The 2007 edition of the quadrennial William Kapell International Piano Competition came to a rousing conclusion Saturday evening at the University of Maryland’s Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center, where three young finalists competed for the grand prize in the final Concerto Round.
Crisply accompanied by the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra under the baton of David Lockington, American pianists Spencer Myer and Sara Daneshpour and Russian pianist Sofya Gulyak — survivors from a field of 27 competitors — each performed a popular concerto before a capacity crowd in the Dekelboum Concert Hall.
Mr. Myer, who opened the program, did not perform a traditional concerto. He chose instead to play Sergei Rachmaninoff’s popular “Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 43,” a concert piece consisting of 24 highly original variations on a theme from the last of the legendary violinist’s solo “Caprices.” Performed essentially without pause, the “Rhapsody” ranges from the capricious to the divine. Inventive touches include the surprising introduction of the ominous “Dies Irae” theme — borrowed from the traditional medieval Mass of the Dead (weirdly clattered out by the violinists, who introduce it by using the wooden portion of the bow) and the famous 18th variation, which is built on an inversion of the original theme.
Mr. Myer’s performance of the “Rhapsody,” played on a Steinway grand manufactured in Hamburg, Germany, was reminiscent of Ning An’s first-prize-winning interpretation of Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No. 2 in the 2003 competition. Like Mr. An, Mr. Myer chose to become a more organic part of the musical ensemble rather than dominating in his soloist’s role. The result was an evocative, moving, almost magical realization of this piece. It was highlighted by an achingly beautiful bel-canto rendition of the 18th variation, which is helpfully notated “Andante cantabile” (slow and songlike). The Hamburg Steinway, which seemed to radiate a more controlled brilliance than its brighter New York-manufactured cousins used by the other two competitors, heightened this effect.
The next competitor was Miss Daneshpour, a District native, who performed Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky’s Concerto No. 1 in B-flat minor, Opus 23 with an impetuosity and drive that occasionally got a bit ahead of itself. The work opens with a huge, meandering first movement with a trademark chordal introduction that is never repeated. The music then alternates between an impertinent, jazzy motif and more lyrical material.
Miss Daneshpour’s performance was exciting in many respects. Yet numerous passages, although performed with technical brilliance, seemed to lack character. In addition, the pianist often attacked a millisecond ahead of the orchestra, most evident in the opening movement. It remained difficult to determine whether she was rushing a bit or if the BSO was a trifle slow.
The final concerto of the evening belonged to Miss Gulyak, who chose Rachmaninoff’s daunting “Concerto No. 3 in D minor, Op. 30.” Objectively speaking the most challenging work on the program, this is the concerto whose technical difficulties were highlighted in the film “Shine,” a critical sensation a decade ago.
Miss Gulyak strode onto the stage with a game face, then proceeded to wrap herself around the work’s complexities with an astonishing display of technique melded with surprising lyric subtlety. Her determined mastery of the work reminded one of legendary pianist Gina Bachauer in her prime.
While the playing of all three artists was remarkable for the relative absence of errors, Miss Gulyak, if she made any mistakes at all, was able to tuck them away before anyone noticed. Though her performance was more exciting for its sheer brilliance than its emotional force, this did not detract from her conception of the work as a self-contained journey of the soul, a musical tapestry commencing with depression and despair but concluding with triumph and transcendence.
The competition concluded close to 10:30 p.m., at which point, the audience took a break to handicap the competitors, casting paper ballots with the ushers to choose their own winner, a democratic first at this competition. Unlike 2003’s nearly instant anointing of Ning An, this night the judges took a fair bit of time deliberating. Counting the audience ballots no doubt consumed some clock time as well.
More than half an hour later, competition officials, contributors, judges and finalists gathered onstage, and the winner was announced. Third prize and $10,000 were awarded to Mr. Myer. Second prize and $15,000 were awarded to Miss Daneshpour. The first prize of $25,000 was awarded to Miss Gulyak, who also topped the audience ballot and won its accompanying $1,000 award.
Reserving the right to second-guess the judges, this critic would have awarded first place to Mr. Myer for his uniquely sensitive interpretation of the “Rhapsody,” with Miss Gulyak and Miss Daneshpour following in that order. However, given the technical challenges posed by the length and breadth of the Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff concertos, it is difficult, in the end, to fault the judges’ choices.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.