About competitions and so forth…

Large and small music competitions where juries determine who may advance to which round and participate in a finale and may or may not win or achieve a prominent place have faced considerable criticism for years. "How is that possible?", "Why not this one?", or yes, also an exuberant general agreement. Once the audience could make their displeasure known with plenty of "BOO!" calls. It had something to it, although it was never something that made the booed person happy. The booing crowd wasn't always aimed at the laureate, often, if not almost always, at the jury. Ultimately, the well-mannered competition organizations grew tired of it and only applause and bravos were allowed. "BOO!" became taboo and whoever dares it now only gets a room full of angry looks directed at them. The sometimes critical remarks from the specialized press are also a thing of the past. It seems as if everyone must be obediently well-behaved and no longer allowed to form their own opinion. Yet that is one of the fascinating elements for the audience in the case of a competition. Whether it's a small regional competition or a large well-known international one, it doesn't make that much difference on that front.

For the sake of smoothing it over, the cat licks the candlestick

During the Cold War period, it was a common occurrence at large international competitions that one time a Russian was allowed to win, as long as next time an American won and vice versa. It ultimately got so out of hand that juries and competition organizations, whose results were manipulated and pressured by politics, could no longer continue. The public wouldn't swallow that anymore and there was a risk that these competitions would completely lose their name and reputation. But already before the Cold War and before WWII, international and economic interests played a role in awarding first and other prizes. Whoever has ever sat on a jury and is honest towards the candidates to be judged, honest towards themselves, honest towards the music, will rarely have a judgment that completely matches the final result. Points are adjusted (don't say it's not true), sometimes there's heated debate, demands are made, people are put under pressure and so on. However noble it may all look, it is sometimes more appearance than reality. Behind the scenes, people get along so well and agree so much, but woe, just sit in the back room where deliberations take place. The country of origin alone can determine how far you advance in a competition and whether you win a major prize or just miss out. Is it a country with which the organizing country is in conflict? Is it a country with major or no economic interests? Does it supply raw materials? Are they important financial backers? All these elements help determine how far a musician can advance. In most cases, these candidates are unaware of the behind-the-scenes manipulations and how far they can go. Sometimes they are surprised to find themselves in a finale and then win the best or one of the other top places. What is the point of a system that today is back as bad, or worse, than in the years of the Cold War? True talents must compete against well-trained instrument players. So fiercely 'trained' that they can manage it in competitions even without all kinds of manipulations, but afterwards only in very exceptional cases build a lifelong career as a musician with world fame. In many cases, it's therefore more about prestige, politics and money than about honest quality and support of talent. That is the negative side of these attention-consuming competitions while all that attention cannot be spent on truly performing musicians anywhere, even on Main Street. And yet (large international) competitions have some value. There are always driven young talents who compete and you can already discover them in the first selection rounds. Even if they don't make it to a finale, anyone with the right ear will pick them out from among the others and attract them. How many winners and laureates from other top places and prizes can look back on a fantastic career? Few. How many non-selected candidates can do that? In any case, more. A competition is in that sense a good thing, because you can always discover talent in it, regardless of the final outcome. It is these talents that usually make it definitely. For the 'worked-up prize animals' – unfortunately, there are some - the outlook is much less rosy. Many fall into a black hole after their competition career. Sometimes they present quite a CV of prominent places they achieved and everyone they could take lessons from (teachers also need money, you know). Once they are past the age of competitions, they are practically forgotten. Is that what we want? Isn't it really time for organizers, of both large and small(er) competitions, to take a look at themselves and think about what they are really doing? Don't give people false hope by letting them win a competition and don't discourage people by denying them a place in a finale. Or was Béla Bartók right with his provocative statement: "Competitions are for horses, not for artists".

Opinion piece submitted anonymously