The big question for Yuja Wang
NewsLindsay McMurdo, a critic at the Edinburgh Festival, hits the elusive nail bang on the head:
And therein lies both a small part of the appeal and a large part of the problem, at least to this reviewer. At 37 (way too old now to be riding the prodigy bandwagon) Wang’s complete technical mastery is beyond question, and her market positioning unassailable. However, her motivation seems unclear. What does she actually want to do with all this talent? To dazzle and impress? Or to genuinely move and enlighten? On the evidence of Monday’s performance, it’s the former. But there was plenty of evidence that if she just pulled back slightly and dared to reveal a bit more of herself, she could achieve the latter. And that would be a wonderful thing to behold.
“Or to genuinely move and enlighten?” A bit egotistical of the reviewer to tell us if one is moved and enlightened by Yuja Wang’s performances, the reaction cannot possibly be genuine. Critics should be reminded that in this day and age there are -always- bootlegs of star performers on YouTube and elsewhere, and this program is no exception. In my experience Wang does not vary her interpretation very much from recital to recital, so having heard several of her performances of Chopin ballades both live and in audience recordings, I find her descriptions wildly off mark.
Who is Lindsay McMurdo? Is that a pseudonym?
Is that even Yuja Wang in the picture?
I’ve heard her enough times in the past 10+ years and have no more desire to go to her concerts. Never once did I feel “moved” or “enlightened”. Her meteoric rise to superstardom speaks volumes about the global power and domination of the CCP.
Yuja Wang is simply a technically gifted pianist but not a deep person or an intellectual. I don’t think that even she would challenge that opinion. She is a product of her time, one that is marked more by what we see than what we hear, more by packaging than by content. For me, she has never been interesting as a musician, actually extremely superficial and as the contributor above said, I too have never been moved by any performance that I have heard by her. I am not even interested in her performances or in her recordings anymore, as they all send the same empty, flying fingers message, skimming over the surface of the music, with a flash here and there, but not much else.
I actually think that as she gets older, which she already is and her signature vulgar outfits look even more ridiculous and she becomes an older chubby Chinese lady with great piano technique, so much of the brand will be gone and with it thousands of once loyal followers. Yuga Wang is the perfect case of how not to build a long sustainable career, for if so much of it is built on ephemeral details, then once those “details” are gone, there is very little left to maintain and captivate a wide public and certainly not a deep music loving public. Her case is a sad one, but I hope that I am wrong and that she will mature in old age.
If you had confined yourself to a genuine critique of her playing it would have made you somewhat interesting. But to introduce YOUR opinion of her outfits and physical shape indicates that you are, most probably, (an anonymous forum means you could be anyone), an old male dinosaur! Ignorant & irrelevant.
This is one of the most stupid things I’ve read on this site. Yuja Wang somehow continues to be (at the age of 37! You would have thought the case should have become clear years ago) the easiest way to identify ignorant poseurs among classical “aficionados”.
What a deary assessment of a musician who is actually quite young.Certainly not old and every musician matures at a different pace and varying stages of life. Think of Horowitz’s trajectory, it was, as they say, not linear. Listen to Wuja Wang playing Glass etude no 6.I don’t find this shallow or thoughtless, but I’m sure you’ll find reason to complain about it:
https://youtu.be/RJkeKmtLnDY?si=Lyb9u0qXQI0JUv_2
What a bigoted, obnoxious post.
Such an ignorant comment sir. Please let us know your c.a..
I have often been “moved and enlightened” by Yuja Wang. Just one example is the live audio of the Brahms-Handel Variations in a performance of architectonic splendor with a mind-blowing fugal climax that is unequalled in my experience.
I was at the Edinburgh concert. The Chopin Ballades had moments of pure tranquil beauty. The audience went wild, so she’s clearly doing something right.
Critics are critics because they are failed musicians who will forever fail to capture what makes great musicians great. Why is it so hard to understand that Yuja is neither trying to dazzle, nor to “move and enlighten”? She simply plays what’s interesting to her in a way that suits her. She is clearly having fun with all the works she perform, and she shows tremendous musicality, creativity, and originality. We get to witness her genius, and that’s all there is to it. If you don’t like what she offers, then simply move on. If you think she should to do something else to please the critics, then prepare to wait your whole life in vain. She plays the way she wants, what she wants, and yes Norman, dresses the way she wants. Get over it.
“Critics are critics because they are failed musicians”???
What nonsense.
If you ever read reviews by Andrew Porter, Harold Schonberg, Rodney Milnes, Alan Blyth, Harold Rosenthal or Joachim Kaiser you would realise the absurdity of such an ignorant assertion.
All of the above were outstanding musicologists who brought a life-time of performance experience to their deeply knowledgeable and informative reviews.
In the case of Joachim Kaiser, even a none too modest maestro such as Christian Thielemann averred that he learnt more from this stalwart of the Süddeutsche Zeitung than any performing musician. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a784Mi0kQ_Q
And Ernest Newman
100% correct as always Mr Jonathan.
In order to speak a language fluently, one must speak it. Learning the grammar and reading books on it cannot give you the real insight into what that language actually means. In a similar manner, critics may love music, but they do not and cannot love it as much as the great musicians who actually play the music, and thus their comprehension is lacking. Sure, there may be a couple good critics out there, but that is a rarity. The vast majority of musicians will agree that critics are completely clueless and useless. Martha Argerich, for one, has openly stated her skepticism of critics, and I have read an inane review by Harold Schoenberg on her performance. Great musicians like Mitsuko Uchida will tell you that it takes a whole lifetime to understand music, yet critics pretend to understand. Do you really think a musicologist who got a degree reading books and analyzing music will have a better insight into Mozart than Mitsuko Uchida? No, that is phenomenologically impossible, and a little humility from them would be much appreciated.
Point taken David but there is a difference between someone claiming to be a credible music critic because they happen to enjoy music and someone who is a “failed musician” as you originally wrote.
That wasn’t exactly my point. I’m saying that performing, studying, and living with the music as a musician will always be a superior form of understanding than studying and analyzing the formal qualities of sound and music composition. This is because music is meant to be performed and listened to. Most critics, however reputed they are as a musicologist, are “failed musicians” in that they could not attain the former level of understanding, thus continuing with the “objective” understanding of music, ostensibly because they “love” music. I would say that there is definitely a place for such analysis in this world, but they should know that it is merely complementary to the actual performances, but in reality, critics exhibit such hubris without recognizing that their understanding of music may be severely limited to a certain perspective. That is the case here, where one uses lofty terms such as “move and enlighten”, and dare critique a top-level musician with no actual substantial argument whatsoever. As another commenter put it, it seems like it isn’t Yuja’s problem, but rather the author’s.
Clearly the vast majority of Slippedisc commentators, with David at the forefront, have a very low opinion of critics.
However there are, or at least were, a small coterie of international critics whose opinions were valued not only by large numbers of music-loving readers but by many artists themselves.
Joachim Kaiser is a perfect example.
The problem is the number of soi-disant “critics” who appear from nowhere with limited or no performing arts training or experience at all. Bachtrack was the worst proselytiser of such self-aggrandizing “critics” by giving enormous space to unqualified reviewers who simply liked to go to concerts or operas and thought that was sufficient justification to be taken seriously.
Fortunately that Bachtrack practice of publishing endless, uninformed, generally gushing reviews has now ceased.
Joachim Kaiser once told me that to be any kind of credible critic, one must not only have heard countless performances of an opera or piece of music, but know the partitura better than the performer.
Who could possibly argue with that?
What does being a credible music critic mean? It’s possible that a critic could know the score better than the performer, but the question is, do they understand the music behind the score? Many great musicians were themselves a scholar: Bernstein, Gould, Uchida etc. They did not become critics though, surely because they knew that such analysis is only complementary to the act of making the music come alive. When critics who cannot perform dare judge with absolute confidence those who can because they “studied” music, I find that rather ridiculous. It’s interesting that you note the changes in the culture of music criticism over the years though. I agree that not every review is irrelevant, and my initial comment was certainly a generalization triggered by reviewers such as this one about Yuja. I don’t think critics should disappear, and I think it’s healthy to have different perspectives, including our discussion on this matter. I just think critics need to be less power-hungry and be a little bit more modest about their position, because they cannot possibly understand what performers are doing, if they themselves aren’t performers.
Do you notice what is in common with the names you listed? They are all DEAD. In their places we are left with the likes of Zachary Woolfe and Joshua Barone. I see no evidence any contemporary critics should be taken seriously.
Unfortunately you are correct Guest.
All the great critics are long gone.
It almost parallels artists themselves.
No matter how much one admires Yuja Wang, Daniil Trifonov or Lang Lang, these pianists are still a long way from the pantheon of Horowitz, Gould, Richter, Rubinstein, Van Cliburn, Lipatti or Schnabel.
I don’t think many pianophiles would agree the old names you listed should be mentioned in the same breath.
“Musicologists – people who can read music but can’t hear it” (Beecham)
Sounds like it’s the reviewer who has a problem, not Wang.
How about cutting her some slack and getting off her case?
Same holds for Klaus, probably.
One is a contender for one of the Greatest Pianists of All Time. The other is second rate imposter who used her to get himself a high salary.
A lot of the criticism of Yuja Wang of this ilk is way out of date. This industry persistently makes a fool of itself by expecting artists to be the finished article in their early twenties and then criticising them when they are not. Horowitz wasn’t. Neither was Rubenstein nor Zimerman for that matter.
Ms Wang is in a rich vein of form at the moment. I saw her at the Royal Festival Hall this summer and the first half, the sublime Barber Piano Sonata and a selection of Shostakovich Preludes and Fugues was the best live music experience that I can remember in a very long time. In particular in the Sonata, her clarity, control, precision and the sheer musicality of her phrasing was just astonishing.
She is the greatest artist at the piano right now and is in the conversation for greatest of all time. By the time she is 50 she probably will be.
If you haven’t already seen her live, I strongly recommend that you do so and pay the extra for a seat that allows you to witness her astonishing technique and musicality from a close distance.
Yuja Wang is certainly an excellent pianist. But “greatest artist at the pianist right now?” Hmmm…only if one overlooks Martha Argerich, Kissin, Zimmerman, Ohlsson, Hamelin…
“In the conversation for the greatest of all time…”? Not even close in my book, even while I like and respect Wang.
I respect Michael’s exuberance even if I don’t share it in this instance. The great news is that Yuja Wang seems to play everywhere and to always be on the road, so there will be many opportunities for him to hear her, wherever he is.
All the renowned pianists you list are aged between mid 50s & mid 80s! Yuga Wang is 36.
If I have learnt one thing following this interesting forum, it is that, unlike many professions (maths & science come to mind), musicianship improves & develops with age.
So how about agreeing that she is technically one of the best. But hopefully with plenty of years ahead for her playing to grow in other ways. Now I definitely hope to hear her one day.
“Martha Argerich, Kissin, Zimmerman, Ohlsson, Hamelin” None of them is on Wang’s level. Seriously. At least trot out Pletnev or Volodos instead.
As much as I admire Wang, I must point out that she cited Kissin as her inspiration during an intermission Q&A in Toronto
To my ears Yuja Wang has few equals and even fewer superiors, if any, depending on the repertoire. But piano playing is not a 100m race: the highest echelons of piano playing include several artists.
As for listening to her, I find the right side of the concert hall is best. Anyone who has walked through a hall while a pianist is playing can notice that on the right, and perhaps not too close, the piano sound is more rounded.
We can best watch a pianist hands on videos. There is not shortage of them these days.
Arcadi Volodos is “the greatest artist at the piano right now”.
“and dared to reveal a bit more of herself”…
She’s already dared to reveal to the limit of herself. Anymore she’ll nearly be in her birthday suit.
A critic actually has asked Yuja Wang to “reveal a bit more of herself”. Be careful what you wish for.
What is the point of second-guessing an artist’s motivation? And why draw a binary distinction between “dazzling/impressing” and “moving/enlightening”. There can be several motivating factors. How they balance out may bary, depending on the music and other circumstances. Personally I hope that sharing the joy of music is an important motive.
I had the great privilege of enjoying Yuja Wang in Tanglewood in mid-July. She played the same program. That the order of the compositions was slightly different, and that not all encores were the same,* is possibly another sign that she is more thoughtful and adventurous than some of her detractors want her to be.
Anouncing the encores from the stage may be desirable for some of the audience. But it less important in the last 2-3 decades: we can usually find out online.* (As a kid I sometimes went backstage and asked: the artists were delighted to oblige.) More important, I think, is how comfortable the artists with talking to the audience. Yuja’s serious onstage persona belies her wardrobe. She bows hastily and gets down to business, free of mannerisms. At the piano
her body doesn’t swing much. She doesn’t act as if she is dreaming, not to speak of having onstage orgasms (we all know others who do…). When she finishes playing she seems keen to rush offstage, and does most of the bowing when returning. So, onstage she seems to acts introverted. I see her personal comfort as more important than our curiosity. Don’t we all want her to us her very best? She seems to be trying, in my opinion, even if I don’t understand her motives.
* For the Endinburgh encores see, for instance, https://www.edinburghmusicreview.com/reviews/e6jh9y7nldb2zetccqft1okvkbb3x2
A beautiful, thoughtful tribute.
I’d have you over for lunch!
Judging by the complete review, Yuja both dazzled and moved. Beyond that, don’t expect every performance by an artist to perfectly satisfy your fantasies and desires. Even the most stellar of musicians is mutable, dynamic flesh and blood, not, thankfully, an unthinking, unfeeling, unwavering robot.
I kind of agree with this sentiment, Yuja is a dazzling, brilliant pianist but has yet to seriously tackle the most profound piano works. Perhaps she doesn’t want to, perhaps she enjoys and responds to fiercely difficult virtuosic or beautiful late romantic repertoire only. It is of course, completely up to her and she has become one of the most famous pianists in the world, but one does feel that if she applied her fierce intelligence to other works we might hear new depths of greatness.
Perhaps you could define for us plebs what a “profound piano work” is and who decides upon this status?
It’s ok, Ellingtonia, I’m just feeling a little pretentious this week.
Well now, if her deep dives into the Hammerklavier and Brahms 2nd concerto don’t qualify as ‘profound’, what would? Maybe if she came onstage with the probity (haughtiness) of Brendel, the seriousness (discomfort) of R Serkin or the grimness of Sokolov, all not-so-attractive males btw- you’d take her more seriously?
Yuja Wang’s preference (largely) for 20th century works is her great strength and the factor that won over this listener. The idea that Beethoven, Schubert, et. al, are the be-all/end-all “most profound” bar that a pianist must meet or else be deemed lesser in some way is provincial and jejune. Yuja Wang clearly has an inner muse, and long may she continue to follow it. Her taste in “Fantasia” type encores (to note the title of her encores-roundup record), is spiffy as well.
This is a very thoughtful comment – I don’t understand why you are downvoted really.
It is really hard to criticize the finest pianist in recording history.
Discounting Gould, Horowitz, Schnabel, Rubenstein, et al.
Bang on the head, indeed. The question of her attire (or lack thereof) is now stale and irrelevant. After losing that bit of ability to shock, what we’re left to consider is her artistry. She reminds me a bit of early Argerich: amazing technical equipment, often dazzling, but seldom insightful or moving. I know that there are some who are wowed by the athletics of pianism and that’s enough for them. Fair enough. But for me, as Brendel said, feeling is the alpha and omega of music. And Yuja Wang far too often leaves me feeling cold. I don’t want to be impressed. I want to be moved.
Thank you. A few weeks ago I had a debate with a mr. anonymous about Wang vs. Argerich – mature Argerich that is. Mr. anonymous knew how to choose his videos, and perhaps Wang’s pianism per se was superior to that of Argerich. But what I failed to point out is that I was moved by Argerich but not by Wang.
You cannot be moved because above all you desire to be proven right over a verdict you made when you had in fact heard little from her. Very common disease among music critics.
I actually heard quite a lot of her, actually more than what I had stomach for. So please, stop commenting something that you have no clue about.
Ultimately, it’s up to Yuja to do whatever the hell she wants with her career. She owes us nothing. It’s up to her listeners whether they want to continue to see and hear her play. Who’s to say we would actually like what we heard if she “revealed” more of herself (as if that’s even possible anymore)?
I think women reveal at swimming pools or beaches way more than Yuja onstage. Taste is another matter.
And taste is highly personal & emotional. As a 76 year old, I am often horrified by what is paraded as fashion. But it really is none of my business what people wear as long as it’s not at my dinner table.
I think women reveal at swimming pools or beaches way more than Yuja onstage. Taste is another matter.
There is nothing behind the curtain of champagne, and everybody knows that. Can anybody imagine YW playing Kinderszenen and move the audience to tears? It will not happen. But it’s fine! There are plenty of pianists who do this.
“Serge has appalling taste, and everybody knows that.” How does that sound to you? A cursory look at the comments here will already tell you your opinion is not a universal one.
What a ridiculous question – can she not do both? And could this not be asked of all internationally acclaimed artists?
Yes, Lindsay is absolutely right. But the thing is – who cares?
Yuja is untouchable. End of. Love her; hate her, she’s here to stay and she sells out auditoriums wherever she touches. Her branding is way better than her playing.
In this world, the only thing that matters is promotion. And branding. Any Joe of the street can do it, if they’re given the branding injection in the right places. The playing is inconsequential.
Yes, Yuja can play. But so can everyone else.
Perhaps ‘revealed more of herself’ was not the most fortunate choice of words where Yuja is concerned.
Trousers should be added to the “limbs” of her piano.
I’ve heard so many of today’s “superstar” pianists, Wang, Trifonov, etc, and while they’re good pianists I don’t think any of them are on the level of say, Gilels, much less Horowitz, Richter, etc. Just one small example: they seem to be unable to project a melody, and in quiet melodic passages notes here and there will simply not sound. This is basic stuff that has nothing to do with “virtuosity” but is apparently over the heads of “young” (under 40 or so) pianists today. Phrasing is a whole other matter as well.
About right. YW has great fingers & the sexiest pianist on the planet- but beyond that- not much musical depth regrettably.
Jeez. So much irritation for the critic and the artist here, but to me this is an interesting question. If her motivations in the past were to, eg, get to place of technical perfection, and/or to assure a place on the highest-level concert circuit, she’s achieved that and more. It’s entirely plausible that the question of motivation is open again, and I appreciate this critic bringing it up.
I also agree that YW could, if she chooses, take a kind of deep cosmic breath, open up the vulnerability that her technique has shielded her from, and take new kinds of chances. I hope she will.
I, 70+, am really dispirited by the endless ‘experts’ who tiresomely compare artists of today unfavorably to those long dead. This is true about pianists (see comments here referring Rubinstein, Gould, Horowitz- even Cortot), but also about singers (no one today sings as well as Montserrat Caballe or Joan Sutherland), conductors (Furtwängler über alles) et al. There’s an almost unnatural preference for recordings of the long dead vs. those very much alive, and playing/singing/conducting brilliantly. Is this nostalgia, or instead a sort of odd musical necrophilia?
Please bring her to the CSO…
People who make such misconceived and infantile judgements by definition have no idea not only what they are talking about but what music is made of.
I really haven’y heard a terrible recording by Yuja Wang. Likewise, I haven’t heard a truly great recording either.
So she currently occupies the “safe” region for me. I’ll say that she always seems to benefit from supportive accompaniment – perhaps she is easy to work with and charms the orchestra?
Don’t really care what she wears. Seems like she will have a long career if she wants it.
Why can’t Evgeny Kissin, for example, spend time recording some of the many lesser-known composers of piano concertos over the past two centuries? Music lovers will then be able to see that the older music is often more profound and desirable than the cobbled-together, supersonic garbage of more modern times.