Yundi is back on Chopin jury

Slipped Disc’s scout at the Chopin Competition reports that after a five-day absence to attend a friend’s wedding in Shanghai, Yundi Li clocked in this morning to resume his jury service in Warsaw.

He’ll need a good night’s sleep to overcome jetlag and the wedding hangover.

yundi groom

share this

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on google
  • I hope he will be scolded by the organization or some other members of the jury. Honestly I don’t understand why they asked him to adjucidate. Why not S. Bunin, E. Indjic or M. Laforet.

    • Maybe Chopin Institute wanted to attract more attentions from media and Chinese fans.
      I think that strategy was successful since Mr. Lebrecht commented about the Competition. lol

  • thank you for your concern to Yundi. Yundi wasn’t absent for five days, it was three days and half actually, because there is one day break, and he was back yesterday afternoon session. Do you still remember that two years ago, you reposted an article written by Rudolf Tang, which said that Yundi LI was divorced. It did lead to a really bad influence, but in fact, only the unmarried one could be the best-man in China. This time he came back for his good friend’s wedding as the best-man, and performed Chopin’s préludes op.28 no.15&24 at the end of the wedding ceremony.

    • agree with you!
      be a judge is not “be there”,
      you have to prepare yourself in a good condition
      to make the best judgement.
      He seems never respect his music profession
      since the day he won.
      Or he won’t be kicked out from the recording/agent.

    • Right. She did not attend the first round. Yundi asked and was granted a 3-day leave in addition to the free day between rounds. This misleading information borders on the malicious.

  • He could have sent best wishes to the bridal couple while letting them know he was contracted to judge a competition and as a gentleman was obliged to honor his
    agreement . But he found stupids who would release him from his obligations.
    What Argerich did in 2000 has no bearing on this creature .The people
    to blame are the Poles for allowing this arrogant nonsense from a piano player .

    • Chopin Institute allows and grants leaves of absence for its jurors. It did not matter what was Argerich’s reason in 2000 for not attending the complete first round and it did not matter what Yundi’s reason was for a three day leave. They do not pass judgement on personal reasons. They just allow or disallow. If Yundi’s leave was disallowed, and he took off, then he should be criticised. Everyone has a right to one’s own opinion about a person. That is your personal taste, and not a fact. You have adequately expressed your opinions

  • The Polish people are chivalrous, brave, resourceful and intelligent. How else could they have survived the past centuries of assault and atrocities inflicted on them by their neighbors. Read up on their history. They deserve a lot of respect.

  • If Yundi was given leave of absence, it would seem to have been done ex post facto. On the first morning of his absence his fellow jurors seemed to be expecting him to rush in at the last minute, as he had done a number of times previously; the announcer announced his name to his empty chair, not noticing, and clearly not having been told of his absence; and when he still failed to appear, the director, looking worried, left the hall for the morning session, in order, we assumed, to find out what had happened.

    But whatever the background to all that, his absence for parts of two out of four stages potentially causes problems with marking. I have not seen the rules of the jury this year, but there would seem to be only two options: to disregard his marks for those stages he failed to complete, in which case there would be little point in his turning up for the remainder of stage II; or to gross up the other jurors’ marks, as I believe is done when a juror cannot mark their own pupil. But this is problematical. In selecting those to progress to the next stage a single juror’s vote can indeed be decisive if the voting is close. And with regard to the points which are used in determining the final placings, if, as seems at least possible, Yundi’s tastes and values differ significantly from those of other jurors, then those he approves of will be advantaged by his presence or disadvantaged by his absence. Further, as appeared from the publication of the markings in the last competition, different jurors have widely varying practices in awarding points, some finely graded, others awarding points that do little more than signify approval or disapproval. The absence of a juror from substantial parts of two stages does indeed seem to have the poitential to distort the result.

    It is entirely reasonable to take the view that Yundi’s decision to take leave to attend a wedding for several days exhibits at the very least a lack of commitment to the competition, and that the competition’s decision to allow it was unwise.

    • There seems to be a contradiction here: if, as you state, nobody knew about his absence in advance (not the jurors, not the announcer, not the director), how could the Competition have allowed his leave in the first place? Or was there some miscommunication within the organization of the Competition?

  • Chopin Institute’s remark was ‘We have seventeen jurors. One fewer juror would not change the results’. The Chopin Competition is one of the most ‘transparent’ ones. The rules and regulation are all public.

  • >