Hilary Hahn: an interview with Gramophone's Recording of the Year Award winner

[@VKantardshieff]

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROOTS OF MUSICALITY AND A SYNTHESIS OF ITS SUCCESSION, UNIQUE IN ITS SIMPLICITY, CLARITY AND ACCURACY! GREAT FOR MUSICIANS OF ALL AGES AND FOR ALL ORDINARY PEOPLE! THE ABILITY TO EXPLAIN EVEN THE MOST COMPLEX THINGS IS PART OF HILARY'S DIVINITY!

[@jacobsinclair1]

You’re my hero Hilary!

[@JustFiddler]

😊

[@thalesdeol]

What's happens to Hilary is that she's simple, human and competent.

[@jaimekopstein4248]

Queen!

[@stevew4384]

Hilary should be my Grammy 😊

[@stephenwhitelaw4873]

Please, next time someone interviews Hilary make sure the lighting is better than this. As a photographer I was upset by the harsh shadows, I could only listen to this interview.

[@motoole3200]

Inspiring music is Lived, not so much played. Amazing Grace is one of the Greatest Hynm. From Heaven. We give you a bunch of flowers, 🌸🌹 Because of your heart 💖 and Talent. Achtung! Links, Richt unt Harnomy.

[@jackburgess274]

Even in this recording, Hilary's performance of the Ballade doesn't attain the momentum and unity displayed in Chloe Chua's performance of it. After Gramophone failed even to review the fabulous coupling of Butterfly Lovers with Paganini #1 that Chloe and the Singapore Symphony Orchestra issued last July, I can no longer it seriously.

[@rumoredblade2315]

With all due respect, comparing artists shouldn't diminish their individual achievements. Hilary Hahn has consistently demonstrated exceptional artistry over decades, and her interpretation of the Ballade brings unique insights. While Chloe Chua's performance is indeed remarkable (and I agree the Butterfly Lovers/Paganini coupling deserved more attention!), suggesting Hahn's interpretation lacks momentum/unity oversimplifies the artistic choices at play. Different interpretations can coexist - that's what makes classical music so rich. Gramophone's recognition of Hahn's work doesn't invalidate other excellent performances.

[@jamaicanpianistcomposer]

@@rumoredblade2315 To add to the rebuttal it seems this critique is based on one of their favorite of the 6 sonatas and not the entire recording. The award was given for the entire recording of all 6 sonatas. So to say it's a fail on Gramophone's part because the interpretation of sonata no. 3 was not what they wanted is like saying I did not like 1 item out of 6 things I got on the menu so the restaurant is trash. That's rather obtuse.

[@jackburgess274]

@@rumoredblade2315 I merely suggested that Hilary's Ballade doesn't attain the momentum and unity of Chloe's. I wasn't suggesting that it is entirely lacking in these respects. In any case, it was just a remark in passing, made so as to introduce and give context to the matter of most concern to me.

[@rumoredblade2315]

@@jackburgess274 Let's be clear - your real issue is with Gramophone's coverage, not so much Hilary's interpretation. And you're absolutely right that overlooking Chloe's Butterfly Lovers/Paganini recording was a significant oversight. That album deserves serious attention from major classical publications. But using Hilary's award as a springboard to criticize Gramophone's editorial choices actually undermines your point about Chloe's recording. The merit of that album stands on its own. In any case, I don't aim to dissuade your critique on Gramophone, and hope that we do see Chloe receive more recognition for her artistry as it evolves through the coming years!

[@rumoredblade2315]

​@@jamaicanpianistcomposer Exactly! Your restaurant analogy is spot-on. Critiquing an award-winning recording of the complete sonatas based on one movement of one sonata misses the bigger picture entirely. It's like reviewing a 6-course tasting menu by only mentioning the salad. The Ballade might be a highlight piece, but Hilary's complete recording shows her artistry across all six sonatas - that's what Gramophone recognized.