BY JOHN GARRAN
The Melbourne International Chamber Music Competition is over for another four years. Occasional correspondent John Garran reflects on eight days of music making and his role of MICMC Volunteer.
It’s over. And that’s a relief, too. It’s not that the performances weren’t exciting, inspiring, and challenging. But to listen intently to seven hours of chamber music a day is tough.
Enjoyable, yes. But a feat of concentration, nevertheless.
The Melbourne chamber music audience is arguably unique in Australia, simply for its dedication. Concertgoers turned up in large numbers to the South Melbourne Town Hall, even when the starting time was 9.30am. Experienced competition musicians say that this is one of the special things about chamber competitions and Melbourne in particular: in many solo competitions and others around the world, the early rounds see only a handful of people in the audience and in some cases only the judges are present. How depressing that must be for the players.
Melbourne audiences are also enthusiastic, and they wear their hearts on their sleeves. Applause is never half-hearted. A couple of genuine audience comments I overheard included: ‘I’ve noticed some very heated discussions a few seats along’, and ‘I’ve conversed with people sitting near me. I don’t think I’ve ever come across such opinionated people’. This, of course, was reflected when the semi-finalists and finalists were announced. There were gasps and groans from many. How could this or that lovely group not have made it through?
This is the nature of competitions.
The audience loves more than just the musicianship and technical ability. They appreciate the groups who communicate with the audience; show some style and verve. Perhaps, too, they appreciate those who dress for the occasion: there were some very stylish outfits, not only in the finals but also in the first rounds, along of course with some drab black. But the distinguished jury is not evaluating dress sense, nor audience appeal. Audience response begs reference to the past when Musica Viva Australia was not running the competition but just a prize donor; often, the Musica Viva prize winner was different from the Jury’s Grand Prize winner. Clearly the priorities were different, with Musica Viva appearing interested in the ensemble most likely to attract audiences. This is not a jury criterion, apparently. This year, Musica Viva has taken over running the competition, so there is no longer a Musica Viva prize. Perhaps the audience missed it. It certainly added to the finals tension.
The sudden-death nature of competition means that often, quality ensembles depart after the first rounds. It was no different this year. In a Q&A event, Melbourne Recital Centre chief executive Euan Murdoch recounted a story from the time when he was running Chamber Music New Zealand. After hearing the Doric Quartet and seeing them eliminated after the first round, he responded by getting out his proverbial cheque book and offering them a tour of New Zealand. The quartet went on to win the Osaka Competition and has never looked back.
An innovation this year was to offer prizes for the best performance of works written for the competition; one for piano trio by Paul Stanhope, and the other for quartet by young composer Holly Harrison. Balderdash, the Holly Harrison work, was of particular fascination to your humble correspondent because it presented the opportunity for quartets to move outside their comfort zones, and really innovate in an alternative soundscape to the norm for string quartets with fascinating outcomes. Indeed, Silo Collective co-ordinator Leta Keens, whose members funded the commission, had the following to say at the event: ‘We’ve now heard Balderdash eight times, and it’s still a revelation every time and will be, I’m sure, every time it’s played from now on’.
This year, Chamber Music in the City was reintroduced on competition-week Saturday. This program of free concerts by participant ensembles in special locations around the city was always very popular and well attended in the past. This year was no different. Indeed, it was standing-room only at all three concerts.
It was amusing to see a harried security man apologising to the long queue waiting in the cold outside the Victorian Parliament. ‘We weren’t expecting so many people,’ he muttered, perhaps echoing the views of the political classes who spend little time and money on the arts. It was a tight squeeze, too, at the Royal Society of Victoria’s Burke and Wills room; a place steeped in history that few Melburnians would have had the opportunity to visit.
The question is often asked: why take part in competitions?
The answers and emphases will vary, but competitors mostly point to the intense preparation and detailed work on some of the great works of the repertoire as being an important part of their development.
Exposure is also important to the ensembles. Live streaming delivers their performances to large audiences; the jury is high-profile and influential; and indeed, this year the jury even boasted a specialist string quartet agent from Europe, Sonia Simmenauer. To all string ensembles – and particularly those based outside Europe without access to Sonia, such as Korea’s Baum Quartett or Japan’s Thaleia Quartet – this presents a strong opportunity to show what fine musicians they are through the international stage of Melbourne’s MICMC.
There is also the opportunity to travel. MICMC is rather unique in that travel costs for ensembles are covered. Even the United Kingdom’s esteemed Wigmore Hall competition will only cover an air ticket for the cello! One of the younger ensembles admitted to me that they would not have been able to compete were it not for their travel costs being covered.
There is also a personal side to the Melbourne competition. Some 50 volunteers assist with various aspects of running the event, from ushers to ensemble hosts (I was one of the latter). What, then, does an ensemble host do? Not provide accommodation. The groups are housed in a college of the University of Melbourne. But there are other needs: someone to show the players around; where the nearest good coffee shop is located; how to get to Lygon Street where the restaurants can be found; to deliver water and bananas to the green room before performances. And to answer the many questions about Australia. ‘What is that red and black flag flying above the South Melbourne Town Hall?’. While competitors hail from countries with first peoples, they know little of our history. And they usually want to know where they can see a koala, kangaroo, and platypus. Time often precludes resolving this latter request, particularly for the finalists, but your correspondent has taken past competitors to the Healesville Sanctuary and Melbourne Zoo.
It is something of an honour to get to know the young participants and learn of their aspirations. And sometimes it is possible, too, to learn some past history of the competition. A long-serving MICMC driver told an apocryphal story to one group that, some years back, ensembles were so incensed by the compulsory commission work that after the competition they held a ceremonial burning of the music! A bonfire of the vanities? Perhaps, but this would never appear in the official histories. One thing is, however, certain: the works of Paul Stanhope and Holly Harrison certainly did not suffer the same fate.
The ninth MICMC will be held in 2022.
Images courtesy Musica Viva/MICMC. Featured – Trio Marvin captured by Michael Keating. Disclaimer: CutCommon’s writers helped to promote MICMC, its artists, and the work of its Australian composers Holly Harrison and Paul Stanhope in 2018.
