Re: Competition.

[Cristalle Watson <wcristalle@HOTMAIL.COM>]

> Nessie Russell has pointed out that young musicians will use competitions
> as
> a way to jump-start their careers .... but what of the "losers" who may,
> given time, turn out to be  wonderful artists too?  Is it beyond the realms
> of possibility that we could devise a way for young musicians to have the
> chance of  showcasing  their talents without the element of 'competition?
> Any ideas, anyone?

I am very strongly against the idea of competition in music. I think the
whole idea of competition is alien to the field of music, and detracts from
true music-making whenever it is introduced, for several reasons.

First of all, entirely the wrong things are stressed in competitions. The
emphasis is mainly on accuracy and technical brilliance. Originality of
interpretation is discouraged. The result is often extreme homogeneity of
performance, where everybody plays a piece in much the same way because they
don't want to risk anything more creative. This approach may help a pianist
win competitions, but it does not guarantee them any sort of lasting legacy
or recognition. Schnabel is still remembered half a century later, not
because of technique or note-perfect accuracy (which was not his strength)
but because he had a unique vision and expressed it.

Secondly, you have to have the right sort of personality to do well in
competitions. Competitions often don't separate out good pianists from bad
pianists, but people who do well with stress from people who don't. I know,
for example, that I would probably do quite badly in competition, because I
tend to develop insomnia the night before any sort of stressful event such
as an exam, and I am very prone to jet lag. I suppose one could argue that a
successful pianist *should* be able to handle stress well...but this really
shouldn't be the determining factor in winning a competition.

Thirdly, I think competitions add to the general problem in today's musical
world. A century ago, everyone with any education was encouraged (indeed
expected) to be a musician to some degree. Amateur music-making was
commonplace; almost every family who could afford a piano owned one. *And*
played it (not just put photos or knickknacks on it and let the keys get
dusty.) Furthermore, everybody was encouraged to find their own way of
connecting to the music and understanding it. There was no such thing as a
"correct" performance. Everyone's artistic ideas were valued.
But today, we are told that, essentially, we have two choices; either we
devote our lives to music and embrace the stressful career of a concert
performer, or we are not musicians. Either we are the best, or we are
nobody. And the vast majority of people who love classical music can't make
it their career, either because they aren't suited to that sort of life or
because they have other things they would like to do (like raise a family).
Competitions reinforce this idea that "only the best can succeed," by taking
all the really good young performers of today's world and putting them
through an ordeal that will, supposedly, leave only the "best" (whatever
that might be) standing. In today's unforgiving music world, there is only
room for performers who are so dedicated, so fanatical, that they give up
everything else for their career. Everyone else is told that their musical
opinions are essentially worthless.
Furthermore, I hate the whole idea of an elite musical jury selecting the
people that they think are best and holding them up to the general
population as the best musicians of the day. We should be, individually,
able to decide who we think is best. Instead, we are told, "This musician
has won first prize in such-and-such a competition, therefore *this* is who
you should listen to." And to make things worse, the musicians who win these
competitions are often given concert performances or recording contracts of
part of their prize, guaranteeing that they will be listened to, when the
equally-valid performances of the people who took second or third prizes are
not heard. Competition discourages active participation on the part of the
listener in choosing which musician they prefer.

Finally, I think that the whole spirit of competition is antithecal to true
music making. Music is about having a vision and sharing it with others. It
is not about proving you are the best. I think that most performances by
musicians who have nothing but winning in mind are pretty much guaranteed to
be shallow, often flamboyant and arrogant, and lacking any true musical
character.

As for alternatives: I believe very strongly in the idea of musical
festivals, where no prizes (or very small ones) are offered and people play
mainly for the experience of performing and the feedback of the jury. I
think this would be much better than a competition for several reasons: it
allows musicians to get experience at performing in a fairly unstressful
situation; it encourages depth and originality of interpretation, and the
idea that there can be several "right ways"; it allows musicians to hear
what their colleagues are doing (without, as in a competition, causing them
to think only about whether others are "better"); and, finally, encourages
true music making rather than shallow virtuosity.

Cristalle

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus