Criteria to judge competitors in guitar comeptitions
mata...@gmail.com
competition (Alessandria 2007), something I have not done in several
years, I have been bugged and pissed and generally annoyed at the way
my judgments were differing from that of the other jurors. Am I so
totally out of it, or are they?
The general impression I had was that each of the jurors (myself
included) were basing his/her judgment strictly on personal bias and
experience, without any adherence to a general set of rules. The
performers in the group were mainly judging technical excellence, the
composers were judging choice of repertoire, the non-musicians were
judging emotional impact, and the non-guitarists were judging
whatever, and all of these were inevitably shared by all.
It then occurred to me that there is no set of clear guide lines to
jurors on what it is they are supposed to be judging. So have two
questions:
1. Is there a need for a clear and well articulated set of guide lines
to jurors that could be used by competitions the world over, or the
present haphazard system of catch-as-catch-can is good enough as it
is?
2. If you think there is such a need, what would be, IYHO, the
necessary rules, guide-lines, premises, instructions etc to the jury?
In other words, were you to judge a competition, what would _you_be
listening/looking for?
MO.
virtual
"mata...@gmail.com" <mata...@gmail.com> wrote:
The question then might be: Criteria to select a jury to judge a guitar
competition.
Have fun
--
Resources to play the guitar for fun and relaxation
Tommy Grand
I think the judging rules should be specified at the outset, so that
the participants know what they are getting into. The criteria should
be up to the contest organizers, but they ought to be explicit.
Finally, and this is key, each judge will be required to turn over his
scoring sheet for each contestant. These will be posted online for
all the world to see. That way, if a judge is biased or ignorant, she
risks massive public humiliation. Someone like you could be in charge
of that, perhaps.
mata...@gmail.com
> In article <1191485194.221553.105...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
How true! However, since competitions are generally based on a
business plan, it is often a question of the value of the return on
investment.
MO
David Schramm
I agree 100%. I've judged at eight annual guitar festivals here in
California and have had the same experience.
The "criteria" and evaluation/scoring systems used need some serious
tweaking. What do Piano competitions do? Do they have the same problems?
--
David Schramm
Clovis, CA
http://schrammguitars.com
http://onlineapprentice.com
Eduardo F
My answer would be:
1) sympathy with your predicament, and welcome to the club of
minorites of one
2) there cannot be a general set of rules because you would need
somebody to enforce it, and then why not make that person the only
jury...more seriously, even rules can be interpreted in different
ways. The point system is very dangerous too, because it amounts to
qualified voting - better a yes/no decision
3) Many jurors try to be objective but it is very hard to do, and in
fact different people with have different ideas of what being
objective means;
4) In my experience, for what it is worth, good performers don't care
much about technical excellence, (intending by this playing everything
impeccably clean and loud if possible); bad ones do, much more, and
non-musicians most of all.
When I am on a jury I look for players who have something to say and
say it within the arc of possibilites the pieces offer - that serve
the music instead of trying to make the music serve them (which is
rather against the concept of a competition, but never mind).
Eduardo F
well... (let's say, people like me)
On Oct 4, 5:06 am, "matan...@gmail.com" <matan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> How true! However, since competitions are generally based on a
> business plan, it is often a question of the value of the return on
> investment.
>
> MO
>
Ignorant question--are most guitar competitions conducted behind a
screen, and with names unknown by the judges?
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Eduardo F
>From my information, in every competition there seem to be the same
problems. Scoring is a problem itself, in my view. And when jurors are
required to point separately different aspects (technique, musicality,
hair style/cleavage...) then it gets really dangerous.
As to posting publicly every juror's sheet, I don't think it would
really change anything - it means in fact judging the judges, but if a
juror is convinced of his vote, I don't think he/she would object to
publicity or change his/her vote because of this. And how can we
suppose the "majority" i.e. the audience or readers of these sheets,
is right in these matters? when jurors are supposedly chosen because
they know more than the audience...
In my view, competitions are inherently problematic (for years I
refused invitations to juries until I realized that refusing to
participate was even worse), and this is not solved by any system.
Maybe we should have competitions as tournaments, with chronometers to
decide objectively who should win (measuring who plays the fast piece
fastest), electronics (who makes the less mistakes), and videos (who
moves more and is hence more "expressive"). And let music be music and
run in a separate track. But that will be the day!
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>
>>From my information, in every competition there seem to be the same
> problems. Scoring is a problem itself, in my view. And when jurors are
> required to point separately different aspects (technique, musicality,
> hair style/cleavage...)
Well--that kind of answers my question...;-)
Steve
then it gets really dangerous.
> As to posting publicly every juror's sheet, I don't think it would
> really change anything - it means in fact judging the judges, but if a
> juror is convinced of his vote, I don't think he/she would object to
> publicity or change his/her vote because of this. And how can we
> suppose the "majority" i.e. the audience or readers of these sheets,
> is right in these matters? when jurors are supposedly chosen because
> they know more than the audience...
> In my view, competitions are inherently problematic (for years I
> refused invitations to juries until I realized that refusing to
> participate was even worse), and this is not solved by any system.
> Maybe we should have competitions as tournaments, with chronometers to
> decide objectively who should win (measuring who plays the fast piece
> fastest), electronics (who makes the less mistakes), and videos (who
> moves more and is hence more "expressive"). And let music be music and
> run in a separate track. But that will be the day!
>
mata...@gmail.com
>
> 2) there cannot be a general set of rules because you would need
> somebody to enforce it,
True enough. But then, I am thinking more in terms of guide lines or
instructions, which every juror will necessarily interpret in an
individual manner anyway, but at least, there will be a common ground
for discussion, when such discussions are allowed.
MO.
David Raleigh Arnold
> Having just suffered though several grueling days of judging a guitar
> competition (Alessandria 2007), something I have not done in several
> years, I have been bugged and pissed and generally annoyed at the way my
> judgments were differing from that of the other jurors. Am I so totally
> out of it, or are they?
>
> The general impression I had was that each of the jurors (myself
> included) were basing his/her judgment strictly on personal bias and
> experience, without any adherence to a general set of rules. The
> performers in the group were mainly judging technical excellence, the
> composers were judging choice of repertoire, the non-musicians were
> judging emotional impact, and the non-guitarists were judging whatever,
> and all of these were inevitably shared by all.
>
> It then occurred to me that there is no set of clear guide lines to
> jurors on what it is they are supposed to be judging. So have two
> questions:
>
> 1. Is there a need for a clear and well articulated set of guide lines
> to jurors that could be used by competitions the world over, or the
> present haphazard system of catch-as-catch-can is good enough as it is?
Neither.
>
> 2. If you think there is such a need, what would be, IYHO, the necessary
> rules, guide-lines, premises, instructions etc to the jury?
>
> In other words, were you to judge a competition, what would _you_be
> listening/looking for?
I think that stating the problem is a good idea.
The problem is finding objective criteria for judgments which are by
nature subjective and personal. (For myself, I would not serve if asked,
and I will be asked.)
So the solution is to turn a sole criterion into something as objective
as possible. The only way to do that IMO is to base your judgment on how
you think others would judge.
Now, judge what? It seems to me that the most positive way to make a
gourmet meal out of this dog's dinner is to try to project how each
contestant's performance would go over on the road playing to an audience
with better than average but not overly superior taste. That way at
least the winners are encouraged to make something of their playing, and
the contest might serve some purpose.
It may be possible to whip up a checksheet to help with that, but such a
document will be no good without having an overall direction.
So who should be judges, according to this view? Retired successful
concert performers, that's who.
Perhaps there are too many contests. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html :::: You can play the cards
you're dealt, or improve your hand with DGT. Original easy guitar
solos, duets, exercises. http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
David Raleigh Arnold
Also, it is good when each juror writes an exclusively personal overall
review of the performance, in addition to giving the contestants the
originals of their score sheets and other working documents. daveA
Alcibiades
> The general impression I had was that each of the jurors (myself
> included) were basing his/her judgment strictly on personal bias and
> experience, without any adherence to a general set of rules. The
> performers in the group were mainly judging technical excellence, the
> composers were judging choice of repertoire, the non-musicians were
> judging emotional impact, and the non-guitarists were judging
> whatever, and all of these were inevitably shared by all.
Such is the dictatorship of relativism.
Alcibiades
> Hi Matanya,
> I agree 100%. I've judged at eight annual guitar festivals here in
> California and have had the same experience.
> The "criteria" and evaluation/scoring systems used need some serious
> tweaking. What do Piano competitions do? Do they have the same problems?
Speaking of the piano and competitions, Claudio Arrau says this in a
book I'm now reading, Great Contemporary Pianists Speak for
Themselves:
"Today, too much commercialism has crept into the picture to allow the
young artist sufficient time to develop. Music has become too big a
business. Now young people win a prize and are expected immediately to
live up to expectations. They are supposed to be ready-made great
artists, which obviously they cannot be. They need time to mature;
instead they are pushed into a tour of fifty or sixty concerts with
only one or two programs, which is as unhealthy a situation as you
could find. I suppose that, with the number of young gifted people
available, it is quite difficult to make a career without winning a
competition, but there ought to be another way, too."
This commercialism is directly related to the dictatorship of
relativism, which has consumerized truth itself. Thus standards are
increasingly seen as an imposition and even a form of tyranny, since
this regime teaches that we're all entitled to OUR OWN truths (as if
truth were a possession) - comfort, convenience, and good feelings
being the primary criteria of these "truths."
dofrenzy
Reminds me of a PBS documentary. I only caught a few minutes of it,
but it was a scene of some judges discussing numerous competitors in a
music competition. I was amused to see the judges reactions to one
particular performer. Judge after judge was absolutely NUTS about one
performer in particular,they GUSHED with various compliments about all
aspects of the performance. Each judge was agreeing that this person
should definitely be the winner, but the last judge to speak
completely disagreed, and she then put LOTS of energy and passion into
trying to convince the other judges how utterly AWFUL that performer
was. In fact, she actually seemed to take the whole thing quite
personally.
The audience should be the judge, in my opinion. "Qualified" judges
would be part of the audience, and therefore have some influence on
the outcome, but ultimately it should be the masses that decide
success or failure.
Each contest could have a different way of voting. Maybe a touch-pad
like "America's Funniest Home Videos" and of course, the applause-o-
meter would be great at some competitions!
Corniferius
Yes, I agree Alcabore-us , I therefore call on all to write your
congressman or women and request public funding of the arts, as well
as of the art lover.
Corniferius
Corniferius
> On Oct 4, 12:13 pm, "David Schramm" <ddschr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Matanya,
> > I agree 100%. I've judged at eight annual guitar festivals here in
> > California and have had the same experience.
> > The "criteria" and evaluation/scoring systems used need some serious
> > tweaking. What do Piano competitions do? Do they have the same problems?
>
> > --
> > David Schramm
> > Clovis, CAhttp://schrammguitars.comhttp://onlineapprentice.com
> >From my information, in every competition there seem to be the same
>
> problems. Scoring is a problem itself, in my view. And when jurors are
> required to point separately different aspects (technique, musicality,
> hair style/cleavage...) then it gets really dangerous.
I think your onto something here. I would do away with guitar
compititions all together and simply judge cleavage. Isn't that why
we all started playing guitar in the first place?
Corniferiusness
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Arrau was certainly not the only one to rail against competitions. Not
sure how this fits into your world view though, since it posits that
there is a "best" and that artists can be ranked, as on an absolute
scale, as if greatness can be quantified--I would think competitions
would be right up your alley.
Steve
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Paging Simon Cowell!
John Nguyen
> When I am on a jury I look for players who have something to say and
> say it within the arc of possibilites the pieces offer - that serve
> the music instead of trying to make the music serve them (which is
> rather against the concept of a competition, but never mind).
I think this is very important and at the same time very subjective.
In my observation, normally 60~70% of the players would be eliminated
at the first round based on technical competency. The second round
would pick out 1/4 of the pack for those who has something to say in
their playing. Then the final round would give a chance to the players
who can make the most connection to the juries. This is where all hell
broke loose as juries' personal referrences get into the way. This is
where a differrent set of juries would have an entirely different
outcome in the final round. May be that's why they have multiple
competitions :-) Regardless, the juries have an unenvy job, and I'm
glad I don't have to do it.
Cheers,
John
Eduardo F
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
Not to my knowledge , although sometimes the jury does not know the
names of the competitors. But it is a small world, and usually you
find out who is who pretty quickly if you care to do it
Eduardo F
>
> - Show quoted text -
They call this "scenic presence" and things like that. Point is, you
cannot separate things. Where does technique end and musicality begin?
Eduardo F
Would be a nice idea and the instructions should be pretty general -
for instance, do not discriminate between people you know and people
you don't, do not take any account of how they are dressed, look at
the score and see whether they are playing what the composer intended
(when the juries can read of course which is, sad to say, not always
the case). I am not sure whether discussions should be allowed -
depends on the composition of the jury. Sometimes clarify, sometimes
distort judgement.
Eduardo F
Yes, of course it is subjective. One of the risks is trying to be
"objective" and vote "what you are supposed to like" even if you don't
like it. This is why usually the winner is the one who offends the
least or is less original (something that Menuhin and others have
observed before me, of course). I think you should vote what you think
and the different subjectivities will give a collective opinion.
Richard Jernigan
> Such is the dictatorship of relativism.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a
nail.
Greetings from Kyoto,
RNJ
Richard Jernigan
the audience, Matanya. It seemed to me that some extra-musical
criterion must have been applied, since one competitor was clearly
superior (to me) to all the rest in the pieces he played. John
Williams declared himself profoundly impressed by this contestant's
playing in Williams' master class. The player was awarded third place.
I discussed it with a variety of people afterward, though none of them
were on the jury nor in the management of the event. The third place
winner, by far the best in what he played, was only 18 years old. Many
cited his youth, and the fact that the winner would be on a year-long
tour, essentially as a representative of the GFA. Others questioned
the breadth of his repertoire, though none claimed to know it was
narrow. At any rate I was disappointed that such musical excellence
was so poorly rewarded.
I would think that at least the general criteria for judging should be
publicized. This would serve both to guide discussions among the jury
and to alert the players and public to non-musical criteria.
RNJ
Steven Bornfeld
>
> They call this "scenic presence" and things like that. Point is, you
> cannot separate things. Where does technique end and musicality begin?
>
Well, I've never referred to cleavage as "scenic presence", but I see
your point, Maestro. And I've finally figured out why I never got the
babes.
Steve
dsi1
This is true. People fit problems and solutions according to what they
know. I'm a repair guy so I think everything can be repaired or
adjusted. Guys in sales think that the solution to most problems is
buying a new one. The Democrats like to throw more money at problems.
The Republicans like to throw more money into the military. Some will
just complain a lot and think that's a solution but bitching seems to be
somewhat unproductive. That's the human condition - all we can do is
what we know.
Greetings from my stinkin' cold office.
david
Wollybird
I didn't think offices got cold in Hawaii. Could it be your toaster?
Alcibiades
> The audience should be the judge, in my opinion. "Qualified" judges
> would be part of the audience, and therefore have some influence on
> the outcome, but ultimately it should be the masses that decide
> success or failure.
The same masses who elevate the likes of Madonna, Britney Spears, and
50 Cent? Genuine artistry is to be placed at the mercy of mob values?
John Nguyen
I think you mis-underestimate the intelligence of the "mob" who went
to see those competitions. I bet the majority of those who went to
classcal concerts/competition knew a thing or two about the art, and
they don't come to those events just to have a tailgate party.
Therefore, I would really hesitate to put this "mob" in the same
sentence with the other mob, although i'm sure the two are not
exclusive and certainly shared some small common portion of the
general population.
John
dsi1
I did not know that offices over here got cold too. My neighbors have
been telling me that their offices are on the chilly side but the
temperature seemed fine to me. I figured that the old guys and women
couldn't take lower temperature but young bucks such as myself could
take it in stride. Ha ha. Todays temps had me shivering like a scared
little girl. Guess I deserve that...
david
Jez
<mata...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191485194.2...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> Having just suffered though several grueling days of judging a guitar
> competition (Alessandria 2007), something I have not done in several
> years, I have been bugged and pissed and generally annoyed at the way
> my judgments were differing from that of the other jurors. Am I so
> totally out of it, or are they?
>
> The general impression I had was that each of the jurors (myself
> included) were basing his/her judgment strictly on personal bias and
> experience, without any adherence to a general set of rules. The
> performers in the group were mainly judging technical excellence, the
> composers were judging choice of repertoire, the non-musicians were
> judging emotional impact, and the non-guitarists were judging
> whatever, and all of these were inevitably shared by all.
>
> It then occurred to me that there is no set of clear guide lines to
> jurors on what it is they are supposed to be judging. So have two
> questions:
>
> 1. Is there a need for a clear and well articulated set of guide lines
> to jurors that could be used by competitions the world over, or the
> present haphazard system of catch-as-catch-can is good enough as it
> is?
>
> 2. If you think there is such a need, what would be, IYHO, the
> necessary rules, guide-lines, premises, instructions etc to the jury?
>
> In other words, were you to judge a competition, what would _you_be
> listening/looking for?
>
> MO.
>
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.", Albert Einstein
dofrenzy
As John Nguyen points out below, the masses that attend a CG
competition might differ from the masses that attend a Britney
concert.
Anyway, what is the competition about in the first place? Well, let's
ask ourselves what an aspiring >professional< guitarist wants most: a
large audience that pays good money to attend their concert.
I had a music history teacher who lambasted the "Trans-Siberian
Orchestra". This guy was highly degreed, and knew all the important
stuff about music. His instrument? The harpsichord. Now, if we
wanted to get Beethoven to some of the Britney fans out there, which
way is better: some stuffed shirt with a man-purse playing an
instrument that went out of style in the 1800's, or: a huge,
electrified orchestra that includes, and depends heavily upon, heavy-
metal guitar? Honestly, Pachelbel's Canon recently became a huge hit
on you-tube, not because some schmuck had a good rest-stroke, but
because some kid shredded it on an electric guitar.
So, yes, the masses should vote, and preferably the Britney and 50-
cent masses. Those people who actually care about music (and not
everyone does) might actually be introduced to whole new world of
music. But they aren't. Why? Because we insist on depending upon
people who have spent a lifetime studying it to tell us what is good
and what isn't.
It's almost as if we (the classical afficianados) are trying to keep
it a secret, protecting the "aura" of driving around in a Mercedes
listening to Ravel and feeling superior. Maybe we wouldn't feel so
superior if some punk in a slammed Ford Escort with blue-neon running
lights pulled up next to us with his bass thumping the William Tell
Overture.
Anyway, I apologize if this came across as a lecture. Just some
thoughts really.
Richard F. Sayage
"dofrenzy" <gary__d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191588754.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I like it....more of a rant really....but I still like it. William Tell
Overture...nice! :-)
Rich
Raptor
BMW, yes.
mark
David Schramm
Just to let you know your recording which featured the Legnani caprices was
a huge influence on me in the 1980's. The LP for some reason sounds much
better than the cd. From then on I've been a fan. At the time I was a
student of Ron Purcell's at CSU, Northridge and many of the students were in
awe of that recording. Keep up the great work!!!
Regards,
--
David Schramm
Clovis, CA
http://schrammguitars.com
http://onlineapprentice.com
Matanya Ophee
>The point system is very dangerous too, because it amounts to
>qualified voting - better a yes/no decision
In the first round in the Pittaluga this year, they used a yes/no
system. In the second round they used points from 1 to 10. Some of the
best players (in my opinion) in the first round, did not make it into
the second, and some of the best players in the second round did not
make it into the finals. In essence then, a yes/no system is the same
as a point system where yes is a ten and a no is a zero.
>When I am on a jury I look for players who have something to say and
>say it within the arc of possibilites the pieces offer - that serve
>the music instead of trying to make the music serve them (which is
>rather against the concept of a competition, but never mind).
That is also my own point of view, but apparently other jurors have
other priorities and other prejudices than mine, and the results are
often contrary to what I would consider a fair and equitable judgment.
In this one competition, this was only too obvious, and several
excellent players got side-swiped and discarded unfairly. Which only
proves a point I have been making: winning a guitar competition is a
crap-shoot.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
Alcibiades
> That is also my own point of view, but apparently other jurors have
> other priorities and other prejudices than mine, and the results are
> often contrary to what I would consider a fair and equitable judgment.
> In this one competition, this was only too obvious, and several
> excellent players got side-swiped and discarded unfairly. Which only
> proves a point I have been making: winning a guitar competition is a
> crap-shoot.
>
> Matanya Ophee
> Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
> 1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
> Columbus, OH 43235-1226
> 614-846-9517
> fax: 614-846-9794http://www.editionsorphee.comhttp://matanya.livejournal.com
One has to assume, given your experience, that you knew of the
fraudulent nature of competition judging before you signed up for it.
Why then did you do it?
Carlos Barrientos
Wagner's "Valkrie's Ride" at the top of my speakers
top down in an MG Midget convertible going down back beach road in
Panama City.
That was me on the way to a Rock and Roll gig!
--
Carlos Barrientos
"mailto:ca...@sprintmail.com"
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
Eduardo F
Sorry to intervene again - but fraudulent and mistaken are two very
different things. I don't think competition judging is fraudulent. But
mistakes will be made. And the biggest ones are usually made in
selecting the jury...
Matanya Ophee
>Sorry to intervene again - but fraudulent and mistaken are two very
>different things. I don't think competition judging is fraudulent. But
>mistakes will be made. And the biggest ones are usually made in
>selecting the jury...
Truer words were never spoken... thanks Eduardo.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
Alcibiades
> Sorry to intervene again - but fraudulent and mistaken are two very
> different things. I don't think competition judging is fraudulent. But
> mistakes will be made. And the biggest ones are usually made in
> selecting the jury..
So they made a mistake in selecting Ophee. I get it.
Matanya Ophee
>So they made a mistake in selecting Ophee. I get it.
Actually, the mistake was mine in accepting the invitation, contrary
to my resolve made years ago, never to participate in such juries. But
I was suckered into this by the Chitarra d'Oro award (for
musicological research), the Oscar of the guitar if you will, given to
me by the Pittaluga organziation. This year the award was also given,
among others, to Julian Bream and Hans Werner Hense.
I was also asked to read a paper in this one day convention at the end
of the competition, organized by the Italian guitar magazine Seicorde.
My subject was on Italian guitar music from the second half of the
18th century. I read it, of course, in Italian. I got it fine tuned
with the help of my friend Angelo Gilardino, with whom I had the
pleasure of a visit to his house in Vercelli the day before. Angelo
made some significant corrections to the Italian text, prepared for me
by a translator in Columbus, and helped me with the pronunciation. I
also had the pleasure of meeting many old friends (and a few old
enemies...).
Lena Kokkaliari
Francesco Biraghi
Luigi Attademo
Luigi Tampalini
Artyom Dervoyed
Mario dell'Ara
Alvaro Company
Frédéric Zigante
Guido Margaria
Piero Bonaguri
Filipo Michelangeli
Roberto Fabbri
Jan de Kloe
Colin Cooper
Nuccio d'Angelo
Pavel Steidel
Marco Tamayo
Antonio "Biki" Rodriguez
Roberto Pincirolli
Annabela Montesinos
Gaelle Solal
and 84 years old Alirio Diaz.
(A few more whose names escape me at the moment.)
It was a wonderful week in Italy, full of good music, a lot of good
wine and good food, but there was a price to pay: listening to a lot
of awful interpretations and seeing their perpetrators move on to the
next round, and at the same time being blessed in hearing some
wonderful music played by talented players from many different
countries (not a single American in the lot...), only to see them
discarded by ignorant judgments made by other members of the jury.
And some of the discussions in the jury room were definitely bad for
my weakening heart. Never again. I promise.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
Raptor
defined, more or less, as one's "peers". (We sort of "borrowed" this
from Magna Carta, the English at the time not really using it.) The
purpose of a trial is to determine whether defendant is guilty or
innocent of charges brought by the state or plantiff (in civil
matters.) Most uury members are drafted and if truth be told, are
persons unable to devise a ruse by which to escape the obligation. In
other words, not usually one's "peers," but draftees.
In music competitions, it is not supposed a jury is composed of the
competitors' peers, but his/her "betters," defined as persons of
performance accomplishment, erudition or both. Hence, as contrasted
with criminal/civil trials, a performance jury is composed of persons
honored by being considered for the duty, heads swelled at the belief
they're qualified by selection, their prejudices, ideologies and
worse, confirmed by the selection.
If you want an objective performance jury, create a selection roster
of draftees, inconvenienced by their selection, inadequately paid for
their service, unrewarded for their judgement and in no way promoted
for their participation. In other words, draft them. If it's good
enough for a trial for capital murder, why not for performance of a
Weiss Sonata (suite)?
It'll never happen.
mark
Matanya Ophee
>If you want an objective performance jury,
I said this before: The only way to arrive at an objective judgement
of a performance is this:
1. at least 11-15 jurors. (must be an odd number so there are no
ties). The larger the number, the better chance of a good average of
opinions.
2. no teachers of any of the competitors, not even past teachers.
3. no current professional performers who, consciously or not, may see
the winner as their next economic threat.
4. at least 3-4 musicians who are not guitarists. Composers, pianists,
violinists etc.
Never happens.
John Rimmer
"Raptor" <mpda...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1191973160....@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
John
David Raleigh Arnold
> Raptor <mpda...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>If you want an objective performance jury,
>
> I said this before: The only way to arrive at an objective judgement
> of a performance is this:
>
> 1. at least 11-15 jurors. (must be an odd number so there are no
> ties). The larger the number, the better chance of a good average of
> opinions.
>
> 2. no teachers of any of the competitors, not even past teachers.
>
> 3. no current professional performers who, consciously or not, may see
> the winner as their next economic threat.
>
> 4. at least 3-4 musicians who are not guitarists. Composers, pianists,
> violinists etc.
No, or probably not. Retired successful guitarists only.
My problem with your summary is that an objective judgement is of no
value if there is no single criterion. Any checklist has to have one
single aim. As long as you have more than one standard, you will
continue to have chaos, no matter how balanced and fair everything is.
>
> Never happens.
for sure. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html :::: You can play the cards
you're dealt, or improve your hand with DGT. Original easy guitar
solos, duets, exercises. http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Alcibiades
> If you want an objective performance jury, create a selection roster
> of draftees, inconvenienced by their selection, inadequately paid for
> their service, unrewarded for their judgement and in no way promoted
> for their participation. In other words, draft them.
An excellent suggestion. Very Platonic.
Matanya Ophee
>My problem with your summary is that an objective judgement is of no
>value if there is no single criterion. Any checklist has to have one
>single aim. As long as you have more than one standard, you will
>continue to have chaos, no matter how balanced and fair everything is.
Yes, it is possible to have one single standard. For this to happen
you must have one single judge. If you have two or more, there will
always be differing personal interpretations of what that one single
standard is.
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold <d...@openguitar.com> wrote:
>
>>My problem with your summary is that an objective judgement is of no
>>value if there is no single criterion. Any checklist has to have one
>>single aim. As long as you have more than one standard, you will
>>continue to have chaos, no matter how balanced and fair everything is.
>
> Yes, it is possible to have one single standard. For this to happen
> you must have one single judge. If you have two or more, there will
> always be differing personal interpretations of what that one single
> standard is.
Of course, but how much interpretations differ depends on how clear,
unambiguous, useful, and agreeable the single standard is. The single
standard has to be something that every judge agrees in advance to
apply, and has to be known to all concerned, especially the sponsors of
the contest. My point is that if this foundational work is not done
it is no wonder that nothing comes of building on it. No list of
criteria can work unless these criteria are simply working papers to
help judge with a single criterion. The whole does not have to equal
the sum of its parts. The first task is not to find criteria, it is to
agree on *the* criterion. Don't you think that your event would have
gone along better if this had been done?
In a criminal trial, the jury does not have to agree on which laws to
apply. That is done for them in advance. They just need one verdict
for each charge. I'm not trying to say that everything works, but it's
a lot better than just having a panel of people try to decide whether a
law was broken, whether there should be charges or not, against whom,
whether he's guilty of what, and what the punishment should be if any,
all at once. daveA
Matanya Ophee
>> Yes, it is possible to have one single standard. For this to happen
>> you must have one single judge. If you have two or more, there will
>> always be differing personal interpretations of what that one single
>> standard is.
>
>Of course, but how much interpretations differ depends on how clear,
>unambiguous, useful, and agreeable the single standard is. The single
>standard has to be something that every judge agrees in advance to
>apply, and has to be known to all concerned, especially the sponsors of
>the contest. My point is that if this foundational work is not done
>it is no wonder that nothing comes of building on it. No list of
>criteria can work unless these criteria are simply working papers to
>help judge with a single criterion. The whole does not have to equal
>the sum of its parts. The first task is not to find criteria, it is to
>agree on *the* criterion. Don't you think that your event would have
>gone along better if this had been done?
Of course. But since we seem to agree with each other, and since you
propose establishing a single criterion, how about you spelling it out
in detail?
It does not have to be a completed document. Work in progress would be
just fine. We could then discuss some of the details you propose,
amend them or delete them as necessary, and eventually come up with a
document that would be acceptable to competition organizers.
Ball in your court.
David Raleigh Arnold
Sure, I did it in another thread, but I don't mean one standard or
criterion for every contest, but rather one for each contest. I have a
favorite, however.
I think the best standard would be how well the performance would play
on the road to an audience that was somewhat more knowledgeable and
discriminating than average, but not to a fault. I think that such a
criterion would make the contest serve the purpose of finding and
encouraging players with a future.
One might well have a contest in which the winner was supposed to give
the most accurate representation of a certain composer's own playing.
There are many possibilities. Many such criteria are not without
value. The important thing is that each contest should have some one
clear criterion, *briefly* and simply stated. A lot of details simply
confuse, IMO, because everything should count. That means that the
checklist and all items on it are optional working papers, not separate
criteria. The single standard would obviously reflect the purpose of
the contest in some way, will he nill he. I give up on speculating on
all possible purposes. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
If the young Julian Bream had entered a contest where jurors worked with
a rigid checklist, he would have been kicked to the curb for making
faces. The question is not whether he would make faces but rather
whether audiences would forgive him until he fixed that. When you
finish a checklist, you have to then reconcile it with reality, or even
trash it altogether. Does that mean that the jury should be
blindfolded? Hell no.
The way to start is to ask the organizers what they want to do. They
are the ones who should do the work. It's their contest. A
presentation to them should state the problem and indicate at least one
way in which they might find a resolution, but the main thing is to
persuade
them what they have to do rather than how it might be done. Let's keep
the ball in *their* court. They have to find jurors who will implement
their desires. Not our problem, right? ;-) daveA