Four examples that I found recently are:
https://www.berlinercompetition.com/
https://www.viennacompetition.com
https://www.manhattancompetition.com/home
https://www.grandprizevirtuosointernationalmusiccompetition.com/
Three of these seem to be supported by the same Alink-Argerich foundation, and they all have the exact same web site. They seem to be selling the online application pretty hard, and it seems like it could be a good business opportunity if enough people apply.
There is also this competition in Japan, which charges ~200 dollars for entry, and another 300 for people who make the finals, while most of the prizes in the finals are only about 500 dollars.
http://www.nishinihonimc.com/e/contest/55/contest55_entry_e.html
Is this another iteration of the classic "pay for exposure" scam or am I just being paranoid?
Tweet
A number of the so-called competitions have winners lists as long as their numbers of applicants. So a dozen people are "first place" and another dozen or so are "second place" with a handful of "honorable mention" and whatnot. Makes for good resume material.
But in Australia there is a very good pay-to-play model in community orchestras. Orchestra members (mostly professional students and amateurs) pay money each year to practice for and to take part in real concertos. From one community orchestra I know, members pay $600-700 per year to take part in 3 concertos in the same year.
The concertos sell tickets to, unsurprisingly, mostly orchestra members'friends and families.
All the money (selling tickets and members'contribution) goes to conductor hiring plus venues hiring for practice and for performance, and for buying dinners during their practice time of 6pm to 9:30pm, averaging 2 times per week for a member who register for all the concertos in a year.
The good thing about this model is that it is non-profit. And then more importantly it provides a great performance opportunity and resume decoration for aspiring musicians who are not yet ready/lucky enough for professional orchestras.
I thought of some good names for fee-only competitions:
The King Elizabeth Competition
The Abraham Stern Competition (you know, Isaac's dad...)
oh, I could go on.
It seems like people are in unanimous agreement that these are "pay to play" schemes, but differ in opinion as to whether "pay to play" schemes have some value for the customer. My somewhat cynical understanding of them up to this point has been that anyone skilled enough to benefit from them is also skilled enough to benefit from other free or paid avenues, and that less-skilled players who do "pay to play" don't stand to benefit from it anyway due to said lack of skill.
I'm now wondering under what conditions it would be worthwhile to participate in competitions like these. I'm kind of thinking out loud here, but as resume padding it seems like it would only go so far, although Matt makes a good point that the experience of playing as a soloist with an orchestra can be hard to come by. What type of player needs these?
But from the parent’s or employer’s perspective who hires the musician, they could be considered scam as they could mislead them about the true credentials of the musician, especially when compared against those who don’t pay for entry and prizes from these ‘competitions’.
What I don't particularly like is the misrepresentation that "so-and-so is the first prize winner of such-and-such competition." Well, that's true, but what they neglect to mention is that there are a half dozen other "first prize winners." This is the illusion of musical prestige where none exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUtpMmUFE7U
1) You pay to enter. Everybody wins.
2) You pay to travel to New York and for your accommodations.
3) You pay for an accompanist in New York or fly one in.
4) You must pay an additional fee to play in the recital -- and these are hefty. If you would like to play for more than the allotted time so you can actually finish your piece, you pay an additional fee PER MINUTE of your piece...and it is usually something like $100 a minute.
5) You must also pay to attend the concert (parents/siblings) typically.
You get no coaching, no mentoring. Most don't even give you comments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/arts/music/at-carnegie-hall-all-may-not-be-as-it-seems.html
And an NPR article from 2012 with more detail about the rental activities of the three different performance spaces in Carnegie:
https://www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2012/07/31/157671080/how-do-you-get-to-carnegie-hall-no-seriously
And a 2017 article from the Wall Street Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/practicing-isnt-the-only-way-to-get-to-carnegie-hall-1493927824
Not a scam for those who 'buy' the degrees since they obviously know what they are doing. But surely a scam for employers who hired people based on these fake degrees.
It's somehow similar to buying a degree or hiring someone to write your graduation thesis.
If Cargenie Hall decides to sell their hard-earned reputation through gouging musicians that way then it's up to them. I wouldn't do that if I were them. The Hall must know clearly pay-to-play musicians would make sure their CVs imply it's because of their talent, not because of their money. Those talented musicians who aren't willing to pay or not able to pay will be put at a disadvantage.
It's profitable and lawful business model for sure. But may not be as ethical.
So, who are the "judges" in these so-called competitions? How qualified are they? Since coaching and mentoring appear to be a rarity, are the judges in fact allowed to give advice etc, if they are qualified to do so? On second thoughts, what advice could you possibly give to a "winner" at such a competition, other than how to spend their "winnings" ? :)
If a judge in such competitions is indeed qualified should not he/she be "considering their position", as is frequently asked of politicians and other highly placed persons in doubtful ethical positions?
Accepting or following that is just letting a race to the bottom feed itself.
While true competitions lend wings to the best talents, the scammy ones work against just that.
Playing quartets while bobsledding could be interesting too....
She won 5th prize in the Menuhin Junior 2016 competition.
http://menuhincompetition.org/laureates-2016/
My point was that the competition referenced in the post isn't being populated by random violinists who can pay an entry fee- these are competitive players.
Steve, I think violin playing is more about 'executing' than making music. Too many people are qualified for doing the job, so competitions are just nature running its course.
@Steve maybe it feels better if you think competitions aids in music making too. But I don't like competitions as well, as they show how oversupplied classical violinists are.
When art (or anything really - I came up with the same thing in science) is judged by 'experts' it is (almost) inevitably judged on a historical perspective: its what the 'experts' think is good and, hence, what they learned. For the same reason, few 'experts' are able to appreciate new ideas and real creativity. The outcome to my mind is the supression of new thought and original approaches. Small wonder that each new superstar is too often just a younger version of the previous ones..
I don't blame the players for the limited extent of individual musical character, by the way. I blame the critical consensus that today's musicians should strive to reflect and not distort the composer's intentions within a fairly narrow window of what constitutes good taste.
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.