He didn’t like the Sibelius either.
Such is life; I was actually feeling okay about the performance, although the beginning of the work can be difficult if you don’t feel the pulse. (It helps to really know the score.) But I do wonder if I wasn’t listening well enough. Perhaps my brain tuned things out. Maybe I wasn’t playing what I thought I was playing. Maybe I missed attacks without even knowing it! (See how insecure I can be? Is this sad or what?!)
Yeah, I tend to believe what I read. I really do. (And for those reviewers who read this, see how much power you wield!? That must be sort of weird to think about. Or maybe just fun. And NO, I’m not asking you to change anything. That would be wrong and very stupid of me to do. I just wish we were always perfect so the reviews would always reflect that!) But I’m working on my “little” (hah!) problem. Reviews—reviewers—can really cause me to fall apart, to get more nervous the next time ’round, and to doubt my musicianship tremendously. I know that’s silly. I know I give them more power than I should but, heck, so do audience members! I can’t tell you how many times someone has come up to me to say, “I hear the concert wasn’t very good,” because of something written up in the paper.
So I’m not the only one who takes the reviews as gospel truth!
Oh … and Mr. Scheinin includes this tidbit:
Nakamatsu followed with a couple of encores: Mendelssohn’s Rondo Capriccioso felt a little blocky, with the pianist not quite keeping up with himself; the Schumann-Liszt song “Widmung” (Dedication) was noble, sad and memorable.
Woo hoo! We were right about the Mendelssohn. I couldn’t help but think of several Mendelssohn orchestral works while he played, which was why he was my guess. I don’t know if that’s why my colleagues immediately suggested Mendelssohn, but I’m guessing so.
