In this
article I will discuss the nature of music competitions, and how it ultimately
damages the art.
Because
music is a performing art – that is, an art which actually happens in real time
life events, and is executed by people – it is particularly 'suitable' for competing.
And it is true that in the history of western music, competitions have a
serious legacy. However, they were initially something very different of what
we see today.
When
they began, music competitions were little more than show events, standoffs
between two or more performers, where each one would try to demonstrate his
superiority over his opponents for the pleasure of the public. We have
historical records of competitions as far back as the Middle Ages; of
baroque-era improvisational competitions between organ players like Buxtehude
and Bach, or romantic-era virtuosos like Liszt and Czerny. But their character
was much different: before the romantic era, the players wouldn't even play
what today we would call 'a piece' – instead, they would simply improvise on a
given theme, or they would play their own compositions. It was thus much easier
to judge one of the performances much better than the other, although
'stalemates' were also known to happen. Today, in all major classical music
competitions, all contestants play largely the same 'competitive' pieces,
derived from the same pool of 100 or so most popular and flashy compositions of
the last 250 years. It is a very rare occasion when we hear a new composition
in a competition (excluding the special new pieces, composed for the biggest competitions), and it
rarely brings any advantage to the candidate. In the new trend of pop music
competitions, we have practically the same situation, with the candidates
performing some hit from the last 20 years, although there's some more space
for creativity there, since the songs aren't usually written down.
But it is not so much about WHAT is played at
these competitions, as HOW and WHY it is played, and how it is judged. Before,
the public would decide, according to their immediate impressions of not only
the quality of the music, but also the general artistry of the performers. They
would hear vastly different music, most of it unknown, see the way it is
performed, and base their evaluation on what we could call an immediate and
genuine impression of the senses. Today we have a jury of experts, often
listening behind curtains (for supposed impartiality), taking notes on tables
with standardized criteria, for example perfection of performance (whether
you're playing the right notes), fidelity to the part (whether you're following
the author's indications), quality of tone, etc. Sounds a lot like something a
machine would do, right?
In
short, where 300 years before it was all about innovation and fantasy, about
creating the liveliest and most impressive performance, today it all boils down
to how difficult the pieces performed were, how perfectly (without mistakes)
they were played, and how 'correctly' they were interpreted. That's right,
after decades of listening to the same 'standard' competition pieces, we now
have definite ways of playing them, and (almost) any deviation from the
standard is punished. Although, this is the least of the problems the
competitions create. It is the WHY that matters most:
In the
past, competitions were primarily entertaining events. The 'winner' would, of
course, win fame, and count on a bigger audience for his next performances, but
the importance of these events was nowhere as close to the importance of music
competitions today. Today, competitions are institutions that are an imperative
gateway to the classical 'big scene'. That is, if you haven't won, or at least
appeared on one of these big competitions, you are simply ignored as a
performer by music producers. Which means, if you aspire to a big career in the
classical music business, you have to submit yourself to the competition
process, with everything that it involves:
- Studying the exact pieces required.
Depending on the level of the competition, these range from medium to the most
difficult pieces in the repertory for that instrument/voice. Even in cases when
easier pieces are accepted, they don't net you so much credit as the more
difficult pieces, which means candidates are practically forced to exclude most
pieces of their repertory, in order to be competitive.
- Perfecting them for years, using the
widely accepted interpretation, and most of the time, studying with the
professors which would eventually make part of the jury.
- Forget about everything else in your life for several months
before the competition. Practice X hours a day, only the pieces you are to play
at the competition. This, of course, effectively stops your artistic
development, while you get so fed up with these pieces that you don't want to
play them again for years after the competition is over.
- Experience nervous pressure as you've
never experienced before. Whoever has taken part in a competition, even a
relatively small one, knows exactly what I'm talking about. For the rest,
imagine the stage fright when you have to speak in front of hundred people,
even words you have practiced over and over again, then multiply it by 10. Every
performer has one chance, and one chance only, to prove their mastery to this
particular group of people. If you have a headache, or haven't slept well, or
are so nervous your whole body is shaking (all of which happens to be caused by
all the nervous pressure you're submitted to), well, that's part of the
challenge! And it won't do to perform later the very same pieces 10 times
better than you did at the competition hearing, because you've already lost
your chance.
- Experience huge disappointment when you
don't win (which happens to 90% of the candidates). After all, you know that so
much is at stake.....
And
because we know that there is corruption most of the time, you may have to also
forget you have any conscience or artistic integrity and try to buy your way to
winning.
There
are, of course, some positive effects from competitions, and according to our
current system, these make it worthwhile all the pain and suffering the artists
are experiencing:
- Participating in competitions builds
strength of character. You need to develop really good discipline if you
want to prepare well for a competition - sacrifice free time, concentrate,
organize your day-to-day activities...
- Playing in front of a jury is the ultimate test
for a musician - if he can withstand this nervous pressure, he can withstand
everything the concert stage throws at him. And the opposite - if he bends
under the pressure, he's not worthy of the concert stage.
- Playing the same pieces every day for
months at a time helps the musician reach the deepest level of detail of the
piece, understand it better, and consecutively, interpret it better.
Lastly,
but most importantly for the competitive capitalistic mentality:
- The competition process invariably produces
the best and most worthy musicians, to join the ranks of professional
concert performers and yield the producers the most money.
Well,
let's analyze the positive and negative sides and try to come with a verdict:
are competitions really doing what they are supposed to do and are they worth
it?
First of all, the professional musician, as
every serious craftsman, or every grown-up man for that matter, needs indeed to
build strength of character. Competitions help here, there's no question about
that. But it's even more important for a performing arts artist to be able to
withstand nervous pressure, so he could do his best every time he's performing,
no matter the circumstances. Stage fright is a very real and very important
problem for musicians, and they really need to learn how to deal with it.
Again,
competitions help with this. But so does every public performance, every
concert the musician does, be it in front of hundreds of people in a concert
hall, or just in front of some friends and family at home. And then, we have psychological techniques and training that help too. Do we really need to
subject the artist to the torture of competitions, just to prove he has guts to
play in front of people?
Secondly, the notion that a piece of
music could ever be perfected is deceiving. Yes, you could learn the right
notes, you could learn to play them fast and sure, and to produce tone and
dynamic differences at will. But that's about all the level of perfection we
need from an artist playing a piece. All the rest is standardization, not
perfection – playing the piece in the same tempo every time, playing the same
dynamics in the same places of the piece every time, the same rubatos, accents, etc. If we go that
way, we may as well delegate the task to robots, which will be much more apt to
play something according to a certain standard every time.
Music is
an art. Like every art, it needs creativity, and creativity is strangled by perfection.
In fact, the very definition of perfection excludes creativity, since achieving
the perfect state of something locks that thing in place, excluding any further
change. And creativity is all about change. So, when all these competitors work
toward perfecting the pieces they'll be performing, and when they pass beyond
the invisible like separating musical perfection from standardization
(unfortunately that's what happens with 98% of the performers), they are
actually working against the very idea of art. You can't win a competition,
unless you struggle to be perfect – to play all the right notes and perform all
the right dynamics – but in doing so you deny the whole basis of your art.
Thirdly, working on the same pieces for
months at a time does indeed help you delve into details and understand the
piece better. However, a time comes when another invisible line is crossed, and
the level of detail becomes too deep – and you may lose the big picture of the
piece, the same way as you lose the vista that you had from the top of a
mountain when you descend to its base. Not to mention the tedium that sets in
after playing the same music over and over again, and kills all creativity.
Me
personally, I've found that time also gives a new perspective to musical pieces
I've played before – a new level of understanding which I didn't have before.
Every time I pick an old piece from my repertory after a year, I find myself
looking at it in a new way, seeing in its text things that I've never seen
before, interpreting it in a different way.
Fourth, the choice of pieces – it is
true that the big competitions include a vast selection, covering all musical
styles from the last 300 years, thus forcing the musician to learn and build a
diverse repertory. However, how does it happen that 90% of the candidates
perform the same pieces???? (Just take the brochures of the last 2 - 3 big
competitions and compare the repertories of the candidates – I bet you'll find
more than 50% of the pieces are the same!). The truth of it is that there are
established, 'secure' competition pieces, proven to be impressive, not that
risky, and yielding good points, which most candidates choose. Yes, they are
mostly some of the most difficult pieces written for the instrument or voice,
and if you can play (sing) that, you can play anything.
Well, I
disagree. The fact that you can play a Rachmanninov concerto perfectly doesn't
mean you can interpret memorably and passionately an 'easy' Debussy Prelude. You could sing the
impossible coloraturas of a Haendel aria, but that doesn't automatically mean
you can make someone cry with a Puccini aria. Interpretation is not always
about how fast and brilliant you can play.
And lastly, the notion that the process of
competition produces the best and most worthy musicians, is a lie. What does
the successful competition musician look like? First of all, he practices A LOT
– we could say as much as 8 hours a day – which, after considering sleeping and
eating, leaves him what, 2 - 3 free hours per day to live? Furthermore, he
practices all the same pieces (because repertory requirements for competitions
overlap), which means that his repertory
is in fact not that extensive. And because he practices that much, he can
hardly think of anything else, so he's narrow-minded, with a limited
understanding of world and people, with limited interests outside music. He's
single minded, in that that he's always thinking of the next competition, and
what does he need to do to prepare for it. When he goes on stage, the first and
foremost issue is perfection – he HAS to get all notes right, or risk being
eliminated. Art comes after this, if it enters the picture at all. And because
the player has so limited understanding of the world and music, how is he gonna
achieve accomplished and deep concepts about the pieces he's playing? Oh yes – by
paying teachers to show him...
So, how
does all the above qualities align with the purpose of art and music
specifically? A musician's first and foremost duty should be to music, to
playing his instrument in the service of others. He should be an entertainer
first, and a good technician second. Meaning that he should be more concerned
with pleasing his audience than with satisfying his own ego and showcasing his
technique. A musician doesn't need to be perfect, he doesn't need to forget all
about life and practice 8 hours a day, in short – he doesn't need to be a
robot.
But it
is exactly robots that our present practice of competing for music produces.
Musical
competitions are a perfect example of a breeding ground for animosity, neurotic
distortions and pretentions. It's 'survival of the fittest' on every level,
from the basic ability to the nasty psychological tricks and the pure cheating.
We see the kind of musicians it produces every day in the great concert halls –
they play fast, they play loud, they play... equally. There is no creativity in
their interpretation, because you don't win competitions with creativity. There
is usually no passion, because passion might lead to loss of control and
mistakes. They play all the same repertory, the one that goes into the
competition requirements, simply because they have no time, nor desire, to
learn other pieces (I think in the last 20 - 30 years this is being more
obvious than ever – very few concert musicians dare or care to include new
music in their programs).
And
because of the system that has made competitions an imperative gateway to the
big scene, no other kind of musicians ever make their way there. But it gets
worse – it is actually not a rare phenomenon to see talented musicians drop the
art because they lost a competition, to become lawyers, or accountants, or one
of the many other useless professions we have nowadays. Many others simply
decide not to bother with even attempting a concert career, knowing the kind of
pressure they have to withstand, and delegate their talent to accompanying kids
at schools, or ballet classes.
Then
there are what I like to call 'the
Craftsmen' – these people that have few or no talent, but they have enough
ambition and psychological stability to practice 8 hours a day and win
competitions. They then make their way to the concert scene to produce copycat
interpretations of the same old pieces we've been listening to for the last 50
years. Have any of you ever wondered why in the last 20 years there are fewer
and fewer noteworthy interpreters? Why there seems to be an endless stream of
highly-acclaimed pianists, violinists, singers, etc. that tour the world for a
couple of years, dazzle everyone with fast, furious and technically perfect
performances (which you forget after you go out of the concert hall), record a
couple of CDs, which don't sell very well, and then promptly disappear into
oblivion?
Well,
you can stop wondering, because that's what competitions produce. Every big
competition has, as a part of the first prize, a number of contracts for
concert performances around the world, which happen in the year after the
competition – hence the tours. Also, there are music producers at every
competition that immediately make contracts with the winners for some concerts
and recordings – hence the CDs. And then, it's time for the next winner.