Festival For Creative Pianists

Philosophy of this Festival

The discussion about competitions is usually framed in terms of "for" and "against."

Below are some of the opposing arguments.

Ten arguments FOR competitions:

1. Standards are raised. Pianists are motivated to achieve more than they would ordinarily. The achievements of others are an inspiration to try, try again and set higher and higher goals.

2. The real world is competitive. The sooner that is faced courageously, the better.

3. Piano competitions are like the Olympics; they bring prestige, honor and material rewards to those demonstrating the highest degree of excellence.

4. The best talents are identified and promoted. Competitions serve as "springboards" for careers and well-deserved recognition.

5. The glamour and publicity bring excitement to an eager public that revels in discovering the joys of great music. Communities, states and even countries share a sense of collective pride in contestants' accomplishments. Competitions have played a big role in helping to truly make the world a "global village."

6. Competitions have immense educational value. Contestants are exposed to many interpretations and can learn valuable insights from the written and/or verbal comments of the judges.

7. Confidence and self-esteem are bolstered when struggling musicians truly triumph. As un-American as it may sound, we are not equal. Some students are more innately gifted, some work harder, some are more determined, and some have better teachers. We need to recognize those who shine, overcome adversity and give it their best. "Feel good" festivals with inflated rewards and contrived egalitarianism do not promote a burning passion for excellence. The message they send is: "Don't bother to work too hard, since you get just as much praise by doing little."

8. Competitions are important social events. Solo pianism is a lonely business involving many hours of practicing, listening, and studying. Pianists who attend or play for festivals and competitions get to know each other as real people and bond with other aspiring musicians.

9. Competitions help convey the important life message that, above all, persistence is the key to success.

10. Competitions build character by providing tangible, specific yardsticks for success and rewards for achieving those goals.

Ten arguments AGAINST competitions:

1. The obsession is on "winning" at all costs. "Winners" also create "losers." The most extreme and distressing example is what might be termed Second Prize Syndrome: the Second Prize winner feels like a "loser" -- crushed and devastated -- no matter how close the call was. The sheer joy of making music is lost amidst the stresses and pressures to "win." A deathly serious tone can prevail.

2. Judges' decisions are, at best, subjective, and at worst, biased or arbitrary. The integrity and/or competence of the judges may be questionable.

3. The tendency is to reward one kind of excellence - loud, fast, awesomely perfect virtuosity along with "politically correct" musicality. Entertainment overshadows artistic depth and distinction. Individuality rarely prevails when a "committee" makes the decisions. The "winner" is often not the most innovative and eclectic (since this is bound to provoke controversy), but rather the person who least offends everyone. The need to impress disparate judges discourages taking risks.

4. Certain pieces and styles are overplayed, because they are deemed to be "competition winning" repertory.

5. Students who really should not enter (or who play inappropriate repertory) are, in essence, exploited by glory-hungry teachers and/or "stage parents."

6. Contestants are not communicating to an audience; they are merely playing to artificial contrivances we call "judges."

7. The similarities among competitions greatly outweigh their differences. Teachers and students have no choice but to "play to the system." Competitions are like standardized tests. When standardized tests assume too great an importance, we are forced to "teach to the tests." In like manner we teach to the competitions -- perhaps at the expense of well-rounded musicianship, analytical understanding, emotional depth, creativity, etc.

8. The concert stage and academic community cannot realistically absorb every competition-winning pianist into the narrow classical "market." Winning no longer assures a successful career.

9. Restrictive rules make it difficult for students to showcase their individual strengths. Similarly, judges are hemmed in by legalistic forms, "point" systems and rigid regulations.

10. Contestants are not judged as whole musicians -- only on how they do during a desperately small amount of time on a particular day.

We believe that both sides of this debate have merit. It is fair to say that very few people are really unequivocally "for" or "against" competitions. The discussion needs to transcend this somewhat false polemic. The real question is: how can we structure competitions to bring about the most good while avoiding as many pitfalls as possible? We do not claim to have all the answers (and we welcome feedback!), but let's look at some of the "pro" and "con" arguments, with an eye toward "having our cake and eating it too!":

• Standards are raised. Pianists are motivated to achieve more than they would ordinarily. The achievements of others are an inspiration to try, try again and set higher and higher goals.

This can be true, but only if students feel that goals are relevant and achievable. We hope that the sheer number and variety of prizes in this festival will encourage more students (even the types that generally would not enter competitions) to try out.

• The real world is competitive. The sooner that is faced courageously, the better.

Yes and no. Who can deny that the world is competitive? Businesses, governments and society as a whole function best, however, in a climate of cooperation, team spirit and mutually beneficial shared goals. It may be cliché, but yes, a rising tide does raise all boats. "Dog eat dog" competition works best (and usually in the short run, if at all) for the triumphant individual. For it is predicated on the half-truth (at best) that in order for me to win, someone else must lose. Those who cynically believe that the world is a "zero sum game" create the very "reality" that they decry as "inevitable." It is an example of circular reasoning, or "self-fulfilling prophecy." Do the math: if absolutely everybody ties their self-esteem exclusively to how they measure in relation to others, we guarantee a certain number of "losers" (and probably a whole lot more losers than winners, at that).

We believe that teachers, parents, students and adjudicators should work together to promote a healthy, balanced perspective on competing. If you must compete against anyone, compete against your last best self. Let's keep the focus on sharing in a joyous celebration of creativity, communicating, learning, and graciously reveling in each others' accomplishments. Fulfill your potential and you are a winner, regardless of your standing as compared to others.

• Piano competitions are like the Olympics; they bring prestige, honor and material rewards to those demonstrating the highest degree of excellence.

The Olympics do indeed have a long, noble tradition. No one would seriously suggest doing away with them. (We might as well attack democracy, motherhood and apple pie!) We might ask, however, why so many athletes have been disqualified (or at least tainted) by illegal drug use. When a system is devised wherein there is a tremendous disparity between the rewards of the first and second prizes (with respect to commercial endorsements, etc.), the message becomes: "Win at all costs, because second place is much, much less than first place." The second prize performance may be negligibly "inferior" to first place, yet the rewards are disproportionately less in the extreme. Young pianists who look at piano competitions like sports events also know that "second place" counts for little in the Superbowl or World Series.

Let's also examine the extreme acrimony in the 2000 Presidential race. Why such difficulty for either candidate to graciously concede? The reasons are certainly many and complex, but one explanation is the simple fact that coming out second means "losing" completely -- and, quite possibly, political oblivion thereafter. In other democracies, "losing" candidates may be given significant roles in the government. (In Germany, the losing party is afforded proportional representation in its parliament.) They can emerge victorious later. Here, the "loser" stigma makes that more difficult. Don't hold your breath for a Dukakis, Dole, Ford or Carter comeback. O.K., so Nixon beat the odds with his 1968 comeback after his 1960 defeat. But did Americans embrace George McGovern even after Nixon disgraced himself? McGovern ran again, but could never shake the "loser" stigma of having carried only Massachusetts in 1972.

Our "winner take all" culture is neither necessary nor healthy. Let us hope that syndicated political columnist Deborah Mathis is wrong in her prediction that the 2000 election will result in "legislative and ideological combat the likes of which we have not seen in a long, long, time." The reason? "There are too many players for whom winning is the only thing" (12/13/2000, The Idaho Statesman).

Our primary festival prizes are all "First" prizes, of equal merit. Honorable Mention prizes are items, not cash awards, so as to discourage comparisons.

• The best talents are identified and promoted. Competitions serve as "springboards" for careers and well-deserved recognition.

Truth is, in many competitions the best talents may or may not be chosen. If judges are wary of controversy, they may choose the "safe" contestant, not necessarily the most brilliant, promising and provocative. We have carefully chosen festival judges who are themselves provocative and highly appreciative of individuality and exuberance.

It can't hurt to have competitions on your résumé, but it does not guarantee success. Nor should this consideration be the only (or even primary) reason for entering them, in our opinion. Plenty of contestants (perhaps a majority) will not go on to pursue careers in music. Moreover, you can succeed without participating in competitions. It is a sad commentary when any student views the competition circuit as an excruciating but "necessary evil."

• Competitions have immense educational value. Contestants are exposed to many interpretations and can learn valuable insights from the written and/or verbal comments of the judges.

For this to be true, everyone must work together to emphasize the educational aspects. Are comment sheets read and taken seriously? Do students tune in or tune out other performers? Are parents, teachers and students availing themselves of the "extra events" opportunities?

• Confidence and self-esteem are bolstered when struggling musicians truly triumph. As un-American as it may sound, we are not equal. Some students are more innately gifted, some work harder, some are more determined, and some have better teachers. We need to recognize those who shine, overcome adversity and give it their best. "Feel good" festivals with inflated rewards and contrived egalitarianism do not promote a burning passion for excellence. The message they send is: "Don't bother to work too hard, since you get just as much praise by doing little."

Indeed, we will not be instructing the judges to pass out awards like candy. Also, they will have the flexibility to give more than one award to a student, or not give out a particular award, if, in their opinion, nobody qualifies (though this is rather unlikely).

• Competitions help convey the important life message that, above all, persistence is the key to success.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that all competitions are hopelessly arbitrary. The reality is that no matter how hard we try, life is never going to be perfectly fair. Sometimes we feel "cheated," other times undeservedly rewarded. But the law of averages generally makes the most persistent person the ultimate "winner." Success usually comes most to those who keep slugging away. This is why it is important that students do not pin all their hopes on one competition. It is also why we will strive to create a climate wherein everyone feels motivated, validated, energized and good about the whole process.

• Contestants are not communicating to an audience; they are merely playing to artificial contrivances we call "judges." The sheer joy of making music is lost amidst the stresses and pressures to "win." A deathly serious tone can prevail.

Dean Ornish once commented: "Stress comes not simply from what we do, but, more importantly, from how we react to what we do." Nerves cannot undo you without your permission. For the most part, nerves are actually your friend, not your enemy. A wise performer realizes that the best performances have a certain "spark," a heightened acuity, because of nerves. A perfectly calm performance might be error-free, but may also be boring. It's like a lame amusement park ride. On the other hand, no one wants to fall out of the roller coaster and come crashing down. The only real problem is out of control nervous tension. This degree of tension is, in a sense, an ego problem. Your brain is focused too much on "What will everyone think of me?" By their very nature, competitions are the most difficult venues in which to have the proper mindset, which is: "Behold this wonderful creation called music. Let me share my excitement, my passion, my joy, by communicating its beauty with all of you." Ironically, the judges will likely respond best when you lose yourself in the music and play for everyone -- not specifically for the judges.

When you get to know the judges, you will see that they are anything but deathly serious. Serious as in passionate, committed, and enthusiastic, yes -- but also possessing a hearty sense of humor along with what the French would call "joie de vivre" (joy of life).

• Judges' decisions are, at best, subjective, and at worst, biased or arbitrary. The integrity and/or competence of the judges may be questionable.

All of our judges are multifaceted, open-minded, highly appreciative of individuality, and selected for their integrity, objectivity, fairness and broad range of experiences.

• The tendency is to reward one kind of excellence - loud, fast, awesomely perfect virtuosity along with "politically correct" musicality. Entertainment overshadows artistic depth and distinction.

John Salmon calls Urtexts "necessary but not sufficient." The same could be said about technique. This festival pays more than just lip service to recognizing subtlety, articulative finesse, musical depth and sensitivity (case in point: the award for lyrical, slow playing). Are we looking for deficient technique fraught with excessive bloopers? -- of course not. However, we do encourage risk-taking, spontaneity, variety, and versatility. So a bold and daring "blemish" may very well be more respected than overly cautious "correctness."

We do not, on the other hand, wish to discourage solid, blockbuster "bravura" playing. As in most competitions, there is a place for that here. (We would be utterly "Liszt-less" without an occasional "'Trans-perspirational' Étude!") We just want to ensure that many kinds of repertory and musicianship are rewarded (particularly those that are generally underrepresented in other competitions).

• Certain pieces and styles are overplayed, because they are deemed to be "competition winning" repertory.

The very distinct nature of our prize categories will encourage teachers and students to "think out of the box" and choose more varied repertory.

• Students who really should not enter (or who play inappropriate repertory) are, in essence, exploited by glory-hungry teachers and/or "stage parents."

There is, of course, a fine line between "encouraging" and "exploiting" a fledgling pianist. We hope everyone will think long and hard about which students are right for competitions. Whose interests are truly being served? We will do our part to make our festival a positive experience, but we cannot completely prevent students from having a negative experience if they are ill-suited or ill-prepared emotionally and/or musically.

• Restrictive rules make it difficult for students to showcase their individual strengths. Similarly, judges are hemmed in by legalistic forms, "point" systems and rigid regulations.

Our repertory rule is simplicity itself: "Play anything you want, up to 15 minutes." This flexibility, along with varied and innovative prize categories, ensures that virtually any student can show off his or her best qualities. Judges will be given blank sheets of paper on which to write -- no "point system" or other restrictions. They are free to discuss and decide for themselves how to make their choices. They all have extensive professional experience; excessive guidelines would be an insult to their ability and contrary to our creativity theme. (Even adjudicating requires creativity!)

• Contestants are not judged as whole musicians -- only on how they do during a desperately small amount of time on a particular day.

We hope to get a more complete picture of students' abilities than is possible in most other competitions. But ultimately this drawback is unavoidable (to various degrees) in all festivals/competitions. (All the more reason to impress upon students that they should keep each individual competition in perspective.)

Perhaps in future years students could submit tapes, videos, MIDI disks, résumés and/or portfolios for the judges to evaluate along with their live performances? We would certainly welcome any input on this.

We hope this festival will foster the kind of musicianship that goes beyond "autonomic wizardry."

We hope to tear down the artificial barriers between different styles of quality music.

"Classical improvisation" should not be an oxymoron.

Creativity, personality, exuberance and spontaneity should not be the exclusive purview of jazz pianists.

For more on this and related topics read below

(An abbreviated version of this letter appeared in the May/June 1999 issue of Piano & Keyboard under the title: "Versatility - Does it Pay?")

March 9, 1998
An open letter to participants of the MTNA College Faculty Forum meeting:

Since I will not be able to attend the upcoming meeting, I thought I could at least share a few thoughts in the hope that they may contribute to your discussions. The panel discussions promise to be most worthwhile; I regret that a conflict will keep me from being there. I read with great interest the CMS report on the previous similar colloquium at Eastman. On the issue of decreasing job opportunities for music graduates:

1) We need to instill in graduates more "entrepreneur" spirit. For example, are we putting a positive spin on the prospect of being a private piano teacher? Or is the message, "try to succeed first as a performer, resort secondly to teaching in higher ed, but if you fail miserably you can always fall back on independent teaching"? I personally know private teachers who have rich artistic lives (stay involved in performing, presenting/attending workshops, etc.) and earn more than many college/university professors. Yet there are also private teachers who wring their hands and bemoan how terrible a life it is. The difference is: the successful ones have a good attitude, do not necessarily go into it by default, are versatile (can teach all levels, styles - including jazz and pop, improvisation, theory, composition, etc.), choose their location well (don't go where there's already a glut, or at least have a special skill for a competitive advantage), have the right personality and pedagogy skills, are open to group teaching (a potential financial edge), have some business savvy (e.g., can promote themselves in a vigorous yet dignified way), etc.

All of us decry the dwindling number of performance venues for classical and jazz artists. We should be encouraging more students to take courses in arts management in order to create such venues. Setbacks can be viewed as opportunities. For example, a while ago I heard of a district in Vermont that had eliminated a number of music classes in the public schools. An enterprising out-of-work musician there seized the moment and created his own "community outreach" music school to fill the need. Are we giving our students the vision, skills and -- dare I say it in a world where it's more fashionable to be cynical -- optimism to do such things? (During one of my workshop presentations one private piano teacher told me that she vigorously discourages her most talented students, since she feels there are no prospects in the music world.)

2) Right now the highest paying "prestige" positions are almost invariably highly specialized (a reflection of the world in general). This is certainly not all bad; there will always be a justifiable need for such positions. Logic would equate more skills with more pay and prestige. Yet positions requiring versatility generally pay less and are less often to be found in the most elite schools. Ironically, versatility is what is most needed (even in the very elite schools, if they really thought about it). The contradiction between true market need and pay sends a terribly mixed message to music majors.

3) Programs and courses focused on pedagogy or chamber music/accompanying should not be perceived as havens for second-class pianists. Let's encourage students to go into these areas by choice, not default. Solo pianism should always remain vital and strong (even in pedagogy and collaborative programs), but it is neither healthy nor practical to have it dominate music study to the degree that it currently does.

4) All students, in my opinion, should be required to demonstrate at least minimal proficiency in (or at least appreciation of) classical and/or jazz/pop improvisation. Classical improvisation has had a rich thriving history; just about every great composer was a dazzling improviser. It was considered as normal and essential as learning how to read and write. But it is curious and ironic that teachers who call themselves "traditional" are sometimes fiercely resistant to it. Keyboardists in Bach's day would have been encouraged to do embellishments and variants on the repeats of, say, selections from the Anna Magdalena Notebook as well as many of the dances. It would also be appropriate to vary repeats in the easier early Mozart minuets. The line between classical music and jazz is thinner than we think. Schubert wrote 25 Ländler with no written out accompaniment -- only a right hand melody. They were clearly intended to be "fleshed out" improvisationally (fortunately he fully wrote out many other Ländler, so pianists can compare and get ideas on how to fill out the "fake chart" ones). Dick Hyman, the noted jazz pianist, recently observed that Chopin would have been a jazz pianist if he had lived long enough. I would second that, having studied exhaustively the embellishments Chopin penciled into students' music. The tradition of creatively varying repeats applies even to the sonata form as well (though more selectively, with greater restraint and discretion). Students have great fun with such things; the resistance on the part of some teachers is merely a natural "fear of the unknown." A strong background in piano literature, musicology, performance practice and theory/composition is a necessary prerequisite for embellishing/improvising. But it is more doable and teachable than we think; we do not all have to be Robert Levin. More students would be attracted to classical music if we did not snuff the spontaneity out of it. If we do not address this, students will naturally seek out jazz and popular music (they have an innate drive to create as well as re-create.) Of course, this is not all bad. While much of pop/jazz is arguably trite, the best of it is certainly artistic. Ravel admired Gershwin. Horowitz admired Art Tatum. Leonard Bernstein, in his last interview, called the Beatles the greatest songwriters since Gershwin. (George Martin, the Beatles' producer and under-recognized "fifth Beatle", is a very sophisticated classically-trained musician. I have given lectures on the influence of classical music on the Beatles' music: e.g., the string quartet scoring on the almost Schubertian song, "Yesterday"). Students need direction in discerning the difference between quality and bubble-gum music.

The trepidation classical teachers sometimes feel about improvisation is, to some extent, understandable and even justifiable. In Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 5 he decided for the first time not to allow the pianist the option of improvising a cadenza. Possibly he was not altogether happy with the caliber of improvisation in his day. Chopin allowed himself great improvisatory license (particularly in his mazurkas, waltzes, and nocturnes), yet allowed others the same freedom less often. "Good taste" is indeed elusive; unfortunately, the fear of not living up to its ideals has almost eliminated improvisation. I look forward to the day when we can embrace it once again and create "Improvisation Festivals/Competitions" to give young pianists incentive and recognition (as we do with repertoire).

Rampant profit-obsessive commercialism in the popular music world hasn't helped the image of improvisation in that arena. Which brings me to my next point:

5) I hope that the ever-increasing use of technology in music will enhance and enrich - not substitute for - good pedagogy and traditional artistic pursuits. Technology has great potential; in my youth I could only dream of practicing my concerto with an "orchestra" via a MIDI disk. However, it can also result in a lot of predictable gimmickry, devoid of nuance (e.g., insipidly monotonous and predictable "drum tracks" for many pop tunes. I liken this to bad science fiction; dazzling special effects but no worthwhile story line). Imagine this scenario: a "curriculum reform" committee waxes enthusiastically about technology, music "business" as a proposed major, commercial music, etc. They are asked a simple question: "Where is the artistic underpinning to all of this?" This committee should have a ready answer for this. Otherwise, the cure may be seen as worse than the disease. We will not win the hearts and minds of the staunchly traditional classical teachers if they perceive that the road to bogus quick-fixes and artistic decay is paved with technology. Artistic ideals must stay at the top of our priorities.

While we embrace new ideas I hope we remember that shallow materialistic values in society are at least one of the major reasons why the classical arts are dying. I tell my students that there is nothing wrong with being concerned with money, but it should be, at most, the second priority, not first. In a record industry obsessed with instant hits, fame and money, the Beatles strived first and foremost to make good music (granted, they did not always succeed) --secondly, they made piles of money. (When their lucrative touring threatened to bring them down artistically, they thumbed their noses at their promoters and focused their creative energies on innovative studio work.) The moment money becomes absolutely first we can usually kiss any kind of real standards good-bye. We need not produce yet more people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. On the other hand, commercialism does not have to be corrupting. In the classical world Aaron Copland is a good example of someone who could combine commercial astuteness with high artistic values.

Students should be inspired to cultivate self-motivated standards within that are even higher than anything imposed from without. I am always bothered by classical musicians who play less than their best for what they perceive to be "gigs" (e.g., playing "background music" for some function, or other less "prestigious" venues).

If the "problem" is narrowly defined as "declining enrollments and job opportunities for musicians" then the "solution", I fear, may be a simplistic co-opting of the very "money-is-the-only-true-measure-of-'success'" values that contributed to the problem in the first place. Education is becoming increasingly "corporatized." Fiscally this may be healthy to a point and even at times necessary. But it has great dangers as well. We may end up "throwing the baby out with the bath water" if we are not careful. Higher education, in particular, should set trends, not merely follow them. We need to find a balanced alternative to the extremes of, on the one hand, insulating ourselves with only comfortable rarefied knowledge in our ivory towers and, on the other hand, transforming our educational institutions into profit-motivated glorified trade schools. This alternative must preserve the best of our artistic traditions despite an increasingly debased culture, but enrich it with a healthy dose of reality and versatility.

On the issue of "community outreach programs":

All I would have to say here is that, once again, the financial, social "prestige" incentives need to be in place if we expect more of this. Such activities are valued to a greater degree in smaller liberal arts colleges such as the one where I currently teach. However, in some circles if you happen to mention that you take pride in frequent community service (e.g., playing for nursing and retirement homes, visiting elementary and high schools, etc.) you run the risk of seeing your prestige fall. The unspoken thought is, "Poor you. I guess if you had a real career you wouldn't have to do such things." Never mind that these activities co-exist with "high-profile" ones. And, sadly, the most elite schools often pay only lip service to such activities when considering tenure.

A few more closing thoughts:

1) It has struck me that the B.M. degree is often a bit too narrowly focused; conversely, the B.A. degree often is too diffused. How about a "B.M.A." degree; something about half way in between?

Similarly:

2) Why are virtually all schools defined as either teaching institutions or research? Yes, the rhetoric asserts a balance. But are we really achieving it? Do we always need these either/or labels?

3) Should we reassess the search committee process in academe? The successful candidate is often not the most innovative and eclectic (since this is bound to provoke controversy), but rather the person who least offends everyone. (I have similar qualms about prestigious competitions with several judges). It is all too human nature to seek what we want over what the profession may truly need (of course, it's always nice if the two converge).

Finally, I hope this little manifesto does not get misinterpreted as an indictment of what we do well in academe. I am deep down just an old-fashioned conservatory-trained musician (Leonard Shure was my principal teacher) who feels a deep connection and commitment to great music. I am not seeking to apply a wrecking ball to existing programs. They simply need to be enriched. The notion persists that those who are well-rounded are excellent at nothing. Leonard Bernstein understood that versatility enriches (rather than detracts from) every part of the whole.

I wish everyone the best on these important and constructive discussions. Sorry I can't be there for the fun.

Sincerely,

Dr. Arthur Houle
College Faculty Forum Chair for Idaho
Associate Professor of Piano, Albertson College

Adjudicating Philosophy

All prospective judges for this festival are required to pass the "Adjudication Test" below

TEST OF EFFECTIVE ADJUDICATING

by Arthur Houle ("C" Answers by Scott McBride Smith)

For each number please circle the letter ("A", "B", or "C") that you feel is the most effective adjudication strategy:

A. Show a desire to help by your friendly, constructive tone.

B. The student is an affront to your long years of education and professionalism. Express your annoyance and frustration with the performance.

C. Let the student know that you are not qualified to judge and do not know the repertoire by confining your comments exclusively to student's appearance ("You look so cute in your white dress") and the general benefits of music study.

A. Focus on how to correct deficiencies in a positive way.

B. See if you can assign whose fault it is -- the teacher? student? a meddling parent? other? The problem will never be solved until we know who to blame!

C. Include a wordy paragraph on how you imagine a famous concert artist might play this piece. Be sure to include specifics that an 11-year old student will find impossible to read or accomplish.

A. Avoid comparisons with other students or siblings.

B. Make your point by relating the student's shortcomings to other superior performances by better students (preferably by name).

C. Tell the student how your internationally renowned teacher, Madame [fill in the blank] at the world famous music school of [blank] told you how to play this piece. Remember, you are the world's greatest authority on this and you have an obligation to share your wisdom at length. Naturally, your ideas are far superior to anyone else's.

A. Identify specific issues that should be addressed, along with suggestions on relevant effective practice techniques.

B. Don't risk alienating the student with burdensome advice. Keep it general. Better they don't know why you rated them the way you did (they could never handle it!). Say things like "needs improvement" and just leave it at that.

C. Suggest that a multi-year course of study with you is the only possible recourse for improvement.

A. Compliment the person and the performance, but critique only the performance.

B. When criticizing, speak to the person playing, rather than the problem. Say things like, "Why do you go so fast when it's clearly marked 'Adagio'?"

C. Some people should never study piano. It is your job to let students know about this.

A. Start and finish your comments by praising everything that is good about the performance. Address the areas for improvement with a caring, supportive tone (a little humor may help).

B. These students will NEVER learn if you coddle them. Keep it deadly serious and let them know they have disappointed EVERYONE! Zero right in on the mistakes, nail every one of the them (even the smallest mistakes need correcting!), and, above all, keep it personal! Bad students lower the whole profession and make their teachers and parents look bad!

C. Why bother to comment? You are above this sort of mundane discourse and besides, no one can read your writing.

A. Regardless of your preferences, respect the way you have been asked to adjudicate.

B. If you don't like the adjudication form, do it YOUR way - it's better!

C. The competition organizers have some nerve giving you a form in the first place. Who in the hell do they think they are? Let them know you feel this way.

A. Be as objective and open-minded about interpretation as you reasonably can.

B If you have special knowledge based on intensive research, wear it on you sleeve and let them know that YOU know the one true way it should be done! They'll respect you more for it.

C. See 3C above.

Judges who seriously believe that "B" or "C" answers are correct are automatically disqualified.

On the other hand, prospective judges who take the test too seriously will be declared "Humor Impaired" and will also be disqualified!