Between 1912 and 1948, art competitions were part of the Olympic Games. Initially, these competitions were grouped into five broad categories, including architecture, literature, music, painting, and sculpture. In terms of music, subcategories encompassed mixed music, compositions for orchestra, solo and chorus compositions, instrumental and chamber works, and vocal compositions.
An expert panel of judges awarded Riccardo Barthelemy of Italy gold for his Triumphal March at the 1912 Stockholm Olympics mixed music category, with the same prize awarded to Georges Monier of Belgium in 1920 Antwerp. Josef Suk, meanwhile, with no gold or silver medals awarded, received the bronze for his Into a New Life in 1932.
Judging music compositions, synchronised swimming, ice skating, or International Piano Competitions is a tricky business because of the sheer number of possible criteria involved. We might objectively judge technical merit, but things tend to get much more subjective in terms of creativity, interpretation, and the ability to communicate and emotionally connect with judges and the audience. That begs the question, can an International Piano Competition be judged fairly?
Josef Suk: Into a New Life
The Woke Solution
The Woke Solution invariably starts with some bean-counting and classifications under the guise of redressing social inequalities, racial injustice, sexism or the denial of LGBT rights. Within the seething cauldron of moral outrage, statistics are an excellent marker for dividing contestants into females, males, non-binaries, and people who identify as cats.
In fact, the Leeds Piano Competition in 2024 established an agenda that “aimed at eliminating both conscious and unconscious bias in order to promote a more equal environment for all competitors.” This was apparently achieved, statistically speaking, by instructing jurors to advance women over men in case of equal scores. And even more forcefully, the Rules of Judgement demanded that “in the instance of a single gender outcome or an outcome that significantly reduces the ratio of women to men in the Competition, there will be a revote for all places.”
We don’t seem to be terribly far away from seeing rules, guidelines and laws on race, ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation, and transgenderism. While everybody rightfully supports and demands equality of opportunity for all competitors, to legislate equality of outcome is simply the height of woke folly.
Junyan Chen—Leeds International Piano Competition 2024 (Rach. No. 4)
Family Ties
International competitions have always attracted some of the most talented individuals in their respective fields. And ever since, they have courted controversy as well. Much of that controversy has focused on competitions where the outcome had been politically decided months before the competition even got actually started. While State-run interference is once again a pressing issue, much journalistic ink has been spilt on professors on juries giving top marks to their students while at the same time manipulating the scores of main competitors.
To some outspoken commentators, voting for your student or relative during a competition “is not a victimless crime, but a form of corruption that needs to be rectified by legal means.”
The world of top-level performers and teachers is small, and everybody knows everyone. One might actually say it’s simply an extended family. When Friedrich Wieck or Nikolay Zverev took on a student, they became part of the family household, taking piano lessons in the morning and doing dishes in the afternoon.
In substantial areas of the world, the family bond emphasising social harmony counts for everything. There is plenty of literature available on that subject, and to not vote for your own student or publicly support a family member in a competition or elsewhere, is one of the most shameful acts imaginable. What might be considered a conflict of interest in some parts of the world is simply a collectivist and hierarchical set of moral codes regulating family interactions in others.
Trifonov & Babayan perform Rachmaninoff: Suite No. 2 for Two Pianos
A Breath of Fresh Air
Noriko Ogawa
While writing this feature, the 12th Hamamatsu International Piano Competition provided me with the “Rules of Judgement” governing the 2024 competition. And like many things in Japan, reading through the instructions felt like a return to sanity. Three succinct pages carefully outline the duties of the jury throughout all stages of the competition, and making it clear from the onset that they are dealing with “competitors.”
One paragraph that specifically caught my attention reads, “If a Juror has given private lessons to a Competitor for more than one month during the preceding two years, has a teaching or familial relationship with a Competitor… that Juror shall be precluded from judging that Competitor in the preliminary and Final Stages and for the prizes.” Conspiracy theorists will readily point out that this won’t solve all the problems, but it does establish an initial level of transparency and official awareness.
Jurors invited to pass judgment at the 12th Hamamatsu International Piano Competition are the cream of the crop. And while some might hold differing artistic points of view and have occasional outside interests, their integrity as pianists and artists should be beyond a shadow of a doubt. That said, any jury is only as good as its Chairperson.
And that task, at the 12th Hamamatsu International Piano Competition, falls on the pianist, educator, adjudicator, and humanitarian Noriko Ogawa. As a veteran of the competition circuit, as both competitor and judge, Ogawa is keenly aware of all the contentious issues and pitfalls surrounding such events. And as far as I can tell, she is supremely capable of dealing with all of them. The 12th Hamamatsu International Piano Competition is, in my humble opinion, in the best and most capable hands.
For more of the best in classical music, sign up for our E-Newsletter
