Mayu Kishima, 30, of Japan won the $100,000 Stern prize with final round performances of Chausson’s Poeme and Shostakovich’s 1st Violin Concerto.
Second was the Joachim winner Sergei Dogadin. Third was an American, Sirena Huang.
UPDATE: So Zakhar Bron won in Shanghai.
The death has been made known of Lea…
Vladimir Putin has issued a decree granting Russian…
Early in his international career, Valery Gergiev professed…
We hear that Stephen Rose, former head of…
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.
Great choice of works, both masterpieces and thanks for providing an answer for a previous comment of mine. For 100,000 I’d play Butterfly Lovers!
Looks more like a lottery to me.
from behind the scenes: it definitely was. i saw and heard things backstage that are more than enough evidence of manipulative jury as well as randomizing selections. complete disgrace to the great isaac stern..!
I’m skeptical of the comment. This competition is the first one that publishes every jury member’s scores to every contestants, and I thought this is a good way to decrease the likelihood of manipulation. You can download the score sheets here: http://www.shcompetition.com/UploadFiles/20160903_cn.pdf
. I did a simply statistical analysis on the final round of the score. It appears that opinions on Richard Lin’s performance were the most diverse. If we took out Lin’s scores, then there is actually a reasonably high degree of consensus among the jury members regarding the ranking of the contestants.
Interesting thoughts but ‘conflict of interest’ exists regardless of the integrity or otherwise of those to whom it applies. Any judging system that allows this to happen is completely illegitimate, whatever the safeguards.
To David Osborne:
I know nothing about this specific competition, and therefore I have also no particular opinion about this event. But if one knows that the most promising music students try to study with as many prominent teachers as possible, your statement leads directly to the question: do you want to rule out these students or these teachers or both? To me it seems inevitable that some of the first will be judged by some of the latter in any high level competition. This competition claims to have dealt with the problem in a transparent and impartial way. I have no idea to which extent this is believable, but it seems to me that your statement “Any judging system that allows this (= ‘conflict of interests’) to happen is completely illegitimate, whatever the safeguards.” makes very little sense. Quite in the contrary it seems to me that a certain ‘conflict of interests’ is unavoidable in any serious competition. Therefore everything depends on the way how it is dealt with.
Publishing every score means absolutely nothing ……..it is but a smoke screen in
pretending to be open …Mr. Wang should enter into the equation “favors exchanged”.
the politics in this latest adventure which are great , the judges chosen for specific reasons,
Being forced to play the dreadful Butterfly violin concerto should be warning enough
that not all is kosher in this little enterprise. The attachment of some bogus human
achievement award another warning flag . But the gullible are always with us .
I assume many would take the opinion of Bron & co . concerning violin playing as gospel,this writer would not ..in fact one holds the opinion they know little of the art .
Playing the violin well enough technically to win competitions has very little to do with the art of playing the violin .
No judgement-based competition will ever be impartial. Different schools and traditions certainly affect how one views another’s playing. But this is not to say that such competitions are always rigged. I have a hard time piecing the following facts and statements together and telling a compelling conspiracy story. (1) The competition was in China and the Butterfly VC was chosen for a suspicious reason. (2) There were 13 judges, some soloists and some pedagogues, and they colluded to exchange favors even though they knew ahead of time that the scores and rankings would be public. (3) Only one Chinese entered in the final round and she ranked the last (6th). (4) Save for the ranking on Richard Lin (Taiwan/USA contestant), 13 judges’ rankings were reasonably consistent.
-HJ Wang- that this “new” competition and the 3rd. rate if that Butterfly concerto
was used as a “political ” prerequisite is not suspicious in any sense once one acknowledges the fact that the overriding reason for the event in its entirety is blatant in having little to do with the art violin playing as much as it has to do with national pride .
The competition certainly has its Chinese element and I feel that’s understandable. But saying that the event is political and “having little to do with the art violin playing” is a stretch in my opinion.
$100,000 would theoretically permit a nice kickback. Pity Shostakovich and Chausson aren’t around to collect a commission.
To Gerhard, yes absolutely I would like to rule out teachers judging their own students in competitions. It is a clear conflict of interest. Absolutely indefatigably. There is your answer. Personally I’d also like to rule out the competitions themselves, but we’re probably stuck with those.
Further to that, maybe it’s worth considering the case of Albert Sammons, leader of Beecham’s orchestras back in the day, also made the first recording of the Elgar Violin concerto. Taught himself to play. Let’s have more like him rather than these over educated, highly programmed little violin machines. Then again of course, the education industry is one the few threads left that this art-form is hanging by…
And who is “the teacher”? The one with whom a contestant is currently studying, the one the contestant has already applied to study with, all the ones she/he has studied previously, and/or the ones she/he had masterclasses with?
Oh for pity’s sake, conflict of interest is what it is, there are no ‘degrees’ of conflict of interest. If this happened in for instance olympic gymnastics or diving it would be an international scandal. What do you want from me, a demonstration of the concept through interpretive dance? It is just not that complicated.
Interpretative
No need to dance for me, thank you, because even without choreography I’m quite able to understand and consider opinions with which I don’t fully agree. But obviously this is not the case the other way round, so let’s part here.
Honestly, I am in awe. The battle of two greatest traders of the violin ‘talents’ ended completely calmly and predictably. Still the older one wins. It again justifies his fantastic private lesson rates.
Well, I have nothing to say about winners themselves, they are utterly uninteresting. They do not enjoy much of a career and would not. It is quite another story.
Given the Chinese propensity for gambling, there were probably a few side bets going.
Check out our great nation – Ladbrokes roots go way back to 1886, William Hill first appeared in 1934. China only founded in 1949!
Bet365, peddy power and other online betting shops can be accessed 24/7. Do your homework before jumping the gun.
Besides, your comment is irrelevant to the topic of music or musician.