Need help dealing with losing

[heyren]

Hi there... first time posting on a forum like this, but I've only started because I need advice on dealing with losing.

I've been playing piano now for 12 years (I'm 17), and I take it very seriously, but recently I've lost a competition, and I feel like complete trash. I've worked very hard on a Chopin etude (op 10 no. 4) probably about 3-4 hours a day just repeating it over and over again, and listening to professionals play on the piano for almost every minute of my day, and I just can't accept the fact that I've lost. I know I might say it was a one time thing, or just a bad day, but I always say that to myself, and I still can't sleep at night today, which is one month later from the etude competition.

It hurts even more to me now since my piano teacher recommends that I continue with this etude for another competition even though I now hate it with all my heart. I now barely practice anything because I have such a bad memory. I fear that continuing such competitions will destroy my love of piano and ultimately force me to quit.

Does anyone have any advice that will help me feel better? I'm pretty desperate, still feeling really bad since last month. Sorry for the long rant.

[j_menz]

Does anyone have any advice that will help me feel better?

1. Grow up.

2. Have a look at the list of past "losers" at various international competitions, together with a list of the winners. See which list contains more names you recognise.

3. See 1.

[chopin2015]

Hate is a strong word

[justsheila7]

If you were to really love piano, that love would never be destroyed just because of a couple competitions.   

Yeah, the end result of that may not have been as great as you expected but I'm sure it would be a really good learning experience if you make it one. Perhaps this will help you in your next competition. You'll have more time to practice and improve the piece to have a higher chance of winning another competition.

Just keep working hard and improving and you'll get there. Cheesy, but it's true. 

[j_menz]

Hmm   /Rant_Mode=ON

This highlights what I don't like about competitions (PS one aside).

First there's the star or nothing mentality, which is nonsense.

There's a more important aspect that disturbs me, though.  To win competitions (and this is probably more true for earlier/smaller competitions than the really big ones, but is true for them also), you have to play pieces in a particular "competition winning" manner. Nevermind developing a love of the piece, nevermind finding something interesting to say through it, nevermind developing one's own approach.  There's a right way, and then there's losing ways.

That is nonsense.

I now understand why Agerich resigned over Pogerellich.

/Rant_Mode=OFF

[evitaevita]

It hurts even more to me now since my piano teacher recommends that I continue with this etude for another competition even though I now hate it with all my heart. I now barely practice anything because I have such a bad memory. I fear that continuing such competitions will destroy my love of piano and ultimately force me to quit.

Hello,

Firstly, if you don't enjoy practicing this piece anymore, then, in my opinion, you had better not do that, at least for now. If you hate the piece you play, possibly, you'll never manage to execute it as you'd like it to be done. Music (and, specifically, piano) must be pleasure for you and not coercion by others. On the other hand, this etude is very beneficial for your piano playing's progress (technique and musicality). So, I believe that you could continue playing this piece, but certainly not for a competition.

As for the competition in which you said that you didn't win, you shouldn't have taken part in it just to win. Music competitions can help you gain experience and acquaint with playing in front of audience. Also, listening to other pianists, who are about the same level with you, playing makes you understand where you are, what others have achieved and what you can "improve". Personally, I'm definitely against music competitions. But, I've already taken part in a couple of them for experience purposes. Apart from that, don't feel sad and embarrassed. Life is full of both successes and setbacks. The fact that your participation in this competition didn't go well enough for you doesn't mean that you can't be much better the next time. Of course, it's normal to be a bit nervous, but if competitions destroy your life, then... just stop participating in such events.

To sum up, discuss with your teacher and make him understand what you feel. Don't let a contest make you quit.

I hope I've been of some help to you and truly look forward to hearing from you again.

All the best,
Evitaevita

[hfmadopter]

I used to race automobiles, I loved the race cars and I loved the competition and in my town there may have been one or two others who raced automobiles, so doing it was special to begin with. I did this for several years and when you went to the race track each week there were 40 other cars in your class more or less. I can't tell you how many elimination races I won, has to be hunderds but I never ever won one final competition. I came in second, came in third many times but never The Winner in first place. I stopped racing to raise a family not because I lost first place. But you know what ? To come in second out of a field of 40 vehicles is not really much of a loss in my eyes, that means I beat all those cars and drivers but the one many times.. Not many people can even say they went to the track to race at all !! I feel good that is part of my life story. The losses were tough, so close but not there until you put it in perspective.

[iansinclair]

Yea verily, to all of the above.  But particularly j_menz's comments on competitions in general.  If it happens that you have the particular combination of talents and pieces and looks and I don't know what all else that the comptetition judges are looking for, you might win.  Otherwise, so what?  With the exception of a very very very very limited number of very very very very high level competitions, they don't mean much.

There are a lot of very fine piano players out there who have never won a competition, but who are marvelous concert pianists.  There are also a lot of piano players out there who have won a competition but who never went anywhere, or burned out quickly.

A tale from the ballet world, where if anything the problem is worse.  My son and daughter in law recently retired from a world class ballet company as, respectively, premier danseur and prima ballerina absoluta.  Both of them had entered competitions in their youth -- and both of them had been eliminated in the first round of most of them (and never got past the second round in any of them).  Did it affect their careers?  Not a bit.  Did the folks who won the competitions do any better?  Uh... no.

In my humble opinion, competitions are far more trouble than they are worth.

Do you think you play well?  Does your teacher?  Friends?  OK then -- carry on with what you are doing and you'll be fine.

[p2u_]

I need advice on dealing with losing.

Who forces you into participating in those competitions with repertoire that is not ready? Your teacher? You yourself?

If it's your teacher, then you might have to look for another one because this is NOT good for your development.

If it's you yourself, then you should just swallow your pride. You know for yourself that it doesn't make sense to participate there unless you are absolutely ready. You should only pick pieces that you have played at least a couple of times successfully in public; better even: pieces you have been playing successfully for years. If you know you are not ready and you still participate, then you have no objective reason to complain about losing.

P.S.: You may also want to rethink what you want by participating there, even if you are indeed ready for such sport events, because competitions have absolutely nothing to do with music.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

There's no such thing as "losing" a competition. A win is a privilege to be proud of. You don't even mention the person who won. Whatever anyone says about how you should only take an attitude of "competing with yourself" if you do a contest, the objective reality is that you are indeed competing against others in a competition. What makes you think you "lost"? You expect that you should automatically have been the best as long as you practised right? Are you going to keep such an attitude if you ever end up entering one of the world's biggest international competitions? If you think it's something that you should just expect, then your attitude is actively disturbing. Either such casual confidence that you should have been the best will take you an extremely long way, or more likely it will prove to be a short-sighted delusion that will cause you endless pain unless you stop to reevaluate. Personally, I'd have an urgent rethink.

[keypeg]

You may also want to rethink what you want by participating there, even if you are indeed ready for such sport events, because competitions have absolutely nothing to do with music.

Here is the first thing that bothers me about competitions:

What is performance?  What relationship does the performer have with the listener?

[chopin2015]

Perserverance

[p2u_]

Here is the first thing that bothers me about competitions:

What is performance?  What relationship does the performer have with the listener?

I'll tell you more: I doubt there are really many good-willing listeners in the hall when such events take place. From what I hear and see, many are just spectators that like watching high-risk events: "Is he/she going to make it at that breakneck speed, or not?", etc. Some even sit with stopwatches. At many competitions, the jury will punish you for mistakes by not letting you through to the next round, even if you played with great inspiration. So, the aura of the audience doesn't exactly invite the performer to do something more than rattling off the program, trying to avoid mistakes. Some pianists are fed by the extra adreline rushing through their blood, but those are often the ones that lack what it takes to continue a successful career after the competition and indeed build up a relationship with the listener(s).

Paul

[keypeg]

The logic of music competitions:

Several people play pieces.  If one of them wins, does that mean that the others have all played their pieces "wrong"?  Or if all are "near perfect" (whatever that means), as soon as one of them is declared the winner, have the others turned into cr*p?

You cannot "lose" this.  You've been sold a bill of goods.  Have a good look at what playing is actually about, and how your playing fits into that picture.  What does it mean to you?  What can it mean to you?  Does "winning" need to matter?  If it did - why?  What can replace that?

[keypeg]

p2U, my idea of "performing" and relationship to the audience:

You are presenting a composer's work, what you perceive in it, what you can bring out of that work.  You hope that the audience will feel something, or gain a perception, or take something away, or share the experience with you in some way.

If you are playing for the purpose of being judged against a checklist, and compared against others, this gives a new meaning and sense to "performing".  The first cannot exist.  In fact, I think your relationship to the music is altered too.

[perprocrastinate]

If I were you, I would ask myself the following questions:

Am I happy with my interpretation of the piece, and do I feel proud to display it?

Have I mastered the technique of the piece to an exalted level?

--
If the answer is yes to both of those questions, I would not be depressed about "losing" a competition. In fact, I wouldn't mind if I could only answer yes to one of those questions (preferably the first one). My mentality is that I do not aim to please the public; I aim to take pleasure in playing the piano for myself. The former comes after succeeding in the latter.

[lostinidlewonder]

How many adjudicators where there for this competition? If it was one then really don't worry yourself.

If winning a competition is your goal then you must prepare better than everyone else. It is not good enough simply to practice your ass off (although that's a big part of it) but get a mentor, someone who is better than yourself to guide you and coach you. If you still don't win then try and try again until you do. Losing sucks especially if you play to win, I can still remember my first loss and how much it hurt, but then I can look back and remember how many times I won and how many other people would have felt that loss I did, as an adult this reflection made me sorta hate the nature of competitions, it can ruin the losers.

[kalirren]

I really have to disagree with your teacher here in pushing you towards another comeptition with the same piece.  Practicing one piece, the same piece, for hours upon hours for days upon days really isn't good for your musical development.  I think it's one of the best ways to drive yourself into a mental hole.  A mental hole is much more difficult than a technical one to climb out of.

The most important thing to do is grow musically, grow in technique and conception.  You're 17, you're young yet.  You have plenty of room and time to grow.  Don't fixate on the fact that you lost.  It's worth asking yourself honestly once why you lost.  You may or may not have an answer.  If you do, then congratulations, you've identified an area for improvement.

But if for God's sake you can't imagine why you lost, which is probably why you're still losing sleep over it, then simply don't worry about it anymore.  My wager is that you have genuinely reached the limit of your conception of the Etude, and it isn't going to get any better until you study other pieces, use them to grow musically.  Lay the Etude aside - you can always come back to it later if you ever feel like it.

To drive this point home, consider this possibility.  You sink another month or two into the Etude and you make a few changes, but don't make any discernable overall progress.  Then you go to the other competition, and you win.  Would that be satisfactory?  No.  You would still have the doubt of why you lost the first time.  And meanwhile you have sacrificed months of potential growth.

Success is stochastic.  But excellence is procedural.  It's clear that you have the dedication to work hard and succeed.  But you must make sure that your work makes you grow, and not become bitter and stagnant.  As long as you keep growing, it's only a matter of time before you succeed.

[thesuineg]

most important things in piano
1.developing musicality
2.playing composers intentions/revealing structure
3.think about everything before you play it. every phrase should have a direction
.....
15 or so...technique(literally the most important thing in low-middle level competitions, and half of the high level competitions)


on the other hand, i would never compete in a competition playing an etude. that sounds like such a horribly stupid thing to do

[j_menz]

on the other hand, i would never compete in a competition playing an etude. that sounds like such a horribly stupid thing to do

I suspect the countless pianists who have won with one would beg to differ.

[danhuyle]

To win a competition, you have to play at the standard of Vladimir Ashkenazy, Brendel and all those elite pianists.

That's what you gotta meet.

Record yourself and compare it to those recordings. A competition is basically to see who can replicate the great pianists.

A lot of Chopin competition players can play the etudes better than Valentina Lisitsa and her DVD (containing her rendition of Chopin Etudes) outperforms other pianists? How many competition pianists can play Chopin etudes better than Lisitsa?

Despite the imperfections of Lisitsa's piano performances, she still outperforms the majority of pianists with outstanding potential. All she has to do is play right notes and right rhythm with steady tempo. The rest of it? Who cares.

[outin]

I suspect the countless pianists who have won with one would beg to differ.

From what I seen it is often a requirement as well?

[j_menz]

To win a competition, you have to play at the standard of ... Brendel

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what competition Brendel won.  As far as I am aware, his only competition was the 1949 Busini, where he came 4th (the two (sic.) people who beat him are not known to me).

All she has to do is play right notes and right rhythm with steady tempo. The rest of it? Who cares.

It would seem that rather more than that is required in Chopin, and most every one else, even if an infatuation with Lisitsa gives one rose coloured glasses.  I doubt she would appreciate your assessment, either; my assessment of it I leave silent on the nihil nisi bonum principle.

[j_menz]

From what I seen it is often a requirement as well?

Not usually in competitions, though some might.

I think you have them confused with college/conservatory auditions, where one is usually a requirement.

[outin]

Not usually in competitions, though some might.

I followed one recently and there was a requirement to play a Chopin etude in one of the rounds. And I remember seeing at least one other like this too... so I assumed this is usual. But I am not that interested in competitions, so I really do not know.

[p2u_]

on the other hand, i would never compete in a competition playing an etude. that sounds like such a horribly stupid thing to do

This effectively means that we will NEVER see you on any of the renowned international competitions. In the preliminaries, ALL of those competitions (except for the Van Cliburn competition I believe) require sets of etudes to be played by heart and exactly in the order indicated in the requirements.
Here, for example, are the offical Chopin competition requirements (2010):
https://konkurs.chopin.pl/en/edition/xvi/rules/830_competition_rules

Of course, playing etudes that are not ready for the stage will not be appreciated and your performance may even be stopped before you have a chance to finish it.

Paul

[timbo178]

In Australia, Michael Kieran Harvey has talked about how he is against competitions, and I think it's because of exactly this sort of reaction: the goal is to win.

Why not: the goal is to fall in love with the music and share that with your audience.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you were able to share the effect music has on you with your audience, so that audiences would feel moved, feel different, having listened to you play.

Orson Scott Card wrote an article a long time ago called 'Building better children.' Little to do with music, but he addresses this need to be the best. Here are the opening paragraphs, the article can be found at
https://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-11-12-1.html

Everybody wants the best for their children.

The hard part is to figure out what the "best" is.

Do we want our children to be the best? What does that mean, anyway? Most people would say, "I want my children to be the best they can be." But the best at what?

At whatever they want to be, of course!

OK, so that means what? The best athlete? The best scholar? The best salesman? The best graffiti artist? The best car thief?

"Well, son, what disappoints me is not that you stole a car, but that you weren't very good at it. You got caught. Didn't I raise you to be the best at whatever you do?"

We want them to be the best they can be at things worth doing. So let's suppose we have a list of "things worth doing": How in the world can we know what is the "best" that a particular child can be at those tasks? Until they show us what they can do, by doing their best, how can we know what their best is? And what if they try really hard and don't become good at it? Does that mean they failed? Or that we failed? Or that they simply don't have the native ability to be good at the thing they wanted to do?

The Best Is the Enemy of the Good

Why in the world should we ever, ever ask any child to be the best at anything? Or try to guess when they have done their best? Why is that even our job, as parents?

That's their job -- to decide what they want to do, and then decide when they've done all they can (or want) in order to excel at that task.

For instance, why should someone even aspire to be the best doctor? Why not aspire to be a good doctor? If they aim to be the best, they can never succeed, because even if, miraculously, they are the best in their profession for a brief moment, they will age, and some young whippersnapper will come along and do better.

Best golfer, best runner -- we know what happens to athletic record books. And suppose your kid grows up to set the record for the fastest mile in history, and no one ever surpasses it? As he gets older, he can't reach his own record any more. He was the best, maybe the best ever, but he's not the best now. What's he supposed to do? Keep telling people for the rest of his life how his younger self was once the best? How long before he has no friends, because he can't let go of his bestness?

It's almost worse if your kids slave to be the "best they can be." Because nobody knows what that is. So let's say your kid is a doctor, and he makes a mistake, and somebody dies. Obviously, he should have done better. He should have not made that mistake. All the people he has saved are erased by that one mistake. He's a good doctor, but that's never enough, because he has to be the best he can be, which always means "flawless" -- a standard no one can meet.

Life isn't a competition. You can have a wonderful, happy life without ever being the best at anything. Without ever thinking about being the "best you can be." All you need to do is try to be good.

Good is good enough.

[abacaba]

Like 
Thanks for all the great insights. There's a lot of wonderful people here.

[danhuyle]

In Australia, Michael Kieran Harvey has talked about how he is against competitions, and I think it's because of exactly this sort of reaction: the goal is to win.

Why not: the goal is to fall in love with the music and share that with your audience.

That's easy for him to say, considering that he placed 3rd place at the International Liszt competition in Netherlands (the same one Yundi Li competed in before he won the Chopin competition). It's on the site and it tells you the top players that year.

I find it hard to believe how Vladimir Ashkenazy, one of the greatest Chopin interpreters, get bad reception for playing Liszt and as a result of it, he gave up playing Liszt. He has everything a pianist could ever want.

Unfortunately, audiences who listen classical music demand high standard, like how they teach university students. If your playing doesn't match the great pianists, then you're out.

Sorry to be harsh, but that's the way the world is. At least through what I've experienced anyway.

Don't take my word for it.

[j_menz]

Unfortunately, audiences who listen classical music demand high standard

How is that unfortunate? You think we would be better off if they would accept any old crap? Or couldn't tell the difference?

[p2u_]

I find it hard to believe how Vladimir Ashkenazy, one of the greatest Chopin interpreters, get bad reception for playing Liszt and as a result of it, he gave up playing Liszt. He has everything a pianist could ever want.

Notwithstanding his enormous pianistic capabilities, he may not have affinity with Liszt's style and means of expression, which is nothing to be ashamed of. He was probably right by making that choice.

Unfortunately, audiences who listen classical music demand high standard, like how they teach university students. If your playing doesn't match the great pianists, then you're out.

First of all, technical means are to blame for this. Even non-professionals become professional listeners by repeating that same piece by Liszt over and over on their CD/DVD. Besides, people pay, so they have a right to require a certain minimum quality. Since there have indeed been countless extraordinary achievements already, it becomes more and more difficult to reach the norm and as a pianist, you can easily lose yourself in mediocrity. This does not mean there is no room for originality, but what do you do when everything has already been said? Artificial effects will be detected too easily by an educated audience and you will be booed at.

Paul

[outin]

How is that unfortunate? You think we would be better off if they would accept any old crap? Or couldn't tell the difference?

We could all become professional pianists without much trouble...not saying that some of us aren't already...

[timbo178]

That's easy for him to say, considering that he placed 3rd place at the International Liszt competition in Netherlands

Yes, but I'd argue it is possible to take part in a competition and still enjoy and and communicate the music. For this reason, I'd encourage my students to participate in competitions too.

He also has other reasons for disliking competitions, and they have to do with the sort of repertoire they promote. I tend to disagree on this point though.

[garmeth]

This is a psychology issue not a piano issue. I would just read books on psychology that will help you deal with bad emotion and to improve your mental state.

[j_menz]

This is a psychology issue not a piano issue. I would just read books on psychology that will help you deal with bad emotion and to improve your mental state.

From my limited exposure (first year psych at uni), reading psychology books is unlikely to improve either one's mood or one's mental state. 

[garmeth]

From my limited exposure (first year psych at uni), reading psychology books is unlikely to improve either one's mood or one's mental state.  

I'm not suggesting that the OP should buy a psychology text book and read about sigmund freud's view of the phallic stage of childhood, I am referring to books written on the subject of sports psychology and losing.


Edit: My two cents-

Telling the OP that its no big deal to lose a competition I don't think will help, sometimes emotions aren't rational and any amount of logical thought, as I am sure the OP has tried to rationalize in his/her mind that losing isn't a big deal, will not help. Winning this competition, in the OP's mind, was a very big thing no matter if he wanted it to be or not and now dwelling on the past or trying to explain to him that losing isn't a big deal probably is not going to work.

Think about people's basic anxiety. If a person is afraid of heights, you can't simply tell him/her that rock climbing with a harness is nothing scary, if a person fears balloons,

no amount of rational thought will fix it. Sometimes other techniques need to be used. If a person is destructively in love with a person and lusts after that person and if she doesn't love him back, it won't cheer the person up immediately or cure him if you simply tell him that there are other fish in the sea.

Dwelling on this loss is just a passive form of suffering. I believe the OP should get back to practicing, practice harder, and enter another competition.

"If you're going through hell, keep going."

-Winston Churchill

[garmeth]

I'm not suggesting that the OP should buy a psychology text book and read about sigmund freud's view of the phallic stage of childhood, I am referring to books written on the subject of sports psychology and losing.


Edit: My two cents-

Telling the OP that its no big deal to lose a competition I don't think will help, sometimes emotions aren't rational and any amount of logical thought, as I am sure the OP has tried to rationalize in his/her mind that losing isn't a big deal, will not help. Winning this competition, in the OP's mind, was a very big thing no matter if he wanted it to be or not and now dwelling on the past or trying to explain to him that losing isn't a big deal probably is not going to work.

Think about people's basic anxiety. If a person is afraid of heights, you can't simply tell him/her that rock climbing with a harness is nothing scary, if a person fears balloons,

no amount of rational thought will fix it. Sometimes other techniques need to be used. If a person is destructively in love with a person and lusts after that person and if she doesn't love him back, it won't cheer the person up immediately or cure him if you simply tell him that there are other fish in the sea.

Dwelling on this loss is just a passive form of suffering. I believe the OP should get back to practicing, practice harder, and enter another competition.

"If you're going through hell, keep going."

-Winston Churchill

However, I do suggest that the OP sets more intrinsic goals. Your main cause of depression here is the fact that your goal was ULTIMATELY in someone else's hands. You wanted to win the competition, badly, and at the end of the day it wasn't your decision on who gets to win or who gets to lose. Set more goals for yourself that YOU can control such as, I will be able to play this piece by X date. Feed off of every success that you make and keep going damnit. If it causes you pain to play that piece, screw your teacher. YOUR TEACHER IS THERE TO HELP YOU, and if he can't understand that you are suffering form a piece of music, be assertive and simply say "No.". You're paying him money, its not his decision to make.


I meant to edit this in to my last post 

[keypeg]

I am referring to books written on the subject of sports psychology and losing.

Music is not a sport.  The expression of music in front of an audience is not a sport that can be "won" or "lost".  That's the problem right there.

[lostinidlewonder]

I hope the OP didn't top himself!

[p2u_]

Music is not a sport.  The expression of music in front of an audience is not a sport that can be "won" or "lost".  That's the problem right there.

Even Music stops when Financial Experts speak! (c) [Free after Franz Liszt]
P.S.: The more so poor Teachers, who are mainly seen as the latter's servants...

Paul

[garmeth]

Music is not a sport.  The expression of music in front of an audience is not a sport that can be "won" or "lost".  That's the problem right there.

 The point is, the OP had a HUGE portion of his mind that wanted him to win, if the OP didn't care about winning or losing, my point would be irrelevant , but he did. Thus he treats or thinks about music as a sport, because competitions CAN be won or lost (legitimizing my statement) no matter how anyone wants to twist it.

[p2u_]

The point is, the OP had a HUGE portion of his mind that wanted him to win, if the OP didn't care about winning or losing, my point would be irrelevant , but he did. Thus he treats or thinks about music as a sport, because competitions CAN be won or lost (legitimizing my statement) no matter how anyone wants to twist it.

Of course, of course. Musical duels have always been a part of the history of the keyboard (Bach vs Marchand - a contest never to be, Mozart vs Clementi, Liszt vs Thalberg, etc.). But there are differences:

* They were already masters of their art
* They were greatly provoked by society to compete
* Often they had no choice but to comply because they were the mere servants of the establisment and could have lost their jobs if they had refused to compete

[Some of them also had problems with losing, by the way. Marchand fled back to Paris after he had heard Bach play, so that competition was decided without him even taking part. The other competitions ended in a tie, but Mozart had clearly counted on winning, which explains his rather bitter remarks about Clementi's style of playing, etc.]

What we do in our contemporary society, however, is: have people compete that are not masters yet with material that is often not ready for performance. This is in itself unhealthy. It's bad coaching on the part of the teacher/parents and it ruins people's souls. No book on peptalk is going to help the victim here; it's the coaches that need a lesson or two because they are the losers.

Paul

[garmeth]

xD a pep talk book wasn't what I was suggesting. Its too late and too folly a task to condemn "coaches" for turning music in to a competition. Competitions of amateur musicians are here, and they're most likely going to stay.

However, wouldn't you think it more appropriate to have a competition among amateurs. At that level one can be far technically superior than another, giving him the "better" piece.

Between masters, the winner is far less concrete and really all it comes down to is whether or not the ones judging liked master's finesse.

[j_menz]

However, wouldn't you think it more appropriate to have a competition among amateurs. At that level one can be far technically superior than another, giving him the "better" piece.

So you prefer competitions when they are mismatched walkovers?

Please also note that amateur contrasts with professional; it says nothing about the level of mastery, merely about payment.

[garmeth]

So you prefer competitions when they are mismatched walkovers?

Please also note that amateur contrasts with professional; it says nothing about the level of mastery, merely about payment.

Yes? That way there is a more clear cut winner rather than someone winning because the majority liked one's interpretation more than the guy who got second place.

If there is a competition it needs to be as objective and bias-free as possible. Someone will win and someone will lose. If one doesn't have the emotional maturity to deal with defeat, then too bad :/. Competitions are designed so somebody loses.

[thercman]

This is an interesting subject to be sure. Throughout the course of my life I have participated in many things that have involved winning and losing. I played soccer for many years and made into all-star games. I was into martial arts and was involved in sparing competitions. Although I loved to play soccer the competition aspect of it burned me out. I wasn't playing for the love of the sport but rather to satisfy my coach, parents etc. Don't get me wrong winning is great but having fun doing what you are doing is more important.

Until I read this forum I had no idea that there were piano playing competitions. I have a hard time understanding how you could even judge something so subjective as your interpretation of a composition. If three people play the same piece, all are technically correct but each is played with different subtleties based on your interpretation or feeling how can that be subjectively judged in the first place? Each judge will rate the winner based on their feeling of your interpretation. Won't that vary dramatically between judges? Maybe if there were different judges you would have won. Who knows.

My point is, play because that is what you love to do. Put your your heart felt expression into the music and you will be amazing rather than worrying about being technical perfect. If you don't "win" and your playing made you happy, then you really did win..... Your personal satisfaction is more important than any ribbon or trophy.     

[p2u_]

However, wouldn't you think it more appropriate to have a competition among amateurs. At that level one can be far technically superior than another, giving him the "better" piece.

The level of competition doesn't change the pain of losing because of mismanagement by your coach. My main thesis is that you should NEVER allow (or force) the person you coach to compete with material that is not ready. The art of coaching is guiding the person to a state just before peak performance. Under such conditions: if you "lose", so what? You haven't lost against yourself because you at least participated to the best of your capability and that is never a shame. What I see here is mismanagement and the teacher deserves a slap in the face. "Go learn that new Chopin etude because in a month you have to compete" is incompetent instruction, I'm sorry.

Paul

[garmeth]

By that same logic if one loses because of lack of preparation, so what? I didn't spend THAT much time on it...


When did he say that he had to learn the piece in a month? I'm confused by that part.

[p2u_]

By that same logic if one loses because of lack of preparation, so what? I didn't spend THAT much time on it...

Lack of preparation is no excuse for anyone, ever. Nobody cares how you practised, how much you practised, what your family circumstances were, etc. The result needs to be there with a convenience akin to playing the central C on the piano (you never miss that one and you can do that with lots of confidence, right?). As a rule, those are the winners if they can make music as well. You have to realize that if you want to be a winner. Any losers: go lick your wounds and learn this principle from the winners.

When did he say that he had to learn the piece in a month? I'm confused by that part.

One month was merely an example I just made up, but I see that happen quite often. We don't have any pieces ready, so let's force one candidate "winner" piece within a certain time frame. That is NOT good because it conditions you for failure.

EDIT: The right state of mind for winning is NOT something you can "drill" for in your pieces, so countless (mindless) repetitions of your repertoire won't help you. You have to rehearse the state itself, mostly slowly. Difficult chords? Jump onto them from a distance like a cat predator until you stop missing them. Everything has to be convenient; no conflicts.

Paul

[keypeg]

This may not be related, but the "state of mind" thing made me wonder if it might be.  I have a couple of vivid memories when I was learning my first instrument.  One was when I was in a snit for some reason, decided to ignore my teacher in a huff, and then played very well.  I realized that because I didn't care at that moment what he thought of my playing, I played better, and took note of the fact.  Another is that we have thin walls.  When I played or sang for myself, neighbours told me of being moved, when I had not planned on moving anyone.  There seemed to be an undercurrent that not trying to influence the listener or not caring about the listener seemed to have a good effect on the listener.

A bit different - two professionals both told me an anecdote where each of them at some point gave up and decided they weren't good enough.  At the very moment of giving up, their playing improved dramatically, because what had stood in their way was too great an effort.