Ysaye Competition denies ignoring entered videos
NewsWe have received the following response from the competition’s artistic director to our recent report on candidate complaints
Les accusations portées par Arseniy STROKOVSKIY envers le concours YSAYE International Music Competition sont erronées, diffamatoires et dénigrantes. En qualité de Directrice du Concours, je déplore ces publications nuisant non seulement à l’image de ce concours mais également à celle des membres du jury.
– Le jury sélectionné pour cette édition du YIMC est compétent, professionnel, impartial et possède toutes les
qualités pour juger les musiciens participant au YIMC.
– Notre jury a vu les vidéos de chaque participant et a donc pu sélectionner en toute connaissance de cause les
demi-finalistes (violon et musique de chambre) et les finalistes (catégorie A. violon) à réentendre à Liège cette
semaine.
– Il est clair qu’avec la technologie d’aujourd’hui, même en période de pandémie, un jury est capable de se
réunir par tous les moyens technologiques de diffusion possibles et de trouver une décision commune lors des
délibérations.
– Les vidéos ayant posé problème lors des présélections (problème de son / de téléchargement / d’accès,…) ont
été renvoyées par certains candidats suite à la demande du jury.
– Le secrétaire du jury, Ph. LEHAEN, a été présent à CHAQUE EPREUVE et peut témoigner du bon déroulement
des séances.
– Le candidat prenant part au concours YIMC doit accepter le règlement et lors de son inscription, il n’a pas
encore connaissance du nom des membres du jury, puisque cette publication n’apparaît qu’après les
présélections.
– Pour ce cas de figure en particulier, le jury rassemblé en séance plénière à l’occasion des finales du concours
Ysaye International Music Competition 2021 confirme la décision prise par le jury des présélections concernant
la participation du Duo AMuse.
– Le jury est sélectionné par la Directrice du Concours et par le Directeur Artistique mais Elena Lavrenov n’a
aucune voix lors des délibérations.
– La frustration du participant est évidente et compréhensible mais lors de l’inscription à un concours, chaque
candidat connait les issues possibles.
De telles accusations sont graves et – survenant lors des demi-finales et finales du concours en cours actuellement –
perturbent largement la bonne organisation et le climat serein du concours.
Mr. Arseniy STROKOVSKIY n’ayant pas réagi à la mise en demeure de la Directrice du Concours, celle-ci s’en est donc
remise à ses Conseillers juridiques.
Elena LAVRENOV
Directrice du Ysaye International Music Competition
*
The accusations made by Arseniy STROKOVSKIY against the YSAYE International Music Competition are erroneous, defamatory and disparaging. As Director of the Competition, I deplore these publications which are harmful to only in the image of this competition but also to that of the members of the jury.
– The jury selected for this edition of the YIMC is competent, professional, impartial and has all the qualities for judging musicians participating in YIMC.
– Our jury saw the videos of each participant and was therefore able to select in full knowledge of the facts the semi-finalists (violin and chamber music) and finalists (category A. violin) to hear again in Liège this week.
– It is clear that with today’s technology, even in times of pandemic, a jury is able to bring together by all possible technological means of dissemination and find a common decision during the deliberations.
– Videos that posed a problem during the preselections (sound / download / access problem, etc.) were dismissed by some candidates following the jury’s request.
– The secretary of the jury, Ph. LEHAEN, was present at EACH EVENT and can testify to the good progress sessions.
– The candidate taking part in the YIMC competition must accept the rules and when registering, he does not have still knowledge of the names of the members of the jury, since this publication does not appear until after the presets.
– For this particular case, the jury assembled in plenary session on the occasion of the finals of the competition Ysaye International Music Competition 2021 confirms the decision taken by the preselection jury regarding the participation of Duo AMuse.
– The jury is selected by the Director of the Competition and by the Artistic Director but Elena Lavrenov had no voice during deliberations.
– The participant’s frustration is obvious and understandable, but when registering for a competition, each candidate knows the possible outcomes.
Such accusations are serious and – occurring in the semi-finals and finals of the current competition – greatly disrupt the good organization and the calm atmosphere of the competition.
Mr. Arseniy STROKOVSKIY not having reacted to the formal notice of the Director of the Competition, she therefore left given to its Legal Advisers.
Elena LAVRENOV
Director of the Ysaye International Music Competition
Absolutely. I won the Chopin piano competition fair and square… it’s puzzling that someone might think that these are rigged in any way. Sure, as jury members, we can do whatever we want and our unofficial students win, but not because we help them. It’s just that anyone who is NOT our student plays so much worse because they did not have the honor of studying with experts such as ourselves. Competitions are fair. Keep paying the application fee. I also recommend taking consultations with members of the jury. It helps our finances.
I don’t think the downvotes have quite grasped the irony of your post , Kevin Kenner !
A weird response, which doesn’t address the main issue of the complaint, which was the videos being unwatched on YouTube….
The videos were not un watched on youtube. However, the play count reported by youtube was not so high (if correct) as to cover individual viewings by each juror. There is technology for downloading youtube videos so they can be watched offline which most likely does not result in the play count going up. There is also no evidence presented that the jurors did not watch as a group, which would also produce very low play counts. The facts are not all yet in. I have no dog in this fight, and am quite curious to learn the truth. Of course, if it turns out the truth is that the videos were not watched, future competition staff inclined to such skulduggery will simply make sure to play the videos long enough and often enough to produce play counts that won’t incriminate them.
If you download a video it leaves at least 1 view on youtube-analytics.
The one video wasn’t opened at all. After I wrote the FB post I received many messages from other participants. They had the same case, their videos weren’t opened at all. 0 views.
This is what people generally suppose, but unfortunately it’s not true. You don’t need to open the video in YouTube to download it. If you already have the link, you can give it as input to programs which are able to download videos (see for example YouTube-dl.exe). You can test it yourself.
When I’m talking about video download from YouTube I mean official and legal apps only, like YouTube Go, Youtube Premium etc. And yes, if you download a video using a legal way you leave at least 1 view there. Furthermore, I didn’t test, but I suppose every offline view using legal apps leaves data on youtube-Analytics next time when you go online again. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Downloading video from YouTube using third party unlicensed software for non-personal use is a pure criminal act, which breaks not only youtube licence agreement, but my own copyrights as well, because I never gave any permission to download my video and share the downloaded copy to someone. I gave only permission to watch my video on my YouTube Channel by sharing the link with my content. This action will lead not only to litigation with the entrants of the competition, but also to a lawsuit from the Google side.
But… First of all. The organizers of the competition never stated that they downloaded the video. Quote from the article by The Strad: “…Lavrenov also suggested one reason why YouTube Analytics might have recorded only one view: all seven jury members watched the video together in a Zoom meeting, so that they could discuss the playing in real time.”
How do you imagine it could be technically done?
P.S. Why do we even have to imagine it? I like the way the other commentators are thinking. “This carefully worded “refutation” somewhat dances around the issue.” – 100% true. Why not simply and clearly formulate the answer, if the truth is really on the side of the competition?
I hardly think that for a full jury to watch a video for 20 seconds in a zoom meeting qualifies as a respectful competition. And that would mean that all jurors would have had to signify they could make a decision in such a short time, which AGAIN highly speaks AGAINST their abilities.
Strov writes: “Downloading video from YouTube using third party unlicensed software … will lead not only to litigation with the entrants… but also to a lawsuit from the Google side.”
Good luck with that legal action. I suspect the “damage” will be …. zero. Still, you will get to spend a lot on legal fees before you get laughed out of court.
They clearly avoided it and instead relied on being self-righteous and self important.
The participants were not complaining because they did not win but because they were not given a fair hearing.
I hold an even lower opinion of these competitions than I had before.
You are 100% right, Terence!!
This phrase–“by all possible technological means of dissemination”–might refer to the possibility of the videos’ having been downloaded or imbedded from YouTube (not difficult) and then watched in ways that YouTube doesn’t register.
Yes, it might. But you noticed that this carefully worded “refutation” somewhat dances around the issue.
I would simply have replied that every video uploaded for the competition (and for a not insignificant fee) was watched, in full, by every juror. She avoids making that claim, which leads me to the assumption that this was not the case. This is a non-denial denial…
It DOES seem very carefully worded, a sort of walking-on-eggshells refutation although the sputtering translation might be partly to blame.
What’s needed to actually address the allegation is a response that in essence says “HERE is why and how the YouTube view count does not reflect how our jurors listened to the submitted video.” All else is arm-waving.
Right, “is”, but this is SO TYPICAL of any politically motivated, lawyer constructed letter these days!!! This is how all politicians talk!!
By the way I (David K. Nelson) am “is.” I have no idea why my pre-filled name was replaced by “is.” But it might explain the lack of thumbs down on my comment!
Given my age, “was” would be more accurate than “is,” but I am trying to return to being David K. Nelson.
The competition may not know enough about how You-Tube does its counts to explain why the viewing wasn’t counted. They are, afterall, experts in music not IT.
And in any case, asking every video to be heard “in full” is not reasonable…asking for enough of each video to be heard to form a reasonable opinion is all that can be asked for.
If the competition is trying to lose respect, they seem to be on their way.
And if they want to promote respect for their jury, then all they had to do in the beginning was consider that it really is not respectful to dismiss the fact that the analytics on youtube showed that videos hadn’t been viewed hardly, or one not at all. All they had to say was that yes the analytics say that the videos weren’t hardly viewed and one not at all; but if they truly had been viewed, although the analytics say the weren’t, that they don’t understand this, will look into it, and that it’s a valid point. That way one is working with the people that make the competition possible, unless you want a competition for what could be but isn’t there, and whoever has the best ideology as judge wins how it should be, and writes a book about it, rather than any mere performer ever has anything to do with it. Which might go well with how they responded to begin with, acting as if the person pointing out what was going on with the analytics was making a point one could just dismiss. And then not even care if it could be dismissed, although it was a valid point.
This stuff is making me laugh a bit.
Like when Ravel was supposed to write a fugue for an exam, and whether he couldn’t, or didn’t want to, or was in the mood not to, or something else: he wrote a minuet, handed that in, and Faure himself had to chastise him with: “blah blah blah….” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04
And of course classical music is profoundly inundated with all of the amazing fugues that came from the good students, who did as they were told.
This WHOLE affair regarding how the competition responds, has become exceedingly annoying. That ANYONE would have to try to figure out the responses of the competition, in a way could be seen as irresponsible regarding applications.
To begin with, if the whole jury watched all of the videos in a zoom meeting, then they could attest to that. And SHOULD be the ones to ask, not a secretary.
Not only were videos watched for very short lengths, that wouldn’t warrant the definition of a judicious listening, but one wasn’t watched at all; and thus to correct this as being watched, but there being some error regarding digital counts, all the “competition” would have had to do is get ANY of the jurors to state that yes, they watched said performer (one of whose videos didn’t clock ANY views) and recognized his name (especially regarding the one that had NO views). That wasn’t done, it wasn’t even acknowledged that attention was needed to answer a legitimate question, there’s now talk of illegal downloading as possibly the ONLY mean to explain why there were no views…. and the rest of it…..
Well, isn’t it obvious n’est-que pas?…that the google tech details are water-tight?
No puisque, u Belgium fraudulent commitment…it is puisque you have been caught..red-handed…or mains-rouge with ” le sang?” all over you.
From a retired Australian music teacher and composer Barbara Durham ( Hillside, Melbourne)
PS my French is not good…but I say to the commitee ” vous avez de mauvaises habitudes”