Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Ninth Boston International Piano Competition

Aliao: I wonder if you're someone that some of us know!
Without blowing your anonymity, can I ask, does your last name begin with M?

(Don't worry, I probably won't ask anything else.)

I think his last name begins with L - no need to answer but isn't it obvious??

Big clue: He (for he is a he) is a very, very good player and has placed in some major competitions. He's also a very nice chap.

Thanks -- that told me who it is! (I was 'dividing' the user name differently.)

Interesting!! So you took aliao and inserted a non-silent "M" randomly to establish the actual name of the fellow. It's like the reverse of the wonderful Tom Lehrer spiel:

"I am reminded at this point of a fellow I used to know whose name was Henry, only to give you an idea of what an individualist he was he spelt it HEN3RY. The 3 was silent, you see. Henry was financially independent having inherited his father's tar-and-feather business and was therefore able to devote his full time to such intellectual pursuits as writing. I particularly remember a heart-warming novel of his about a young necropheliac who finally achieved his boyhood ambition by becoming coroner.
(The rest of you can look it up when you get home.) In addition to writing he indulged in a good deal of philosophizing. Like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was. One particular bit of advice which I recall, which is the reason I bring up this whole, dreary story is something he said once before they took him away to the Massachussetts state home for the bewilderd. He said: "Life is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it." It always seems to me that this is precisely the sort of dynamic, positive thinking that we so desperately need in these trying times of crisis and universal broo-ha-ha,"

Here's the soft copy:

Does anyone else find programming for these events next to impossible? While not counting any chickens, I'm hoping to compete at Boston but having huge trouble with repertoire selections. The problem relates to programming in general, but becomes more immediate and imperative with the kind of time constraints we have to deal with in competitions.

Some non-random thoughts, in random order:

1. Variety is good, but how much? Is it crucial to have something from each of the last three and an eighth centuries in your competition repertoire?

2. How risky (or suicidal?) is it to program a single work in a round? (In deference to Mark_C we should stipulate that the Bach-Busoni Chaconne should never be performed in the first round, but what about the second?)

3. Should the songs in a particular round be performed in a sequence that reflects their chronology: So, for instance, can you get away with Stockhausen followed by Orlando Gibbons followed by C.P.E Bach? (Further discussion below.)

4. Do judges pay any attention to the tonal dynamics of a program? For example, might they be offended if you played two pieces, the first in B major and the second in f minor? I know I would be, but would/should they?

5. Timing. If we presuppose a 15-minute limit, is it best to try to fill the available time (say, plan for 14:30), or not. And, if not, what's acceptable? 13:30? 12:00? 10:30? Under 10:00? And something I have always wondered about: Is there any competition where they will cut you off if you go over? And, if so, how far over do they start to get antsy?

6. Playing from memory or not. With the quality of current amateur competitors, maybe the competitions all should just say you have to play from memory because that's what pianists do -- unless it's an ultra-modern or prescribed song. The real question here is how much significance do judges attach to memorization vs. relying on the score. Of course, there was someone who made it all the way up to and including the finals of the Cliburn last year who used the score in every round, even including the cadenza of his Beethoven concerto movement.

So, yes, these questions are all geared towards Boston but I think they have a wider significance. I have lots of comments that I want to make on each of the items, but I'm curious to learn what others think before I "poison" the thoughtpool with my outlier concepts.

Meanwhile, I want to preempt what I think might be an instinctive response, viz., "Nobody will care about all this if the performance is obviously great." I'm not a fan of question begging, for one thing, and for another, I think the rules matter. They are the framework within which we need to plan and execute our personal magic, such as it may be. The constraints provide the opportunity, nay, the requirement to be creative as to programming. Also, if fairly exploiting one or more of them makes the difference between someone getting to second or third round where they might not otherwise have done so, well then, we will have provided a meaningful service. This isn't all about the Thomas Yu's and Michael Cheung's and Ken Iisaka's. As Checkov said, "Little dogs must bark as well."

Also, I deliberately made no reference to technical difficulty, because as we all know, Coaster playing her Arabesque is not doing something easy. On the contrary! I was struck yesterday how difficult it is to play "easy" music while listening to Kinderszenen on the car radio. It was some of the most exquisite and expressive piano playing I have ever heard, the more so because I am not a huge fan of those pieces. I was chagrined to learn that Martha Argerich was the pianist, so that's one more strike against me not liking her.

One final point WRT #3. When I was planning my finals recital program as an undergraduate (performance was an elective), I presented my proposal to my tutor, the venerable, recently retired Edward Higginbottom (New College, Oxford). I had the two Brahms Op. 79 Rhapsodies to start, followed by Beethoven Op. 10 No. 3, followed by Debussy Masques and L'Isle joyeuse. Edward said, in a persuasive tone of voice, that it would be a mistake to "rape" (his word) the style and texture of the early Beethoven work by preceding it with the Brahms. I have always taken this comment seriously, but I remain unconvinced of its verity.

Anyway, opinions are welcome on all of this. The Boston deadline is May 1st, so I, and other aspiring Boston contestants, have time to absorb and internalize any comments that members see fit to provide.

Thanks. You all rock by the way. I love this forum.

PS, 0.0001 bitcoin or cash equivalent to whoever spots the 2 Easter Eggs.

There's just one mistake in how you're thinking:




My IMO on the other things:


No, pretty easy.
It doesn't mean I don't make awful decisions, though.


Whatever you want, including none.
It's so much more important just how you play and whether you seem to be loving it and saying something special with it.


Not at all whatsoever. Consider it maybe somewhat of a 'bonus' if you do, but I'm not sure it's even that.


Not at all, if you play it well.
The main risk is simply that you might not play it well. If you program multiple pieces and screw up one of them, then you maybe you can get away with it.
And, I suppose there's a second risk too, although lesser. If the one piece you play is one which some jurors may 'hate,' or about which there is great controversy about how to play it....Well, some contestants have said they've suffered because of one or the other of these things, but I've never really felt it's been so, at any competition where I've been.


Need I say, don't take it as a given .....but to the extent that it's good advice, I think it applies in all rounds. I think it's just an extremely hard piece to do well enough in an amateur competition. Whether because of what happens under the stress of the competition or simply because few of us have the dynamic palette and control, people generally "shoot their wad" by about the third page and there's nowhere to go from there except to assault people's ears further and further.




I think you might just be doing an experiment to see who's actually reading your posts all the way through.


Absolutely not necessarily at all. No advantage whatsoever.
Put them in an order that makes a good program and in which you feel comfortable that you can play them confidently and well.


Depends on the pieces. It's completely fine if they "sound good" together anyway, which they sometimes would -- which of course is subjective, but I'd bet that you wouldn't always actually be offended by such a pairing.
BTW I pay attention to this too, and don't play pieces consecutively unless the transition between them seems to work. This doesn't require particular tonalities.


In line with things I've said elsewhere, I don't think it's good to be scraping near the upper limit, because then we're apt to be worrying about 'going over,' which is bad not just because it gives us an extra worry but also because it might constrain us about tempo. Also, don't forget that these judges have to suffer through these hours and hours of listening to these dozens of us amateurs and I'm sure they don't mind if people play shorter. (Really.)
How much shorter is OK?
Again, it depends on how you play. If Horowitz played nothing but his Carmen Fantasy in a "15 minute" round, I have a feeling he'd advance. Bad example, since Horowitz probably won't be entering amateur competitions, but a couple of times I've seen excellent candidates advance with unusually short programs. Anyway, as a general guide, I'd say that a "15 minute" round ought to have at least 10 minutes of playing, and preferably at least 12; probably 13-14 is ideal.


There have been. I don't know if it's ever happened in Boston.
One time that they should have done it, but didn't, was compounded at the end of the event in what I think was this event's worst moment ever, perhaps it's only non-good moment.
One player went far over the limit in the semi-finals -- she played for 22 minutes. (The "limit" was 15.)
She didn't make the finals, but -- get this -- they gave her the award for Most Creative Programming.


I'd guess that half minute to a minute is no issue, and after that, it's up for grabs.


You're wrong about that.
They don't all.
Richter didn't, and others don't, although for sure most do.

I would hate to see any of these competitions require it for amateur competitions. I think it's kind of cruel. For God's sake, don't force people to play without the score if they're more comfortable with it. I withdrew from each of two local organizations because they required it (other reasons as well for one of them), even though I myself always do play without the score.


That word, that word!
(I think it's OK, but I think you're giving seizures to a lot of members.)


Again, it's all about how well you play, or maybe just 99% how well you play; I suppose that if two people were felt to be indistinguishably equal except that one of them played with the score, the other might be favored. All I can say is that I've never felt someone did or didn't get advanced from any round or get a different placing in the finals because of playing by memory or not (per se).

It is often said that this makes a difference and that decisions have depended on it. There has never been an instance in which I've agreed, although I could see why people thought it did. The thing is, there's some correlation between playing by memory and playing better, including because playing from the score is somewhat constraining; it keeps you from being 'in the zone' with nothing but the piano and the music. (BTW, I better clarify, when I say "the music" I don't mean the score.) That doesn't mean it's necessarily better to play without the score, because if you're worrying about memory, that's worse.

I love these kind of questions.

Hi, SiFi! OMG -- a food for thought post! I've already alerted the moderators. My thoughts on each of your queries --

1 Actually, I would say variety IS quite important, and particularly for the first round. There, I think you want to indicate the scope of both your expressive and virtuosic abilities. I do NOT think, though, that it is obligatory to present different periods in Classical piano literature. I agree with MarkC that, bottom line, you should frontload the first two rounds with repertoire that you like the most, and play the best, within the stipulated time constraints.

2 Yes, I think a single work IS a risk, particularly for the 1st round. Boston has a "short" SemiFinal time constraint (15 min), and so I would say the same for this -- typically, an entire Sonata or Suite is longer than that.

3 I've never seen and incident where chronology presentation played a part in whether someone moved on or not.

4 Same as 3 -- not a significant consideration.

5 Yes, timing is important - IMO, you can "get away with" as much as 1 - 1 1/2 min above the maximum limit in the first two rounds, but not more than that. In the 2007 Cliburn, I can recall two competitors who went well over the 12 min time limit in the 1st round, and neither one moved on, although they played quite professionally. I can only recall one other time when a pianist was actually stopped, and that was only when she was going to start another piece after she had already passed the time limit**. On the other side -- "too" short a program -- I agree with MarkC: program reportoire should fill 13 - 15 min; not less than 12 min.

6 Regarding memory vs. playing from score -- from the time Van Cliburn started the Amateur Competition in 1999 (most regional Competitions followed shortly thereafter), the implicit assumption has been that not all Amateur competitors have sufficient time and/or sufficient training to commit everything to memory, and so reading from score has been permitted. Whether this impedes advancement -- in my experience, that hasn't necessarily been the case. From various discussions I've seen here in PW, there are pianists who play their best only when they DO memorize, and get thrown off with a score; and other pianists who sight read very well, but cannot memorize effectively, and don't manage memory lapses well. At least for Amateur Competitions, then, I would leave both options available -- I want each competitor to feel as comfortable as they can be in sharing the music.

**In the interests of full disclosure -- I myself was guilty of going well over the time limit in the Final round of the 2013 Boston Competition -- a full 8 minutes! The reason for that is that I had programmed two pieces for the Finals -- John Harbison's "Sonata #2" and Judith Zaimont's "Wizards", but never figuring that I would actually make the Finals, and so didn't time it out. I had assumed the Harbison was around 21 - 22 minutes, but actually it was closer to 28 minutes. I can't prove this, but I think the reason that I was chosen to play in the Final round was that Harbison dedicated the Sonata to his good friend Robert Levin, who in turn is married to one of the adjudicators of that competition, Ya Fei Chuang! And I think they saw that as an opportunity to actually hear the Sonata in performance. Ya Fei Chuang herself briefly sought me out at the post-celebratory dinner, thanked me for my efforts, and said she would tell John Harbison that she thought I did a very good job presenting his Sonata. I mention this also because she will be one of the judges for the 2017 Boston Competition!

Well, good luck! I'm sure you'll get in!

justarobert made a nice listing of all the Cliburn competitors and their repertoire choices. Hopefully he won't mind me posting the link to it.

So you could look at what other people chose to play and get some ideas from that:

Cliburn listing

I need to save a copy of those pages somewhere, since the Cliburn removed all that info from their page - not that I will ever be brave enough to compete in one of these competitions!

Sam

Dude, you're not going anywhere without some Orlando G. on your program.

Funny you should say that.
Years ago (in an Amazon 'review') I goosed a history book by David Dubal a little bit for not having anything about him.
("....We can always quibble, and indeed there was one particular instance where I wondered why a composer wasn't included: Orlando Gibbons. Obviously not a major thing -- I mention it only to show how deep you might have to dig to find a quibble.")

BTW, remarkably, SiFi did mention Gibbons!

An interesting coinkydink, yes...

I know, right? I actually do know some of his music, including a beautiful Pavanne and Galliard in A minor, which I even performed once (on a harpsichord).

It worked for the other guy, it can work for you.

Thank you Tim and Mark for your thoughtful comments, and in particular your (plural) clearly expressed disagreement with my question about memorization. I actually regret making the suggestion that competitions should just require performance from memory, because I don't even believe they should. In fact, upon reflection, I have no idea what prompted me to say it, especially since I myself used music -- and the score of the music -- for a couple of Bach movements in the WIPAC competition!

On the other hand, I believe the question itself was legitimate. I also believe playing from memory is generally advisable, if it can be done without adding dangerous additional stress, but I agree that making it mandatory would be cruel and unusual.

A question that I meant to include concerned starting/ending with a bang vs. a whimper. Some pieces end quietly but very effectively. Scarbo is an example; I think it would be hard to follow that with something that worked as a finale. However, there's a natural human impulse, I think, to feel good when a performance ends with something dramatic and loud, like L'Isle joyeuse. I want to say more on this, but it'll have to wait because I need to practice for my "Friday Morning Music Club" performers audition on Wednesday, which, by the way, does require playing from memory.

BTW, I wasn't sure if Easter Egg was the right term for what I meant to say, but this definition does reflect the intended meaning: "An Easter egg is an intentional inside joke, a hidden message, . . . " So, yeah.

Yeah.
I did think "Easter egg" was the wrong term but it didn't keep me from thinking I knew what you were talking about.

I think it was a thing that I actually mentioned in my reply (twice), before I got to where you announced that there was an Easter egg and so it was before I knew we were looking for anything, but yeah, I'm guessing that was it.

I did have to hunt for a definition that fit. It's a testament to your powers of detection that I believed you'd figured it out before you actually knew I'd even planted it. I dropped another one of whatever these are into my last post, which I'm sure you also noted. It is remarkable how people like you can play music without the music. (Except that really isn't an Easter egg!)

That's what it was?
I thought it was the "song" thing!

You betcha! They didn't call him the funky Gibbons for nothing!

It was the song thing! The first thing I noticed was that you had noticed the "song thing". I was tickled that you spotted it so quickly. Full marks for observation!

The other one, not Easter eggy, was about playing with the "music".