy of the cash and a place in the pantheon of competition winners? Or a new form of torture?
There are two former Tchaikovsky winners in the jury, Ashkenazy (1962) and Krainev (1970). They must certainly feel for these youngsters who are getting a taste of bitter medicine which had earlier brought them fame and fortune. But is this practice founded in reality in the world of concerts? I know of pianists who perform two Mozart, Beethoven or Brahms concertos in a single evening, but having to first perform Mozart and later switching to a totally different style and aesthete to tackle Rachmaninov with nary a two minute break in between?
First evening
This format would partly explain why some pianists were unable to cope with such unrealistic stresses, and the first victim would be poor Colleen Lee Ka Ling (left) , a waif of much grace and poise. Opening the proceedings and carrying the hopes of Hong Kong on her slight shoulders, the task would prove almost insurmountable.
Her Mozart Piano Concerto No.20 K.466 began on a secure and cautious note, but with all the qualities that make for good chamber music. Although the first movement cadenza tended to the dry side, it was tastefully done. Safety first, inspiration second ruled the graceful slow movement, and she seemed to coast in the finale until a major lapse of synchronisation for almost half a dozen bars marred the otherwise clean proceedings.
She recovered to finish strongly but with confidence shaken, her Rachmaninov Paganini Rhapsody suffered from more lapses as early as the fifth and sixth variations. Despite a poetically delivered 18th Variation, the rest of the work suggested that she was more than overmatched by Rachmaninov. A concerto by Beethoven or Chopin would have played better to her strengths. Verdict: Will not finish among the top three.
By contrast, Andrey Ponochevny (right) showed more poise in the same Mozart concerto, as if he’s lived with the music for much of his life. His projection is better directed, the playing revealed a wider range of colours, plus there were no insecurities. With such direct comparisons within the same evening, it left little doubt as to who would finish ahead.
Prokofiev’s monumental Second Piano Concerto is a work that wins piano competitions and Ponochevny was very much up to the task. The lugubrious opening statement by the piano did not conjure up the aura of tragedy and mystery, that so distinguished the recordings of Ashkenazy and Krainev, and so the build up to scherzando second subject and massive cadenza lacked the necessary impact when it arrived.
Although not note-perfect in the awesome cadenza and tempestuous fourth movement, I felt he did enough to maintain tension and drama through the rest of the work. It was a brave and hardy account that revealed much about Prokofiev, the perfomer himself, and the frailty of the human condition. Verdict: Should place in the top three, but bearing in mind that there are two Rach Threes to come!
Second Evening
This competition’s “wild child” Mei Yi Foo came off with a very fluent and musical Mozart K.466. Unlike her predecessors, she fashioned her own cadenza for the first movement, one that seemed a bit too clever by half and occasionally out of spirit with Mozart. But bouquets anyway for trying something different. The slow movement was graceful and full of colour, but it wasn’t the cleanest of third movements; however she did her darned best to spice it up with individual touches… and the usual grimaces and headshakes.
Her Prokofiev Third Piano Concerto was quite something else. She attacked it with a ferocity and bloodlust as if her very existence depended on it. I have never witnessed Martha Argerich perform this warhorse of hers but judging by her recordings, I can only imagine Foo’s devil-may-care, on-the-edge-of-sanity performance to be approaching that level of pianistic sorcery.
This tigress from Seremban obviously does not play for the jury, much in the same way that the young Prokofiev did not care about the sensitivities of his St Petersburg pedagogues. One wondered how Ashkenazy, Krainev and Graffman (all of whom have recorded the work) would have responded to a performance that made theirs feel like a polite high society tea party. Verdict: Would much like to see her in the top three, but the staid judges are unlikely to concur.
Ilya Rashkovskiy is without doubt the most polished and competition savvy of all the candidates. He looked the part, and his every move and act suggested a winner. There was never an ugly sound in his playing, everything tasteful and no hair out of place in his reading of Mozart’s Piano Concerto No.24 in C minor, K.491. He also wrote his own first movement cadenza; it was idiomatic and oozed elegance from every pore.
His Rachmaninov Third Piano Concerto was another example of the triumph of technique and finesse over individual will and licence. Almost a “model answer” performance of a great masterpiece, full of colour and nuance, and not a foot wrong; the kind of playing that all piano juries just love, there was little if not nothing to fault nor quibble about.
As I am witnessing this in Hong Kong City Hall, Marc-André Hamelin has just completed his long-awaited Rach Three with the Singapore Symphony Orchestra at Esplanade. So I guess I’m not missing very much here. Verdict: I somehow do miss the blood, guts and struggle that distinguished John Chen’s febrile performance of the same at last year’s Sydney competition. But Rashkovskiy has done enough to clinch top spot. But let’s see what Wen Yu Shen has to say.
Third Evening
Wen Yu Shen’s (left) playing of Mozart’s K.466 was every bit a match for Rashkovskiy’s K.491; clean, tasteful, poetic, musical and ultimately inoffensive. Both are already consummate musicians and both study at Hannover’s Hochschule für Musik, the former with Kämmerling and the latter with Krainev. Its hard not to like Shen, whose youthful exuberance and apparent innocence shone through with every movement and phrase. And his composure under such severe stress and strain was also an inspiration.
With Rachmaninov’s Third Piano Concerto, Shen seemed to take more licence with the music than Rashkovskiy. Exhibiting that bit more individuality, he hoped to shape the work according to his own will. Although no less virtuosic nor musical, that freedom did not always translate into a seamless conception of the work. For example, he raced ahead in the second movement, leaving the orchestra in his wake, and before the recapitulation of the finale, he deliberately slowed down the pace for the sake of effect. While Rashkovskiy’s came close to the perfect reading of the work, Shen’s was a more human one, with its inherent surprises and occasional flaws. Verdict: Would finish in a small group of two.
Kim Sung Hoon also cut a sympathetic figure with the audience, which tended to side with the underdog. He looked restless and fidgety during the orchestral tuttis in Mozart’s K.491 - regularly adjusting his hair, fingering his face or wiping off sweat with a well-soaked handkerchief - but when he played, it was polished and musical. His own cadenza was stylish, inventive with some unexpected turns. The second movement seemed static, bogged down by some literal playing, and the final theme and variations was played on lowish wattage throughout. Was he running out of steam?
Fortunately Tchaikovsky’s First Piano Concerto proved to be the right tonic, as he became energised and rejuvenated. He did not fall for the temptation for excesses à la Lang Lang, and only unleashed his full arsenal of octaves when the right moments came. The piano stool creaked in agony under his corpulent frame during quiet moments of the slow movement, and there was something ungainly about his handling of the prestissimo interlude. However the rapturous finale received no less than the requisite barnstorming, closing the competition on a satisfactory high.
My “verdicts”
Most likely to win this competition: Ilya Rashkovskiy
Most likely to win further first prizes in “bigger” competitions: Ilya Rashkovskiy
Most likely to succeed Lang Lang as Universal Music’s next Chinese piano icon: Wen Yu Shen
Most likely to be engaged by the LCO & Hong Kong Sinfonietta: Mei Yi Foo
Most likely to have a steady concert career in the Continent: Andrey Ponochevny
Most likely to be a future top Hong Kong piano pedagogue: Colleen Lee
Most likely to benefit from a personal trainer and grooming: Kim Sung Hoon
Who I would want to hear again: Mei Yi Foo and Wen Yu Shen
Continue reading: 4. Results and the Gala Concert (18 September)
Chang Tou Liang is the Artistic Director of the Singapore International Piano Festival and chairs the advisory committee of the National Piano and Violin Competition.
above: Typhoon Signal 1 breaks upon Hong Kong's cityscape
More Inkpot! 
Unnatural Acts of Opera - by La Cieca