The Munich Competition, after a break of nine years once again for the bassoon, took place from September 11th to 17th. From a preannounced total of 91, no fewer than 57 bassoonists from 22 countries1 (age limit: 30) competed. Each had to offer a total of eight demanding works ranging from the Hummel and Mozart concertos from memory to unaccompanied avant-garde (Stockhausen etc.). A piano at either A 443 or 440 was available, though unfortunately few of the competitors knew of this in advance. The level of technical accomplishment that we heard was uniformly extremely high; that of phrasing, style and musicianship less so - difficult topics for a nine-man jury of mixed background (including seven players)2 to see eye to eye on. Tone quality varied from the light wobble of the Germans and Japanese, the smooth dark sound favoured by the Americans, the current Parisian Buffet sound which is almost entirely free of grain, to the highly charged intensity of the Eastern Europeans. Thirteen nationalities were represented in the fifteen who made the second round. The final results were: no first prize awarded (the jury was unanimous on this one); second prize shared between the Norwegian Dag Jensen (20), 1st in the Bergen SO with an appealingly free sound and style, and the French 18-year-old Sylvain Lhuissier, a precocious talent who played his entire repertory from memory. The third prize went to Holger Straube, serious and sensitive, at 20 already coprincipal in the East Berlin Staatsoper. In my opinion the most amazing talent of all was displayed by Sergio Azzolini, an Italian (Bolzano) boy of 17 whose feats of technical bravoura and sensitive response to every musical nuance were quite astonishing; his uninhibited temperament provoked extremes of response from the jury. However he survived the third round and was awarded an "Encouragement Bursary".
Once again it was a moving experience to hear so many dedicated and accomplished players who each, almost without exception, could offer us something to admire and enjoy. The demands of the syllabus were great and while the technical niveau was higher than ever, that of musical expression and tone variety as perceived by this juror was disappointing - perhaps a testimony to the wrong priorities engendered by such musical competitions. The positive benefits conferred by preparing for and taking part in such an event should however not be underestimated!
Below are some random thoughts jotted down during the course of the week:
1. The range of repertory in the syllabus from Baroque
(Vivaldi, Telemann) through clas
sical (Mozart, Hummel), Romantic (Saint-Saens, Tansman, Nussio)
to Modern (Stockhausen, Herchet) demands a proper understanding
and response to the various musical styles involved. This includes
realizing the difference between a salon-sonata, a concerto designed
for performance with orchestra and a contemporary musictheatre
piece.
2. In Baroque and Classical music the nuance and agogic employed must take into account the underlying harmonic progressions and voice-leading of the bass line. The neglect of such performance practice features as embellishments and lead-ins can be disturbing; an anachronistic, lengthy and flashy cadenza that steps far outside the style-framework also jars.
3. The solo line must sound phrased and be presented musically: lyrical sections must sing; passage work not sound like a mechanical etude -I speeds not be excessive; structural "corners" handled with awareness; expression achieved through use of nuance; vibrato used judiciously and selectively-, differentiation of dynamic coupled with audibility must be achieved -I articulations should be varied and well chosen so as to point and render effective and interesting the solo line; breath spots adopted so as not to conflict with the articulation of phrases; where specific effects of nuance/ dynamic are implicitly called for in the music, these must be observed; phrases commencing with upbeats and terminating with "feminine endings" must not be evenly plodded through; wrong notes in the text must be identified and rectified. A spontaneously presented performance means more than a robot-like recitation which, if it falters, seems to go completely off the rails, as if conscious steering in response to eventualities of the moment is lacking.
4. Playing Position: are we all sufficiently aware of the potential short/long term problems and limitations imposed by poor posture whilst playing - and by the bocal presenting the reed to the embouchure at an angle that is unfavourable to it (arbitrarily determined by its shape)? Both neck sling and seat strap can impose penalties too on the player.
5. Reeds: the style adopted must permit fff to ppp in legato and staccato over the whole compass, including the extremities. Those used by the French players seemed stiff and to require comparatively more air and pressure to service. Others seemed inefficient as valves processing an adequate range of tonal effects. It would be nice to think that it is possible to define a style of reed that is capable of servicing all demands of both solo and orchestral use!
6. Memory: when employed it always seemed to pay handsome
musical dividends.
7. Accompanists: to have brought one's own also pays great
dividends as regards integrated artistic presentation/Gestaltung
- not to mention ensemble!
8. Sonata in F minor by Telemann: (1) The composer's original dynamic marks are significant (e.g. measures 1, 2, 3 = forte, piano, forte etc.); some basic embellishments such as trills need to be added. However, if enough sensitive response and artistry is present, lack of ornament and the use of a poor edition loses importance. After all, many competitors do not have access to good texts. (ii) Some embellishments could be used on the repeat, especially if a slowish speed is adopted. The right hand of the keyboard accompaniment should be sparse and unobtrusive throughout.
9. Concerto, K. 191 by Mozart: I consider that in a concerto the accompanying piano should help the soloist to be realistic by attempting to reproduce the effect of the orchestra, especially in dynamics and solo/ tutti contrasts. A version sounding like a salon sonata is a misleading travesty. The recent New Mozart Edition (Baerenreiter 1981) restores all the appoggiaturas and offers sensible solutions to many problems; this should be made available in piano score and replace the unstylish and incorrect versions in use until now. No one played cadenzas that were in suitable style. Ineffective articulations were often adopted.
10. Concerto in F minor by Hummel: A moderate speed makes the best sense out of this classical 18th century style music. Sections of lyrical character should be differentiated from those of virtuoso passage work: certain characteristic figures and gestures need to be recognized and presented stylishly; some agogic is called for; a brief lead-in at the pause would be stylish. Regarding dynamics: terraced echo-effects are less effective than nuances which respond to the contours of the solo line and the voice-leading/ harmonic progression of the bass line. Passage work must sound interesting and not j ust mechanical: some virtuoso passages need presenting with imaginative bravoura and panache; where these have been left unaccompanied by the composer, some freedom is called for. (ii) Only a short cadenza is needed, preferably not out of style. An acquaintance with the then-current performance/practice style is no less important in Hummel as in (say) Telemann (cf his editions of Mozart piano concertos and his piano tutor). These principles should inform the performance of the solo part: appoggiaturas and accented passing-notes recognized and presented accordingly, the odd gruppetto added etc.: what constrained Hummel to avoid the use of a low D flat?
11. Sonatine by Tansman: (1) Bravour élan alternating with lyrical expressiveness is called for here: some rubato in the final flourish can be effective. The link between 1st and 2nd movements must sound like an improvised cadenza and needs careful pacing: best when played from memory: to finish on A sounds best (as shown in the piano part!). Segue front ii/iii is effective: a pause to turn the page (unnecessary in this age of xerox) can kill the atmosphere and destroy the overall sense of unity. (iii) Some players craftily changed reed and/or bocal for the final top note.
12. "In Freundschaft" by Stockhausen: A series of musical and choreographic effects: somehow their nature and significance must be appraised by the player and executed in such a way that the points register and are made convincing to the audience (who are watching as well as listening). The metronome markings, which only a virtuoso can render effective, are indeed very, very slow; one sympathized with those who solved problems by adopting quicker speeds. The "theatre" elements demand that at least some passages be played without looking at the music; the performer has to work within a wide space and not be restricted (or concealed) by the music stand. These aspects of the piece proved to be very effective and entertaining when done with verve and imagination.
ENDNOTES
1. 11: US;
6: Japan, W. Germany; 5: France; 3: Canada, Great Britain, Hungary,
Italy; 2: Belgium, Holland, Switzerland; 1: Czechoslovakia, East
Germany, Jugoslavia, Poland, Rumania, Norway, Denmark, Finland,
Mexico, Brazil, Peoples Republic of China.
2. Messrs Redel (BRD), Colombo (CH), Allard (F), Janota (H), Kolbinger, Thunemann (BRD), Turkovic (A), Schoenbach (US), Waterhouse (GB).