What's the point of competitions anyway?

[m1469]

Why do those who compete, compete?  Just for the sake of competing?  Is it really about the music anymore?  Is it bragging rites?  Is it acceptance?  Why do you do it?   What do you hope to accomplish?

m1469

[Motrax]

I speak only for myself here. I have a sort of unspoken vow not to compete unless it's absolutely necessary. But unfortunately, in many cases, it is. Playing a concerto with an orchestra, for example, is practically impossible unless you win a competition (or you're both professional and of good repute, which I'm somewhat sure few people on this forum are). Some competitions also have a good deal of money attached to them.

Winning competitions makes your resume look nicer. No matter how many recitals you give, it's nice to have "Gold Medalist at the Podunk County Competition, Illinois."

Though I'm highly opposed to the idea of competition in music (the only "competition" should be which musician is better, and thus attracts more listeners), it's an unavoidable reality.

[thracozaag]

Why do those who compete, compete?  Just for the sake of competing?  Is it really about the music anymore?  Is it bragging rites?  Is it acceptance?  Why do you do it?   What do you hope to accomplish?

m1469

 Whores, we are all whores...

koji

[Shagdac]

I tend to think this varies by individual. If one is pursuing a professional performace career, yes, it helps to have these competitions by your name. The money may also be a factor for some, and others may get a contract (performance) out of it. Others may have this as a personal goal. Not to bragg necessarily, or even prove they are better than someone else....but only to prove to themselves that they can do it. Like setting a goal in anything else, and trying to acheive it.

S

[faulty_damper]

It helps your reproductive success.

Compare the concert pianist to a homeless bum: who probably gets laid more often?

[f0bul0us]

I compete to see how I compare to other people in the country. What's good about the competitions I go to is after the awards are handed out we have the oppurtunity to talk to the adjudicator and to fellow performers directly. There's very friendly criticism towards all aspect of each person's competition repertoire. How it was selected, what could have been changed, why a certain piece didn't compliment an upcoming or previous piece. The experience of not only competing and getting a mark, but discusing the outcome of the mark to the person who gave it to you, and discusing to the person who beat you is all invaluable information that a lot of people don't have the chance to do. So competitions are more than just winning medals or money, but learning more about your playing abilities and how to turn objective criticism into a better outcome at your next performance.

[m1469]

I suppose that I refuse to resign myself to the idea that if one misses the boat when they were 5, or whatever, that they have no hope of becoming all that they can be.  Somewhere within me, I believe that we are given talents for a reason, and it is not our choice what talents we recieve.  In a way, if one is willing to use their talents, I think this can be preserved from how the world tries to put limits on an individual's purpose, no matter what the outward experiences may be.

I am actually quite impressed with some of the responses that people have given me.  But, I simply must ask...

If there were no competitions, if there were no audiences, why would one play?  Really!  Shouldn't that purity be preserved?  Sought after?  Lived out?

I am not trying to turn back the hands of time, but in the attempt to create art, shouldn't the purity come first?  I just don't believe that this attitude predominates in the competition world, therefore, the art must lack.  And, if this is the case, how could somebody under these circumstances truly be crowned "the best"?

m1469

[faulty_damper]

We are always competing with each other.  We compete because we have to.  If we didn't, we'd all die together sharing everything relatively equally.  Piano competitions is just another of these life competitions.  It just had to be because Western culture loves competition.  Not all cultures are extremely like this, where competition would lead to the destruction/instability of their culture which would mean the destruction of their culture.  Superiority must mean inferiority.

If there were no competitions, if there were no audiences, why would one play?

This is a big IF.
We don't do anything unless we are stimulated to do so. (An object at rest stays at rest until another object moves it.)  We would never play the piano unless some object stimulated us to play it.  (Just observe a rock on the ground.  It won't move at all.  You could stare at it for the rest of your life and it won't do a thing.  Unless you got bored and picked it up and threw it into a pond.)

So why would we play if there were no competitions?  For the joy of having another mode of stimulation.  We hear something, we listen to it.  If it is pleasing to our senses, then it stimulates us to repeat it.  If it does not please us, then we will not repeat it.  Why would we do anything if there were nothing to stimulate us to do it?  Even if there were no one to listen, the piano player will be listening to it.  What he is able to create will stimulate himself.

Shouldn't that purity be preserved?  Sought after?  Lived out?

This is so romantic, not in the sexual sense.
Purity?  Seeking purity!?  Living purity?!?  Huh???

[donjuan]

I compete because I want to see lists of scholarships and awards on my resume.  Competition is great for people not trying for a career as a concert pianist, but just want shiny stuff to put in their career portfolio to show the boss at job interviews.
donjuan

[f0bul0us]

If there were no competitions, if there were no audiences, why would one play?  Really!  Shouldn't that purity be preserved?  Sought after?  Lived out?

Well, what is the piano? A performing art, with no audience to whom would we perform?

[Motrax]

Donjuan, unless you're applying for a music job, few employers would care whether you won 10 or 10 thousand international piano competitions. 'tis unfortunate, but the truth.  

I play piano only for myself. If others want to listen, that's their choice. But I play more piano alone than when other people are around, and I like it just fine that way. Audiences are nice once in a while, of course, but if I knew I would never give another performance in my life, I would still continue playing.

[thracozaag]

 Whores, we are all whores...

koji

 Why was my original post *ahem* edited?

koji

[Saturn]

 Why was my original post *ahem* edited?

koji

I don't think it was specifically edited.  Piano forum has a filter which censors or changes certain words which are deemed unsuitable.

[thracozaag]

I don't think it was specifically edited.  Piano forum has a filter which censors or changes certain words which are deemed unsuitable.

 Ah, interesting (thanks Big Brother!)

koji

[m1469]

So tell me, anyone actually remember who won Van Cliburn two years ago?  What has become of them?
I am mostly unconviced about competition in general.  I just don't believe that's what life is all about, faulty_damper.  

Do people mean to tell me that spending a huge portion of time, money, emotion and many other things, all boils down to a little sparkle on paper?  I am just not convinced.  Can anybody do better than this?

m1469

[pianiststrongbad]

Olga Kern was one of the winners in the Van Cliburn competition.  The other winner, I don't remember his name because I can't spell it.  I managed to see Olga earlier this year.  Anyway as to the original question, as far as competitions- it is to
1.  get a good reputation
2.  play with an orchestra
3.  $$$$$$$$

[m1469]

Thanks for the response.  I saw Olga Kern play also, and it was exactly as one might suspect.  I want to be surprised.  Is that too much to ask for nowadays?

I understand the desire to play with an orchestra, and this has many possiblities of having something to do with Music and art, but fame and money? come on.  Where's the substance?

I don't know for sure, I am just vaguely remembering a conversation with a friend of mine, but there are some "greats", you know, house-hold names, who never competed or never won any major competitions.  Like ...Horowitz (I think).  Does anyone know better than I?  Brendal, Kissin (he may have competed earlier).  Then there are those in the opposite camp, graduated from MAJOR schools and placed in MAJOR competitions, who have "not done much."  Some of which I know to be quite mentally disturbed and bitter.  What did competing do for them?  Really!

Shouldn't the Music come first?!?

m1469

[donjuan]

Donjuan, unless you're applying for a music job, few employers would care whether you won 10 or 10 thousand international piano competitions. 'tis unfortunate, but the truth.  

I play piano only for myself. If others want to listen, that's their choice. But I play more piano alone than when other people are around, and I like it just fine that way. Audiences are nice once in a while, of course, but if I knew I would never give another performance in my life, I would still continue playing.

look, showing your accomplishments in music show you are ambitious, can work hard, and can succeed- something employers find attractive in any field of work.

besides, I dont have too much else to show them..

donjuan

[f0bul0us]

Thanks for the response.  I saw Olga Kern play also, and it was exactly as one might suspect.  I want to be surprised.  Is that too much to ask for nowadays?

I understand the desire to play with an orchestra, and this has many possiblities of having something to do with Music and art, but fame and money? come on.  Where's the substance?

I don't know for sure, I am just vaguely remembering a conversation with a friend of mine, but there are some "greats", you know, house-hold names, who never competed or never won any major competitions.  Like ...Horowitz (I think).  Does anyone know better than I?  Brendal, Kissin (he may have competed earlier).  Then there are those in the opposite camp, graduated from MAJOR schools and placed in MAJOR competitions, who have "not done much."  Some of which I know to be quite mentally disturbed and bitter.  What did competing do for them?  Really!

Shouldn't the Music come first?!?

m1469

Now you're getting in to just plain bullshit. Look at the record of winners for the International Chopin competition.

Dead thread, your question's been answered...

[m1469]

That was kind of mean!

[faulty_damper]

I am mostly unconviced about competition in general.  I just don't believe that's what life is all about, faulty_damper.  

Umm, that is the only thing life is about - competition.  You had to kill something in order for you to even be alive.  Something had to die in order for you to live.  If you didn't, then you'd be the dead one.  That's competition.  Your success must mean someone else's failure, et vice versa.

For competition, there is a winner and many losers based on the winner-take-all system.  In actuallity, there are only half winners and half losers based on the standard curve.

Back to life, when resources are scarce, that is when you will see competition amongst humans more readily.  People will fight for these limited resources and the fittest ones will be able to get them and thus the weaker ones may starve and perhaps die.  Ever see the Discovery channel?


"I just don't believe that's what life is all about "

Romantics see things the way they want to see it, not the way it actually is.  They dress things up so it looks more pleasing to them.  Things they find un-desirable they dress up so it will be more desirable, if not tolerable.  In essence, they consciously change things or add to it so they are more comfortable with it.  They feel more secure that way because they have deluded themselves as having control over things they do not have control over.

You may dress a mutt in an outfit because you think it makes the mutt more attractive but that doesn't actually change the dog.  You may not like the word "mutt" so you call it a "hybrid" but that still doesn't change the dog.  And when you've finally had enough of its presence, you take it to a "humane shelter" to have it "put to sleep", "let down", or "euthanized".  Never just killed.

And why do we not just say what we do instead of using obscure euphemisms?  Because it makes us feel more comfortable about it.  We just dress it up so it's more appealing and attractive to us.

[willcowskitz]

Umm, that is the only thing life is about - competition.  You had to kill something in order for you to even be alive.

Yep but we can go deeper than that. What is competition? It occurs when two or more living organisms have mutual goals but the goal itself possesses limited resources to share. Be it lions hunting antilopes or one of you guys taking part in a piano competition, or more generally; each of us trying to feel we have some sort of purpose and goal for our lives and the potential to achieve it. We need to once in a while feel the sensation of victory to exist, I assume. However most of this competition does not happen on the stage in those piano competitions, nor for example on this forum when people are debating with each other. Real victory is in everyone's head, real victory is to, as faulty_Damper mentioned on other reference, shape things into more pleasant forms. Inferiority and superiority are constantly fighting with each other in one's mind and leave no room for compromises though we might float through more peaceful days. Everything is waves, for some reason wave form seems to be in favour of nature everywhere, even light has it's wave characteristics as founded through diffraction experiments involving laser light and small holes (beam of light was directed at a small (smaller than two times the radius of the beam) hole and instead of continuing it's travel straight through the hole as could be assumed by light's particle characteristic, it would create an "eye" of a ripple found in Doppler's phenomen, where every circular wave consists of numerous smaller kernels of similar but smaller waves, and so forth - so the light beam diffracted into these eyes of new wave sources and the beam fragmented to several spots on the wall instead of that one. I have a crappy vocabulary when it comes to anything specialized so my explanation probably sucks, but it'll have to do (somebody is welcome type out a more comprehensive and complete one) cause its besides the point, WHICH IS, that just like the Doppler effect, everything consists of the same movement and formulas which then are applied to different scales, which makes wave form (like sine and cosine) a good candidate for basis of the physical world and it's rules, laws and limitations because it is symmetric and so being easily converted to support larger structures. Sine and cosine are also found in circle on a coordinated map when represented as a triangle that's angle increases from 0° (x=1, y=0) to 90° (x=0, y=1) to 180° (x=-1, y=0) to 270° (x=0, y=-1) to 360° = 0° (this is when the wave has made one full circle and is back to where it started, little like the letter "S"). When the x starts decreasing from 1, the speed starts slow and increases towards 90°, due to perfect symmetry of circle, and y acts totally opposite. You can see these "speed boosts" in shape of a sine or cosine graph, and they represent perfect symmetry which is applicable to any scale, similar to fractals but rather being the seed that gives birth to the complex structures of a tree and it's branches. This perfect symmetry of circle equals the continuous alternating between the extremes found in sine and cosine, and the wave shows that even the circle has an other side to it just like the predictable particle side of light and it's more complex wave behaviour. Though we don't find the circle in the nature (not that I know of), we find the waveforms everywhere. It is like God (the circle) created life by splitting himself up in those two *competing* extremes that would be actively and forever stay in movement just for the sake of describing the static image of the God through the active, alternating movement of the wave - just like a snake uses it's body to move on the sand by bending itself into shape of a wave and so transferring force (which is the snake and it's mass) by this alternation, just like an airlock that can't have both doors open or a dam that has the mechanisms for lifting or lowering a vessel using chambers with regulated height of water level, transferring the mass upwards using force from the water, step by step like when you walk up the stairs. Whether competition occurs between animals, humans, humans and animals, or humans and their own minds and the obstacles that they fear but want to overcome, in some form the competition must exist to keep life alive, trying to reach it's original form and join the God, holy spirit and the circle.
 

[m1469]

WOW!!!  Willcowskitz and faulty_damper, you both have so much to say!  How intruiging.  I hope that you both have this passion, or conviction, or whatever you want to call it, at the core of your piano study and performance.  How exciting it must be when you perform!  I am all fired up to go do some more practicing.  

m1469

[bernhard]

 Why was my original post *ahem* edited?

koji

aha!

Now your post makes sense! (I know what sleepers replace - I had the same problem before)

[donjuan]

you know, you could avoid the whole problem by just saying 'wh0res'...

problem solved..
donjuan

[faulty_damper]

But that's not even a real word.  Real words do not have numbers in them.  Just use whores istead.

[thracozaag]

aha!

Now your post makes sense! (I know what sleepers replace - I had the same problem before)

 I thought I was in the twilight zone there, for a second...

koji

[BajoranD]

Just to add a little something to this "dead" thread . . . It kind of seems like what you're trying to argue, m1469, is that competitions are either valuable, or they're not. One or the other. No middle ground. But how does that saying go, "One man's pointless activity is another man's driving passion?" Something like that. Band teachers (yes, I promise I'm a pianist, but I'm gonna bring a small band reference into this, sorry) argue this ALL the time. Should we emphasize the competition? What happens to the artistry? Are we teaching the kids that nothing is worth doing if you can't win first place doing it? Are we turning music into pure sport, instead of art? And I think what it comes down to, is it depends on the person. Some people thrive on competition. They live for it. It can be a very constructive force in their lives.  Some people fold in the face of winner-take-all, survival-of-the-fittest, cut-throat competition. It can be a very destructive force in their lives. Neither type of person is better than the other, they're just . . . different. The world needs both. I think a person CAN compete without losing view of the art of creation. For some people, it may even be a catalyst for that creative spirit. I've also seen kids get so caught up in the act of competing (from everything to math test grades to video games to solo festivals) that they lose perspective. Their identity becomes TOO wrapped up in the results of the score-sheet. But to say that if competition is good for one person it must be good for everyone, or, conversely, if competition is bad for one person it must be bad for everyone, well, I just don't think the world is that simple.

Willcowskitz: Thanks. I was trying to save those brain cells for the next school year. Now they've all exploded.    

[m1469]

Thank you so much BajoranD!  Although I like to believe that my thoughts are crystal clear, and the words based on those thoughts are crystal clear, they often wind up tangled.

I do see how competition itself can be a useful tool, I myself would be lying if I tried to say that I am not competitive, because unfortunately I am very competitive.  But, I am not proud of it.  I want to win, but I don't want others to have to lose.

Faulty_damper, I think that I understand what you are trying to say and, mostly I feel as though you are decidng to feel the way you do about life, and then your "art".  Who one is, what one believes in, is reflected in everything that one does.

My heart breaks at the state of the world, because yes, there is so much competition.  It's everywhere, and the world mostly is not a better place because of it.  Nobody wants to help their neighbor, becuase they are so worried about themselves.  I intuitively know that there is something wrong with this, although I am not blind to it!  You can call me a Romantic, but by a definition given earlier of what that means, that word doesn't mean all too much to me.  The bottom line is that nobody knows the answer!  "Romantic", as it has been used, is just a name somebody gives somebody else when the "Romantic" thinks and acts in ways that another doesn't understand.  Sound familiar?

The truth of the matter is, even if the argument about survival of the fittest were true, it doesn't really hold much ground as far as I am concerned.  Whether one likes it or not, we are all dependent on eachother!  So the dominant prey on the weaklings, in your eyes that is, but what if there were no weaklings to prey on?  The dominant are no longer dominant, and they no longer exist!  Whether you like it or not, it's all about BALANCE.  One can't survive without the other.

As far as Music, Art, it makes me sad that people try to take something so beautiful and govern it with fear and self-will.  Fear of not being known, fear of not being understood, fear of not being important.  And try to will something to happen because of it.  That's not control at all, it's simply being pushed around by what the world tells you.

I am not against piano competitions per se, I am against the attitude which fearfully sacfices morality in the pursuit of empty promises, and at the expense of everybody involved.  Although, I can believe that this attitude does not exist in all of those who compete.

I understand the need for resumes, believe it or not, I think about that too.  I am not against a good and honest presentation.  I just want people to back it up with something in their hearts.

I am not claiming to have answers, just thoughts, and a place to express them.  So go ahead wolves, eat it up!  I am not afraid of you!  Like it or not, you need people like me!

m1469  

[willcowskitz]

According to my understanding, a romantic is someone who is strongly emotional and as feeling people often are; intuitive.

m1469, I know exactly what you're talking about and I find the surrounding world pretty sickening myself. I want my own planet, like Le petit prince had.  

Life is too short for competition, I'd rather just get to experience moments of eternity when feeling a telepathetic connection to another person. Those glimpses in time transcend what the average people would call "life".

[faulty_damper]

So the dominant prey on the weaklings, in your eyes that is, but what if there were no weaklings to prey on?  The dominant are no longer dominant, and they no longer exist!  Whether you like it or not, it's all about BALANCE.

"Balance" is just a linguistic device like "competition".  They are used to describe some kind of action.  The action you speak of described in a more familiar way: winning the battle but the war has not been won.  There are competitions (battles) but balance describes the state when battles have been won equally on both sides over an infinite period of time (the war).

Or even more real, this thread.  You say something, someone else says something, I say something.  We are all in disgreement and then we start to argue - competition.  You say that there is no need for competition and I say that there is a need.

In music, "concerto" means competition.  Piano concerto means piano competition - a competition between the piano and the orchestra.  Remove the competition and you have a bunch of unpaid musicians.


Willcowskitz, I disagree with your use of the word life as life does not actually exist because we are not alive.  Enjoying something that is non-existent is logically impossible.  The world is not sickening, just your conditioned determination of it.

I'm just arguing with you for the sake of competition thus showing how competition is present is everything we do.  I also disagree with my use of the word "competition" as competition does not actually exist.  Is not contradiction competition?

[willcowskitz]

In music, "concerto" means competition.  Piano concerto means piano competition - a competition between the piano and the orchestra.  Remove the competition and you have a bunch of unpaid musicians.

What if each part of the orchestra really competed with the pianist? Everyone would play like in a solo recital without paying attention to the conductor who is there to even out the music as well as possible, to interpret it playing the orchestra like an instrument. The actual competition happens in everyone's head against their own abilities. Someone who plays in the orchestra, say single viola among other stringed instruments, is trying to give their best to the quality of music, and can't compromise this overall quality for his own need to stand out.

Willcowskitz, I disagree with your use of the word life as life does not actually exist because we are not alive.  Enjoying something that is non-existent is logically impossible.  The world is not sickening, just your conditioned determination of it.

You don't explain why you disagree with my usage of the word "life" - it is totally irrelevant to the function of that word whether or not you qualify life as being "alive". I have always said that everything is concretic and abstract only exists to create shortcuts between different distant things to have them correlate and blend into some unseen mixtures such as in arts and philosophy. The world is sickening because of the perspective that has moved from the uncontrolled animal-like behaviour (birth of mankind) to  searching for a higher power and explanation for what we are (antique(?) period) to middle age (dark age of slow development due to control of the church) to renaissance (man discovers himself, starts nearly worshipping the human figure and arts start evolving faster than ever before) to today, where the mystery is starting to vanish - the Earth is no longer flat and our mirror images no longer have the same eternic depth to them as in earlier eras when nobody could define the man. Instead, we're now so tied to science that it no longer only serves the purpose of describing the world, but also prescribing it. This means people taking science as a religion - they don't understand the physics, nor chemistry, not necessarily any of mathematics used to derive the laws in the former, but they believe in it's descriptions and laws in the same manner as other people believe in God. The knowledge that science supposively represents, has become similar superficial "knowledge" as someone stating they KNOW that God exists - once something becomes a mass phenomenon, people will become believers only due to mass "hysteria" - not because the God appeared to them or because they got in depth into science and started to see the logical structure of matter, but because it was a readily paved road for them to walk.

I'm just arguing with you for the sake of competition thus showing how competition is present is everything we do.  I also disagree with my use of the word "competition" as competition does not actually exist.  Is not contradiction competition?

If you had understood what I wrote in my previous post, you'd know that you're close to what it concludes.  

[xvimbi]

Thread not dead! Thread must live!
One aspect that has not been mentioned: competitions are a way to tell the ignorant who is better and who is worse. If we didn't have all those labels attached to people and products, we wouldn't know what to buy or who to listen to.

The next question is what does it really mean to end up on spot No. 1 in a competition?

Microsoft Windows is the no.1 operating system! Is it the best? No. Is it the cheapest? No. Is it the prittiest! No. Does it have the most copies sold? Yes. Ah, here we go.

Is Olga Kern, the Cliburn 2001 winner (with Stanislav Yudenich), the best? No. Is she the prittiest! No (darn pretty in my mind, though). Was she more exciting than anybody else in that competition? Yes. Ah, here we go.

We need to define what we are competing for and what success an failure represent. When we look at it this way, most competitions turn out to be meaningless. People who rack up meaningless awards by the dozens may impress the ignorant (see above), but they won't fool the expert. In fact, racking up meaningless awards will backfire in the eye of an expert, because it means that that person is shallow and not able to judge what is really important. One has to choose competitions very wisely!

So, that's why all competitions are utterly meaningless in a higher sense, but extremely relevant on a lower level, because we have many more ignorant people than experts.

Finally, we need to ask very clearly, who is judging the contestants? Competitions are meaningless again, if the judges are not qualified or select the winners for the wrong criteria. To be honest, I wouldn't even want to win 99.99% of all competitions, because of the judges and judging criteria. Judges are just as anxious to get into competitions as the contestants, whether they deserve it or not. It's a closed system that reinforces itself and converges on mediocrity. Real winners are not defined by specific competitions, but by the person's existence as a whole.

[willcowskitz]

Good points xvimbi. I especially liked the M$ Windoze example.  

[robert_henry]

Competition is good for these reasons:

Monetary prizes
Opportunities for performances
Reputation building
Travel opportunities
They help build the mental, physical, and emotional stamina needed for the concert hall
Feedback from professional jurors
Interaction with other musicians
Exposure to other interpretations of similar repertoire
The drive to learn new music
The drive to take pieces to a level that you probably wouldn’t achieve otherwise.  It is remarkable what one learns at competitions by such focused practicing
Some host families are wonderful
The opportunity to play with singers, chamber-type musicians, and orchestras, should the competition include these types of rounds



Competition is bad for these reasons:

Consistent loss can be very damaging to the student
Expense of travel
Long periods of time away from home
Putting up with occasional disorganization
Lack of practicing facilities
Many resent repertoire requirements, particularly the inclusion of a compulsory piece
Some feel that competition inhibits individuality in the students' playing; they promote conformity
Some competitions are marred by politics
Many competitors become bitter and indignant
Hectic schedules
The expense and time required to create a decent audition CD for your application
Moronic newspaper critics who sway the largely ignorant public towards the competitor they like
Some host families are annoying


As you can see there are wonderful benefits and detriments to competitions.  Having had success with competitions, I feel that they are a good thing.  However, if one never wins anything, the emotional damage can be noticeable, especially in females (I’ve seen it).  There are healthy ways to handle loss.

And I explained this without using sine and cosine.  

Robert Henry

[m1469]

I suppose what lay beneath this question for me is this:

Is there a provable distiction that lay between the art of those who perform, compete, etc., and those who do not?  Is one more "true" than another? Probably there is, though I am not sure to what favour.

My concern is that of the well-being of the art itself, and of Music (with a capital M )  Also, a deep moral question as to whether or not "we" (as a huge generalization of calssical pianists, concerts goers, etc.) are living within our power to preserve what is that precious art.

Lastly, can a possible discrepency between "competitors" and those who do not compete, become an issue of "real" musicians, vs the world.  You know what I mean.  And most importantly, ultimately disguise or erase what masters before have worked to carve out.

m1469

[faulty_damper]

Expense of travel  

That's why you get sponsors to pay for the costs of competition.  In all other sports, there are sponsors who provide either money or equipment to the athletes.  In baseball, football, American football, hockey, etc. you have companies that provide equipment and uniforms.  In cycling, you have the same thing.  In music competitions, this is not the case.  Why is that?  I'd like to see a competition where the performers were sponsored by energy bar companies, piano manufacturers, tuner/technicians, de-humidifiers... and also Coca-Cola, automobile companies...

And the performers will be wearing their sponsors logos on there performing attire.  That would be really funny, don't you think?

[xvimbi]

That's why you get sponsors to pay for the costs of competition.  In all other sports, there are sponsors who provide either money or equipment to the athletes.  In baseball, football, American football, hockey, etc. you have companies that provide equipment and uniforms.  In cycling, you have the same thing.  In music competitions, this is not the case.  Why is that?  I'd like to see a competition where the performers were sponsored by energy bar companies, piano manufacturers, tuner/technicians, de-humidifiers... and also Coca-Cola, automobile companies...

And the performers will be wearing their sponsors logos on there performing attire.  That would be really funny, don't you think?

In a way, this is done! Artists are often sponsored by record labels. Luckily, they don't have to run around with yellow "Deutsche Grammophon" T-shirts. Some competitions are of course sponsored, but only the top ones. This is because the performers and contenstants (and the events) are of such high quality that companies and foundations are happy to have their names attached to them.
99.99% of the competitions are not sponsored. And this is simply because the contestants (and the events) are of such low ... [insert above sentence in an analogous fashion]. Not even the athletes that play the sports you listed are sponsored on that level.

But there is no doubt about it: the more popular something is the lower the level of events that get sponsored. Increase the popularity of piano playing, and you'll find sponsors.

[willcowskitz]

As you can see there are wonderful benefits and detriments to competitions.  Having had success with competitions, I feel that they are a good thing.  However, if one never wins anything, the emotional damage can be noticeable, especially in females (I’ve seen it).  There are healthy ways to handle loss.

Competitions are good for raising one's confidence (or hammering it down) and to get the best picked out from the rest to help their careers, but I think its alerting how money gets more and more involved in everything, as Marx said, the problem with money is that people start valuating everything in terms of it - including such things as friendship or art. Money is the primary motivator for people to take any actions and finally it diverts the "consumer" (here someone who goes to recitals to listen to music) from the art, when the critics will be driven towards requesting more and more quality from the *sound* (like in most pop music, the quality of sound by far exceeds the quality of musical content), in worst case scenario resulting in artists being replaced with piano players who are closer to sounding like MIDIs than music that touches people. This is if people are being robotized by the society for higher effeciency which market economy wants (and where emotions are only on the way of better results).

And I explained this without using sine and cosine.  

P.s.  I'm still not a communist.

[robert_henry]

Neither a monetary prize nor the competition itself will have a detrimental effect on art.  If anything, competitions further art because competitions bring music to community for several weeks at a time and rekindles within the audience the love of classical music.  The money allows the winners to free themselves from financial hardship for a while which in turn allows them to work more on their art by either practicing more, making a CD, buying a piano, etc.  Then those winners are given recitals within communities or with orchestras, furthers art.  Competitions are not a new thing; they have been around for hundreds of years.  Yet somehow music and art has survived, yes?  Look how how many people bought Van Cliburn's Tchaikowsky Concerto LP when it came out (millions I think).  And I could go on and on.

The point is that those who appreciate art for what it truly is will appreciate it with or without competitions. Those who attend competitions and know their purpose is to help young artists be heard will appreciate the competitions' intent.

The attendees who are not art-lovers will either suddenly embrace the world of classical music (which is what we all hope for), or they will continue in their blissful apathy.  Think about this: if something was not of value to them in the first place, how can a competition devalue it further?  It can't.

So, competitions can only help the community, or they will have no effect on the community.  

The problem with the appreciation of art nowadays is that public schools (which I like pronouncing pyooblik cause I'm sick like that) keep cutting music and arts from the curriculum.  These public schools (which are more appropriately termed government schools) do more damage than anything.  Another problem is the arrogance displayed by so many classical musicians/aficionados who have a corn-cobs up their a$$es in that they constantly look across the ocean to the "pop" world and shout, "Your music sucks.  It's not real music."  Yeah, that kind of attitude will bring more people to the symphony.  Besides not being true, this attitude does not present a positive message; art is not great because something else is not great.  That is akin to laughing at a fat person just to make you feel better.  Rather, art simply is great.  It stands alone.  Can classical art not coexist with pop?  

If one knows that what he does is of value, why does he need validation from others?  If everyone died and I was the only one left alive on this earth, the value of my art remains the same.  Ultimately we have to be confident in ourselves such that reviews, wins, losses, the good and bad performances, the approval of others, etc. will not have an effect one way or the other on the way we judge ourselves.  We simply are.  And I apply that same logic to art - it simply is.

Robert Henry

Willcowskitz, who said you were a communist?

[thracozaag]

*points up*  

What he said.


koji

[m1469]

Yes, I see your point.  It cannot be  a single thing that creates a problem in the way that people view things and act on them.  I guess I didn't really look at it this way.

What I have noticed, however, is at times teachers do look specifically for those students who may further their own name.  If a student does not show promise of being an up and coming competition star (or whatever), although may show as much dedication and even talent, sometimes the "unpromising" students get less attention and fluffier instruction.  

This does pose some problems.  But, I suppose the problem is not inherently in the competition itself, but with the individual?  ie,  the hunger for recognition and some form of acknowlegement.  This is poisonous.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

m1469

[trunks]

Apart from gaining experience in public performance I see no point at all in piano (or other instrumental) competitions. Consider Ivo Pogorelich, Dang Thai-son, Vladimir Ovchinnikov . . . and you'll see that piano competitions doesn't mean anything.

[robert_henry]

Wow, great points.

I'm convinced.

Robert Henry

[willcowskitz]

Good points Robert, however I don't know if I agree about the part where you said that art has a value to itself not dependant on "validation" from others. If you were the last person on the Earth and your art still existed, what was it's purpose? I think there's purpose to everything that human mind wants to give particular purpose and art is one of the things that could seem purposeless to a person who doesn't understand it. If you paint a picture you describe something in the world that you wanted to tell others about and painting it was the most direct way to transfer it to them, so what if there is no recipient? I see it little same as the consciousness itself; Do You exist, or are You just reflections from others? Culture is the result from socializing between people, culture reflects what we are, but it also surrounds those who come after us and will shape them to become more or less like us. If there was no socializing, would there appreciation for something abstract? Almost any painting can act as a simple eye candy but there's a whole new dimension beneath the surface, but it has to be seen into to have both the creative power or appreciation for it. If there's only one man left on Earth, will the painting ever live again if it hasn't got a chance to influence anyone's imagination. except the man's of course (which makes the evolving of imagination to something concretic quite purposeless).

[robert_henry]

My comments about performance and competitions on this forum have been consistent and I believe practical, and are meant to help those who have experienced bad luck at competitions or performances to learn to trust their own instincts and believe in what they are doing, rather than apologizing for their performances, their interpretations, their pedaling, their body/facial expression, their suit, etc.  I have a great deal of experience with competitions, winning some and losing some.  And I am just sharing with people what I wish someone had shared with me when I was still 12 years old.


But to quickly address your point:

I didn't say art, I said MY art.  My art is playing an instrument and interpreting the music written by either myself or someone else before me.  Sometimes I do this in front of an audience; this is called performing.  But, performing is only a small part of what we do.  Audience or not, I have sufficient judgment and experience to determine whether my playing at any given moment is art, whether it be in the practice room by myself, or in front of 2,000 people.  The opinion of someone else is of incidental importance at this point in my life.  At some point, an artist has to become convinced of his own artistry, and this confidence must be to the exclusion of everyone else.  Whether an artist performs for an audience of music lovers or for a jury, the only opinion that can matter is the artist is his own.  We all start off knowing nothing of art, we study for years and years, and hopefully, one day we become self-aware, so to speak, and we feel comfortable enough in our own shoes to brush off both criticism and praise.  If your self-value at any given moment is determined by what others think of you at any given moment, then you are a very miserable person indeed.  This is basic psychology.  

The premise of your argument seems to require that art must always involve another person.  If I were the last person on earth, walking through the forest, and decided to carve out a statue from a tree, it would be art - my art.  Why do I need anyone else to tell their opinion of my carving, or to approve or disapprove?  If I then dropped dead, thus leaving no one else alive, I believe my art would then mean nothing, because the most basic definition of art is to create something that can affect the senses.  If no one were alive, there would obviously be no senses to affect, effectively disaffecting its effect, or something to that effect.  

Of course, my definition of art is influenced by culture and those before me, and is a total of my experiences.  You ask, "Do You exist, or are You just reflections from others?" as if these ideas cannot coexist.  I am both, but to be an artist, we have to believe in ourselves first, and without qualification.

This is really an existentialistic line of thought that I am reluctant to spend much time on because were we to embark on this journey, it would take several lifetimes to discuss, because then we get into "what if X never existed" or "what if person A never heard that piece" and blah, blah blah.  Again, you always bring up philosophical questions, and they are mostly interesting; they keep us on our toes.  That is why we love you, Willcowskitz (except for the time when you, not having read the U.N. resolutions, formed an opinion anyway, then wanted me to do the work and summarize them for you.  That was when that conversation ended).  But I am interested in the application, i.e. how does a person value their own artistic vision, how does this translate into their performances, and what are practical reasons to compete or not to compete.  

You see, the very act of competing can be dangerous, because you are in a sense loaning your artistic value to the judges for the duration of the competition, and they render a verdict.  But, this is the unhealthy way to compete.  To compete healthily, we must hang on to our self-value regardless of the opinions of others or the outcome of the competition.  When people become upset when they lose, they are admitting to themselves and everyone else that they have little self-worth.  If they had artistic vision, that vision would sustain them through every obstacle they might face.  How one handles defeat is a measure of one's self-value.  Why do I need person A to tell me I played piece A well?  I have artistic standards of my own; I either reached and/or surpassed them or I didn't.  Who cares what they think?  

In my opinion, the day a person can say and believe in their heart, "This is my art.  It simply is," is the day they become an artist.

Robert Henry

(And above all, learn to be happy for the winner.  If you can't do this then you should not compete just yet.)

[thracozaag]

Wow, great points.

I'm convinced.

Robert Henry

 lol. Another cogent post from Peter HK, heh.

koji

[adidaschica]

FUN

[willcowskitz]

You see, the very act of competing can be dangerous, because you are in a sense loaning your artistic value to the judges for the duration of the competition, and they render a verdict.  But, this is the unhealthy way to compete.  To compete healthily, we must hang on to our self-value regardless of the opinions of others or the outcome of the competition.  When people become upset when they lose, they are admitting to themselves and everyone else that they have little self-worth.  If they had artistic vision, that vision would sustain them through every obstacle they might face.  How one handles defeat is a measure of one's self-value.  Why do I need person A to tell me I played piece A well?  I have artistic standards of my own; I either reached and/or surpassed them or I didn't.  Who cares what they think?

You're right. Hoooowever, this is also the reason why it is mostly unhealthy for children to compete, except maybe if they have parents that know how to handle it, guiding the child to the "healthy" path of competing.

My point on the existence of art in comparing it to existence of ego comes up here; Is the appreciation for your own art result of feedback from others, be it feedback regarding your own art or others'. I think what makes something art is to have it make people give meaning to it. Art is abstract, it gets reflected from the artist's mind onto canvas, piano's keys, surface of something you use for making sculptures (whatever that might be), etc...  What makes it art is when it transforms from the concretic being back to abstract when somebody is influenced by the artwork and it digs it's way back into the other realm of existence where things cannot be touched. If the artist's creation has no minds to alter, it's meaning is purely in the creator's head.

So art is creation; a new technological invention is art for people who understand it's structure and mechanisms, a book is art for people to whom it creates imaginary worlds in their heads, a painting is art for people whose imagination the visual imagery stimulates, music seems to be both the technological gadget and the painting - it has strict distinguishable structures to it that must be seen into and it has the feat of direct communication from the moody impressionistic painting straight into the experiencer's head. For me music is also always visual, it creates imagery, but I know a person to whom music is (he says) purely auditory experience. Art is like life itself: The physical being of universe which is only matter is linear and has it's strict laws by which it acts. Then there's life that builds mirrors for the matter to reflect from to find other ways, it complicates the whole and creates strands that hold each other together like that one mirror is crucial for the light to reach it's "destination", no matter how many mirrors are on the way. Life and ecosystem build mirrors that split the ray of light of linear behaviour of matter into several streams to sophisticate the network of reflections that manifest the presence of something, like transportation has evolved from groundlevel to air and sea. Humans complicate nature even more by their socialization and culture, and art complicates the linear behaviour of the masses of people by creating even more mirrors in the whole by having people's emotions and abstract ideas transfer between millions of minds by their characteristic contrasts in colour, tone, shape and other sensations(?) which stimulate people to think aside the main stream of the endlessly reflecting light.

Therefore, in a way, art has got it's own independent value even if it only exists for the creator himself. Art is the force to shape a sidestream into a river, to take a step from the path to the pathless forest and have others follow you - be the others your own ideas or other people with their own minds and their ideas.

[Motrax]

Bravo! Wonderfully stated, Willcowskitz. You leave little more for me to add... I just couldn't go for so long without posting in this topic.

So, what he ^^ said.