Rubinstein competition and others totally unfair

[franz_]

Why to do a competition anymore? It are always pupils from people in the jury who win, always people from the country where the competition is in, and all the real good pianists go out in first or second round.
I followed the last Rubinstein competition and I was disguesed...
From 40 competitors only 3 are Isralean, and of course those pass to every rond, and this Rabinovich even went to final and took shared second prize.
Allready in second round all good pianist were eliminated, that nobody would speak or think about them. Who where does people in semi final and final?
Where were the superb pianist as Gulyak, Brakhman, Tebenikhin, Arnicane, Koltakov?

I don't understand. And I see it in every competition...

[gyzzzmo]

I agree with you that most competitions are rather dumb. Music is a matter of taste, and winning or not seems to depend on how that 'taste' is spread through the jury.

For example, a friend of mine finished her conservatory with rather low degrees, but when she applied for the royal conservatory in London for her master, they accepted her with very high degrees.

'Music' cant really be judged since theres nothing to refer to. Only technique can be judged since a mistake, is a mistake

[ramseytheii]

'Music' cant really be judged since theres nothing to refer to. Only technique can be judged since a mistake, is a mistake

That's not totally true.  Any person with artistic leanings has to make a series of interpretative choices in any piece he plays.  Those with trained ears, and years of experience teaching or playing, can most definitely judge a competitor by the integrity, coherence, and consistency of his ideas.  Or they can judge them by how well those ideas reflect the written score.

I just noticed the wink at the end of your post.  Maybe you were being facetious.  In any case, if you join a competition, you accept to be judged by whatever standards they choose to apply.  That is the main reason why they should be discouraged and avoided.  You are in effect subjecting yourself to the whims of a group of disparate individuals, each fighting either for their legacies or for their protection in the industry, who have to listen to hours upon hours of pianists, and somehow are mentally fresh to adequately judge each one?

In Tolstoy's "Resurrection," a woman is sent to hard labor in Siberia, because the judge fails to instruct the jury that they can find her guilty of a murder without intent (she was tricked into poisoning a man).  He was too distracted to get to the home of his illicit lover before a certain hour, that he forgot to mention the part that would save her.

Similarly, when we place ourselves in any situation to be judged, we take the risk of being subjected to pure whimsy.  I don't think anybody should complain about it; either accept the fact that you can be excluded for non-musical reasons, or don't accept that a panel of judges can adequately judge you (in other words don't join the competition).

Walter Ramsey

[franz_]

I agree with you, but not when the judging doesn't happen honnestly, and without democraty and objectivity.

[ramseytheii]

But that's my point, there is almost zero chance the judging will be objective and 'honest,' in the sense that everybody is judged from a blank slate.  Tolstoy's book was about his philosophy, that no man had the power or right to judge another.

Those who play in competitions have to accept the fact that the judging won't be fair.  It just won't be.  There are so many factors that go into the whole process, the least of which is psychological, that there is no chance.

Furthermore, because of the political dealing of the judges behind the stages, it is impossible to lay blame, or find personal fault.  Who can say which judge was voting honestly, and which was voting strategically, which was voting in order to do this or that.  Who can say what drives them to cast the votes that they do.

This is really why I discourage competitions: because of the inherent humiliation of subjecting yourself to be judged by potentially hostile and self-interested parties.  If you are going to do it, accept the circumstances under which you are judged (this is what Gandhi did).

Walter Ramsey

[sharon_f]

I seem to remember a thread either on this forum (or that other one) that also acknowledged some of the positives that come out of competitions. Contestants many times end up learning new rep, practice is more focused, competitions are also performance opportunites, they get to meet other musicians and there is the opporunity to network and make connections. And that "exposure" many times is enough. (Andersweski actually self-elminated himself from the finals of the Leeds and he has a wonderful career.)

[rc]

Not that I'm entering any big-name competitions or anything, but anytime I've gone up under a judge, they've given the benefit of written comments.  So even if they don't like my playing, or I simply don't play well, at least I have some constructive criticism.

Though I've found about 50% of it makes no sense to me.  Sometimes they compliment how prepared I was for my weakest piece.  The very fact that I excelled in my sightreading exam blew my mind because I'm certain that I did horrible, the examiner must have been in a good mood...  Still, even if half the comments don't add up for me, that still leaves half of them as useful critique.

[clara.schumann]

Please next time check if what you say is true before you say that.
first of all, there were 4 israelis out of 38 competitors.
second of all, is it so hard to believe that they are also good pianists? just because they are israelis they are supposed to be eliminated immediately?
Have you ever seen a thaikovsky competition without any russians winning?  
did you think for a minute that "this rabinovich" may be actually is a great pianist and deserves the 2nd place?
it's your opinion if you think that the people in the final didnt deserve to be there. in my opinion they did. The judges (who were mostly not israeli) had no reason to prefer bad pianists or israeli pianists. this competition was fair so stop talking bullshit.

[franz_]

is it so hard to believe that they are also good pianists? just because they are israelis they are supposed to be eliminated immediately?
Have you ever seen a thaikovsky competition without any russians winning?  
did you think for a minute that "this rabinovich" may be actually is a great pianist and deserves the 2nd place?
it's your opinion if you think that the people in the final didnt deserve to be there. in my opinion they did. The judges (who were mostly not israeli) had no reason to prefer bad pianists or israeli pianists. this competition was fair so stop talking bullshit.

Of course they are all good pianists, but in so many other competitions you see great names, and often the same names in the final. The opinion of the judges AND of the public often adore pianists as Brakhman, Gulyak, Koltakov,....  Watch the videos of those people. They all were eliminated in first or second round. Those people played fantastic, and if you compare them with this girl of Georgia, or Rabinovich... Of course, they are great, but there is a difference between a very good pianist and a virtuoso. This is my opinion, but also the opinion of many people in my conservatory. And that the judges had no reason to prefer bad pianists is true, but may be it is a good reason if some jurymembers are family, are teachers, are simply good payed by someone. I'm very sorry to see this, but this simply is the competitionworld.
And about Tchaikovsky Competition, although it propably isn't fair also, but most of the time, Russians are the best pianists in the world. 

[clara.schumann]

Of course they are all good pianists, but in so many other competitions you see great names, and often the same names in the final. The opinion of the judges AND of the public often adore pianists as Brakhman, Gulyak, Koltakov,....  Watch the videos of those people. They all were eliminated in first or second round. Those people played fantastic, and if you compare them with this girl of Georgia, or Rabinovich... Of course, they are great, but there is a difference between a very good pianist and a virtuoso. This is my opinion, but also the opinion of many people in my conservatory. And that the judges had no reason to prefer bad pianists is true, but may be it is a good reason if some jurymembers are family, are teachers, are simply good payed by someone. I'm very sorry to see this, but this simply is the competitionworld.
And about Tchaikovsky Competition, although it propably isn't fair also, but most of the time, Russians are the best pianists in the world. 

OK, first of all i dont have to watch the videos because I live in israel and was following the competition and went to see almost each and every one of the competitors at least one time. So yeah, I've seen Gulyak, Brakhman and Koltakov.
Koltakov was to me one of the most boring competitors in this competition. Gulyak was good, I loved her playing and i thought she would pass too, but I understand that the judges may think something else and I don't relay to it the way you did. Brakhman was very good too.

You see, that's the whole idea about opinions- in my opinion none of the above deserved to win the competition. They are real virtousos but they are not special. Rabinovich and Buniatishvili had something that no one else had in this competition, her softness and musicality and his intelligence and sarkazm, amazed me in every note they played. These are the pianists I would remember, not the ones you mentioned.
So why does it matter how many people think like you? I can say the same thing about me, I talked to a lot of people who were amzed by Khatia Buniatishvili and didn't like Koltakov.

It's hard for me to write a lot in english, but I hope you understand what I mean. None of the judges got paid, no one is no one's teacher or family. It's time to understand that not everything always matches everyone's opinion and certainly doesn't mean it wasn't a fair competition.

[cygnusdei]

How about this:

Each competitor vote for someone other than him/herself.

Then it would be really a jury of your peers.

[michel dvorsky]

How about this:

Each competitor vote for someone other than him/herself.

Then it would be really a jury of your peers.

Terrible idea.

What would you do in that situation?

You would vote for a contestant who, in your mind, has a low chance of winning.

If the other contestants also follow this logic than the winner will be even less deserving than under voting-by-judge.

[gyzzzmo]

That's not totally true.  Any person with artistic leanings has to make a series of interpretative choices in any piece he plays.  Those with trained ears, and years of experience teaching or playing, can most definitely judge a competitor by the integrity, coherence, and consistency of his ideas.  Or they can judge them by how well those ideas reflect the written score.

But, if there were 2 finalists who play something equally (integrity, coherence, consistency) well, but with 2 different interpretations, the jury will very likely vote for the one whos playing he liked most. And thats the interpretation wich resembles the jury's own interpretation.

And thats why i think that 'music cant be judged', at least not on those prestigious competitions.