Should there be Technical competitions aswell as Music competitions?

[leonidas]

Ok, let me start by saying I like competitions, not particularly for the competitive element, but for the wealth of talent and personality that comes on display.

The thing is, competition in music is in an absolute sense - impossible.
Essentially it becomes a popularity contest, and often this results in the winner being the least hated competitor, and not necessarily the one which inspired most love.

Taking out the subjective element that is musicality, wouldn't it be good to have Technical competitions too/instead?

The winner could be based on absolute digital data, like races, or they could be judged like the gymnastic events, out out 10, etc. (problem with this is it will still have some subjectivity).

[thalbergmad]

Yes, this sounds like a great idea.

Maybe in the London Olympics, we could have a "Minute Waltz" race straight after the 100 metres. All you need to do is to just replace the starting blocks with Yamahas.

I can see it now. 8 pianists all walking out in one piece lycra speed suits and sitting down at the piano. Perhaps we could even get a famous conductor to start the proceedings.

The 1st pianist to complete the Waltz would win, but i think that maybe it might be wise to introduce a 1/100th of a second penalty for wrong notes.

This would eliminate all subjectivety and the winner would truly be the best pianist in the world.

Thal

[mephisto]

First of all, I doubt that many pianists would be interested that kind of competition. It would be extremely boring to watch after a few minutes ( I know you will disagree)

[counterpoint]

Is there any competition winner, that played only slow pieces? No.

Why? He who plays faster wins.

Music competitions are technical competitions. 

[n_n]

let's suggest that to China 2008. tons of piano technicians there. should be fun... what an idea!

[viking]

You might as well listen to a computer.
FUN

[daniel patschan]

As a matter of fact: those competitions had been done about 100 years ago. Pure technical contests - scales, thirds, octaves ect. !

[leonidas]

First of all, I doubt that many pianists would be interested that kind of competition. It would be extremely boring to watch after a few minutes ( I know you will disagree)

Well, the view of normal recitals and competitions is that all other enjoyable factors: technique, visual presentation, and the beautiful dancing of fingers - is all secondary to the most important thing - music.

We forget that it can be the other way around, music is often an accompaniment to a ballet, a movie, and in this instance, the music is the entertainment accompaniment to the sport/art of physical performance.

I find watching the fingers of a pianist to be a never ending source of beauty and fascination, along with the music, it has an appeal similar to that of the extra-musical appeals of playing itself.

It's just all about shifting the primary, there are always the same secondary enjoyments to be had.

[mike_lang]

Le Duchâble, Chairman.

[leonidas]

As a matter of fact: those competitions had been done about 100 years ago. Pure technical contests - scales, thirds, octaves ect. !

Post more info about this!

[leonidas]

You might as well listen to a computer.
FUN

Is watching people play sports like watching robots running around?

Humans are human, and everyone will naturally produce different physical results, which inherently make for interesting different results in all other factors, including musical.

[daniel patschan]

Post more info about this!

I will - i got an article about this , i´ll check it out after returning home.

[viking]

Is watching people play sports like watching robots running around?

Humans are human, and everyone will naturally produce different physical results, which inherently make for interesting different results in all other factors, including musical.

Computers can't play sports.
EDIT:
Exactly.  Who wan't to watch robots play sports?  Likewise, who want's to watch humans give robot-like performances of classical music?  My point is, that a performance should be human.  It requires spontaneity, and intelligence.  The problem with a technique competition is that it completely removes those two aspects of performance, resulting in computer-like performances. 

[leonidas]

Incorrect, with advancing technology they can do practically anything we can.

Watch A.I. and prepare some kleenex.

[viking]

Ha sorry there I started to modify my post before I saw that you had posted. 

[pita bread]

Incorrect, with advancing technology they can do practically anything we can.

Watch A.I. and prepare some kleenex.

Learn to differentiate Hollywood from reality, idiot.

[rachfan]

I voted "no" to this question.  My reasoning?  Technique is essential, but only the means to effective performance, not an end in itself.  If a participant at a piano competition has insufficient or faulty technique, it will all too quickly be discovered within their performances.  Thus, to have separate competitions for technique alone would be redundant and unnecessary.  There are also technicians who have very little sense of musicality or musicianship.  If one of those people won such a competition, in the larger context of music, it would be truly meaningless. 

[ramseytheii]

Post more info about this!

This from an essay on the Liszt-Thalberg competition:

"Virtuoso contests and rivalries are sprinkled throughout the music-historical lore.  Handel and Scarlatti had a youthful confrontation in Rome, J.S. Bach and Louis marchand were said to have sparred in Dresden, Clementi and Mozart alternated rounds at the Vienna court, Beethoven dueled with Joseph Wölffl, and Paganini and Lafont traded solos before the public of Milan in 1816.  The narratives through which these contests are related all thematize rival musical idioms and performing traditions of their times.  Handel represented the church style against Scarlatti's court style.  The Bach-Marchand contest... was a narrative about the ongoing battle between galant and contrapuntal styles.  Clementi and Mozart staked out claims for the two major keyboard schools of the time, the English and the Viennese, while Lafont and Paganini juxtaposed the two dominant schools of violin playing, the French and the Italian.

The sensational meeting of Liszt and Sigismond Thalberg at a Parisian soirée in 1836 is by far the best known and most fully documented of all such contests."

Interestingly, when we think of music history, we think of half of the figures in the above list as the best players, to the exclusion of everybody else.  But at the time, the public had a lot to choose from.  Liszt was not favored over Thalberg as a pianist; although Thalberg comes down to us in history as a minimal figure, it wasn't a given that Liszt possessed a superior technique.

Mozart too comes down to us as a virtuoso, but it was Clementi who was given favor in that competition, after which Mozart called him "a mere mechanicus" and a "ciarlatano."

We cannot conceive of a better organist than what our imaginations tell us Bach must have been, and yet there were people who believed that the competition that would have taken place between him and Marchand was not already decided in Bach's favor.

Another interesting point to note, is that these were never just judges of keyboard mechanism.  At stake too was the musical creativity of the contestants.  They played their own compositions, and they extemporized.  Part of virtuosity is creativity, and the ability to create coherent, interesting music on the spin of a dime.  So even though many of these people have come to us in history as great virtuosos, part of that was their ability to create music, not just play the keyboard.

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

Very nicely summed up Sir.

Thal