Things they look at during the auditions

[cardinals]

I heard from someone that they don't see how technically perfect without wrong notes they play but the musicality inside the performance...particularly, in the college auditions they are more trying to find out the potentials rather than just how well they practiced the pieces in order not to make any mistakes even with lots of pressure from the environment...

But the thing is, I have heard of lots of students from back in my home country who couldn't get in high schools or universities in music there because of the mistakes (especially in playing etudes) even though everything else was perfect...

Surprisingly, however, most of the teachers or professors I met unequivocally said they are mostly interested in how they make beautiful music, and it seems that they did not care much even when I hit the wrong keys sometimes...I thought they would comment first on the fingering matters, but actually they pointed out first on the expression details...

So I felt a bit confused...in order to do well on the auditions here in the U.S., in your opinion, is it better to pursue perfect accuracy or spend more time on making music even though it may sacrifice some of the technical stuffs?

Any comments or suggestions will be appreciated...

[thierry13]

Maybe your friends really were not musical enough, and they blamed the mistakes to keep some self-esteem. They do look if your technique is up there, and if you worked hard enough on it, but some wrong notes/mistakes in a live performance, or recorded in one shot anyways, really is no big deal. Anyways, musicality is what you should work on the most if you really want to get in. Hope that helps.

[faulty_damper]

What is your home country?  Is it Korea where auditions are less than 2 minutes long and there are 500 applicants auditioning for 5 seats?  If yes, then playing every single note of that Chopin study and actually finishing within the time alotted means a greater chance to being admitted.

In the United States, it's not that competitive.  All professors would rather sit and listen to someone making music and not just playing the piano.  But alas, we should feel sorry for their ears.

In an audition, they are looking for some key traits.
Can they play the piano?  This just means playing the notes at approximately the percieved correct tempo.
Can they make music?  This would mean playing notes at right tempo, correct articulation and dynamics, etc.
Do they make music as appropriate to the style of music?  Does a sonata by Mozart sound convincing or does it sound like a sonata by Bartok?
Do they offer an interpretation appropriate to the style?  It's not enough just to play a sonata by Mozart sound correct but also include all the necessary subtleties that actually make it interesting.  These subtleties hint to the musician behind the pianist.

Other important qualities they look for assuming the above are met (rarely):
Are they comfortable at the instrument?  Can they perform in a manner that makes music or are they playing the notes and making decent music but noticeably struggling?
The audition repertoire gives insight to the auditionees musical interests.  Do they show affinity toward one or all?  Does it seem like they care or are just auditioning?

These are just some of the details that they look and listen for.  Depending on which schools one is auditioning for, ones that are more competitive require more stringent standards where they only want to accept the best.  This just means the prior pianistic education has been sufficient to the point that the auditionee can be self-sufficient without the need of a teacher.  Less competitive schools will look for ability and some sense of musicianship; in other words they look more for potential instead of excellence (because their school doesn't attract much excellence to put it bluntly).

So I felt a bit confused...in order to do well on the auditions here in the U.S., in your opinion, is it better to pursue perfect accuracy or spend more time on making music even though it may sacrifice some of the technical stuffs?

Your statement draws a distinction between the two.  Both are inherent within a piece of music and cannot be separated in practice (though it is very easy to do in speech).  But since we are able to make abstractions out of this: they are actually looking for both.  In order for music-making to occur, the necessary technical requirements must be met.  If not, music-making can not occur - it would be impossible.