Good to see that Valery Gergiev has maintained the 2010 model of transparency. Here are the results of the first round of the piano contest and you can see on the vertical lines how every judge voted.
Let’s see more of that.
Message from the Kansas diva: Last night: I…
The headline is taken from a New Yorker…
From SWR: The planned renovation of the Stuttgart…
From a Guardian article, based on a BBC…
Session expired
Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.
It would be nice if the picture were large enough to be legible.
Good stuff but illegible unfortunately.
Save the image to your computer, then open it up in full screen mode on your monitor. It is legible on mine.
From the General Rules:
http://tchaikovskycompetition.com/en/rules/
a) After Round I, each jury member will cast 12 names without ranking, who she/he wants to hear again in Round II. Those сontestants with a majority of votes will pass on to Round II.
b) Then each jury member will be needed to vote for the second time, now giving points between 0 and 25. This vote is taken into account only in case of a tie in the bottom line: the tied contestant (s) with bigger accumulation of points will pass on. Votes a) given to contestants not passing to Round II will be disclosed upon announcing the results.
To avoid any influence on further voting, all votes a) and b) given to the passing contestants will be kept confidentially to everybody, including the jury. Results will be made available one hour after the last performance of Round I. Jury members will then be available to explain their voting directly to those who failed to pass to the next round.
Ah, here is the link to the full document – its legible here:
http://tchaikovskycompetition.moscow/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/tchaikovsky_competition_round.jpg
Thank you! I was rather disappointed that Dinara Klinton didn’t pass to the next round. Now I can see that four members of the jury (in my opinion the most knowledgeable ones) did say “yes” to her…not enough alas.
I believe these are only the ones who did NOT make it to Round 2.
Yes, because per the Rules posted by Erwin P. above, “To avoid any influence on further voting, all votes a) and b) given to the passing contestants will be kept confidentially to everybody, including the jury.”
So we can only know about the participants who did not pass to Round 2, although it sounds like the ‘passing contestants’ themselves do know about his or her own a) and b) vote results (?)
No, sorry, I mis-read the Rules. Neither the passing contestants nor the jury will know about the a) and b) voting results.
The website lists 12 jury members, but Barry Douglas and Denis Matsuev are not on this sheet. Are they not joining the competition until a later round?
Barry Douglas did the preliminary round and returned to the second round having fulfilled a prior engagement in France during the first round. Denis Matsuev will join later.
It appears that Toradze voted for his own ex-student, N. Abrosimov. Nobody else among jurors did. While official studies ended in 2011, the ex student has participated in Toradze-organized student tours/concerts way past that date, for instance at the Mariinsky Theatre in 2013 (http://www.mariinsky.ru/en/news1/pressa1/reliz_2013_04_06/), and has naturally been receiving lessons way past the official end of studies. Do the rules say anything with regards to such teacher-student relations…? Just curious.
I think jury members should attend to all rounds, so that the final results are not just based on the concerto round.
I am curious to the violin results btw. Are they also public?
Also curious about violin results!
How many of the rounds does this apply to? I found the final round results shocking and am very curious to see how it might have worked out.