“The menace of competitive idea is that through its emphasis upon consensus, it extracts the mean, indisputable, readily certifiable core of competence and leaves its eager, ill advised suppliants forever stunted - victims of a spiritual lobotomy." - Glenn Gould, on the subject of music competitions.
An annual music festival or competition is only relevant if you are a music student who rarely gets the opportunity to "perform" - in front of anyone. For if you did have plenty of opportunities to make music in concerts and recitals, you would never subject yourself to a dreary "feis" or competition where a "qualified adjudicator" (nearly always an Englishman, no matter where in the world you may be) decides which performance of a classical sonata was best from the 12 Moonlights, 10 Mozart k330s, or 8 Pathetiques. Not to mention that you pay a ridiculous fee for this privilege. Is it any wonder that the majority of classical music students who excel in such competitions rarely seem to require the exposure in the first place? They are equally capable of playing in a concert hall, or at a recital in front of an audience - situations which are far more integral and rewarding for a musician rather than a competition.
Unfortunately, music competitions, especially the non-professional ones (i.e. not the Leeds, or Van Cliburns etc) have a two fold purpose. 1) To establish that to "win" you have the play the same repertoire as everyone else, note perfect and with as little individuality as you can muster. 2) To show off the large number of conservatoire guinea pig students aged 8 to 24 who must subject themselves to this pointless fiasco so that they gain a bit of confidence and self esteem about their playing. See here's the thing; I would not have a problem with all this if there was some element of sincerity and warmth about the whole thing - like the little music festivals that include all genres of music and where there is no requirement to play "set" repertoire. There is a feel good factor, a sort of "everyone is welcome to play music" attitude. If a student plays Bach particularly well, it's not because Bach's Preludes and Fugues are a requirement one year, the French Suites the following year. It's because he or she wants to play a piece by Bach, and loves sharing this with the audience.
As much as I adore Bach's keyboard music, I developed an irrational dislike for his English Suites eight years ago, after being forced to sit through 26 pianists (not including me) perform these (the 3rd was the most popular suite, which meant that over half the pianists played it, repeats and all). As it turned out, exactly one year later, I found out that I was going to be playing in a masterclass with the adjudicator of the music competition from the year before - a professor at the Royal Academy of Music in London. A few months later, I actually had the chance to ask him about his "Irish Feis experience" and he was most forthcoming - well, as forthcoming as an Englishman can be! He confessed that while the standard was incredibly high, it is excruciatingly difficult to distinguish from one well-oiled rendition of the same work after another. He also admitted that the fee was so lucrative that all in all it was a good experience, if a very tiring one. Needless to say, he is much in demand as an adjudicator of music festivals and competitions all over the world. As for me, it took me some time before I was able to play or listen to an English Suite without getting restless - sad, because this is gorgeous music!
Now, Glenn Gould said this about twenty years before I was born, when asked about music competitions, even at a local level:
" There is...a minor-league festival tradition, one which is concerned not with the do or die fortunes of budding professionals, but with an annual series of adjudications for students, presided over by superannuated British academicians. At these events, such is their aura of charity and good fellowship - a mark of 80 is automatically accorded a contestant merely for showing up (79 is considered a stain upon the family order and is reserved for platform indiscretions of a most grievous order such as playing one's test piece caution-to-the-winds and with a most un-British brio). So it comes to pass that in a day and age that is filled with so many opportunities and possibilities, classical music students are still in the dark ages. Adjudicators tend to be capable and respected...musicians whose own careers have attracted heretofore something less than universal renown. And it is...characteristic of musicians thwarted in their aspirations for international acclaim to decry the unaccountable mysteries of personality, to downgrade those virtues of temperamental independence which signal genuine recreative fire. Prodigality may indeed be courted in the competitive quest, but originality must, at all costs, be discouraged. "
So, to simplify what Gould talks about, with his typical wit and humour, but with an incredibly accurate insight - music competitions are a breeding ground for mediocrity, and adjudicators are hardly in a position to decide who is best and who is not. The very same characteristics that distinguish us as human beings, as musicians, are frowned upon on the competitive stage. In nearly all cases, competition winners tend to be the most note-perfect, lease individual & original performances.
I find it sad that in a day and age that is filled with so many opportunities and possibilities, classical music students are still in the dark ages. Why else would anyone, teacher or pupil take part in a system that is fundamentally backward - Glenn Gould describes the competitions/music festivals of his youth, and fifty years on, nothing has changed at all! Backward because most "feis" style competitions have the same "committee members" - well off, retired or semi-retired individuals, a couple of token music college faculty members, who love the bit of importance and have zero administrative or leadership skills! Apart from one or two bursaries, the prize money at these competitions is hardly worth the boredom and tediousness involved! And music - music that came from the great composers like Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Rachmaninov - music that comforts and excites us like nothing else can, was NEVER meant to be regurgitated in this abysmal fashion - Bach would probably never have written the 48 Preludes & Fugues if he knew that they were being subjected to an onslaught of "next candidate please" performances in a dreary, cold auditorium with an adjudicator and a handful of others. Beethoven whose piano sonatas represent a pinnacle in the history of piano music previously unseen would probably be horrified to know that his masterpieces are being tossed off one after another in the most hackneyed, idiotic manner (one movement only for the first round, whole sonata in the final....!). Talk about hack-job treatment! It is utterly senseless - the only purpose I can see being derived from this pointless arena sport is for teachers to smile smugly if a student wins, and for students and parents to bask in their own importance - after all, THAT is the point of all those hours of practice, isn't it?
About seven years ago, one of my former piano pupils won the prize in her category over sixty others (all playing the same two set pieces). Shortly after winning, she became so infuriatingly arrogant and smug; I wondered whether I had made a big mistake in sending her up for the competition. After my worst fears were confirmed, I made the decision to only send my students into music festivals that included other genres, so they were not going to go on an ego trip, aged nine! And while some may say "competitions" at this level are vital to give students performance practice, my response is that at 50 or 60 dollars/euro/pounds entry fee PER category, the student can easily book a venue or room with a grand piano, invite friends and family and gain much more valuable experience. As Geoffrey Payzant sums up, “music must be separated from cruelty, from performers competing against other performers.” Competition, even at a local level, is not a law of civilized life, particularly where music is concerned.
In a society that is even more obsessed with status, fame and money it is no surprise that even those with half a brain and musical talent get sucked into this pointless, cruel, spiritually defunct world of music competitions. When I interviewed competitors for the AXA Dublin International competition (I admit, that's not the kind of competition I refer to in the above paragraphs), one thing struck me more than anything else. They all admitted, once I had switched off the microphone, and poured a cup of tea, that competitions were hard work - draining and discouraging, and that given the choice they would rather have a life of just playing music, of playing concerts. All the more reason that at a more local level, young people stay away from this idiotic competitive circle. The benefits are few, and unless you're someone with little or no imagination, who craves approval from our stereotypical adjudicator and a few mediocre fools, you will find little pleasure or satisfaction in this pursuit. A prize-winner or runner up in a music competition is not going to be remembered in 200 years time - nor is the adjudicator, for that matter. So save the time and money, put it to better use, and immerse yourself in music for music's own sake. In the words of Johann Sebastian Bach, "the aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul". You may or may not care about the "God" bit in that statement, but if it's refreshment of the soul you're after, listen to a great piece of music, whether it’s Brahms or Simon and Garfunkel. Write a song, play a Chopin Nocturne. Enough said.
