Question

[Charles K. Ball]

Dear List,

It is interesting to see the range of responses this thread has 
inspired.  Being a recipient of a copy of Horace's excellent letter 
to the reviewer, I am looking forward to his sharing his letter with 
the list.  Tempted as I am to share some details, I will content 
myself to say that Horace discusses in some detail his perception of 
the present day loss of the skills of fine action set up, regulation, 
and voicing--skills which he learned from past masters.  Horace 
apparently deduces from the wording of the reviewer that the piano 
was not properly prepared.

This may very well be true; however, I posted Horace an account of my 
experience preparing a piano for Kissin a year ago.  Kissin's 
management had reserved every available moment in the hall during the 
day preceding and day of the recital, and he, with the guidance of 
his teacher, worked tirelessly and relentlessly during the entire 12 
hours at an intense concert level with a heavy Russian program--right 
up to curtain time.  Despite my gentle attempts to gain access to the 
piano for touch up, Kissin, while remaining courteous, dismissed me 
with the assurance that everything was okay.  Clearly, it meant more 
to Kissin and his teacher to have the rehearsal time, than for me to 
have time to refine the tuning and voicing.

The local reviewer commented that the instrument's sound became harsh 
at times during the many big climaxes.  For my part, I was elated 
that the piano stood in tune and sounded as good as it did despite 
the heavy use and deficient prep time.  Furthermore, unlike the 
Davies Hall piano in Horace's speculations, I flatter myself that 
this instrument was properly set up, was regulated properly, and that 
the hammers had the appropriate shape and resiliency.

Horace, in his letter, also shares his insights into Kissin's 
technique and the acoustics of Davies Hall.  There are also a host of 
other factors that go into a performance--factors which those of us 
who are frequently backstage observe from a perspective denied to the 
public and the critic.  I recently read an account of a late Caruso 
performance, written by his late son, in which he recalled his 
anguish at the unkindness of the public and critics toward 
shortcomings in his father's delivery and stage presence, knowing 
that they had no idea of the pain, both mental and physical, with 
which his father performed in his last days, and the professionalism 
and sense of responsibility that lead him to go on stage even though 
he was really, unbeknownst to him, probably in the latter stages of 
lung cancer.


So what conclusions may we reach from all this?  Basically that, 
quite properly, "everyone is a critic", but that the conclusions we 
reach and the judgments that we make really often say more about us 
than about the actual situation, about which we rarely have 
sufficient information to make fully informed judgments.  Was the 
performance truly flawed?  Is Davies Hall really acoustically 
deficient?  Was the instrument really inexpertly prepared?  Is 
Kissin's technique really flawed?  Did he misjudge the limits of the 
instrument?  Certainly there are objective criteria upon which one 
can base such judgments; however, criticism is most incisive and 
persuasive when tempered with humility and compassion.

I believe that Horace's letter could stimulate an excellent 
discussion about concert preparation techniques of today, contrasted 
with those of the halcyon days of yore.


Charles



Charles Ball, RPT
School of Music
University of Texas at Austin
ckball@mail.utexas.edu