 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2005-12-11 22:13
Just wondering how many would think that playing music and advancing your musical knowledge/capabilities would be considered one of the more "pure" forms of competition.
Athletics can have their steroids and doping, political races can have bribes, kickbacks, campaign contributions, even education can have contributions, affirmative action, etc. I'm not saying that all these things happen or are unfair (touchy subjects, I know), but these things DO happen and can cause unfair advantages for one person or other.
I know that as far as auditions go and whatnot, you CAN get around the "pure" competition with other methods, but generally speaking, when I try to think of things that are conducted on a most fair basis, musical competitions seem to be VERY fair. Often, I've seen the requirements of a musical competition be simply a recording sent, and almost all the time it's required that the person not even SPEAK on the recording (limiting it to only the sound). And auditions for orchestras are often said to be behind a curtain of some sort so the judging panel can't be influenced by anything other than sound.
Also, I can't think of anything that would enhance someone's performance more than hard work and dedication. MAYBE, having enough money to keep a phenominal teacher helping you out, but you STILL have to work hard to reach the goals set by him/her. And as far as equipment goes, everyone has access to the same equipment, and (as proven worldwide), there is no one "standard" best equipment that will GUARANTEE you a job somewhere. It's more along the lines of how you USE that equipment.
Am I missing something somewhere? Are there more politics involved than I know of? Or at least moreso than other forms of competition?
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2005-12-11 22:40
Competition is a necessity in the world of professional music. But I think it is a shame to let it dominate the world of amateur music.
I see this strikingly when I read posts here by American schoolkids. They see their progress on their instrument defined by what chair they have, or what band they play in. In the UK, progress on a instrument is defined much more by passing a series of exams. Of course, this can be competitive too - "I got a merit at grade 6." "I've only got grade 5, but with distinction." - but not in quite such a confrontational way.
We should recognise too that some amateur musicians simply hate competing. My wife was a victim of this; she was a pretty good pianist in her teens, but was driven away from music by her teacher's insistence on her entering local competitions. She quite often won, but hated every moment. Why did the teacher force her into it? Because it was good advertising for the teacher.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bass9396
Date: 2005-12-11 22:47
Music is really subjective. See Marching Band.
At BOA (Bands of America) each show has 4 music judges, each judging a different facet of the performance(Music General Effect(2) Music Ensemble and Music Individual.). Each facet of the performance is subject to the taste and experience of the adjudicator (whether they should be judging on their own personal taste or not.) Each show is also directly related to the shows that go on around them. So, if you follow someone who just had a really hot show (audition, whatever) it may be more difficult for you to impress. Conversely, if you follow someone who didn't perform very well it may be easier to impress because the judge was just lulled to sleep. The only way to prevent this phenomenon is to rotate judging panels for every performance (which is totally impractical and does not allow for some kind of consistency to the adjudication.)
I prefer competition in music as a vehicle for improvement. In other words, it's an easy way to get people together. Touting music as a pure form of competition is probably not the best message to send to kids, since the competition is like 1% of the experience. Making your point that the only barrier between you and excellence is hard work is great. I'm all for that.
I suppose my problem with competition is when adults allow students to miss the journey for the destination. For example, if you spend 6 years in the Army and finally make it to the Field Band and that's your goal that's great. However, I bet the journey to get there was way cooler than actually "getting" the assignment. You know, your life has changed, but not by a transfer order......by the experiences you had that got you there.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TrueApricot
Date: 2005-12-11 23:00
I often hear about corruptions in many piano or violin concours, where the musicians from the country in which the concours are held get surprisingly high scores. Again, this is purely what I heard/read somewhere therefore it may not be true. I'm nowhere near being a professional musician (I play bass clarinet in high school band) so I'm not going to express my opinions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2005-12-11 23:51
I think the competitive nature is fostered considerably by a focus on an unnecessarily narrow range of repertoire throughout the "classical" world. When there are so few pieces commonly played, an obsession with who can play any given piece better can easily come about.
In contrast, if people were to define themselves by what they played, or by a particular nuance or style, rather than who can play Weber 2 the cleanest and most accurately, the classical world might not be so snippy. It seems a difference between classical and rock musicians... a classical musician will say "they suck, because I can play that much better or have heard it played better," while a rock musician will say "they suck, because they play badly and I don't like to listen to it" without as much of the oneupmanship baggage. Then again, I've been known to be critical of cover bands, so that could well throw my theory out the window.
To this end, I've found a pursuit of contemporary music much more satisfying. I find the repertoire more engaging to begin with, and if I hear someone else play it, it is done with thought to how they interpreted it. I find myself, though, when listening to a more traditionally "classical" piece I've played, being much more critical. If you're premiering a piece, it has 200 years' less baggage than K622.
There is indeed often a lot of politics.
I think it's also a matter of a lack of musical awareness. When your only rubric for good playing is how technically accurate and just-like-the-recordings you can play, that becomes the focus, as does comparing yourself to other people in that regard. I still find myself guilty of this at times, and it's a sign that I've slacked off in musical attention.
A really good teacher (I've had one that did this, and it took 5 years to begin to sink in) can show you how to find things in the music in such a way that the music itself can provide enough challenge and intrigue to allow you to focus on how you play it, becoming a fully immersive experience. At this point, the music becomes fulfilling in itself, and the realization that you yourself have an enormous challenge in front of you helps to take the focus off whether you or the first chair player can handle a touch of rubato more delicately.
To me, now, hearing a performance I don't care for has become more disappointment toward "it just wasn't musically right" rather than "I could play it better." Because "I could play it better" tends to lead to playing it exactly how they did five years down the line.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2005-12-12 01:46
I guess I don't think music competition is "purer" than other forms of competition.
I absolutely hate judged "sports" --like ice skating, gymnastics. Yet our generation X folks seem to love such one-at-a-time solo judged performances.
Try the analogy of learning all of the tricky "moves" required to play passages on a clarinet to the intricacies of doing a triple jump on skates. OK, I can play the E-minor scale by sliding my pinky. She can catch a toe pick and vault, spinning into the air.
So what? Does my Eminor passage sound beautiful? Does the skater's jump fit with the program and flow smoothly? Is it beautiful, memorable to watch?
Its what you do with what you've got (and what you've developed and integrated) that matters.
YOU, keep winning, however.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2005-12-12 15:17
Whether music competition is purer, fairer or whatnot, I have little opinion--save for the observation that a music competition has to be based on subjective judging whereas sports, to varying degrees, are based on more objective criteria; e.g., the high jumper either made it over the bar or didn't.
Competition is a necessary evil in the audition process, but music ideally should be a cooperative process, not a competitive one. I believe that, to the greatest extent, one should compete with only oneself, aiming toward improvement or a personal goal. So, in my opinion, the best music "competitions" are the ones where the individual or group gets a grade and constructive criticism from the judges, not the ones that offer a single first prize, second prize, etc.
(Said from the heart of marching band competition territory.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-12-12 15:55
I'm going to play in a music competition later this year, so I'll have the answer after it happens. If we don't win, we know it is unfair ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tims
Date: 2005-12-12 19:07
If there was such a thing as a "pure" competition, I'm sure the end results (the winners) of such a competition would be judged by purely objective means. One can argue that steroids and other drugs may artificially and unfairly give advantage to one athlete over another, but in most athletic competitions, the judging itself is clear and unambiguous. Who came in first in the 100 meter dash or who jumped the highest in the high jump are results not generally open to subjective interpretation.
Music competitions are highly subjective in their judging and they are not free of unscrupulous methods practiced by the competitors. Doctored audition tapes are quite common and almost impossible to detect with modern digital editing techniques. Doctored tapes are such a problem that I've known honest applicants to have their tapes disqualified simply because they sounded "too good" and therefore must have been altered (I know they weren't because I was present at the recording session and the preparation and mailing of the tapes).
The use of drugs such as beta blockers to calm nerves and other drugs to enhance focus and concentration (Ritalin, amphetamines and some antidepressants) is wide spread, particularly among those auditioning for high stakes competitions and professional ensembles.
Today with the caliber of musicianship so high, even at the grade school level, technical perfection is becoming expected. Judging therefore becomes simply a matter of what the judges view as most "musical" to their particular tastes and mood at the time. Here again, more competitors are resorting to researching the judges themselve as much as the competition music in an effort to gauge what the judge's taste might be. Who did they study with? Are there recording available with these judges performing themselves? Can anything be gleaned by hearing winners who were previously judged by these people? Can you find someone who knows the judge personally who can shed light on what that judge might look for?
The stakes can be very high and when the stakes go up, people feel they must play along or be left in the dust. High school competitions are not exempt. Band directors careers are often on the line base on how many medals and honors his/her students bring home from these competitions. Failure to keep up with the school down the street might mean getting your walking papers come May. Students often become unknowing partners to unscrupulous practices perpetrated by overzealous directors and private lesson teachers who are more concerned with enhancing their own careers than setting proper ethical standards.
Competition has become the raison d'être in many school music environments. The amount of music a student is exposed to in a given year has shrunk to the point where it only includes those pieces that are part of the several music competitions the student is required to participate in. Music as an essential part of art and culture is completely ignored. Musical pedagogy is restricted to that which enables success in competition rather than general skill, musicianship, understanding and appreciation. Don't get me wrong, competition is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is an important vehicle for overcoming performance anxieties and properly gauging ones skill relative to others, but it should not be the sole purpose of the musical experience.
Competitions will always be with us. Professional organization, music schools and scholarship committees have a right to audition and choose the best candidates for the limited positions they have, but music as competitive sport, as it is commonly being practiced in our public schools, does not necessarily make for better musicians or even good sport.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-12-12 19:22
tims wrote:
> The amount of music a student is exposed to in a
> given year has shrunk to the point where it only includes those
> pieces that are part of the several music competitions the
> student is required to participate in.
Absolutely..
One of my pet peeves is the band director who starts teaching the music for his Christmas program in September.
When I ask my private students what they are working on in their school instrumental lesson groups, they inevitably say "just the band music."
Christmas in September? Bah...Humbug
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2005-12-12 21:05
> Christmas in September?
...at the same time all the stores hang up their holly wreaths. That's because on Dec 26 they must be ready for Easter...
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Grant
Date: 2005-12-13 00:29
What I get most out of the bands I play in is a great feeling of co-operation.
With one rehearsal a week the community bands I play in had to start Christmas music in September, It was hard to get into the mood.
Peace on Earth and May You always have a reed that PLAYS.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mgoetze
Date: 2005-12-13 22:51
I think music isn't a competition at all... If you want a very fair form of competition, learn to play Go. Bridge would also qualify but for all the regulations barring/disadvantaging certain systems.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick Williams
Date: 2005-12-13 23:15
A HS music teacher commented to me a few years ago that he felt like a coach and not a music teacher since his job in no small measure depended on the scores he got at the various competitions.
At innumerable HS's across the US the moment students walk into a band room they begin practicing for their first competition and once done they begin work on the next competition this after starting in the summer for the various marching band competitions followed by jazz ensemble competitions and individual competitions.
The typical music fare at these competitions is music written by music educators, for music educators so that music educators can make money and feature introductory notes for the audience, in case they don’t understand they are listening to music representing a quiet stream running through a pasture. The classics it seems are booring.
Because of all this competition, a HS orchestra or band may have time for one public performance outside of half time shows during the year and certainly not much more and directors certainly don't allow for much in the way of outside activities.
So competition, yes. Pure, hardly but then it stops being about the music about the time you put a score card to it; then it's about winning.
Best
Rick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Stewie Griffin
Date: 2005-12-14 21:08
Some judges do seem to create bias to some people.
Many people, unlike me, feel that music competition is just about how much the judge likes your interpretatioin.
The only objective thing is technical stuff, IMHO.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bass9396
Date: 2005-12-15 02:41
Band competitions are a wonderful forum to view great young musicians. The problems arise when you have directors who don't understand that the journey is more important than the destination. They start their kids far too early(during summer break) and don't stop til November, all the while talking about winning and never about excellence. The saddest part of all this is that the best programs tend to rehearse the least, start the latest, have the smallest staffs, and are the most supportive of other groups. Moreover, the best programs don't REALLY care if they win. They'd like to win, but they max out their seasons with extremely hot performances and have left everything on the field so they're satisfied. The students in the worst programs hear win....not integrity, quality, excellence, pride, or tradition.
Many directors whose jobs are "on the line" would do well to take their administrations to large competitions and expose these folks to the amount of work it actually takes to produce these shows....the amount of time the program needs to grow and the amount of support needed to make the group competitive. They might see things differently.
I suppose the most distressing part of this 'competition' argument is my own anecdote. I took an elementary band(5th graders) to concert festival on comments only and my principal told me to bring back lots of trophies. They get 'em started young nowadays.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
