Exclusive: How the Leeds Piano Competition is rigged for equality
NewsWe’ve had our attention drawn to two paragraphs in the jury instructions, showing how female contestants receive preferential treatment.
The clauses are these:
4.6 If there are two candidates with equal scores competing for one place
and one is a woman candidate, we ask the Juror to consider advancing her first.
4.20 In the instance of a single gender outcome or an outcome that
significantly reduces the ratio of women to men in the Competition,
there will be a revote for all places.
Got that?
Fair, or unfair?
The finals take place this weekend.
After Waterloos’s death, the Leed Competition lost all its prestige and authority. After Waterloos’s death, the new director openly boasted about her stance of preferential treatment for women, advocating a “specific ideology.” The very existence of such a regulation is already destroying the competition. It would be MUCH better to introduce the concept of sports and introduce a system of deducting points for every single mistake, rather than an ideology of preferential treatment for a specific gender in a competition.
Interesting comments anon. As far as I’m aware, (please someone in the know correct me if I’m wrong?) but there’s essential difference between FW’s role in the Leeds Competition & Imogen Cooper’s (of which I suspect you refer to) FW never was a voting member of the jury – merely serving as non voting chair of it throughout her life & total devotion to the contest which she founded (added to which her pupil, Michael Roll, one the first competition, so she was ever consigned to the possibility of nepotism since had she voted) . IG is actually a ‘voting’ chair of the jury- so any ‘biased’ decision based on gender- would be deemed to be, at least, circumspect in her role in the contest & its manifesto. On another note- I recently heard IG (now in her 70’s) playing Schubert & Beethoven at a local summer music festival in Sussex- it was sublime playing of the ‘Classical’ repertoire seldom heard from the younger generation of pianists, including those she’s judging at the current Leeds. For such a refined musical personality & speaker on it- I would doubt she’s into the endlessly boring ‘women’s rights’ bit as exemplified by the irritating Alsop for one? But I may be wrong.
Are you ok, my dear? Who is this “Waterloo” you speak of?
Waterloo? Couldn’t escape if I wanted to.
And that’s how Tomoharu Ushida got the short end of the straw
Although his almost namesake on the distaff side Ms Uchida also failed to win – mind you that was in the same year that Andras Schiff also, er, failed to win. Funny things competitions.
Fair or unfair?
Who cares.
The once great Leeds piano competition is now a worthless woke box ticking exercise.
Once upon a time we could all look forward to quality with this competition. Now it’s a race to the bottom.
Go woke, go broke.
This is no big deal, and is certainly not rigged. Other competitions might do this differently, but this is what Leeds has done. It is eminently, scrupulously, fair and transparent. The whole document is publicly available here https://slippedisc.com/2024/09/exclusive-how-the-leeds-piano-competition-is-rigged-for-equality/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFX-UpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcnD8Xw7FFSlAyx50MBDj3P5RtCrdIxWpHrCL2ycUpNa_-VNlrqNgKRw6A_aem_C3thg2CbCx3kbKgP_yjjvw
This is literally the definition of rigged. Rankings influenced by sex and not by ability.
Is this not a breach of the Equality Act?
The Equality Act? In the UK a BBC broadcaster and pedophile has received light treatment from the courts while Facebook posters are in jail! Please, do tell us about Equality.
No, positive action to overcome underrepresentation does not breach any provisions contained in the Equality Act 2010. In fact the clauses quoted in this article closely resemble, comply with and embody the spirit of s159 of the Act.
(1)This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—
(a)persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or
(b)participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.
(2)Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—
(a)overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or
(b)participate in that activity.
(3)That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.
Considering gender to break a tie (4.6) seems as fair as any other criterion, since the tie indicates equal musical merit. However, insisting on a re-vote because of a gender ratio outcome (4.20) sure seems like rigging to me.
Please explain how it is “eminently, scupulously fair”.
As for its being “transparent”, unfair things do not become fair because they are transparently unfair.
Imagine if Spotify and Apple Music playlists did such a thing: “No, you may not listen to another man. You must listen to a woman.”
You’re kidding me; listening to women is what we endure morning, noon and night!!
What are you listening to? I just took a look at today’s Radio 3 schedule. As most days I recognise the male names from dawn to dusk. On some anthology shows there may be some women — and why not? But hardly “morning, noon and night.”
So says everyone who meets you.
I always prefer to listen to a woman. Men are careless and insensitive, and they want to correct your tipos al the time.
Sally
How ridiculous Norman- wd for unearthing this ruling. Fanny Waterman- would not be impressed- she always had a liking for male pianist contestants in her competition. All the finalists seem worthy- The Canadian Izik- Dzurko is a very refined & promising pianist who should win it. Bravo also to Julian Trefelyan for reaching the finals. Yes- he’s the son of a Baronet & all that- but he’s a very interesting & individual pianist for all that- not one for run of the mill- you’ve heard it about a thousand times- type performances- which is to his credit. But he needs to control his nerves a bit, as he’s just about got through the competition thus far on the strength of his musical personality. But, in order, to sustain an immensely challenging solo pianist performing career in the long term- he will have to address this potential shortcoming- for otherwise he’s a musician with a lot to say.
You’re really not the brightest bulb in the box, are you Mark.
We’re all equals but some are more equal tham others.
Take a closer look at which animals Orwell singled out as ‘more equal than others’!!!
How about celebrating Briton Julian Trevelyan’s success in reaching the final, as second-round first reserve, with only a few weeks’ notice? You don’t seem to have mentioned that in either recent post on this topic, Mr Lebrecht. For me, that is one of the most interesting features of this competition.
P.S. He’s also male, so that is bound to be a cause for rejoicing for so many people who lack understanding of the issues that the competition guidelines are trying to address.
These, presumably, are:
1) All-male juries in too many international competitions, wherein unconscious gender bias (and sometimes full-on sexism) are allowed full sway. This is a major, but hidden, issue. Human beings are more tribal than people like to admit. Connected to this is…
2) Pushing women into lower places in the competition results, in order to accommodate male musicians above them, who then get more money and professional opportunities. The reason for this most likely lies in childhood socialisation, which frequently forces girls to accept second place to males, within their families and their schools. Many men are used to being given first consideration in everything, and unconsciously expect to receive homage and subordination from women, throughout their lifetimes. Such individuals expect to do the majority of the talking, in any conversation. They expect to spread out their legs sideways into their female neighbour’s space on public transport, without being challenged about their presumption. Pushing women down the place order in competitions – or keeping them out of the final altogether – complies with the socialisation that most of us have undergone. Unspoken expectations of what the social hierarchy should be are thereby fulfilled. Any traditional religious text – or all-male priesthood and choir – clearly demonstrates the point I am making about male dominance, and the methods by which it can be enforced.
3) Assuming that because someone’s face does not fit the norm, they won’t be good enough. The argument is always – “It’s quality that counts, not appearance, etc.” The unspoken assumption is that only White men are quality musicians.
These problems have kept women out of finals in many international competitions, for years. Jobs for the boys – and the boys alone – has too often been the remit of these all-male juries. Why else have so many highly-qualified female candidates routinely failed to make the cut?
What some people fail to understand – or admit – is the extent to which some older men, in particular, are desperate to retain their power bases in conservatoires, orchestras, and elsewhere. They can do this effectively by excluding women. That is the unconscious agenda, for some. I feel deeply grateful for all the men with whom I work – in my roles of composer, performer and juror – who do not behave like this.
These Leeds jury instructions look, to me, as though they are trying to get the jurors to check their biases in at the cloakroom door – along with their jackets – rather than taking them into the jury room with them.
As regards the first paragraph, the jurors are asked to ‘consider’ doing that. They haven’t been told to do it, have they? Do I think that such a request is justified – in the case of equal scores for one male and one female? Yes, because, depending upon the make-up of the jury, many jurors (both male and female) would automatically put through the male candidate. Women can also suffer from unconscious pro-male bias. Male dominance is the default setting of most traditional societies. Our twenty-first-century attempts to throw it off are related to the extremely advanced level of our civilisation. Quenching male dominance is akin to attempting a societal Great Leap Forward.
To return to the matter in hand, considering putting through the equally-tied female, rather than the male, makes jurors think very carefully about what they are doing. After all, would it be fair to put through the male candidate automatically? I would say not. All it would do, would be to continue disproportionately to reward men with money, professional exposure, agency representation, etc., etc. at the expense of women. Take a look at who gets an agent, if you don’t believe me. By giving preference to the woman, in this hypothetical situation, the overall professional playing field would be made a fraction more equal.
Althea Talbot-Howard
Composer, Performer, Juror (but not of this competition) & Cambridge University social sciences graduate
Why didn’t you just say, “The rules cited are justifiable because men are, like, horrible”?
Oh, and you say that sometimes “unconscious gender bias” is in full sway. How do you KNOW this? I mean, I could attribute a lot of unconscious biases to you, and if you said, “Oh, but I’m not biased!” I could reply, “Ah, but they’re *unconscious* biases* – Gotcha!”
Are you debating with me, Mr Brownsey? If so, why did you not read my post more carefully? I said several times, ‘Many men’, ‘some older men’, ‘some people’s’, and then I expressed deep gratitude to all the men with whom I work, who do not behave like that. However, their excellence does not diminish the continuing problem of gender discrimination in music. It requires constant tackling by everyone, both male and female.
I also made it clear that women, too, can be guilty of pro-male bias. It is a part of our socialisation. I monitor myself for this. We should all do so.
It’s a shame that you feel so upset by my words, but I don’t see your criticism (and rather emotional response) as being justified, I am afraid.
Congratulations on a clear exposition of an entirely reasonable approach. It’s not “rigging”, it’s simply a sensible thing to do. Essentially it’s a way of saying “Stop. And think before you kneejerk.”
Without gender biasses we would have died-out long ago.
The point is, to not let it hinder our attempts at objective truth.
Utterly ridiculous. Imagine thinking that Argerich, Uchida, Pires, Myra Hess, Cristina Ortiz, Katia, Yuja & Co. might have been DEI hires. Repulsively insulting. Merit, merit, merit.
Dear Norman, if my memory serves me correctly after the 2014 Indianapolis violin competition you suggested that a rule should be put in place to guarantee gender equality in the finals. To be fair you haven’t actually said in this post whether or not you agree with the Leeds rules, but isn’t calling them rigged somewhat inconsistent with your position re Indianapolis?
I HATE this sort of thing.
Many of them fronted up in ‘yard clothes’. Mmm; just great for the art form!! The violinist in her pyjama pants; pass.
I stopped watching because I couldn’t tolerate the facial grimacing and histrionics many players adopt. That and the down-market livery.
So basically it’s not a competition.
This is not “Equality,” which is about opportunity, but “Equity” which is about outcome. It is a poison, which is ruining everything.
This has to be the most biased, idiotic rule ever to be introduced to ANY competition. A complete and utter shame Uchida did not pass – he is by far the most artistic of the lot.
Boycott the Leeds and their awful wokery!
I think that the starting point was a system dominated by men. For many years, the actions of trying to get more equality, trying to get more diversity, and trying to favour women, have been indistinguishable – even though the motivations are different. Now that there is more equality, gender discrimination is more obvious for what it is.
4.6 is excellent but 4.20 torpedes it. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
As a longstanding (paid) friend of LIPC, former piano host of LIPC and enthusiastic taxi driver for contestants, I am not happy about the first ruling in particular. I have a particular concern about the emphasis now placed on presentation in judging: I am not remotely interested in what a musician looks like on the platform, just the music. And I think this may favour female competitors and suspect it has done in this year’s competition.
If I were a woman in this competition I would be very offended and if I were a female winner, I would always wonder if I really won. Sad.
This is completely asinine! Gender equality has NO place in a music competition. How a contestant’s 10 fingers play should be the only criteria, irrespective of their physical plumbing. To be fair, isolate the jury behind a screen, or have the contestants play behind a screen – otherwise scratch all considerations of gender. Listen, and judge, PERIOD.
True equality would involve making 7/8-width and 15/16-width keyboard-fitted pianos available to the contestants, since the majority of the issue with women not placing/winning is that standard rep places undue wear and tear on smaller hands. Nothing else is likely to matter.
20 Leeds Competitions. Two female winners. Perhaps this is more about the state of Leeds than the state of the world.
I am totally in agreement with Debussy when he said “there is nothing more absurd than the competition… In all professions I would say it is bad, but in art it is particularly detestable”. It’s also well known that music competitions are wide open to corruption (I and many others have witnessed this first hand). Does no one remember Fanny Waterman openly bragging in a television interview that she had received a direct tip-off for competitor Murray Perahia from his New York agent before he had played a note in the competition? She happily told the story to camera apparently oblivious of its shocking implications.
I shall think this term is illegal.
Meritocracy is and should be the only fair way forward. Any form of discrimination has and will continue to result in disasters.
The advancement of women should NOT be at the cost of suppressing of that of men. This zero-sum mentality is the result of lazy and mechanical thinking.
In fact, the advancement of education in young men are way lagged behind that of young women in the last 20 years. While we should continue advancing our young women, it is our young men really needing more support.
If there are the same scores, both or none should be chosen.
That destroys a venerable contest. Renders it a joke.
Why do the judges see the performer at all? I have participated in several national and international competitions in the organ field, and in all cases, the judging was totally anonymous, and no one saw anything. We were judged by our musical performances alone! Why should it ever be otherwise?
And what about Taiwan, our beloved country, being called “China Taiwan”? No balls at all…
Hear hear, Prof Wille! It’s obviously because Leeds is funded by China (note their tour to the Chinese conservatoires as shown on their social media), and Leeds being hosted by Danwen Wei (chair of Central Conservatory of Music, Beijing) in one of the international rounds.
No wonder Danwen Wei’s students filled the quarterfinalists slots. And his influence reigns throughout many competitions – 2025 Singapore, 2024 Xiamen, 2025 Bach Leipzig (cozy with Vanessa Latarche)
Just today’s warped agenda where excellence or suitability ranks second to DEI.
Well, that’s why most of the top Ivy League universities stopped the so- called “Minority Equality” agenda some years ago-
You just end up with mediocrity which was exactly what they didn’t intend- that’s exactly what’s happening now to the “classical music” industry, particularly with the Solo Pianists-too bad-
it ain’t everyday that you get Argerich!!
So if “two candidates are EQUAL”, the jury is asked to “consider” putting the woman through? This is not “preferential treatment”, Norman, this is simply eliminating preferential treatment for the men, and thus is an important step forward for the industry. Similarly, a revote does not mean the judges have to vote differently, if five men are obviously better (this year, they are not, although the lack of Ushida in the final is strange). A little reading comprehension would help.
“This is not “preferential treatment”, Norman, this is simply eliminating preferential treatment for the men”
Is it “simply eliminating preferential treatment for men”? That presupposes that men DO get preferential treatment here. Do they? How do you know?
What’s wrong with tossing a coin?
It doesn’t say “if they are equal”, which would be impossible to say, it says “if their scores are equal”. Ties happen in these competitions constantly. What the article doesn’t even mention is that if you look a little further into the rules it says that in cases of a tie the *gender* balance will be revealed. Not even the names.
In any normal competition they would release the names of the two tied candidates and they would have a vote based on merit. Here, it looks like it’s “there is a tie between a man and a woman…so which one are you gonna vote for, jurors?”
And you call this an important step forward?
The irony of these ideologies is that ultimately, they are no good for anyone, the competion, the competitors, winners, losers and the audience.
You are a long way from equality when you impose and manipulate outcomes and the only lasting result of significance is the devaluation of quality.
And yet on it goes.
If the score is literally the same and so picking either contestant is going to be an arbitrary decision anyway, I see no problem with picking the female candidate. She was just as good wasn’t she?
Speak to any female pianist for 5 minutes and they’ll tell you dozens of times where a male pianist was chosen over a female pianist who was more qualified. And I won’t even get into all the harassment and inappropriate comments women are subject to, including on this website. If the score is truly the same, then I respect the Leeds competition all the more for trying to play its part to levelling the gender gap in elite piano playing.
Exactly what I said above. I think it’s admirable from the Leeds that they are trying to address this issue in a way that does not favour worse competitors over better (for example, by imposing a 50/50 quota no matter the applicants). Sad to say that Slipped Disc readers (and writers) aren’t exactly champions of equality, or willing to actually think about what these rules entail…
There must be many reasons why women apparently form a minority among professional pianists. I would have thought most such reasons operate well before piano competitions are in question. Given the advance of women in life more generally over recent decades, I think their ‘underrepresentation” in this particular field would resolve itself naturally as it has, for example, in education and the professions.
Not sure this is right. Certainly in the UK, for many professions there’s pretty much equality at entry level, but when you get to the upper echelons, there’s still a considerable imbalance against them (for example, the there’s a 69/31 male/female ratio for latest round of King’s Counsel appointments). The only exception I can think of is nursing, which has the opposite problem.
Lots of reasons for this – passed over for the interesting work, not rated by clients, having children among them. Broadly, educational institutions will take as many people as will pay their fees, then the funnel begins and women tend to be shed as it narrows. No reason to believe it’s not the same in the instrumental world. Competitions seem to be one of the many funnels in the musical world which provide opportunities for young musicians to get exposure and impress the people who can help their careers. If female pianists aren’t seen there, then this is yet another hurdle they face.
“I see no problem with picking the female candidate. She was just as good wasn’t she?”
But in that case she is picked precisely because she’s femalke.
Toss a coin.
That’s not how ties in music competitions work. The original vote may result in a tie, but then when only the tied candidates in question are being voted on, the scoring works out differently and very often one of them will pull into a clear lead (for example, judges who voted for neither candidate in the first place may still have strong opinions about which one is better). This needs to be allowed to happen without giving consideration to any factor other than the contestants’ actual playing, or else it is not a serious competition anymore.
I imagine many of the female competitors consider this patronizing to them, unfair to men, and ridiculous. What other factors will be taken into account next time other than the playing?
Does anyone remember the bizarre year when Peter Donohoe came last after a thoughtful and idiomatic performance of Beethoven 4? An utterly bewildering decision. Of course he went on to win the Tchaikovsky soon after, and his stature over many years now as one of the finest English pianists, and the contrasting careers of the five other apparently better pianists, shows how wrong the Leeds jury was. That was, I think, the moment I realized that competitions too often esteem mere virtuosity, attempted or real, over searching musicianship. Peter Donohoe, of course, combines both, and we should thank the Tchaikovsky judges, and, crucially, its audience, for appreciating that and launching a great career..
The same could be said of John Lill who likewise didn’t make the Leeds in any shape or form but went on to win the Tchaikovsky.
Year after year, century after century, women’s talent has been subordinated to men’s. It’s been true of art, music, science throughout history. Here’s an attempt to ensure women get recognition in a fairer world, and lo! heaps of entitled men (mostly) leap on a bandwagon of grudge. Grow up
Seems plausible, it is about the next super star that Leeds discovers, and nothing sells a record or concert tickets like a extremely talented women with a sweet ass, who we all want to take for a go. It does all the artist a disservice but, facts are facts.
What does it matter? Slim pickings for the winners anyway
Surprised (not) by the apoplexy this is causing. Shouldn’t the question really be whether this will actually make any difference?
On the principle, the first clause only asks the judge consider putting the female candidate first. It still allows the individual judge to decide that they’d rather decide on the basis of, say, the man’s easiness on the eye or the colour of his socks or the way the female candidate did her hair. If they’re equal on relevant grounds, then choosing an irrelevant ground that at least addresses a problem of gender imbalance (which this site has noted has been a problem at this competition) seems as good a way breaking a tie as any other.
The second clause seems to apply also if there were an all-female line-up. Again, it doesn’t require the judges to change their minds, but it does give them the opportunity to pause and think about it. I’m not sure what’s wrong with that.
I suspect, however, that the only difference will be that it gives some men a further opportunity to cast doubt on female competitors (see some of the comments). ‘Merit’ is such a wonderfully flexible concept that, if you have a bias (conscious or unconscious), it’s easy to find one particular aspect of a man’s performance that you prefer over his female competitor’s (or vice versa) so that you can just edge one over the other on whatever your definition of “merit” happens to be that day. That’s the way it seems to work in most other walks of life and I don’t see why it shouldn’t here too. All that will happen will be that there will be fewer ties.
It would be trivial to remove the bias effects by hiding the gender/appearance of the competitors from the judges. There is zero reason not to do this.
It is foolish to think any music competition is fair and unbiased. The producers have an agenda, the judges either teach the competitiors, know the competitors, or have a stake in the end results. Frankly, they should end music competitions, as they are all subjective with bias.
Better – let a coin toss decide in case of equal scores.
I never thought I’d say it but brass band competitions may well be less sexist! For these the panel is screened. The audience can see the performers and therefore the panel feel the audience reaction but the panel can’t see who is playing. It would be horrible to win as a woman and feel the bitterness from others and the insecurity that you had been put ahead by 1 or 2 marks because of something you had no control over.
What about transwomen? If any are accepted for the competition they must surely have faced greater discrimination on the way than natal men and women and should be favoured over both.
One day, if I wrote memoirs, I’ll publish my Leeds experience from 1984 – 40 years ago. The respected composer, Ellen Taaffe Zwilich, once said to me, “I don’t want people to play my music because I’m a woman. I also don’t want them NOT to play my music because I’m a woman.” You know what’s important? Share a list of the last 25 years of winners and non winners (I hate the word ‘losers’) and on that list, share their list of contributions to music aside from the standard repertoire. This means much more than a list of orchestras and conductors with the same music played for centuries. It’s important, yes, for the continuation of the traditional rep, but for the evolution of music perhaps the non winners have found ways to do remarkable things in their careers. As for 1984, jury members winked with thumbs up signs at me as they walked by the competitors. There were over 100 in the first round spanning four days. I made it to the next 20, then 12, collapsed between rounds 2 and 3 from food poisoning or something (??) and missed the finals by half a point (??). I had heard that the other ‘Rach 3’ was chosen and her reps were on the plane from ‘wherever’ to Leeds ‘before’ the final 6 were announced. Well, I guess I survived, as have many following….
Unconscious gender bias, like racial bias, have been demonstrated in music and many other fields for so long that I am astonished and disappointed to see such a question from Lebrecht. Nothing is uncontroversially fair in competitions based on subjective judgement. If we can acknowledge that, we may come a step closer to achieving “fairness” in time. Meanwhile, positive discrimination can help us get there faster. Reversing who is discriminated against rarely goes down well with those people used to unquestioned social dominance, but probably helps speed up equal treatment ultimately. Examples abound.
Two out of five finalists are women, that looks ‘correct’ then, but what’s the proportion of women entering at the beginning? It doesn’t mean a woman will win. I’m a foreigner and often got a job interview to make up the quota to satisfy the equal opportunity guidelines.
If a man and a woman both end up with equal scores based on artistic merit, then the one with a more difficult programme would make a bigger impression, a bit like the technical difficulty scores in some sports competitions. A revote or the chairman makes a decisive vote. But you can argue men with bigger physic would be at an advantage in large romantic works. On the other hand women can wear make-up, put on a fashion show or wear very little (you know who). There might be more freedom when the whole arm is uncovered. You sweat less on stage. The sexes just aren’t equal in piano competitions.
As a pianist who happens to be a woman, I would be mortified to accept an award that catered to anything other than my artistic merit. The rules are actually insulting as to suggest that a woman needs “help” to outstrip her competition. Martha Argerich seemed to have no problem, “despite” being a woman.