Lifschitz plays Schubert's last three sonatas: at times uneven, but all sublime

Apr. 10 at the National Concert Hall, Konstatin Lifschitz playing Schubert's last piano sonatas: D.958 in C Minor, D.959 in A Major, and D.960 in B-Flat Major. This is a marathon of a program, to be sure, and it comes hot on the heels of Lifschitz's earlier concert on the 8th, in which he played another marathon of Beethoven's last three sonatas. Unfortunately I neglected to hear his Beethoven, but after seeing what everyone had to say about that concert, I decided not to miss his Schubert.

I tried very hard to like the first part of Lifschitz's program, Schubert's C Minor sonata, but as the intermission approached I started to feel rather disappointed with his performance. I don't know if it's owing to him having a bad day, or if it is the piece that is to blame — granted, I don't believe Schubert was writing as his personal best in this sonata: he presents a wealth of material, which is not always fully developed (this is, after all, Schubert, and not Beethoven or Haydn). But the way Lifschitz handled it seemed at times haphazard, lacking a sense of coherency. I was particularly befuddled with the way he treated Schubert's contrapuntal lines in the second movement — completely muddled; in addition, the general lack of structure made the numerous Generalpausen sound as if they were thrown in as afterthoughts, and not contributing to the music as a whole. 

However, whatever problems Lifschitz had in the first piece, they were gone after the intermission. The A Major sonata sounded lusciously unified and tight, with a wonderful palette of tone colors in the outer movements, and a palpitating sense of tension in between the notes of the slow movement. Here is also a musician who appreciates silences, much as what Leopold Mozart says separates the good from the bad. 

Somewhat abnormally, Lifschitz has another intermission before the rightfully famous B-Flat Major sonata. In my opinion, Lifschitz used a bit too much pedal in the third theme section of the first movement — I like to hear the theme played detatched, but that’s just my taste. In any case, my nit picking didn’t detract the least from the sublime atmosphere Lifschitz painted with his excellent palette of colors in the first movement. The second movement, however, saw another one of my dissatisfactions tonight: for all his skill, Lifschitz does not seem to transcend beyond the limitations of the piano (which is, after all, a percussion instrument by its nature), and quite a bit of the slow movement seemed overtly harsh and percussive. My guess is that that kind of touch would sound exactly right on a fortepiano. The final movement is, in my opinion, the best example of how any rondo movement should be played: full of unexpected twists and turns, with each reinstatement of the theme sounding as both a surprise and a relief from the tension built up in between. From the B-Flat Major sonata alone, one can tell that this is definitely a pianist who has thought carefully about his art, and although I daresay that his performance of this piece today was not as magical as I when I heard Pollini play in the Berlin Philharmonie in 2011, it nevertheless is an extremely well-crafted and solid performance, by an artist well in confidence of his supreme artistry. The encore, No.6 of Schubert’s Moments Musicaux, was equally a delight, bringing today’s marathon performance of Schubert’s last piano sonatas to a wonderful close.

近日二場觀舞心得：「我學錯東西了」

太久沒寫東西了！雖然我在年初第三度重新開始寫部落格是想要記錄中東革命的發展，但一路看下來我發現自己沒辦法發出什麼具體的意見（除了有一次BBC World Have Your Say節目唸到我的留言以外），漸漸就沒有動力再寫東西了。

最近不想一直在家裡發呆，又想說之前在舞蹈系工作卻對舞蹈不夠關心，所以一時興趣就去看了兩場表演：上星期五去景美人權文化園區看安娜琪舞蹈劇場的《第七感官》，今天去台北另一端（應該說是捷運淡水線的另一端）的竹圍工作室看舞蹈生態系的《結晶體》。看下來的結論：我學錯東西了——或說，我不知道我以前在封閉什麼。

景美人權文化園區在秀朗橋下，這麼偏僻的地方我以前竟然常來……一方面，拉絃樂器的人會知道高憶玫老師的工作室就在附近；另一方面，在國防部底下單位當過兵的人在分發到部隊前應該也在隔壁（不對，還不能說隔壁，因為門口的地方連牆都沒有）的保養場上過課。《第七感官》是一個「觀賞環境建置計畫」，不光是舞蹈而已，表演環境也會跟表演者互動，甚至還把觀眾帶進表演裡一起互動：


Seventh Sense - Excerpt 1 from Jeff Hsieh on Vimeo.


Seventh Sense - Excerpt 3 from Jeff Hsieh on Vimeo.


Seventh Sense - Excerpt 4 from Jeff Hsieh on Vimeo.

我索票的時候不知道為什麼刻意選了舞台上面的「搖滾區」，之後一直覺得怕怕的，還問杰樺老大坐搖滾區會不會很可怕。但是在表演的時候就覺得之前根本是在白擔心。表演正式開始之前，兩位舞者就已經在台上跟科技投影互動，搖滾區的觀眾也要一個個進去跟投影和舞者一起動；在剛剛踏進去的那一瞬間，覺得突然被很多人看好像怪怪的，但沒多久就融入情境，可以放得開在舞台上玩。唯一比較可惜的是，表演真正開始之後，舞者跟觀眾的互動反而還沒有那麼多。不過，這場表演確實是一種不一樣的體驗，甚至是以前我自己從來沒想過的。音樂表演是可以把環境當成演出的一部份，運用燈光和科技讓觀眾不只是在聽表演、看表演，而是直接「進入」表演；我覺得Terry Riley的《太陽光環》（Sun Rings）就是很成功的作品，今年前半年Kronos Quartet來台灣的時候就是表演這首曲子：


Kronos Quartet: Sun Rings from kq kq on Vimeo.

不過，觀眾就算能夠「進入」這種表演裡，基於音樂演奏本身的限制，無法讓觀眾「融入」表演中，成為演出的一部份；John Cage的4'33"雖然大部份是由觀眾的聲音構成的，但觀眾再怎麼樣都還是與台上的「表演者」隔開，兩方之間無法互動。《第七感官》裡觀眾參與表演的比例雖然不多，但已經讓我開始質疑以前為何那麼堅持表演的「正式」形式，為何非要是表演者／被看者與觀眾／看人者的二元對立。我後來在想，這種隔閡與距離是不是我後來那麼不喜歡音樂表演的另一個原因（最大的原因仍是薩伊德在Musical Elaborations裡所說的"Performance as an extreme occasion"），因為即使我不能算真正的表演者，我在台上跟舞者互動都覺得有在貼近「人」，反而比起音樂表演更有身而為人的「人性」。我甚至覺得，當初我學錯東西了，不應該學音樂，應該學跳舞才對！

（星期二我回去舞蹈系的時候跟某葉姓助教提到這件事，據說他後來有跟平老師說？）

如果上週的表演讓我重新思考我為什麼不喜歡表演，今天的《結晶體》反而讓我想要再投入表演裡！最大的原因是表演的配樂有現場大提琴演奏。我必須說，我看不太懂舞蹈生態系在這個作品裡想要透過肢體語言表達什麼，看了節目單上的文字仍然不懂（說真的，上回他們在跨藝的表演我也不知道他們在做什麼），但看到現場大提琴、預錄的音樂、現場音效sampling和舞者肢體動作之間的互動實在是太奇妙。表演後跟大提琴手聊了一下，她說她的音樂有一部份是表演時看舞者即興的，舞者的動作與音樂之間有某種不確性；這似乎與《第七感官》裡舞者與觀眾互動的不確定性有異曲同工之妙。另外，今天的表演似乎也引證我之前的想法：有些光聽音樂會覺得莫名其妙的現代音樂，在肢體動作的詮釋之下反而顯得有條理，或至少讓人可以接受。第一次有這種想法，是看到下面這個影片的時候；音樂是希臘作曲家Iannis Xenakis的Nomos Alpha：

我現在只希望以後也能夠參與這樣的表演，而且愈快有機會出現愈好，因為我又找到了對表演的熱情了！

Specialized musical education established by education authorities in Taiwan should be eradicated

In fact, this kind of primary and secondary education should have never been established in the first place.

Here's a series of hypothetical situations:
1. Suppose that we have a child whose innate talent (as opposed to educated or conditioned expertise) for music is equal to Srinivasa Ramanujan's mathematical genius. If s/he were born in a third-world country, to a family just as poor as Ramanujan's, what are the chances of this child's talent being discovered?

2. If the chances outlined in the previous situation are very low, does this merit the allocation of large amounts of national resources in the creation of a specialized parallel education system, which accepts thousands upon thousands of children who may not have that level of musical talent but are able to learn music due to their families' financial status, and who would be able to continue their musical studies even without a dedicated educational system and officially designated resources, just so that one Ramajuan-esque genius does not slip away unnoticed?

3. Following upon the above, if this parallel education system is nearly unreservedly abused by families who already have a better financial bearing to begin with, would a Ramanujan-esque genius with no money to buy an instrument and pay for music lessons (not to mention paying through the nose for lessons prior to exams with teachers who might be officiating those very exams, offering their bodies – or at least not objecting – to the carnal gratification of their teachers, and other such illicit means of bribery)  be able to enter this system to study music?

In short, if Mozart were born into a Taiwanese family as poor as Ramanujan's, would he be able to enter the parallel musical education system, and use that to his advantage to become an internationally-renowned musician?