Piano Competition observations

[irrational]

Hi.
I am interested in hearing some comments on a few things I observed at a National piano competition (The final is this Saturday with some beautiful pieces Rach-Paganini, Prokofiev 3 and Liszt 1. Can't wait.).

This is the first one I am attending since I started learning piano officially, so I could listen with a different ear. A few things caught my attention that I found interesting.

Firstly everyone seemed to have a good grasp on speed...too much speed sometimes. It just seemed that the more virtuoso pieces were played better than, say, baroque pieces. I am a huge fan of Scarlatti (and Telemann for that matter), but it seemed as if these players, with a good technique, were not quite in tune with these pieces. The Bach was good though! I was wondering if competitors spend more time with a virtuoso piece and perhaps neglecting seemingly simpler works.

Another thing I felt was that Prokofiev has similarities to Liszt. Is that just my imagination? I thought that Prokofiev could almost be a "modern Liszt". But not knowing all that many pieces by either I can't make an educated statement.

I saw no Schubert! I found that sad, as there are lots to choose from at high difficulty! When choosing classical sonatas, there were lots of Beethoven and Mozart and some Haydn. Nothing non-mainstream though. Has anyone here played a competition? Do you have set pieces to choose from even for the earlier rounds? I thought the earlier rounds had rather loose guidelines, such as, baroque piece, classical sonata, virtuoso piece. But competitors had their own choice of specifics. How does it usually work?

Lastly, I thought that competitions would deliver the best piano, as I would expect pianists to have the highest focus, but there were enough mistakes that I am not so sure. Are competitions just so stressful that some "musicality" gets lost? Make no mistake though, I thoroughly enjoy all the performances, but memory mistakes are rather disconcerting!

Anyway, any comments/thoughts?

[prongated]

Firstly everyone seemed to have a good grasp on speed...too much speed sometimes. It just seemed that the more virtuoso pieces were played better than, say, baroque pieces. I am a huge fan of Scarlatti (and Telemann for that matter), but it seemed as if these players, with a good technique, were not quite in tune with these pieces. The Bach was good though! I was wondering if competitors spend more time with a virtuoso piece and perhaps neglecting seemingly simpler works.

Some people say there is a certain inoffensive way of playing the piano to ensure the best results in piano competitions. Or in the case of Scarlatti, I'm tempted to think that it's down to the different opinions in how to perform his works. The kinds of instruments he had access to are vastly different with the instruments we're most accustomed to in terms of sound, which affects such interpretational matters as tempo, dynamics, texture etc. Perhaps you're used to hearing it performed in a particular way - a way that you become accustomed to and enjoy hearing, which just doesn't happen to correspond to the way the pianists played it in the competition?

Another thing I felt was that Prokofiev has similarities to Liszt. Is that just my imagination? I thought that Prokofiev could almost be a "modern Liszt". But not knowing all that many pieces by either I can't make an educated statement.

Perhaps, in a way the works of both composers do show off a pianist's virtuosic capabilities. The music is different though. The 2 main things for me are sound and rhythm. The kinds of sound that Liszt went for are generally very pianistic, and in some ways searching for similar colours as Chopin. Prokofiev's piano works have a truly wide range of sound. They can have percussive elements in it that goes beyond Liszt's martellato (e.g. the 3rd or 7th sonatas). They can also sound very simple, almost child-like (e.g. the 9th sonata). Prokofiev also used rhythm more creatively and strongly, for example through ostinatos  in the 3rd movt. of the 7th sonata).

I saw no Schubert! I found that sad, as there are lots to choose from at high difficulty! When choosing classical sonatas, there were lots of Beethoven and Mozart and some Haydn. Nothing non-mainstream though. Has anyone here played a competition? Do you have set pieces to choose from even for the earlier rounds? I thought the earlier rounds had rather loose guidelines, such as, baroque piece, classical sonata, virtuoso piece. But competitors had their own choice of specifics. How does it usually work?

Yes, usually there are certain guidelines such as composer and duration in determining the repertoire, but only to a limited extent. For classical sonatas, the vast majority of competitions specify which composers in particular, and not many include Schubert in this list.

However, the competion never dictates every single piece that the competitor's repertoire must feature. Schubert is one of those works that judges don't always appreciate the difficulty and beauty of, and/or always have different opinions as regards interpretation (to begin with, is it classical or romantic?), and as such is usually considered risky to play in competitions. I've only seen one instance where this has worked out very well - Bozhanov with the B-flat sonata in the Cliburn competition. A shame that you didn't get to hear any - I love Schubert's works too!

Lastly, I thought that competitions would deliver the best piano, as I would expect pianists to have the highest focus, but there were enough mistakes that I am not so sure. Are competitions just so stressful that some "musicality" gets lost? Make no mistake though, I thoroughly enjoy all the performances, but memory mistakes are rather disconcerting!

Yes...well, in this national competition I followed recently, someone gave a fierce and quite sensitive performance of Liszt's b minor sonata. He had memory slips in MacIntyre's Bobcats and Butterflies, however. But however, he was one of only 2 competitors who moved me. He got into the finals. I think it's nice like this - that musicianships are appreciated more than boring playing with no wrong notes and no memory slips.

Well, glad you had fun!
And, welcome aboard the forum!

[irrational]

Thanks for the great reply and welcome!

In the meantime I watched the finals. The winner gave a stunning performance of Liszt's 1st concerto. The 2nd place a reasonable Rachmaninov Paganini Variations and the 3rd place, I thought a decent Prokofiev 3. It lacked a little fire maybe, but was well executed!

I see what you say about the mistakes. It did not really detract from the overall effect as there were few. I felt somewhat motivated in my own playing realising that even professionals can get derailed playing from memory. I don't sheet read except for learning the notes. I play by ear and memory, so when I miss a note in the middle I get completely derailed sometimes!

I discussed Schubert with my teacher and she said that it is possible that the sonatas are simply too long. I agree with you that maybe the technical difficulty is not always appreciated. I would have loved to see 1 of the Klavierstucke performed though. I guess I will have to one day perform it for myself!

[keyboardkat]

The late Jorge Bolet said, "Piano competition is an evil.  These kids always have to perform works they don't really know, haven't had time to really digest."

Joseph Horowitz, in his book, "The Ivory Trade," made the telling point that often the juries in competitions are academics, because really big international artists can't give up that much time.  And academics tend to be a bit small-minded and opinionated about how to play Beethoven, for example.  One likes it pedalled this way, another that way.  And so their votes cancel each other out.  So who gets through?   Often it's the one whose performances are the least offensive.   But this means that a player with real ideas, real originality in performance, will be eliminated.  And the winners often fail in their careers shortly afterward, because the public isn't interested in hearing inoffensive, bland playing.  They may come to hear the winner once, but they won't come back.

[lorditachijr]

Keyboardkat is SO right. I sometimes just can't STAND some judges. On top of the musical differences between each of them, repertoire can be a huge issue too. One time, there was a judge at our state competition who didn't think that "kids" should be playing pieces that are too hard. The pieces in question were the Bach Italian Concerto (1st Mov) and Liszt's 12th Hungarian Rhapsody. The 2 students were in 12th grade, and they both received 3/5 as their grade because of the repertoire they chose to play, completely regardless of how well they played. Another judge who I actually had was so nit-picky about mistakes that he cringed every time someone would miss even one note. Before I left the audition room, he asked me how much I practiced. I (a 5th grader) told him about an hour a day. Then he said that I really should try to find some more time in the day to practice. He only gave the highest grade to the 2 people he had to choose as winners, and only because the winners had to get the best rating. Sometimes I just get so fed up with competitions that I want to forget about them until college!

[keyboardkat]

I heard of a case where a contestant wore white tie and tails for his performance, which was shortly before 6 p.m.   He had asked his teacher, Abbey Simon, about this and Simon thought it would be all right, even though it was a bit early in the evening for this attire.

He was eliminated because one or more of the jurors thought it was pretentious for him to dress that way before 6 p.m.   This had NOTHING WHATEVER to do with how he played, which I had thought was the whole point of a competition.

I know of another teacher, currently a professor at a major music school attached to a university, who espouses the Matthay method, and likes to see the player "rock his finger" a little on the key after playing a note.   If you don't do this, if you were taught some other type of technique, say Lechititsky, it's thumbs-down on you.   What does this have to do with what comes out of the instrument?   If you  play with your nose, it shouldn't matter.  It's the music coming out that should be the ONLY consideration!

[kellyc]

First let me state that I can't stand competitions. With that said , I have always been taught that a performer must play to there audience. A competition is just another kind of audience.  Its not the same as playing a recital , or playing for a group of close friends, or playing for a group of serious musicians, though its a little like playing for Juries at school. Its just part of reading your audience and knowing how you should proceed.

When your a young performer , no matter how much talent you have, you still have to kiss the ring so to speak of those who have gone before you, even if most of them are no talent hacks who have gone into academics because they lack what it takes to actually go out and make money as a musician.

Kelly