Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Did you read the links I posted above? He had 5 masterclasses with her (and with a few other competitors) in Lake Como piano academy. No private lesson. That is not 'student' by the definition. In fact, Fou had explicitly asked the Chair of the jury, Jasiński, before the competition on these particular cases and got clearance on it. No rule is violated.
If this is accurate, then I think it shows how damaging and inappropriate speculation on the internet can be. I think it's also unfortunate if Fou Tsong really used the phrase "my student" when referring to Avdeeva. A more careful choice of words might have avoided a lot of problems.
I did not see the word "student" used by Fou himself in the original article. The reporter added the word. The reporter probably didn't check the "legal definition" of the word before using it.
If one can read the original article Fou was actually quite humble in describing himself. He said: "My father told me, first be a human, then an artist, then a musician, finally a pianist. Avdeeva has all four. I am missing the pianist."
The rules did not change after the final round. The jury could use whatever method they liked to decide the final rankings, according to Article XXII below (the point system is just a "basis", or a part of the information they could use to make the final rankings)
XXII
After all the necessary calculations have been made, the Secretary of the Jury will present to a sitting of the Jury the values of the final results achieved by the competitors in the final, in the form of the sums of the arithmetic means of the points obtained in all four stages of the Competition, ordered from the highest to the lowest; but without the competitors' names. On this basis, the Jury will decide on the awarding of the various prizes. (emphasis is my own)
The rule did not state how the Jury will decide the final rankings, so the Jury could use whatever method they chose.
But they didn't even calculate the scores for the final round, as it says they should do in the Rules, or at least they didn't publish it.
If they had done that, averaged everything, then decided to award some prizes ex aequo, which they have done in the past, that matches the Rules much better.
Another thing, Kultyshev and Khozyainov were also considerably ahead of Dumont before finals, and Kultyshev performed well in the concerto, and got a 6.3 even with the new method, so I don't know why he didn't win a sixth prize either.
I didn't think Kultyshev, Khozyainov, and Dumont played well in the concerto round. But I think Dumont was technically cleaner than the other 2.
About T'song, I still cannot imagine why he went out to say he taught Avdeeva over the last 2.5 years if she only attended 5 masterclasses. And if she was just another student out of several hundred students that were in his masterclasses over the last 2.5 years, why he even threatened the organization of withdrawing from jury if Avdeeva wasn't allowed to compete? He said "In March, I was still a little worry.....". The live audition was in April. She did not pass the live audition. So he didn't think she was good enough, but he forced the organization to admit her to the competition?
Re some points of contention. Right HERE, at this forum, at this page: Harasiewicz Said -- a translation of an interview given by juror Harasiewicz was described in the excerpts below:
=== "- he admitted that if the rules of competition were left without change the result would be completely different but he 'don’t know which pianist could make a profit from it.’
He added also that some jury members thought that ‘rules without change could rank some pianists too high even if they played final Concerto horribly’ (he pointed Bozhanov)
"- there was no discussion in the final voting, each jury member just presented his final ranking without explanation ‘why’. He also mentioned that maybe if he was allowed to vote on Wunder the arithmetic result would rank the Austrian on the first place
"- he said that Khozyainov was too immature and too sentimental for him . . . "- he accused the jury member who voted against Wunder’s appearance in the final of ‘lack of competence’ and he stated that it’s maybe kind of ‘specific asian taste’ (he didin’t say even Koyama’s name, but [sic] only ‘the Japanese jury member’) "
========== As for Fou Ts'ong's wording, a lot was paraphrased in the *translated* article, but it's clear that the statement reported was that he had *STARTED* teaching Avdeeva 2-1/2 years ago, but 95% of the forum talkers on the Net substituted the thought "taught FOR 2-1/2 years" instead. And that latter was never said.
That he HEARD her within the last year never meant he was teaching her as a private student when he heard her, but in that school, people seem to know what the rounds are like.
It was apparently 2-1/2 years ago that she entered Como where each student must do the rounds of the 10 or so teachers there (Fou Ts'ong being one of them), going to each and every one, and then it starts again. They say it's a masterclass style setting.
Fou Ts'ong had asked the head of the jury whether he should declare her a Student under the Competition rules and was told no, that the situation didn't fit the rules for counting a contestent a student. He had two others who had been in Como and saw him, who were in the Competition, someone else said, but they didn't make it too far up the levels.
if they didn't change the rule regarding ranking the finalists, the result will be different for sure. changing the rule in the middle of the competition, or in any competition for that matter, is just not playing fair. it must be the main reason which made this competition so controversial and make many wonder what would have been, and less respect for this particular competition.
what i really want to know is when Bozhanov is coming to US? i would want to hear him playing live again.
i read the posting on facebook and i can concur with previous posters who said it's "5 masterclasses in 2.5 years" as opposed to "having taught her for 2.5 years". fuh said "he's amazed by her progress every time he meets her".
it's a pretty poorly worded article. i can see why "for 2.5 years" would show up in a translation, because this was said:
"fuh started teaching aveeda 2.5 years ago"
oh well. in my experience reading chinese, hong kong and taiwanese reports, precision of the reports is frequently lost. sometimes, the accuracy is so bad i wonder if they just make things up. in translated pieces from say AP or Reuters, there are often inaccuracies. i didn't quite understand why until my uncle actually started translating articles into chinese for a newspaper and had to frequently ask me what things mean.
either way, kind of like the obama $200 million a day trip to india claim. or many instances of journalists taking some random guy's tweet and running with it. professionalism has been lost for the sake of immediacy in this age of internet news reporting. which is in no way a bad thing, it's just that the reader has to do a bit of the filtering journalists used to do.
I'm reviving this old thread to share the following :
A friend of mine and her husband spent several days at the International Chopin Competition this year, and have returned with the following gift for me from the competition :
Two CDs from Stage 2, featuring performances of Avdeeva (Russia), Koziak (Poland), Wunder (Austria), Tyson (US). Two CDs from Stage 3, featuring performances of Bozhanov (Bulgaria), Gillham (Australia), Armellini (Italy), Wakarecy (Poland)
and four issues of Chopin Express from October 13, 14, 15, and 17.
