Competition Program

[jmanpno]

So the requirements are

1) Bach WTC P&F
2) Mozart Sonata
3) Chopin Etude
4) Ligeti Etude

I'm struggling a bit:

1) Bach WTC 1, E-flat P&F
2) Mozart, K332 F Major
3) Op. 25 #6, Thirds
4) Desorde

The etudes are set...

Would
1) Bach WTC 1 -or- 2, A minor
2) Mozart, K 576 D Major

work better?  I know that 576 is more difficult and flashy but I do really nice things with K332 although the first two movements are not as difficult....

Thoughts would be appreciatated.

[j_menz]

My two cents: Pick the Mozart Sonata yoou think you play best.  You can impress people by how well you play Mozart. No-one is going to be impresseed by the strictly technical difficulty.

The Etudes you've picked can show off your technique, but a lot of people with great technique are crap with Mozart. Here's your chance to really wow them by playing some where you do really nice things.

No comment on the P&Fs, they're all good in my book.

[jmanpno]

Thanks jmenz.  That's a good point... the etudes I chose are ballbusters... So maybe I can give myself a bit of a break and play the very lyrical K 332...  What do you think about key relationships?  Does it matter what key the P&F I do is in?

[j_menz]

Not in my view.  Others may have a different opinion or experience, though.

If you have a choice as to the order, then you can probably get around any possible objections whatever keys you pick.

Oh, and the very best of luck!!

[49410enrique]

i agree with the above. choose the mozart and bach you connect with the most, you are more likely to give a better 'original' presentation of those.  i'm of the mentality that i'd actually choose less 'flashy' difficult etudes in order to be able to really nail the mozart and bach, i think that is where the real differentiation and impression will be made with your judging panel. think about it this way, how any pretty good pianists choose one of those 'hard' etudes and encores, how rare (but special in a great way) is the encore with a bach or mozart work....i think it's a special kind of virtuosity that can pull these off as i tend to believe it is the flawless and elegant execution of 'basic elements' that really distinguishes the great from the good. i mean anybody can make it look hard.....

[pts1]

I have no idea how you play and therefore can't advise you on what would be better for you to play given your strengths and weaknesses.

Please submit a link or upload your performance of some of the pieces and the alternates you are considering.

Then I can give a serious answer.

Which competition is it, BTW, and why do you wish to enter?

[jmanpno]

Thanks for the replies folks.

pts1-good questions.  I'd rather not say which competition(s) I may be entering, but suffice it to say that I may use these same items for a few competitions/auditions...

As to why I want to do this, that's a good question that I have not fully developed an answer to as of yet.

On one level to see how I stack up, on another to win a prize (money, recitals, etc.), and on yet another to gain experience.

What are your thoughts?

[pts1]

I fully understand your motivations about the competition, but I'm one of those people who don't like them and believe they are antithetical to music and pianists in particular. I think they do a great deal more harm than good, and in a number of ways the only thing worse than losing one is winning first prize.

If I were going to enter one, I'd be sure I'd thought it out -- why am I doing it, what do I expect, what if its not like I expect, what if I lose, what if I learn something about myself I'd rather not learn, and so on.

Or maybe you're one of these people who could enter it, play and whatever the outcome, its like water off a duck's back. I think this is rare, but there are people with personalities which can easily take competitions in stride -- just another "day at the office".

I just think its a very individual decision only the person entering can make... but competitions are nevertheless a very elite type of horse race, IMO.

[pianoman53]

One suggestion would be to look at some competitions online. You'll be amazed how far you can go by playing "easy" stuff very well.

In Rubinsten competition, there was a girl playing the F major sonata by Haydn, you know, the one that's so often played as the first sonata by 8 year olds...

In Tchaikovskij, there was someone playing pathetique....

They both got quite far, while most people who played the really difficult ones not even passed the first round.

[jmanpno]

PTS1, while you make many good points, you allude to more than you say.  I would like to know very explicitly what are some unfavorable outcomes of piano competitions so that I can prepare myself in the best way......

[pts1]

.

[m1469]

I think the most negative outcome is psychological/emotional.

And this really depends on the contestant.

Some people have given up piano simply because of their experiences in competitions.

Some people go on to have careers due to competitions.

I live in Fort Worth and have seen a good number of the Van Cliburn competitions back to the beginning. (I don't care for it anymore.... been there, done that), and make no mistake, its VERY competitive (the Piano Olympics) and VERY much a celebrated and by the elite social set not unlike horse racing during the Kentucky Derby.

No one counts except the winner and the winner no longer counts when the next Van Cliburn Competition rolls around.

In my opinion, the only thing worse than losing is winning! The expectations and career demands placed on the winner are simply crushing.

Olga Kern seems to be, IMHO, the only winner I can recall who has really been catapulted into international fame and met or exceeded the challenges. But this is extremely rare, IMO.

A couple of winners have died early deaths, and I can't but help think "winning" had something to do with it. But most winners have sort of faded into obscurity, not at all what they set out to do i.e. have a big career.

Actually, coming in 2nd or 3rd or whatever seems to be more desirable, as silly as that sounds.

And I think another negative outcome is that the person entering competition after competition loses sight of why he/she wanted to be a pianist in the first place, since competitions are antithetical to piano playing from the get-go, IMHO.

I would say the only way to find out is to enter one that's not a really big deal and see how you feel. I wouldn't over think it, just get your feet wet.

Very good post, IMO.  This articulates many of my thoughts and speculations (which I couldn't have necessarily articulated for lack of a true perspective) to nearly a T.  I also agree that coming in 2nd or 3rd for this particular competition is probably more desirable in many respects because there is a form of very high recognition, something somehow slightly more immortal about it (maybe because, unlike a first place prize winner, it's not like they "lose rank" once a new first is named in the next competition), yet not quite the same expectations and pressure.  There is still room for being human, and I think that's (no room for being human) A psychological problem for people who earn a certain fame and recognition before finding forever the place of what they are doing and why, before anybody was looking or cared.  Of course, most people, I would think, still aim for first.  

Of course, coming from somebody like me who often feels on the outside looking in, it's also a strange psychological navigation.  As far as I know, it's not as though anybody believes in me any more simply because I haven't won anything than if I had (and my impression is that it's generally quite the opposite; "they" believe in me less), and it does seem that in some way a person must gain the ear of others.  But, there are *always* decisions to be made regarding that ... always.  Whose ear to gain?  Why/What for?  That's a personal navigation and I don't know that there is any kind of easy route, exactly.    

[m1469]

I have to say that I imagine there is some form of middle ground.  While I think many people must navigate a competitive attitude in general (for a sake of health and happiness) -me not excluded- it seems that if a person were able to walk into anything being exactly themselves, being exactly clear what they are doing and why, where from within them they are playing and to whom, whatever happens on the outside is ... just that, it's something on the outside.  I don't say that lightly though, because it's a very tough navigation and it's difficult to articulate without feeling trapped by the articulation.  The one competition I've gone entirely through in my adult life was a vocal one this last January - I know I sang the best I've ever sung, I know I sang highly competitively, and in very real ways didn't need anybody else to confirm that for me in order for me to know that and feel happy about that - I didn't win a thing and in fact have been navigating social relations ever since  .  But, for me, to walk away feeling the way I did is truly what really mattered ... that doesn't mean I wouldn't have enjoyed winning, it doesn't mean I wouldn't have enjoyed the people who know me acknowledging how I sang, but even with those things missing I still felt really extremely good (not that there is no progress to be made, of course).  I suppose it's logical though to assume that isn't always the case and that vigilance is required.  Deep down I'd like to believe, and feel it's important to believe, that I deserve recognition and good things (I am not undeserving anyway), and I do (which, btw, doesn't mean that I think other people are undeserving).  Does that mean I know how life works?  No.  I just know that I don't have to feel forever left out, and even if I forever am (or even if I am not), it's important to know something deeper.

[jmanpno]

Wow!  THANK YOU both.  Very insightful :-)  anyone else like to add something?  This is a great deal to digest.

[mingusmonk]

"A couple of winners have died early deaths, and I can't but help think "winning" had something to do with it."  Let's see: Steven de Groote died of AIDS complications.  Obviously, this was as a direct result of winning the Van Cliburn.  Perhaps he caught it from the piano at the competition.  Alexei Sultanov died of a cerbral hemorrhage which was obviously caused by the competition as well.  In fact, at autopsy, the aneurysmal vessel had the V.C. on it.

"Olga Kern seems to be, IMHO, the only winner I can recall who has really been catapulted into international fame and met or exceeded the challenges."  Absolutely.  Ralph Votapek (1962) delved into a life of drugs and alcohol and only lasted 36 years as artist in residence at Michigan State University.  Radu Lupu (1966) - well, enough said.  We all know what a loser he turned out to be.  Christina Ortiz (1969) failed all reasonable expectations having only played subsequently with the Berlin Philharmonic, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Philharmonia, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Sydney Symphony Orchestra, Philadelphia Orchestra, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, Cleveland Orchestra, WDR Symphony Orchestra Cologne, Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester Berlin, Valencia Orchestra, Icelandic Symphony Orchestra and the NHK Symphony Orchestra among others, with conductors such as Vladimir Ashkenazy, Neeme Järvi, Mariss Jansons and David Zinman.  Vladimir Viardo (1973) was an absolute pinhead.  He should have known that winning the competition would cause him to be locked inside the soviet union for 13 years after the soviet authorities, under instruction from Van Cliburn himself, confiscated his visa.

OK, I was going to go through the list but after just a few, I realized that your statements were so well researched and grounded in objective fact, that I really don't need to go on after all.

[mingusmonk]

jmanpno  -  why is the specific competition top secret?