Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Recital 12 -- General Discussion Room

polostrings,

I like your idea also. Indeed, I give it the Loved It Award .

How about polostrings list of subjective award names?

I guess you were indeed completely serious.

I'm really confused about why some form of abstract systemization is better than simple commentary. Let's put this another way. I can't imagine a better way to irritate people without providing any real information to them. Some might call that socially dysfunctional behavior. :p

Well, I would certainly not consider it dysfunctional if you were to put me in some category of other players, no matter what the name. I view it as a way to grade myself. I can listen to the submissions of the others and then say to myself, “Someone feels that I am as good, or as bad as they are.” It tells me a lot about my playing to know how others think about it. It also allows me to grade my progress, or lack of it from one recital to another.

Indeed. I might rate Theowne's piece highly -- and be much more forgiving of a bad interpretation and errors[keep in mind that I haven't actually listened to any of these recital pieces, so I don't know how his performance was], just because I'm in love with that suite.

Also, the grading system depends way too many factors. Certainly technical difficulty seems to be thrown aside here: Chopin's preludes op 28 nos 6 and 20 [which I can sight read at tempo] are in the same bracket as his etude, op.25 no.1 -- which, although being one of his easier etudes, is MUCH harder than either of the preludes.

What would happen if I played one of "Bach"'s minuets in G? Would I be automatically doomed to the beginner category? Say a world-renowned pianist were to play Chopin's prelude #7 -- from a technical point of view, nothing at all... what would the graders say?

I've heard some live performances of Berezovsky playing the Transcendental Etudes at lightning speed. He makes a few mistakes from time to time. Does this disqualify him from "Advanced" or above?

Sorry if I'm coming across somewhat rude here. I'm just quite worried that getting a lower than expected rating on a recital may turn away many people from these forum.

We welcome all contributions here at these recitals -- without judgment -- turning this into a piano competition of sorts would not be a good idea.

Why on God's green earth would you want me to grade you? This is the Adult Beginners Forum. However misnamed it might be, that nomenclature conveys something. We're not experts, we're not teachers, and this isn't a competitive sport. I might be able to spot a note error or a rhythm out of place, but that surely gives me no reason to pass judgment in a way that would allow to me form a ranking of players. And I know enough that the attempt would simply irritate most people.

Now, having said that, feel free to construct any rankings or categorizations you wish. Be prepared for backlash, however. :p

If we want smaller recitals we might consider having "genre" recitals every two months or so (and an assistant to Monica) - new age/neo classical in January, strictly classical in March, jazzy/ragtime/pop in May etc.

Of course, variety would be gone but you can't have everything.

Piano*Dad wrote:
Why on God's green earth would you want me to grade you?

Please forget my suggestion. I was under a complete misconception about what these recitals represented. I see no reason for my further participation.

Don't feel unwelcome -- the entire point of these recitals is to welcome everybody into a friendly environment, where we can all share our music without fear.

Orez Eno,

You mistake my meaning (I hope). The last thing I wish to do is to end your participation.

We have two threads going. This one is for general commentary. In the other, people can have a more detailed conversation about constructive critiques of an individual's playing. If someone makes an intriguing comment in this thread, you can invite them to continue the discussion over in the critical commentary thread. I made just such a comment about the piece John Frank played, and he did indeed invite me to say more. We then continued our conversation in the critical commentary thread.

Commentary and grading (or ranking), on the other hand, seem to be separate things. If what you really want is to be compared to everyone else, I'm not sure a lot of folks here would comply. There is very little to be gained by comparing and ranking each other, except perhaps to make lots of people uncomfortable about participating.

Yet if you want serious commentary on your playing, you may or may not receive it under the current format. People don't always make serious comments of a critical nature here. But if you want to have your playing deconstructed (in a friendly manner) you can help the process by posting some specific questions about your efforts that you might like people to think about. That would be in essence an invitation to everyone to help you think through your approach to a piece. I think that would be remarkably generous and perhaps quite useful, though you would have to realize that the commentary would be coming from amateurs.

Remember, this is supposed to be fun for everyone. It's not supposed to be a high tension and high stakes evaluation in which one worries about losing face relative to one's peers. We're all in this together.

Personally I think it is important to keep the feel of these recitals very informal.

Personally, if it came down to any sort of ranking or grading process, I would stop participating in the recitals.

About half of the participants in the recital do not ever comment on other participants work. Why not have two recitals... one where particpants don't need to comment and another where participation means you will have to comment on at least 10 other participants work. It might make the recitals more managable.

I'm against the "grading". Some people can get pretty sensitive and I don't think we need an arena where we are all competing against each other for "intermediate award" or "advanced" etc. I'm with Dragonpianoplayer ...I just wouldn't participate if it were a competition.

Piano*Dad and playadom,

I don’t feel unwelcome. But I see little reason to participate.

I realize that people at this site are amateurs. But many amateurs in any field are very qualified, and I viewed most people here to be highly skilled amateurs, including yourselves. Of course you guys can organize your recital under whatever format you like. It is not my intention to change that and my suggestion was simply a way to automate the process, not to change its purpose. I now see that I completely misunderstood the entire purpose of your recitals. And my suggestion was not necessarily to set up a very technical set of criteria for submission evaluations. As polostrings suggested, the categories can be very subjective, and not in the least bit insulting. But you seem against the entire idea.

If I am to understand you correctly, you are not actually interested in evaluating or grading submittals to your recitals, although in my past submissions several people did give me some critical evaluation. So, to tell you the truth, I’m a bit confused. Do you evaluate the submissions, or don’t you? When I submit you even provide an option for “Critical Feedback”. I thought that meant an evaluation. I hope you appreciate that I am a bit confused.

Of course I don’t expect every participant to evaluate my submission. I stated that in a previous post. Indeed, if I did not receive a single critical evaluation, I would not be turned off. I would simply think that my submission was not worthy of comment and I would try again at the next recital. But if you tell me that there is actually no intention of providing serious critical evaluation, then that is a different matter.

You stated that you are not qualified evaluate my submissions. I would differ. Many people here, including yourselves, have considerable expertise that a person like myself could profit from by having you evaluate my recital submissions. But, if you say you are not interested in recital evaluations, then so be it.

Myself, I am more interested in submitting to a group that does evaluate my performance, or at least provides the option of doing so. Otherwise, I don’t really understand why I would submit, especially to a recital that claims to be a “Beginners” recital. It seems to me the primary reason why beginners, like myself, would participate in a recital is to have their playing evaluated. I certainly wouldn’t participate in a formal recital where the intention is to demonstrate virtuosity. I have none of that. I am just a beginner.

When the day comes that you do organize serious recitals that are honestly evaluated, I will be happy to participate, and I predict that such activity will attract a lot of new interest. However, from your responses to my suggestion I now realize I was under a misconception about the purpose of your recitals. Although I’m sure they are very enjoyable for yourselves, I see little reason for me to participate.

Orez Eno,

If I may interject a thought, please understand the simple nature of the recitals is to have fun and above all to participate. Criticism of any type, or, comments by other members in either the General Discussion Room or the Critical Discussion Room is explicitly explained (in the rules of posting) to be of a constructive nature. Please keep this in mind as you contemplate whether or not to continue participation.

I sincerely hope that you will continue just for the fun of it...pure and simple.

The more a topic is discussed, the more, it seems, to grow in complexity leading to misunderstandings and sometimes hard feelings.

Please continue, the recitals need you and everyone else who has entered or will enter.

Sincerely,

Lisztener

We have many advanced performers that participate in the recitals, and as was mentioned before, we have a critical feedback forum, where people CAN have their playing critically evaluated.

However, this is not a piano competition. If that's what you're looking for, then perhaps the ABF recital is not a perfect fit for you.

I don't get why you are confused? Yes, you can choose to get "critical feedback" which is in the "critical feedback" thread. You can go there and ask for critical feedback and I'm sure some will give it to you. If you really, really want to be evaluated maybe try the members recordings forum and ask for an evaluation. Frankly I like the more personal approach where people can offer interesting and insiteful comments without the "evaluation" feeling.

The bottom line is something I have brought up 3 seperate times over the past few years in that our online recitals are going to get more and more difficult to comment on [every piece] as participation grows.

This certainly does NOT mean to cut back on our recitals as the intended purpose is still being met....[to provide an outlet, benchmark and timely motivation from which we can all display our talents as well as progress.]

With so many "good jobs", "sounds great", "loved it" etc, I can see how some of the meaning behind the comments may seem to get a bit diluted.

The truth is that EVERYONE involved should be recognized in some way for all of their efforts but doing so on an individual basis while still providing unique feedback is getting more and more difficult for many of us. So what to do?.

To me, the answer is simple. first off, everyone must know that a whole lot of people are listening to their performance in these recitals. For many, this in itself is rewarding enough. Just as with anything else, if any specific performance really stands out in which you wish to personally comment on it, then do it. If not then don't.

The issue of "guilt" needs to be addressed NOW as opposed to later. You don't have to comment on anyones performance as it is of course only voluntary.

Personally, I would rather receive a few in depth comments rather than a whole bunch of guilt motivated "good jobs". Now please don't pick my words apart as I've already said that everyone should be recognized for participating in some way but at some point this can easily turn into a quality vs quantity discussion!.

Imagine if at a *real* live recital or even a concert if EVERYONE felt they MUST meet and comment/discuss the performance with the performers!, it would never end.

Its not like the audience did'nt appreciate or like the performances or they would'nt be there to begin with. More than likely they all probably LOVED it which is why they attended.

Of course, if some of the performances REALLY stood out and moved you in a special way or you just felt that you wanted to provide the performer with a bit more personalized feedback, then by all means DO IT. The choice is yours; just don't be motivated for the wrong reasons...i.e *guilt*!.

Bottom line: enjoy the entire recital and comment on as many as you wish. If your comments are based upon the way you received the performance instead of guilt (everybody gets a nickel!), then the comments that you DO receive will be that much more meaningful as well as appreciated.

I thank you for welcoming me, but I would be dishonest if I told you I would participate. The submission process takes a considerable effort, not only to perfect the playing of the piece to performance standards, but to record it as well. It would be worth it if I were to profit by having my playing critically evaluated by a few experts. But I otherwise I cannot justify the effort that it takes to make the submission.

Actually, my piano teacher is not in agreement with me submitting these pieces to PianoWorld.com recitals anyway. She claims that it would be more productive for me to develop better articulation and dynamic expression, than emphasizing the absolute 100% accuracy required to make recordings. So, she’ll be happy if I do not submit any longer. She says that my emphasis on making 100% accurate performances has actually penalized my progress by overly focusing on technical accuracy rather than musical quality.

I have no hard feelings. I would rather learn that the emphasis of these recitals is not what I am looking for than to participate and become frustrated by not getting out of it what I am expecting. Although, I am not really sure what the true motivation of your recitals is, and I suspect that it is different with different participants, I see that critical evaluation is not one of its functions.

What the recitals that you describe need most are submissions from people who enjoy the participation that you describe, for the fun of it, not people like myself who have more serious, perhaps even academic interests. Personally I think that your recital could provide an environment that would satisfy everyone, both people who like yourselves who call it fun, and people like myself who put in a large effort for the purpose of receiving critical evaluation. You already have what you call a “Critical Discussion” thread. However, if my mere mention of any form of evaluation raises such objections as I have seen here, then obviously the term “Critical Discussion” does not mean the same thing to you guys as it does to me. I thought that the evaluations I have received in the past were critical, but I suspect now that I was wrong. Indeed, in the “Critical Discussion” thread of this particular recital John Frank made a contribution that was considered unacceptable because it recommended to Monica K that she might prefer playing some different pieces. Although I am not familiar with the genre he was talking about, I thought his recommendation seemed appropriate in principle. But it caused a firestorm of objections from people claiming his post was in poor taste. My only conclusion is that people only want comments that glorify their playing. Personally I am interested in more substantial evaluation.

Again, what you guys are doing in your recitals is fine if you are enjoying it. You don’t need people like me to come in and change the fun that you are having. Obviously if you find the slightest suggestion for automating the process, which is all I did in my original post, so objectionable, we have little in common. I personally think that your recitals would be even more popular if you did allow real critical evaluations, If you do decide you want to satisfy people like me by providing critical evaluations, I recommend that some of you who perform a leadership role at this site sit down and decide on an unambiguous set of ground rules what form of evaluation is permitted and how it should be given, so that those who don’t like that kind of activity do not get insulted, as happened with John Franks, evaluation. In the end, I suspect that Monica K would have appreciated John Frank’s opinion, but he was forced to remove it before she had a chance to read it.

For all the above reasons, unless your recitals permit substantial, critical evaluation, I feel that it is not worth the effort for me to create more submissions.

SH,

I wouldn't dream of picking apart your words.

What you say is perfectly sensible. In fact, it's the natural view to take as the recitals become essentially too large for meaningful commentary on all the works.

The ethos of the recitals could stand a review, as you note. There is no compulsion to comment on everything. Listening is enough!