What's the point of competitions anyway?

[robert_henry]

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 already answered this question in my previous post, "Of course, my definition (and by this I meant my perceptions and appreciations) of art is influenced by culture and those before me, and is a total of my experiences."



Now look what you said:

I think what makes something art is to have it make people give meaning to it.

If the artist's creation has no minds to alter, it's meaning is purely in the creator's head.

What makes it art is when it transforms from the concretic being back to abstract when somebody is influenced by the artwork

So art is creation.

Art is like life itself.

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.

(Art is the force ) to take a step from the path to the pathless forest and have others follow you.

I’m sorry to be the one to kill your buzz.  Put your spliff out, my friend!  Have you even read the definitions of art (or for that matter reread your post)?  Look at the number of ways you define it.  You are in fact attempting to REdefine it.  

The value of art or the value of a particular piece of art may very well be subject to interpretation and human judgment; the cosmic effects of art (which is what your post really addresses) are subject to interpretation and impressionable discussion, but the very definition of art cannot be altered.  You are observing the effects of art, and then defining art according to those effects; but it was art that did the affecting.  Do you see the difference?

And as beautifully written and wonderfully colorful as your post is, it does not define art, but rather defines its effect and ramifications, in addition to including variants to its definition that are not appropriate or erroneous.

Art is an intentional creation whose purpose is to affect the senses, a creation that does not include the perfunctory, involuntary, or the utilitarian.

Art requires intent, the desire to create, and the intelligence and skill to do so.  Further, art must be indeed acknowledged as art by an individual with intelligence sufficient as to be affected by it.  

Therefore:  
Even only one man can create art.  A dog cannot.  A stream cannot.  They have neither the intent nor the intelligence.

Even only one individual can perceive and be affected by art.  A second person is not required.

A choice to journey forth in a new direction could be considered art, depending on its purpose.  Utilitarian reasons would not qualify.  But it boils down to whether a choice can be considered art.  Remember, it is the choice that must be the art, not its effect.  And this choice does not require that others participate, or accept or reject that choice.  Unless convinced otherwise, I would not consider a choice to be art.  I am open to your thoughts.  But your arguments must fall within the book definition of art.

In a way, art has got it's own independent value even if it only exists for the creator himself.

Uh, that's what I've been saying.  That is the most (and perhaps only) lucid statement you made in your entire post.  Now, you’ve got it.  

What art means cannot be confused with art itself.  I'm sorry if the book definition of art is not as romantic as you would like; blame Webster.

Robert Henry

[m1469]

WOW!!  I have enjoyed such thoughtful responses.  Now, I must ask for the sake of the context within this thread...

1>  would you say that all those who enter competitions are truly there to display art?  Please, be honest.  

2>  do you honestly think that all of the judges there are looking for an honest display of art?

3>  do you honestly think that the community which may rally around a particular function, is there for the sake of art?

Robert Henry,  throughout your dealings with competitions, you have come to some conclusions which mostly I completely agree with.  But, I am curious, how did you reach them?

My guess is that you have walked out on stage with various intentions in mind, and have recieved various reactions.  I am interested, what types of reactions correspond to what types of "artistic" intention?   Surely you must have come to your realizations and conclusions about one's own art and the purpose thereof, through many experiences and observations, and I am positive that your competition experiences would be in that mix (another pro toward competitions).

Thank you so much for sharing with us!  

m1469

[willcowskitz]

I already answered this question in my previous post, "Of course, my definition (and by this I meant my perceptions and appreciations) of art is influenced by culture and those before me, and is a total of my experiences."

I know you did. Why I think the existentialistic question is important is because we need to understand it to know where real creation lies - A pile of rocks isn't necessarily art, but pile of rocks in certain formations could be. You sound like you think that I am trying to hammer your views down.



Now look what I said:

I think what makes something art is to have it make people give meaning to it.

Do other meanings exists besides the ones that people give different things to make them more comfortable doing whatever they do in their everyday lives? Of course we need meanings for things, even if there isn't any, or we "cease to exist". What I meant by this is that an artwork influences people so much that it helps them see new meanings to things, or rather that it discovers them for these people or plain explains "why" something is like it is. Nice example of this is something that an acquaintance of mine said about some composition (can't remember which, it wasn't mainstream): "If there's just one proof out there of existence of God, that symphony(?) is it.",  freely translated.

If the artist's creation has no minds to alter, it's meaning is purely in the creator's head.

Trivial. I could had not said it, then again it followed something that got me to conclude it with this.

What makes it art is when it transforms from the concretic being back to abstract when somebody is influenced by the artwork.

From sheet of music, a painting, sculpture, whatever, back to thoughts. How do my "definitions" contradict with each other? You should realize that I was "thinking aloud" when I was typing, I had no motivation to crush anyone's opinions or understanding of what art in it's deepest being is, but get closer to art myself.

So art is creation.

Another conclusion.

Art is like life itself.

Another conclusion. Life is a piece of art by God.

Art is the force to shape a sidestream into a river.

Because they add nuances to the main stream, like living organisms add to the world of matter and conscious human brain adds to the instinctive behaviour of these organisms. Art is the crown of creation as I see it.

Art is the force to take a step from the path to the pathless forest and have others follow you.

Same as the river picture, but more vivid and lively (and broader cause I also mentioned that the "followers of the path" are other "rays of light", which can be single individual ideas, thought chains or whole other minds).

Now, I don't know why you lined them up so nice for me to examine, but I assumed they needed explanation so that's what I tried to fulfill, I'm sorry if that wasn't what you were looking for.

I’m sorry to be the one to kill your buzz.  Put your spliff out, my friend!  Have you even read the definitions of art (or for that matter reread your post)?  Look at the number of ways you define it.  You are in fact attempting to REdefine it.

NO, I do NOT know the Official Three Wise Men From The East definition of art. What is your point? What do I care? I am "performing art" trying to "define" (ugly word for what I'm really trying to achieve) art. I am *creating* metaphors trying to explain art's "deepest essence" attaching it to the whole of existence, it is all or nothing and cause I am thinking, I want all. Should I care about your criticising, or am I conscious enough of that fact that the wise men who write the official dictionaries do not know the deepest meaning and essential nature of art? (No, I don't claim that I do either, but I'm blessed with curiosity and imagination.)

The value of art or the value of a particular piece of art may very well be subject to interpretation and human judgment; the cosmic effects of art (which is what your post really addresses) are subject to interpretation and impressionable discussion, but the very definition of art cannot be altered.  You are observing the effects of art, and then defining art according to those effects; but it was art that did the affecting.  Do you see the difference?

Trivial. I'm not sure what you mean by "cosmic effects", but I'll take it as metaphysical understanding of the IDEA of art. Is a pile of rocks just a pile of rocks to every person that comes across it, or do they "interpret" it differently? It depends on whether they've got the base to give it some meaning. Probably a handless man never lived among handed could think its a manifestation of something divine, but pretty much everyone else wouldn't hesitate to collapse it with a kick. Art must have the potential to induce granting of meaning to the piece of art in people.

I know what you're implying, that I was merely a spectator touching the surface of what art is by considering it's effects on people. If you think I didn't manage to explain anything at all about art then I can't probably help it, but I felt I was getting closer myself, saying things that nobody has told me. The process of understanding is creation as well, when you see INTO something without actually going in. I am not trying to "alter" the definition of art. I am not trying to "redefine" art. I am trying to UNDERSTAND art.

And as beautifully written and wonderfully colorful as your post is, it does not define art, but rather defines its effect and ramifications, in addition to including variants to its definition that are not appropriate or erroneous.

Why, thank you. If I was to fully define art, I'd need to understand it's effects and see the character of it's branching. I am not, however, trying to define anything.

Art is an intentional creation whose purpose is to affect the senses, a creation that does not include the perfunctory, involuntary, or the utilitarian.

Is that like a flawless definition to you? An artwork can come to existence partially involuntarily, constructed routinely, and it can be created driven by utilitarianistic motives, such as practical technological inventions.

A choice to journey forth in a new direction could be considered art, depending on its purpose.  Utilitarian reasons would not qualify.

Consider the first clockwork mechanisms, created for the purpose of making organizing of people's lives on the timeline easier (utilitarianistic purpose). Now think of this: Which gave the inventor the biggest "kick"; the fact that he could now possess more precise knowledge of his position on the timeline between day and night, or the complex working mechanism as a creation itself? I would had suspected that you for one wouldn't be satisfied with a strict written definition of art, do you now exclude everything from the field of art that cannot even forcefully be fit within the limits of the flat definition that you presented.

But it boils down to whether a choice can be considered art.  Remember, it is the choice that must be the art, not its effect.  And this choice does not require that others participate, or accept or reject that choice.  Unless convinced otherwise, I would not consider a choice to be art.  I am open to your thoughts.  But your arguments must fall within the book definition of art.

I was thrilled about the "I am open to your thoughts" until I saw that last sentence. What is it that keeps you satisfied with the "book definition"? Does the verbal definition possess understanding? Why do you think Beethoven said "...There are moments when I feel that speech is nothing after all."

Uh, that's what I've been saying.  That is the most (and perhaps only) lucid statement you made in your entire post.  Now, you’ve got it.

*Sigh*
I know that's what you said. I was thinking while typing that post, and I realized that you were right about that. Do you want a medal now or are you satisfied with mere respect from my inferiour behalf? Who/what are you fighting against?

What art means cannot be confused with art itself.  I'm sorry if the book definition of art is not as romantic as you would like; blame Webster.

Which is which? I am not speaking of the word "art", I am speaking of ART. Was this the misunderstanding between us?

[ahmedito]

ok... lets look at the name of the thread again....


Whats the point of competitions?


there.

[m1469]

Thanks Ahmedito.  I think that we are still within the realm of the topic, and actually a long time ago I did ask, "what about the art", which got ignored until now.  I am appreciative that people are willing to think deeply about it, this is precisely why I started this thread.  It is important that one knows exactly why they walk on stage, and knowing clearly what art is to the artist, as I am sure you know, makes a big difference.  It is a big topic, and we are getting there I think  , as long as we keep being fully aware and continue the exchange for the purpose of useful understanding.

m1469

[m1469]

A little more...

1.  can one honestly say that they step to the piano in practice and in performance, for  the sole purpose of art?  (vs. for the purpose of the competition coming up)

2.  If art is truly something that comes from within us, (not that this would be my own way of describing it) couldn't you also say that the artistic manifestation could not help but reflect the intentions of playing in the up and coming competition, performance, .... and then would this truly be for the sake of art anymore?  And, if not, what is it that people are then responding to when they hear, or experience your art?  My guess is that it is not what it seems.

3.  If somebody truly does step to the piano, in practice as well as performance for the sole purpose of making art, why would there be a need or even a desire to compete?  What does one need from that experience that is beneficial to the art itself?  (and I am not suggesting that there is nothing to be gained)

4.  Aside from practicing music, we are practicng our mental state of being and how we think during our practicing of music.  What is one really thinking about in preparation for a concert, competition, etc etc.?   Is it really the art?

Just food for thought...

m1469

[namui]

FUN

You got my vote!

[robert_henry]

Willcowitz, the idea that art is a tangible object, sound, or movement separate from whatever effect or meaning it may have on our universe is obviously beyond you. Through various topics and posts, members of this forum have taken positions. So far, I'm not convinced that your arguments have much substance, or "concretic" value, as you like to say, other than vague philosophy, or uninformed opinions (the UN Resolution example immediately comes to mind.) You are quick to appear out of nowhere and challenge others on the most insignificant statements they might make, offer an ill formed philosophy as vague as a horoscope, then when you are asked to take a stand and defend one of your positions and offer their applicability, you claim you are just here to learn. It is a pattern I've finally noticed and it has now become tiresome and a waste of energy. I'm not upset; in fact, I like you even though we haven't met - I admire your passion and sincerity. I just think you try too hard to be profound. If you (or anyone else since so far I'm the only one) care to define art, then I encourage you to do so. My definition is consistent with those of other artists and minds much greater that I. But the strength and validity of my definition doesn't come from others, it comes from me: I am able to defend it. Not everything has to be complicated. Someone (can't remember who or the exact wording) said, "Genius is the ability to turn the complicated into the simple." You may disagree with my definition, which is fine, but offer your ideas. Can you simply define art? Anyone else? Otherwise, I'm through with that aspect of this discussion. My best to you.









Competitions are not fun. They are rewarding, but they are collectively the most exhausting experiences of my life. Performing at one can be fun, but the preparation, pressures, costs, time commitments (up to over three weeks), and uncertainties make them a challenging, and sometimes less than memorable experience, win or lose.

Local state competitions that involve one round and four or five pianists and just a few hours of time from the start of the competition to the finish are more enjoyable and can be "fun". I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about living in a small rural town in Germany for three weeks, where no one speaks English, having to arrange for transportation to and from shabby practice facilities days in advance, walking in dress shoes for miles in the hot, summer sun or in a rainstorm because the driver failed to show, eating unfamiliar food, having virtually no contact with your family and friends, having little or no access to a washer and dryer, and paying for all of this inconvenience out of your own pocket with ultimately no guarantee of success. And then there are the applications which are due a year in advance, each competition wanting quality materials (which is an additional expense), specific repertoire requirements which are different not just from round to round, but from competition to competition, forcing you to constantly juggle your repertoire (plus you might actually have real engagements during the year as well), the months of preparation, not knowing the order of performance until the last moment, the 15 minutes you get to choose and warm-up on your official competition piano, the uncertainty of the quality and maintenance of that piano (including whether or not the hall actually has air conditioning), the uncertainty as to whether the competition chamber musicians or the orchestra knows the music (or even HAS the music! Yes, this has happened to me more than once), the tension of waiting for results from round to round, and the cost of returning home early should you be eliminated early. All of this, and I haven't even mentioned the actual performance.

Now, do this about 6 or 7 seven times throughout the year, while still going to school, taking classes, holding a job, keeping a marriage together, and paying all your bills at home.

Then repeat this process for the following year. Then the following year. Then the following year. Then the..

What part of all that sounds "fun"?









m1469:

1. can one honestly say that they step to the piano in practice and in performance, for the sole purpose of art? (vs. for the purpose of the competition coming up)

Our goal should be to recreate our art to the highest standards possible. I have a standard of excellence that is unchanging. That standard and that commitment to my art and my craft is not determined by the situation I find myself in, whether it is in the practice room, at a paid engagement, playing in a bar when the regular guy takes a break, or when I play my dad's favorite pieces in a private room with him. If you keep your eye on excellence and focus your energies on your art, then all of the problems I listed above are somehow insignificant, and indeed worth it.



2. If art is truly something that comes from within us, (not that this would be my own way of describing it) couldn't you also say that the artistic manifestation could not help but reflect the intentions of playing in the up and coming competition, performance, .... and then would this truly be for the sake of art anymore? And, if not, what is it that people are then responding to when they hear, or experience your art? My guess is that it is not what it seems.

I think what you are asking really relates to how the audience or jury perceives our performance. We have no control over what people think. Most people nowadays (largely because we have cut art programs from schools) cannot distinguish between a great interpretation of Schubert and a poor one. Hell, they don't even know who Schubert is. But as I've said, we should not change ourselves or our interpretations to suit another person. That is performing. That is not artistry. But part of our artistry includes knowing how to manipulate the ear and the emotions of another person. Have you ever made yourself cry while you were practicing because what you just did was so beautiful? A special combination of elements caused that emotional reaction. So there is a technique of emotion as well, which is knowing how to move someone without being moved yourself; this is an important skill to learn. I (and others) discussed this in a thread called "Emotion in piano playing", I think. It was a while back.

Let me add here (via the modify feature) that Charles Rosen, pianist and scholar, talks about detachment.  He writes that in order to move others with a piece of music, at some point we first must be moved ourselves and by the piece and discover its emotional core.  Then, we can detach ourselves from the emotions and better understand how to move others.  Obviously this  doesn't mean that we play like a machine at our performances, just that we are able to control ourselves and present our intellectual ideas as well as the emotional.  We certainly must not start crying or laughing, or become angry during a performance, but at some earlier point in learning the piece we probably should must connect with it and be overwhelmed by whatever emotions are appropriate to the work.

3. If somebody truly does step to the piano, in practice as well as performance for the sole purpose of making art, why would there be a need or even a desire to compete? What does one need from that experience that is beneficial to the art itself? (and I am not suggesting that there is nothing to be gained)

First, the obvious: we have to make a living.

But, if an artist is truly convinced that he has something of value to tell the world, then he will do what he must to put himself in a position to do so. Competitions are a tool, nothing more.



4. Aside from practicing music, we are practicing our mental state of being and how we think during our practicing of music. What is one really thinking about in preparation for a concert, competition, etc etc.? Is it really the art?

It should be the art. Now, we are human and the selfish does sometimes creep into the mind at a competition ("what would I spend the prize on, I hope so-and-so is on the jury because he likes me, I hope person A sucks so I can win, etc."). It is not important to be perfect, but we should try. If all competitors would stop worrying about who will win, and instead think of furthering great art, then competitions would be more of a celebration than a sport. Ironically, when I started exclusively focusing on the quality of my art, I started winning everything.  But more importantly, I gained experience, confidence, and my connection with art became stronger.

That's my big post for the week.

Robert Henry

[m1469]

Dear Robert Henry,

"Our goal should be to recreate our art to the highest standards possible. I have a standard of excellence that is unchanging. That standard and that commitment to my art and my craft is not determined by the situation I find myself in, whether it is in the practice room, at a paid engagement, playing in a bar when the regular guy takes a break, or when I play my dad's favorite pieces in a private room with him. If you keep your eye on excellence and focus your energies on your art, then all of the problems I listed above are somehow insignificant, and indeed worth it."

Thank you, refreshing.  Sincerity, authenticity, profundity, humility; beautiful.  

"Most people nowadays (largely because we have cut art programs from schools) cannot distinguish between a great interpretation of Schubert and a poor one. Hell, they don't even know who Schubert is. But as I've said, we should not change ourselves or our interpretations to suit another person. That is performing."

This is very sad to me (as to others I am sure).  I often think deeply about what one individual can do about this.  And you do what you can it sounds like.  I feel that you are an exception.  Many people will settle for performing.  Heck, there are threads on this forum talking about "what pieces will make me look good..." this attitude is hard to swallow because it promotes
ignorance.


"That is not artistry. But part of our artistry includes knowing how to manipulate the ear and the emotions of another person."

And you have bent mine.

"Have you ever made yourself cry while you were practicing because what you just did was so beautiful?"

Not in very memorable ways.  But, I think one must in order to truly learn how to perfect "technique of emotion as well, which is knowing how to move someone without being moved yourself;" as you say.

"First, the obvious: we have to make a living.  

But, if an artist is truly convinced that he has something of value to tell the world, then he will do what he must to put himself in a position to do so. Competitions are a tool, nothing more. "

I cannot tell you how happy I am to hear you say this.  I was sincerely hoping you would answer in this way, and you have.  Again, thank you.

"If all competitors would stop worrying about who will win, and instead think of furthering great art, then competitions would be more of a celebration than a sport."

Yes!  This is my greatest wish in having started this thread, and you have stated it so brilliantly through the combination of all that you have posted here.  Perhaps you have bent more than just my ear.

"Ironically, when I started exclusively focusing on the quality of my art, I started winning everything.  But more importantly, I gained experience, confidence, and my connection with art became stronger."

And, the point for me is that you focused exclusively on the quality of the art, and not what doing this would bring to you in any one isolated experience (a win in other words, or a name).  Yet, I am thrilled to hear that these efforts are rewarded, acknowledged, and appreciated.  That the art can still speak for itself, and filter into the thoughts of those that are listening for it.

Overall, you have helped me to have more hope.  You have brought about in this thread the exact quality I was deeply hoping to find in some willing heart.  Thank you very much Robert Henry.

Happy days,

[Sketchee]

For some people it's like playing monopoly or chess.  Winning might not change their lives or the world, but it's fun to play the game and be good at it.  Heck, I never win against any one in chess but it's still fun to play.  I don't think everyone is playing to win (although I bet they wouldn't mind if they did win!).  It's just an experience to have.

[willcowskitz]

Ok, Robert. I am here to both gain view and give it. Transmit and receive. I am "trying to be" profound because I think these things (art, existence, ego, meaning of life, blah bleh blaa, etc.) are pretty absolute in the sense that if you bring into discussion one concept, you have to bring in another, and consider this and that. Its trivial, because these things are so directly influential to our selves, being so close to us that we cannot touch them, that it is difficult to form solid pictures of them. Sort of like... Did you ever as a child look into a mirror, concentrating on your picture for minutes, maybe even half an hour trying to see "beyond" your mirror image? Like stare yourself into the eyes until the image started reshaping and you started to look different, trying to locate the ego. I think when we're talking about art and other difficult subjects, we need to see beyond that mirror image, to see beyond the surface and to touch what we cannot necessarily see. Art's influence on my mood (for example) is so direct and strong that it causes me great difficulties trying to analyze what happens between the artwork and my mind in rational sense, just like it is difficult to say anything clever or pertinent if I'm outraged at the same time. I think the "official" (Webster's) definition of art had some flaws to it when matching it with MY understanding of art, so I brought in an example to try point at what I consider errors in it. I do have views about things, and more associative views I have regarding any subject that I somehow link to the main one, the more solid this view is - Just like any opinion based on information except that I will punctuate here; I am a very visual thinker/learner. I do have trouble turning the shapes, forms and colours into words (as my English vocabulary isn't the widest possible), but I DO have view (I am not a "close-up magician" trying to trick your eye by letting out a flood of gibberish) that has solid structure to myself. I do respect your knowledge and fluid articulation in expressing your view, but the impression I've got is that you're too quick to judge, you're rushing to form an opinion and pick a side.

I was just watching a Futurama DVD (don't know if you know) and laughed at this episode cause it reminded me of our pianoforum "wars": Democratic Organization Of Planets (or something) had a celebration to honour the most neutral planet and their president for helping universal intergalactic peace process. "His neutralness" was asked what he had to say on the subject, and he replied with something like "I have not formed any kind of opinion on it", and the crowd cheered. I thought that was bit like me so it was funny in the making. At a later point, Zapp Brannigan declared war against the neutral planet, it being "Good vs. Neutral", and that reminded me of you asking in an impatient voice "...But are you ever going to form an opinion?".

[Derek]

Though I suppose its possible to approach a competition with a mature state of mind and receive some benefit from it, it seems to me this is the same sort of benefit one gets from a teacher (who is in most cases, one's superior).

One cannot ignore the fact that competition absolutely ruins the love of music for hundreds of aspiring pianists. They place so much value on doing well in a competition that they end up forgetting that the very act of playing the piano, even if it is something simple and easy, is incredibly gratifying and satisfying.

This seems to me to be rather tragic.  I believe competition has arisen in classical music for a few reasons:

1) it is a museum profession. Nobody is writing music that could be popular anymore, composers only write highly academic, unintelligible bullshit.

2) there are thousands of people who are qualified to be concert pianists, so the only way that the classical music world can feign "objectivity" is to have competitions.

[Fastzuernst]

Though I suppose its possible to approach a competition with a mature state of mind and receive some benefit from it, it seems to me this is the same sort of benefit one gets from a teacher (who is in most cases, one's superior).

One cannot ignore the fact that competition absolutely ruins the love of music for hundreds of aspiring pianists. They place so much value on doing well in a competition that they end up forgetting that the very act of playing the piano, even if it is something simple and easy, is incredibly gratifying and satisfying.

This seems to me to be rather tragic.  I believe competition has arisen in classical music for a few reasons:

1) it is a museum profession. Nobody is writing music that could be popular anymore, composers only write highly academic, unintelligible bullshit.

2) there are thousands of people who are qualified to be concert pianists, so the only way that the classical music world can feign "objectivity" is to have competitions.

Charles Rosin (author of "The Classical Style") has a book called Piano Notes, in which he has a chapter on conservatorys and composition that is very enlightning. In summary, he blasts the conservatory for not being progressive, and competitions for requiring overplayed repertoire. As a judge he saw the bias in the juries, and the complete difference of opinion with regards to whose performance was worthy.
This is just one person's opinion but it is interesting that pianists put so much emphasis on competion rather than trying to make oneself a better musician, rather that a circus monkey.

[xardas]

Hi

I'm not in the mood to read the whole thing. ^^
So i'm just gonna answer the topic.

Well... For me competitions are always fun
So far it has always been a great enjoyment to play. =) yeah =)
I don't play for the money, but because it's just big pleasure to play in front of other people. ^^

your xardi

[lostinidlewonder]

Competitions do more bad that good in my opinion. It is an important tool for some to boost their career yes, but it also has been the cause for more people to give up their musical dreams.

Competitions should not be used as a goal, "I want to win the blah blah international competition". The fact is many more people have that same self centred desire. It is a materialistic desire which has no real place in your musical development. It may give you opportunity to play here or there, if you win it may let you play in more events, but to say a competition sling shot you career is not something to be proud of in my opinion. The piano legends are great not because of the competitions they won but because of the concerts they give and the person that they are.

If you are good your music will stand alone, your univeristy degree or competitions won means NOTHING. I certainly have no interest in the competitions someone wins when I go to a piano solo concert. I listen to their music and it tells me about them. Things on paper means nothing really. I have listened to big international competition winners and have left the concert satisfied but not at awe. Prim and proper music nothing unique.

Also music is so subjective can you really say this person deserves to win? I think yes in many cases but what do you do when two people play at such a close level? Take marks of for a wrong note or something not played excatly how you personally like? That is ludicrious in my mind but it is the deciding factor in many bias judges markings in my experience.

Competitions are just a game and you should treat it like that. You can win a competition but you cannot be a professional musician for the rest of your life hoping that winning that competition those years back will make a living for you. These fakes will slowly dissolve into memory and mediocrity.

[krittyot]

Only 2 things exist in the 88 competition: luck and corruption.

[opus10no2]

Only 2 things exist in the 88 competition: luck and corruption.

Zpeed defines the winner.

[daniel patschan]

Sure, that´s why Blechaz won the Chopin competition. He was three times as fast as Wunder.

[opus10no2]

The point of competitions is to get your name heard, and your playing heard.

As long as an audience attends the competition, and in this case - the whole world was the audience, the better pianist in the end DOES win.

Wunder is talked about MUCH more than Blechasdhshadh.

The point is - that Wunder was the true winner of that competiton.

[elevateme_returns]

The point of competitions is to get your name heard, and your playing heard.

As long as an audience attends the competition, and in this case - the whole world was the audience, the better pianist in the end DOES win.

Wunder is talked about MUCH more than Blechasdhshadh.

The point is - that Wunder was the true winner of that competiton.

was he? im fairly sure it was blechacz

[opus10no2]

Bull.

[franzliszt2]

wunder hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahaha

Where on earth do we hear of him?? On da sdc? He doesn't even have his own column in the hmv stands! He has fast fingers, thats all

[Kassaa]

He vill take revenge in the Tchaikovsky comp.

[rc]

I enjoyed your post Robert Henry!

Here's an excerpt from an interview I bumbled into earlier today: https://pianoeducation.org/pnoshlds.html
 
"PEP: What are your views on competitions?

ROGER SHIELDS: As the founder and executive director (for 10 years now) of The Stravinsky Awards International Piano Competition for children and young adults, I have heard literally thousands of young pianists from all over the world. Competitions can be good or bad depending upon the child, teacher, and parents. Never enter if you have to win. Never enter until you are ready. Never take competitions too seriously. Never consider competitions as a measure of success; rather, view competitions as possibly wonderful opportunities to test yourself and to hear other pianists who might be very good. Do not become a "competition pianist"; if you do, your playing will probably become very limited in dimension. You will probably learn very little repertoire and you, and your listener, will probably become very bored and unfulfilled. If you can view competitions as "festivals", then you can profit. BUT, competitions are not for everyone. Some very special and precious talents might do very poorly in competitions. If you do enter, do not play as if you are being judged and do not change your playing to suit a "competition" style."

It was a good interview, I like this guys POV.

I DO find competitions fun, I don't take them too seriously, though I'm serious about excellence in art.  Mind, the only ones I've been to were little local things.

I'm sure if one was somewhat dependant on winning the prize it wouldn't be much fun.  That's definitely not for me, seems like relying on being a pool shark to pay the rent.

...Also, Futurama is awesome.  I recommend it to all aspiring pianists!

[montana piano girl]

Hi m1469,

     Why do we compete? For me, it is a stimulation to practice, to perform , to make beatiful music. I started competing in local competitions and then at state competitions about two and a half years ago, and I feel I've made a huge amount of progress I wouldn't have made otherwise. My first competition was like a rite of passage for me, and first got me serious about piano. My teacher is the president of the Northwest division of MTNA (Music Teachers National Association, a state-wide competition that also has regional competitions for the winners of the states), and one would think that having this position he would really be pushing his students to win. But before every competition, as we are preparing in the last month or two before the competition, he continually tells me it's not about winning, but about making beautiful music. Yeah, we're human, and we like winning, but I've learned that winning is not the ultimate goal.... just my thoughts.
Lydia

[zheer]

Hi m1469,

     ? For me, it is a stimulation to practice, to perform , to make beatiful music.

  Thats excellent, but with some, music is the only stimulation needed to practice.
 
  That is really great that for you competition is not about winning but making music, however when you reach a age where you no-longer can enter competition, you still need the stimulation to practice, that stimulation is the music itself.

[opus10no2]

wunder hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahaha

Where on earth do we hear of him?? On da sdc? He doesn't even have his own column in the hmv stands! He has fast fingers, thats all

You're supposed to type with your fingers, not the other end of your body, no wunder this crap comes spilling out!

[m1469]

Yes, I do see the red letters and I understand that this topic has been layin' on the dark side of the moon for awhile, still I persist and trudge through the resistence to post a thought, since my seemingly strange equations seem to evolve their own timeframes.

I believe what I always wondered about regarding competitions is what result it was actually producing, but also what spirit it was bringing out in an individual and perhaps in groups of individuals.  In some sense, it started seeming something non-human to me, these musical competitions, and since I have become fairly removed from them myself over the years, and perhaps have entertained some disdain, I just couldn't relate.  I felt and in some ways still do, that they represent a double-standard in the arts, and that the general attitude amongst those who compete or are judges, is that competitions somehow represent art at its best, when in some sense it doesn't make sense at all since art can perfectly exist without them.  And, competitions seem to exclude so many individuals, and many individuals then disdain competitions, and there becomes this unfortunate division amongst a group of individuals who seem to all be in the same sinking boat of a seemingly dying artform.  That seems unwise to me.

Something that came clear to me quite recently, and through considering the musical and personal example of somebody who I admire, I realized that there are in fact a lot of human beings involved in these competitions.  Along those lines, and as I considered this individual, I realized that competitions in fact can bring something of value out in us, perhaps at least if we are prone to this.  

What struck me is the fact that it's so much "easier" to take some stance in life and just never try in any particular way (not just through formal competitions) --though it's always a slippery slope if we choose to ignore or lie to ourselves, I think; to never put oneself "out there" and to never face the possibility of what could feel like rejection.  I had this new perspective which I never thought about when I was 12 and 13, in the same ways (when I had been involved in some form of competitions myself), in that it can seem like a bit of a gamble.  Even sensitive individuals who truly have something to say in music are involved in competitions!  Probably this is not actually news to many people, but for me I had to realize this clearly.  My admiration at least to an individual, and therefore probably to a number of them, that he took the steps to prepare for such a thing, and to put oneself out there as he did.  And, I guess there are more than one.  Any feeling of affirmation, any good that came from this, I see is well deserved and probably of true fundamental value.  Not, of course, that me realizing this makes it so, but all the same, I see.

Who grows more bitter, I wonder?  Those who never try because they are afraid to do so, or those who try and whose efforts are not affirmed by a certain win?  I don't know.  Competitions are perhaps not for everybody, and great artists, I think, exist and make art outside of the competitive realm.  Perhaps though there is something unique about the formality of competitions which brings to the surface something that we need to know about ourselves.  So long, I guess, as we don't lose ourselves within the process.  I think that competitions make it easy to lose oneself in the process.  So, please never be lost!  And, even if there can be something good, it is still only one way to do it.

[takeo]

I think that competitions are useful as a goal.

I mean, if you are in a conservatory, and you don't do recitals, then why are you studying?
Obviosly for the music, you should enjoy it if you are in a conservatory, but I think I need a specific date to play something.

For example, take a 15 years old student. He isn't old enough to do regular recitals, and he isn't old enough to play with professional orchestras.
He is in the conservatory, he studies piano. But when he has a piece perfectly under his belt, what?
He simply drops it and takes another?

I think taking part in competitions is a way to motivate you to study harder, to make your pieces completly perfect.
Then, if you win perfect, but if you don't, then you have played in public, someone who knows about music has heard you, and you have studied a lot more that if you hadn't taken part in.

It's also useful if you want to be a professional teacher. I mean, most of the conservatory teachers have impressionant curriculums. This doesn't mean that you can't be if you havn't won a lot of competitions, but everything can help you to get a job.


Only my thoughts.

[omar_roy]

I mean, if you are in a conservatory, and you don't do recitals, then why are you studying?

Just because one doesn't perform often doesn't mean that they are studying music for no reason.  Is studying music solely for the love of music itself not enough?  Not everybody enjoys performing.  A friend of mine here at school in the piano program absolutely hates performing and she avoids it whenever possible, yet I don't think that invalidates her study.  She works just as hard as anyone who performs often, and she's a phenomenal musician.

The point behind practice goes beyond learning the notes and playing the music.  First and foremost, at least in my case, the point of practicing is to participate rather than to execute.  I don't view it as learning a piece and then playing it, but rather participating in an experience that has been masterfully crafted.

Some people enjoy the arduous task of attempting to share that same experience with an audience.  Some don't.

For some, it's not even about making music or sharing an experience, it's about glory or affirmation.  And while I have a certain opinion of people who perform for those reasons, they're well within their right to perform for whatever reasons they see fit.

However, to go so far as to imply that advanced musical study is pointless without performance is narrow minded.

With regard to the actual topic, I view competitions merely as another performance opportunity rather than a competition and that's the only reason I take part in some of them.

[becky8898]

to me the first thing we need to know about a musican is if there going to be a professional or amateur . An amateur can indulge in all sorts of high minded ideals . A Professional needs to make a living, earn money. So with that said ill speak to the professional side of music and leave all the big words to the amateurs.

Both my parents are professional musicians - and I suppose it was decided I was going to be a professional musician even before I was born. 

I have 3 reasons why I think competition are important , at least to me.

1. Gives me a chance to be in a position to earn more money.

2. I compete all the time anyway  - except instead of having to compete with Agerich , and Horowitz and Kissen and Richter  when I listen to there performances, I can compete against kids my own age with roughly the same abilities. 

3. Recitals are nice except the average person there doesnt seem much brighter than a sponge when it comes to an understanding of what you just played.  Where as in a competition you have judges who can give you some feedback on how you are doing.

Plus I love playing the piano any place anytime anywhere. 

Cheers, Becky

[omar_roy]

Becky,
Once again you are intelligent far beyond your years, but at some point you will come to realize that competition judges are, sometimes, no more intelligent than than anyone else.  Above all else they prize "adherence to the score" over creative thinking, which is a rather unfortunate trend that has led to a fundamental lack of any pianists worth listening to in this generation.

For example:  Yulianna Avdeeva, recent winner of the Chopin Competition.  Solid technique, obviously, but bland, unoriginal, and cheap playing, in my opinion.  No personality.

I consider myself a professional in that I'm studying music to obtain a degree and pursue further graduate study, but as much as I do enjoy performance, I enjoy teaching more and that is my goal: To teach piano at the university level.