The performance by Trio Con Brio in Kansas City on Saturday, 02-FEB-2008, thrilled the appreciative audience. The program consisted of Beethoven’s Op. 1 No. 1, Shostakovich’s Op. 67, and the Ravel Trio, capped by an encore of the 5th movement of Dvorák’s ‘Dumky’.
- Trio Con Brio Copenhagen
- Soo-Jin Hong, violin
- Soo-Kyung Hong, cello
- Jens Elvekjaer, piano
[50-sec clip, Dmitri Shostakovich, Piano Trio No. 2, Op. 67, Andante, Trio Con Brio, 1.5MB MP3]
[50-sec clip, Dmitri Shostakovich, Piano Trio No. 2, Op. 67, Andante, Trio Con Brio, 1.5MB MP3]
[50-sec clip, Dmitri Shostakovich, Piano Trio No. 2, Op. 67, Largo, Trio Con Brio, 1.5MB MP3]
[50-sec clip, Dmitri Shostakovich, Piano Trio No. 2, Op. 67, Largo, Trio Con Brio, 1.5MB MP3]
Throughout the performance on Saturday evening, Trio Con Brio’s dynamics and phrasing were ‘alive’. Breathing, sighing—collectively, a unified and ‘pneumatic’ interpretation that was inspired and inspiring.
This was all the more remarkable to me as I thought about what the nature of their rehearsals might be like—involving the two Hong sisters, and Jens married to Soo-Kyung Hong; involving the mixing of Danish attitudes and culture and Korean attitudes and culture. The ensemble has been together now for more than 8 years, but still—there must be moments when opinions among them diverge and disagreements between them as individuals bring friction!
And yet, apparently, such moments are amazingly few. Jens is, by nature and upbringing, a charming and modest person, despite his impressive skill as a pianist. The same is also true for Soo-Jin and Soo-Kyung, even though their charm and modesty hail from Korea, half a world away from Denmark. Each of the three is warm, optimistic, exuberant—in the playing, and in conversation after the performance. The ways that each of the three of them has for achieving this wonderful balance of collectivism and individualism may differ, but the musical result is a beautiful and deeply meaningful one. Bravo!
T he Korean self is profoundly collectivist while deeply committed to individual self-assertion... I do not assume there is a code—a key value that resolves the conflict. All selves are built up from incompatible elements, and they stay that way... [The Korean self] is not so much a ‘modal’ self as an ‘ideal’ one, reflecting the ideals of Korean culture... kibun—the state of the self-in-society... Koreans are not separate individuals—at least they do not see themselves as such in the same way as Westerners—so the individualistic competition you see Koreans engage in is not really competition among individuals at all [in their view], but among families, the individual always representing more than himself or herself... an ‘amoral familism’.”
— C. Fred Alford, The Self Is a Conflict, Not a Continuum, p. 31.
L ee Soo-Won uses the word ‘chong’ to characterize the collective self and ‘exchange’ to characterize the individual self. ‘It is chong that enables us to overcome our own point of view in relationships and fit into the group.’ Lee does not distinguish between good (‘koun) and bad (‘miun’) chong, or between affection and attachment, including those attachments that may be destructive. Does it make any sense to say that Eunyoung has a porous ego, that she is less autonomous than one who gives up everything for love? Does it not make more sense to say that she knows her values, what she cares about, and that one cannot have all of everything one wants, and she is aware of how she would choose? Are these not the attributes of a strong self who knows that reality means choices among values? That hers is a strong group self makes no difference in this regard! Hers is still a strong self—highly individuated without being separated. Koreans are actually more self-aware than Americans because Koreans are more aware of their relationships. Self-awareness is not awareness of a ‘pristine’ self. There is no such thing. Self-awareness is awareness of the self-in-interaction with others, including others who exist only in our memories. Koreans do not have ‘Emersonian Moments’. There are other forms of self-awareness, forms that actually come much closer to what it means to be a real self in the world.”
— C. Fred Alford, Why Do Koreans Say ‘We’ and Instead Do ‘I’ ?, p. 55.
- Trio Con Brio website
- Trio con Brio Copenhagen. Bloch, Dvorak, Ravel Trios. (Azica, 2007.)
- Trio Con Brio, Friends of Chamber Music, Folly Theater, Kansas City. Saturday, 02-FEB-2008
- Kalichstein-Laredo-Robinson International Trio Award (KLRITA)
- Alford C. Think No Evil: Korean Values in the Age of Globalization. Cornell Univ, 1999.
- Chun K-S. Reciprocity and Korean Society. Univ Hawaii, 1986.
- Hinson M, Roberts W. The Piano in Chamber Ensemble: An Annotated Guide. Indiana Univ, 2006.
- Howard K. Korean Music Volume 1: Preserving Korean Music: Intangible Cultural Properties as Icons of Identity. Ashgate, 2006.
- Howard K. Korean Music Volume 2: Creating Korean Music: Tradition, Innovation And the Discourse of Identity. Ashgate, 2006.
- Kashima Y, Yamaguchi S, Kim U, Choi S, Gelfand M, Yuki M. Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. J Personality Soc Psychol. 1995; 69:925-37.
- Kim K-H, Yun H. Cying for Me, Cying for Us: Relational Dialectics in a Korean Social Network Site. J Comput Mediated Commun 2007;13:15-27.
- Kim U, Triandis H, Kaqitcibasi C, Choi S-C, Yoon G, eds.. Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications . Sage, 1994.
- Kim Y-G. Uncovering the Codes: Fifteen Keywords in Korean Culture. Jain, 2005.
- Loft A. How to Succeed in an Ensemble: Reflections on a Life in Chamber Music. Amadeus, 2003.
- Sheldon K, et al. Self-Concordance and Subjective Well-Being in Four Cultures. J Cross-Cultural Psychology 2004; 35:209-23.
- Solis T, ed. Performing Ethnomusicology: Teaching and Representation in World Music Ensembles. Univ California, 2004.
- UNESCO. Korean Politics. Hollym Intl, 2002.
- Wagner J. Studies of Individualism-Collectivism: Effects on Cooperation in Groups. Acad Management J 1995; 38:152-72.
- Yong-Hak K, Jaesok S. Trust, Cooperation and Social Risk, in UNESCO, Korean Anthropology. Hollym Intl, 2003, pp. 623-44.
- Center for Korean Process Studies, Claremont Univ
No comments:
Post a Comment