Legal action over a competition jury’s unwatched videos
mainWe have received several allegations over the past year that online juries have not been examining – or even opening – the videos submitted by contestants. The latest complaint concerns the Ysaye Competition in Belgium.
Here’s the basis for a legal case by disappointed entrant, Arseniy Strokovskiy:
In April 2021 I, Arseniy Strokovskiy and my duo partner applied to the YSAYE International Music Competition in Belgium. Due to pandemic situation, the competition is held this year online and has 3 rounds. Participants were supposed to send video links from YouTube, whereas the international Jury should watch all the videos and choose those whose level of playing was sufficient to pass to the next round.
They should watch, but they did not. The results of the 1st round were published even without watching performance of the participants. You can read about it below.
So, we applied to the competition, uploaded 2 videos by our Duo to YouTube and paid the 140€ fee for the application in Chamber music category. Apart from that, my partner also applied to the Solo category, having sent 2 videos and paid 110€ fee.
We made our video links with limited access, so that only the one who has the link could watch it. And we sent it only to the competition. YouTube has an amazing option – YouTube analytics. It provides all the precise information about how many times a video was opened, for how long it was viewed to the very second etc.. At the moment of sending our applications the counter showed us 0 views, 0:00 seconds. Taking into account that only admins of the competition had access to videos, we could follow all the information about our videos views at the competition precisely.
Then, at the end of May the results of the first round were published. Neither our Duo nor my partner’s solo were not on the 2nd round list. And guess what I found by looking through the YouTube Analytics?
The videos by our Duo were opened only once, each view was for 22 and 23 seconds (!!), which is a bit more than 2 % (!!) of the full length of the videos sent. Furthermore, one of the partner’s solo videos had no views whatsoever at the moment when the results were published.
Consequently, the results were published without listening to the applicant’s program!
Here I would like to explain some things. If a musician sends his video to a concert agency, manager as an ad or in order to apply to a job – nobody has to listen to his performance fully. Intended recipient has his own right to watch a video for a couple of seconds and sort it to spam folder. Moreover, he does not have to even open an email! When it comes to musical competitions, absolutely different principle becomes eligible. An applicant pays fee so as to be listened to. In other words, he literally pays for the jury job, and the jury ought to listen to each participant’s video fully. It does not matter if a participant plays badly or very well, whether they have chances for victory or not. There is no competition in the world, members of the jury of which have the right to stop a participant if he does not higher the time limit of their performance. It is a basic principle.
So, what we have. There are 2 possible variants:
1. The international Jury came to a conclusion about the 2nd round list without watching the participants’ videos.
or
2. Admins Elena Lavrenova and Ashot Khachatourian themselves decided who would pass to the next round, not accounting for what the professional members of the Jury think, just using their names.
The admins of the competition say that the international Jury (10 members) all together watched the competition videos. I can hardly believe that renowned members of the Jury, following all the covid restrictions, came from various countries to Belgium only for watching videos for a moment and made the decision on the premise of the first several seconds of participants’ performances. Dear Phillipe Koch, Mikhail Yakovlev, Alexei Moshkov, Johanna Pichlmair, Robert Stepanian, Ori Epstein, George Tudorache, Jean-Marc Onkelinx, Philippe Lehaen, I am gravitating to the version, in which you were not even got acquainted with the videos, everything was definite without you, and the organizers are only hiding behind your names, thereby setting you up. However, if you truly watched videos, I ask you to comment. How can it be possible when you came to a conclusion without familiarizing with full videos? And at least in one case the video was with no views whatsoever!
If the videos were not shown to the members of the Jury, then I ask the organizers Elena Lavrenova and Ashot Khachatourian to comment on this situation.
Before writing this post I sent an email to the organizers so as to solve the situation peacefully, but I received unintelligible answer. Elena Lavrenova does not argue that the videos were not watched, instead she mentions the rules in which it is said that the results are not disputable, and fees cannot be reimbursed.
Due to this situation, I will file a lawsuit against the organizers of the competition, to seek a refund, complete cancellation of the results of the competition, as well as to demand the initiation of a fraud case, since it is probably about corruption, embezzlement of funds fraudulently.
I contacted a team of lawyers from Munich, together we sorted out the case and will start the process soon.
I ask the music community, those who care about this story, to help spread this post.
Screenshots of reports from YouTube analytics are attached to this post.
Of course, this is not a question of money, but of principle. This story should not go unnoticed, but it will become a lesson for all unscrupulous online competitions.
04.07.2021
Arseniy Strokovskiy
UPDATE: The competition responds
This account, if true, is shocking but not surprising.
May I ask, is Ashot Khachatourian related to the famous Khachatourian who wrote music for Spartacus? Amazing.
Yes, filing a law suit should work (keep records of everything, and I mean everything; make video recordings if possible) and there could in addition to civil liability be criminal fraud and malfeasance, so I would also contact a prosecutor. The entry “fees” seem to be little more than a scam.
This also puts unbelievable pressure on the defendants. I am a retired lawyer and law professor. This could also be taken to the European Court for Human Rights which looks at “human rights” broadly. Do contact some good lawyers (more than one and they should also have knowledge and experience in criminal law which most lawyers do not have)(first consultations are usually free).
Also, keep the Slipped Disc community informed as to your actions.
It might be fraud but it won’t be malfeasance, since the (i) jury are not public officials; (ii) the omission may not have been deliberate; (iii) they have not clearly benefitted from not viewing the videos.
It can not be taken to the European Court for Human Rights…that is just bizarre.
Dear Arseniy,
I empathize with how you feel, but I am afraid that there might be another explanation you haven’t thought of yet. I know of another competition where the exact same thing happened, however, YouTube analytics simply did not register the views for a very simple reason. Please check your video settings (even if it is “unlisted”) and see if the option “allow embedding” was selected (as it usually is by default). If so, then the competition could have pasted the link into another private website where all the candidates videos are listed for the jury to watch. Any views of an embedded video in a different platform would then unfortunately not show up in YouTube analytics. Sorry to disappoint you. Of course, you could still be right, but there is also a chance that it could all be a misunderstanding due to embedding. Good luck.
Of course! YouTube is at fault! Only the best contestants were selected… plus his wire-transfer did not come through in time.
It didn’t look to me like he was saying it was anyone’s “fault,” just that they may have overlooked a quirk in the way video views show up in the viewing record. (Or maybe they didn’t! It’s possible, and not even super unlikely IMHO.)
Certainly a possibility. But in that case why would the administrator not have responded by explaining that videos were shared with jury in such an embedded collection hence the apparent lack of data?
Certainly a possibility. But if that were the case, why did the administrator not reply explaining that the videos had been shared with the jury in such a collection, hence the apparent lack of viewings on YouTube?
I am not an IT specialist but to my knowledge views of embedded videos generally get counted.
I don’t believe P.M. is correct.
YouTube does indeed track off-YouTube views. It would be insane not to since they are selling ads based on how often videos get watched. Why give away “free” views?
I have numerous YouTube videos that I have pasted into other webpages for people to see. Those views do get counted.
The “Analytics” for my videos includes the category “Direct or unknown” which is defined as “Traffic from direct URL entry, bookmarks and unidentified apps”
This page explains the rare circumstances (e.g. known robot views) when page-embedded videos are not counted…
https://www.alliedpixel.com/2019/09/do-embedded-youtube-videos-add-to-the-view-count/
Arseniy’s proof seemed airtight and convincing and shocking until I read Paul Mauffray’s posting. Now I have to at least concede that it might be the videos were watched.
This is going to be an interesting case for sure.
How much time does a jury have to watch of a video for it to be “rightfully” judged?
Having experience with these kind of things myself, I can only say that often, after half a minute things are pretty clear though…
And given that you often have hundreds and hundreds of applications…
The problem is accepting application fees and then hearing just 30 seconds. There is a certain expectation that if I’ve paid a fee for an audition, I will be properly heard, and 30 seconds doesn’t do it justice.
Yes, lawyer up ! It’s the only answer with such shameless people.
Good luck
Something very similar happens too many times in conducting competitions. I am glad someone has started this conversation since the application fees are gigantic, especially during this time, while jury do not even bother to watch the sent materials. Shame on this attitude!
Dear Roger,
Wich Conducting Competitions you mean?
Any particular names?
Dear Michael,
The Young Conductors Award Salzburg, German Conductors’ Award, European Union Competition For Orchestra Conductors and Conducting Competition Jeunesses Musicales Bucharest, to name a few. My videos were not viewed by the organizers even once, no wonder I got rejection letters from them.
Yawn. You have to actually be good to win a competition. Or in this case, be listened for more than is necessary to make a judgment. For a professional musician, 20 seconds is more than enough to figure out someone doesn’t make the cut. And before all the cries of ‘CoMpEtItIoNs ArE fOr HoRsEs’ and other bitter failed musicians’ rants: yes, competitions are not for everybody. Nobody forces you to participate if you don’t like them. But if you do play the game, then accept the rules. If you are the best, you will win. If you aren’t, you won’t, so drop the ego and go back to practice.
Not Entitled does not seem to understand the concept of what is known in English Law as obtaining property by deception . If indeed these videos were not viewed by the jury members, then the taking of the fee(s) is a blatant fraud
Unfortunately, the abusive rules keep getting adjusted. If my sugar daddy finally upgrades his monthly pledge to $5000, perhaps I too can be selected if I pick an obscure enough competition, in the middle of nowhere. Also considering changing my gender…
This of course is absolute rubbish! Whether or not 20 seconds is enough (which I doubt), if someone has paid a fee to be listened to, then they should be listened to. You pay for a service and you should get it, however good or bad you are. I doubt whether any of the entries were that bad to be cut off in so short a space of time by the so-called ‘experts’
I wouldn’t call a quote by Bartok about competitions, a quote by a “failed musician”!
I wouldn’t call a quote by Bela Bartok about competitions a comment by a “failed musician”!
Not entitled, that is absolute rubbish!! Luck plays a major role in international and national competitions and there are a ton of biases and discrimination. This I can prove!
Not necessarily the “best” wins, it is completely subjective, and I’ve known plenty of musicians who didn’t get into a final round, let alone didn’t even get selected in some of them that end up being extremely successful and are full of serious talent and skill!!
The 20seconds initial screening may be enough in some instances, but where do you draw the line? It depends on the content for a particular round in order to decide what is required to get the big picture of a musician and his/her abilities.
Again, to point out how ignorant and wrong your statement is about “the best, you will win. If you aren’t, you won’t”; I know many individuals who were finalists and even won/prizewinners of one international competition (sometimes even the biggest for the instrument), and then not even make the selection for another, or progress past the first round. Sorry, but you are so so wrong…
Arseniy Strokovskiy claims firstly that the videos by his Duo were “opened only once”, and that “only admins of the competition had access” to these videos.
He maintains secondly that “the international Jury came to a conclusion about the 2nd round list without watching the participants’ videos”, and that “Admins Elena Lavrenova and Ashot Khachatourian themselves decided who would pass to the next round”, without consulting “the professional members of the Jury”, who he believes did not see the videos, with the admins “just using” the jurors’ “names”.
Well, these are serious allegations. As for the first, he has no evidence that the jurors did not have access to the videos, surely something easy to arrange from admin level to jury level with YouTube link and password. Regarding the second, he has no evidence of this, and it could possibly be libellous.
Are you not familiar with how litigation works? You make a claim, and you present evidence in court. Which is what he says he’s doing. That’s not libel – that’s how litigation works.
Dear Emill, Yes, I am quite familiar with how litigation works, but my point was about libel, which is a written defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression of another in the sense that it is published without just cause and may be understood as exposing another to public contempt. In short, libel damages a reputation and is not based on truth.
In other words, would someone even think this “jury” might have not watched videos, and has evidence that supports that idea, he is not to present anything which might tarnish the image of the jury, who to even have to defend themselves or explain are then so insulted it’s libel.
Dear Nijinski, You miss the point that he alleges only the administrators of the competition viewed the videos and chose competitors for the final round. He is perfectly entitled to express that view, but it may be libellous, these things are not what is called mutually exclusive.
We don’t know that the few viewings weren’t done by say the jury president. Youtube also allows paying customers to download content — it would not surprise me if the analytics did not reflect subsequent plays of downloaded content, which might take place offline.
I think most reasonable people would agree that entrants who paid the necessary fee should get a full hearing, as they would in person (though no one seems to be arguing that paying the fee should entitle them a chance to play in all of the rounds!) However, the evidence presented here does not conclusively show that no one watched those video submissions, only that the view count was very low, and it may not be a reliable proxy for the number of jurors who watched the performance.
Bill writes: “I think most reasonable people would agree that entrants who paid the necessary fee should get a full hearing…”
OK. Many years ago there were only a small number of entries and it was possible for the jury to listen to everything submitted. But over time, there were more-and-more entries, a great many of which were clearly poor. Competitions reacted by increasing the entry fee (hoping to stop the large number of bad entries), but this faces two problems: a large number of bad entries still submit, and some good entries stopped applying.
The fundemental issue is that these competitions are overwhelmed with a huge number of entries that nobody can reasonably fully review.
He doesn’t “allege” that, he presents it as a possibility to explain why the videos were only watched once, and for such an extremely short time. And he received no explanation that clarified it. And if indeed the videos were only watched once, those are logical conclusions that deserve explanation, and there was none offered.
So my point stands completely, the “competition” doesn’t even have to explain a situation that regarding any decency deserves explanation, and if challenged to do so that is seen as “libel.”
To what level you go to to try to intimidate someone with legal semantics is quite profound.
The comments seem very carefully worded to summarise the pertinent evidence and avoid making a direct accusation or an apportionment of blame. For example, the litigant raises the possibility that the jury were not given the chance to watch the video by the administrators. In other words, the litigant has taken care not to jump to conclusions definitively.
I think you do not know how the logging of access to YouTube videos works. Otherwise you wouldn’t have written the first sentence.
Enough replies above on other equally plausible scenarios. And I understand quite well the analytics thank you.
This story is emblematic of two widespread realities in the classical music world, especially when it comes to competitions: 1) people simply wanting your money and having no scruples taking it without bothering to do their part and 2) rampant bs, pure and simple. An applicant that pays a fee often representing an important financial sacrifice when one is starting out is at least due the respect of having their recordings heard in full — were the competition live, I doubt they would be stopped after just 20 seconds, even if it were decided after 20 seconds that the candidate is indeed unsuitable. Second, I hope young musicians will take with a great gain of salt any “diagnosis” made by anyone on any jury, even when coming from a supposed authority. There are legions of stories of jury members incapable of even recollecting the playing of candidates during competitions, and even cases in which applicants asked jury members their opinion about a particular piece which was not even performed, which did not prevents in the least the so-called opinion to be delivered with an aura of self-importance and authority. The world has changed. For anyone of talent, you do not need competitions to succeed, because if you are good enough you will succeed without them and if you aren’t good enough they won’t help you anyway. Just look at laureates of past competitions and see where they are today, and you will notice that in an overwhelming majority of cases they are far from being household names, even though some of them of course are terrific players. In order to get a job as a teacher or as an orchestra violinist, no one cares which competition you won or didn’t win — all they care about is your playing and your competence. Most of today’s soloists have no competition prizes. If they do help, it will only be the very top ones — the likes of Tschaikovsky and Queen Elizabeth — and these will definitely give due diligence to each of their candidates, but even then, only a few select laureates from these competitions will actually go on to have an solo career. But otherwise, save your money. I completely sympathize with the sense of outrage expressed by this applicant, as it is sadly representative of the intolerable bullshit that routinely goes on in classical music and of the sheer exploitation of young people’s dreams and aspirations for sheer financial gain.
I think when one is paying money, a standard watch for a typical three minutes or an exposition is really not too much to ask. Sadly, the not watching of videos seems to be a typical complaint, but applicants are too afraid to complain. Kudos for someone finally complaining!
(Remember kids—all competitions are fixed! Stop putting so much faith in them and we will all be fine)
I take great exception to your blanket statement that “all competitions are fixed”. Having been a juror on a good many, I can assure you that none was fixed and we the jury acted diligently, and to the point of exhaustion.
All competitions may not be fixed, and the jurors may act to the point of “exhaustion,” which apparently is meant to depict that thy behave justly, but you might seriously question your defense of competitions, stating you’re a juror.
To be frank, the current discussion is too broad, and all are being tarred with the same brush.
The issue is much more complex: as a competition proceeds, alliances between jurors inevitably form, and communication can take place occasionally openly, but actually mainly subliminally. It needs a strong chairperson to recognize these at time perfidious if mainly unintended and unintentional mechanisms.
Sometimes the prize-winners are the best at the event, on other occasions patently not. But this does not mean a competition was fixed.
The loss of confidence in a certain performer is infectious, and the atmosphere in a jury room can in a worst case scenario quickly become poisonous. This has more to do with psychology than music.
So I am not saying that a competition is an ideal platform on which to demonstrate proficiency. Perhaps it is an outdated form; if so, then this is for the above reasons and has nothing to do with corruption.
Even a judge who “thinks” he or she is being judicious or objective, is still working from their own ideology, and sadly, it’s too often the case with “judges” (certainly not confined to music) that they are working with what they think will work within the system, or they are working with what they believe is how it should be working. Added to that what truly works doesn’t depend on having to follow set rules, or anyone’s ideology.
From those grounds already, it’s rigged, in a fashion, or simply plain rigged.
I also find the whole rigamarole of the amount of repertoire that needs to jump out of someone ridiculous, actually. Which ALSO rigs competitions to someone comfortable with numbers over quality, or even understanding.
I once mentioned years ago in a blog here, concerning a statement from Gideon Kramer, how present day “performers” seem to be all the same ilk, in ways. Which I wasn’t stating as criticism, simply that one had to want to do umpteen concerts a year. It seems only such a personality makes it to the top. WHY someone that wants to do 20 or 10 concerts a year rather than 50, along with also maybe composing, which present day stars wouldn’t have time for it they wanted to, although the comparisons to the new “Mozart,” seems to go on forever, as long as they are bereaved of enough time or insight or even left alone long enough to understand that part of themselves…..WHY someone with a different personality, besides get up and go with THAT many concerts a years doesn’t exist on the platform much, is beyond me. Along with all the rest. A whole dump full of repertoire before they are 30, having taken on the ability to wield a personality cult and play marketing games never doing anything that would make them too human, rather than an “icon.”
Anyhow, all I did was suggest that there might be other sort of personalities that might bless the music scene, not even criticizing the bulk that does really, and I’m immediately accused of calling them “gig whores,” by someone named “Renee” rather than it’s even for a second considered that there might be more diversity amongst performers possible than those that non stop give concerts at least 50 times a year.
There you ALSO have rigging.
Your whole post also, makes a whole list of excuses to cover up if there really is rigging going on that’s conscious, which your whole statement doesn’t at all signify can’t be going on. From there there’s all the other forms of “rigging…..”
Or ideology and exploitation, and cults………
And in classical music at this point, in contrast to other art forms that aren’t losing an audience, one doesn’t have the creative input, in fact the input that was there from the repertoire that’s exploited isn’t there by any percentage of what goes on to have allowed it to emerge, were present environment transposed back to from where it’s exploited now.
Just like the rain forest, just like the air, just like…….
Well, you are right for the wrong reasons.
The definition of to rig is “To arrange in a dishonest way in order to achieve a wished for result other than that which would have been the outcome had honest ways been taken.”
Pity you did not take on board my admission that competitions are by no means an ideal format.
From Grammerly: “We use quotation marks with direct quotes, with titles of certain works, to imply alternate meanings, and to write words as words.”
What I wrote earlier:
“Your whole post also, makes a whole list of excuses to cover up if there really is rigging going on that’s conscious, which your whole statement doesn’t at all signify can’t be going on. From there there’s all the other forms of “rigging…..””
You also imply that, when someone has paid the competition with money, spent the amount of time required in studying, paying for studies, for instruments, for everything, all to fulfill the idea of what the jurors are looking for; that when there’s compelling evidence regarding their videos not even being watched, that instead of responding with a clear explanation the competition can avoid answering a very pertinent question. And use intimidating semantics regarding “libel” as an excuse.
These people were not supposed to point this out, or do it in a different fashion? That’s almost like saying that Tchaikovsky shouldn’t express himself in the outbursts that happen in the music, because that might offend the jurors.
And this isn’t really even an outburst, it’s clearly questionable activity going on that deserves an explanation, which hasn’t occurred.
Sorry to hear you need to use Grammerly. BTW, semicolons are used to join independent clauses. But there you go. I’ll send you a petard with which to hoist yourself.
First, you quote a “dictionary” definition of a word that I put in quotation marks, while to any person interested in a real discussion it would have been clear that quotation marks in common practice mean that the definition of the word has been stretched beyond such a definition. Then when I simply quote what’s common practice regarding quotations, you make a nasty remark about that, as if it’s up to you to decide what quotation marks mean can overlook that and then start fussing about semicolons, when you’d otherwise have to actually address a discussion in a decent fashion.
Well thank you, you’ve very clearly delineated what kind of nasty arrogant business is going on in competitions. And you’ve pointed out exactly the behavior going on with response to the request for explanation regarding why one video didn’t clock any views and the other a fraction of a minute. As if you and the jury are above any decent response or explanation, and to expect that would be “libel.”
Just btw, it’s grammarly not grammerly (sic), as you write. Guess you did not pick up on the ‘irony’ (trust it is ok with you if I use single quotation marks) of me following suit. But I shall bow out now with good grace, as your comments are now ad hominem.
We know this supposed “ad hominum” argument, this is used in reverse so that “corporations” can do the most horrible things, but the people pulling “its” strings not held responsible. What I pointed out was how competitions are in cohorts with the impresarios, and how such exploitation is taking away from the creativity lacking in an art form that’s losing its audience, while other art forms that nurture creativity are not. And before that I stated that if you were trying to defend such behavior, stating that you were a judge wasn’t helping such a defense. Your You also would have to read my comments rather than purposefully being inconsistent about petty prickly things in a form of confusion technique that’s supposed to get on my nerves and prevent my reflexes from seeing what’s going on. When “rigged” is in quotation marks pointing out how the way the competition circuit goes, when only certain types might get through to get the kind of performing career said competitions are said to uphold, that’s correct grammar. Cherry picking such in whatever challenges you to look deeper into what someone is saying, ALSO shows what kind of judging might go on, when you’re an adjudicator. From a competition. So the “ad hominum” might STILL be what YOU are doing to the image of the competition.
I also don’t have to agree about semicolons, my afterthoughts, of the unwinding of a theme, or initial point, with a series of comas afterwards, whether an independent clause follows or not, it is still in the wake unwinding, and so a semicolon might not be appropriate. I certainly wouldn’t take you as someone with the flexibility to understand such creative uses of punctuation or grammar.
And if you want to know what ad hominum truly is, look at how you mispelled my name as Nikinsky, when I exposed how questionable the mob against Woody Allen is. If you want to read more about that, you can go here. https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/
If anyone is still reading this jumble here. It’s not true that “independent” clauses have to always be joined by semicolons. That’s actually more if the two clauses are two contrasting parts of a statement, contradict each other, or such.
Of course I’m on board that competitions aren’t an ideal format. That’s not saying that they haven’t helped people that we are blessed with, having heard their output. Martha Argerich, to name just one person. She won the Chopin competition. I can hardly imagine the musical world without her input, where instead of turning the performance into an emotional prestation, she allows the music to speak. But there ARE performers who might also want to be able to compose or do other activities, which then leaves them out of the genre of doing umpteen concerts a year, something Martha seems to also have felt is a great burden, having to show up at set times regularly, regardless of how she feels.
Others are helped be being against competitions, such as Pogorelich or Egorov.
There’s something else that goes on, and all manner of what might happen.
And I would end this discussion with the hope that your defense of the lack of corruption in competitions means that you are taking the trouble to be there as judge, even though you don’t find it an ideal setting, in order to take care that someone with a voice gets acknowledged, rather than whether they fit the pattern.
Whether they have the right connections.
Whether they are exploitable for the big market.
Or fit int the current fashion, something so many of the composers whose music survived never accomplished.
Your comment is ironic.
Isaye competition? In Belgim? Is this still going on? I thought the Elisabeth competition took over ages ago?!?!?
I am not an IT specialist but to the best of my knowledge embedded videos generally get counted.
Of course, it would be terrible if the jury did not listen to the videos. However, this all sounds like the contestant is jumping to conclusions without understanding all of the details. YouTube analytics are only valid for views that occur on that platform, it doesn’t work if the videos are viewed from the application portal. For example, for our online School of Music auditions, we view the YouTube audition links within our own application browser, it is a YouTube link but not viewed on YouTube. This means that our views are not clocked on the analytics, but we watch the videos. It is the same issue when posting a YouTube concert via Facebook Live, the views are not registered on YouTube analytics, only on the platform they are being watched (e.g. Facebook).
About the jury listening together, they could of course watch all videos together via Zoom, they don’t have to be in one place – that’s a strange interpretation.
Very difficult to prove anything, and I think I would tend to believe the competition in this case…..
“YouTube analytics are only valid for views that occur on that platform, it doesn’t work if the videos are viewed from the application portal.” Clearly wrong. Even more so if the access to the video is limited. Every view is logged. The log is precise down to seconds.
What counts as a view for YouTube is a complex matter, but if they jury had watched the videos the analytics would have shown it.
Imagine if it becomes standard for a competition to publish all submitted prescreening videos on their website, alongside the jury scores and comments…
Actually, never mind, none of this needs to be transparent. Why would they lie? Heh heh heh. Do not mind the man behind the curtain!
I did a few competitions when I was a teenager. I won two, placed in two or three, and failed to advance in a couple others. It was the last one though, which was live, where I decided not to do more of them. My mother had driven me (I didn’t have a license yet) and when I came out she said “don’t feel badly about not doing well in this one; they announced who was moving on before you had played for a full minute.”
I do not think that a juror has to watch a video all the way through, but under thirty seconds, while it may be enough to tell that somebody isn’t going to advance, is an insult. I’ve adjudicated for NATS (National Association of Teachers of Singing) and the point there is more the comments and less the overall score, so I watch everything.
My friend Youri Egorov, although getting third prize in the Tchaikovsky, wasn’t let into the finals of the Van Cliburn, and then got more prize money than the winner, from a lady’s committee in Texas that didn’t agree, and more of a career than almost any “Cliburn” winner.
He also actually offered to teach at the Amsterdam Conservatory, but they didn’t accept apparently. Out of nowhere, I had oh, three lessons (maybe four) with him. A lady who had other intentions came into the dressing room before me asking for an autograph, and asked for lessons, so I also did. He actually gave me lessons, for nothing, wouldn’t take any money. And he could simply get one to do something, the gentle non compromising way he would do what could be done. I really don’t think any teacher at the Amsterdam Conservatory could have done what he did, it would have been better for them and music had they accepted his offer. The teacher I had, in another city, who played like a music box that forgot it could breath while inhaling cigarette after cigarette, and telling me his doctor wouldn’t allow him to, he of course had problems with Youri, and thought he was teaching me stuff I wasn’t ready for, although he said this to another student. No I don’t think I would ever be ready to be turned into such a machine, lacking breath, no. And I’m sure that this “teacher” was “judge” in many music competitions, and that there’s numerous teachers at Amsterdam, and other such illustrious places, that do the same. And it’s an old story…..
And OVER with.
I know of a very similar case, where the contestant was able to prove that the jury did not watch one second of his entry, but was not invited to the first round. He was also able to prove this using the logs of YouTube and made it clear to the organiser of the competition that this could have negative consequences for her. After that, the Jury decided to watch the video. Which was clearly shown in the logs. Afterwards the contestant even one the first prize!
One guess was, that the organiser wanted to exclude the contestant from the beginning because she feared that he/she might win over another contestant who was her student. She was right.
Perhaps the YSAYE competition kept jurors’ notes on the candidates. Having been chairperson on occasion, I made sure this was always done. Just saying.
A couple notes: YouTube analytics are not always cut and dry and there are reasons they would not show.
The writer says “An applicant pays fee so as to be listened to. ” Is that true? The applicant pays a fee to be fairly considered for the next round of the competition. As any seasoned juror can tell you, after listening to auditions for decades, one does not need to listen to the entirety of a performance to know if someone fails to make the cut. Often under a minute is more than enough to know if someone is *not* going to cut it, but more might be needed to rank the top applicants. Sorry but that’s the harsh truth.
And yes of course there’s favoritism and all that crap, so I’m not denying the initial complaint. Just stating that this isn’t as clear as it might seem.
“The Queen Elisabeth Competition was founded in 1937 at the instigation of Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth of Belgium and the Belgian violinist Eugène Ysaÿe. Originally called the Eugène Ysaÿe Competition, it adopted its current name in 1951, thus paying tribute to its Honorary President and initiator.”
https://concoursreineelisabeth.be/en/history/
‘Competitions are for horses, not for people’ – Bartok
You are insulting horses….
As if they need it….. (or rather them)
I don’t know if instrumental competitions are anything like conducting competitions, but if they are, this is more or less standard. I have been keeping track of jury watch time for my application videos to various conducting competitions and auditions, and it is only in the last year or two they have risen to an average of over 1 minute. My colleagues also report similar figures.
This is of course frustrating, but also inevitable, since every major and minor competition or audition gathers hundreds of applicants from all over the world. If the jury is going to keep any sort of deadline, they have to sort fast.
Though, you’d think they learned that by now. Every other competition I apply to sends some email where they express surprise at the amount of applicants, and inform that the response deadline is extended.
This article in “The Strad” is illuminating:
https://www.thestrad.com/news/online-competition-jury-watched-22-seconds-of-my-video-claims-entrant/13212.article
“Competition director Elena Lavrenova said that seven of the nine jury members were involved in the pre-selection, and all were obliged to give comments on every video, all comments being signed and delivered to the competition organisers. 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. There were around 300 entrants to the violin and chamber music in total, with 59 progressing to the semi-finals.”
Wonder what people think.
If this is an explanation, it should have been given to Arseniy Strokovskiy in the beginning, when he asked about the seeming lack of video views, NOT after he was forced to bring it out to the media. Otherwise it really DOES come across as arrogant behavior, that a mere competitor deserves no explanation, and their behind closed doors behavior is not to be questioned.
Also, if there were 300 applicants, and this to a competition with the amount of respect considered, watching each video for one minute would clock 5 hours of time, two minutes 10 hours of time etc. That would be one hour for five days, or 2 hours etc. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to watch a video more than 20 some seconds. That’s too much time for jurors of an illustrious competition?
What an obnoxious message. The members of the jury may well not know enough IT to be able to explain why it didn’t register as being listened to by the software. They are music experts not IT experts.
They could just comment that the video was watched and for how long, if it was. But they didn’t respond anything
This arrogance is just amazing. To begin with, in the beginning, the jury wasn’t asked the question, it was the organizers, so your remarks isn’t even pertinent, to my point.
Secondly, to dismiss completely giving a decent answer to people who paid money, and ply such arrogance, as if one is above is slanders the name the competition uses, as well as the competitors, and anyone decent enough to be there to actually answer decent questions in an honest manner.
Hello everyone,
I’m Arseniy, the one who wrote that initial post.
First of all, I want to thank you all for your support, I am glad that this incident sparked the interest of the community.
Few things I want to clear. I made a small research. Embedded videos are generally get counted with a rare exception and those exceptions do not apply to this case.
I strongly disagree those who write that for the jury 23 seconds is enough to make a decision.
I myself was a member of the jury of an international competition and I know what I’m talking about.
Look, if you’re only going to adjudicate 22 seconds, make the audition time limit 22 seconds and not a 20 min. That’s called having respect.
And what about the entrant whose video wasn’t watched at all? By the way, now I receive many private messages from other competitors, they have the same case, their videos weren’t watched at all
For those who are wondering:
The same recording, but a different copy under a different video link was submitted to the YSAYE International Music Competition. That video was viewed for 23 seconds.
https://youtu.be/IO6jSN685-Q
Thank you for being so open and courageous, and posting here. There would seem to be two discrete issues: first, for how long the videos were viewed, and secondly, by whom exactly. A brief glimpse of, say, some 20 seconds is probably all that was achievable in the (zoom) circumstances. It hardly shows respect to the candidates, however. So there is a kind of systemic error. Do you still believe that only the administrators viewed the submissions, and the jurors did not?
Why do you ask leading questions?
And Arseniy, please be careful, this could be a trap: “Do you still believe that only the administrators viewed the submissions, and the jurors did not?”
From someone who multiple times has brought up the issue of libel, and then asks you to make a statement implying that you believe something she already has stated could be used as libel.
Arseniy never said that that’s what he believed, he stated that as a possibility. In fact he stated that there are two possible variants, never saying that there isn’t another explanation, but stating he never received what he felt was a coherent explanation.
Thank you for the warning!
Dear La plus belle voix,
Thank you for your incredible interest to that case. You have posted the most messages on this thread so far. It makes me happy to see, this story does not leave you indifferent.
It’s not the about the question what I believe or not. This will be clarified by the investigation and the court .
I may believe, you are Ms. Lavrenova, the director of the competition and may ask you to log over on your real name, but this is all from the realm of speculation.
Thank you for your reasoned comments. Your predicament does not leave us cold.
Do keep us updated about your legal challenge, one which we assume has been mounted in Germany, presumably under German law.
It would be interesting to learn at some point, not necessarily now of course, whether you intend to sue for malfeasance or a tort.
It remains your free choice, but this might get rather expensive for you, as the onus is on the party bringing the case to prove facts, not on the party served e.g. with a writ. But I do wish you success.
We note that the competition has since urged you to remove “false, defamatory and disparaging information” as soon as possible.
Any legal system works both ways.
Thank you, Ms. Lavrenova,
Now I’m sure it’s you.
We will continue our conversation in court. Good luck there.
Will you please be careful, whoever “la plus” is, could be a jury member that’s been contacting the corporation of the competition. Could be someone else, could be who you conclude she is. The way she comments, and tries to get under people’s skin, I’m sad to say, reminds me of how these people that actually are an insult to the word pharisees were constantly trying to trip up Jesus, although it never really worked. Pharisee was or is really just a word for someone of the Jewish priesthood, and some of them really were Jesus friends, actually. But others, even those that didn’t want him murdered in the end, ployed him with all sorts of mind games he was always somehow able to untangle.
It looks to me as if she’s really just trying to get people to say things that won’t “look” right according to assumed “respect” she can exploit.
And what I find truly sad is that “la plus” is really getting in the way of people that could and would WANT TO explain what really went on. I would think that one of the jurors you mentioned would have a kind enough heart to explain what went on WITHOUT these mind games and attempts at intimidation “la plus” is showing. Have you tried contacting them personally, explaining how confusing the data regarding views shows up?
The one thing, as far as I can tell that’s conclusive, is that for your friends video to not have been clocking ANY views, it would have to be set on autoplay. But otherwise it should have had AT LEAST one view.
And to tell you the truth, well anyhow….
I don’t know if the legal system is set up to actually expose what’s going on, you’ve already challenged them by demanding an explanation that really hasn’t been forth coming. THAT speaks for itself regardless of the “legal” system.
Nice to see the competition mafia squirm.
Yeah…. judging by the prize money this non-competition offers, should be an easy enough case to win.
Please, the Ysaÿe Competition doesn’t exist anymore under that name since 1951! It is the Queen Elisabeth Competition.
https://www.ysaye-competition.com
Indeed, my mistake! This competition is held in Liège/Luik and is totally different from the Queen Elisabeth competition.
Rather confusing though….
Sorry you had to go through that. It’s tough to stand up to the competition mafia and you have massive balls, sir, for standing up to them. People rarely speak up because it would mean getting potentially “blacklisted”.
[I made a small research. Embedded videos are generally get counted with a rare exception and those exceptions do not apply to this case.]
So will the grammarly Nazi with the most beautiful voice now throw shit at this guy for not talking like a native anglophone from Oxbridge?
Um Ashu, I hardly think “la plus” has good grammar, or knows what it is.
“Arseniy Strokovskiy claims firstly that the videos by his Duo were “opened only once”, and that “only admins of the competition had access” to these videos.”
“firstly” !?
It’s youtube analytics (which she later states she doesn’t want to hear about anymore) which show that there was only the stark views or none.
If “grammar” is playing pin the tail on the (word “firstly”)…
What happened “firstly” was that there was no reply even acknowledging the youtube analytics, or even stating that they must, might, could be, for some inexplicable or logical reason were at fault.
And all the rest of the “dressing up.”
Or
“Dear Emill, Yes, I am quite familiar with how litigation works, but my point was about libel, which is a written defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression of another in the sense that it is published without just cause and may be understood as exposing another to public contempt.”
She fusses at me about semicolons, after the above smorgasbord of afterthoughts meant to dress up the word “libel.” Where I lose count of the lack of commas.
And then finishes with
“In short, libel damages a reputation and is not based on truth.”
Something the use of the “adverb” firstly already has done, implying that one can’t bring forth analytics on youtube that deserve attention, and expect real answers to serious questions.
Arseniy was clearly bringing up what deserves, or for such a competition to remain respected or valid NEEDS a forthright willing answer, and what could possibly be going on because there wasn’t such an answer.
In actuality the competition libeled itself, any winners, Arseniy for implying that he is not worthy of a decent answer.
But we’re supposed to believe they are so respected they don’t have to come forth with an answer.
Even IF there is another explanation, by now the case for libel could very much be seen as regarding anyone who has won the competition, and … and would want the competition to show it is forthright.
And so know we have “libel.”
Or rather arrogance, exploitation, elitism…..
and this is ENOUGH by the way. I have been since, in the meantime with this ridiculous confusion technique attempts going on, experimenting with just intonation (synthesizers can do this) to actually hear how in real tuning rather than well tempered things vibrate with each other, which regarding violins (which might have something to do with it) I think Stradivari and Del Gesu (certainly) also could hear, which is lacking since “well tempered” is running the resonance in everyone’s ears, (and I tune violin plates also) as well as a whole world of other things regarding a healer and his home I already mentioned I won’t mention further.…
Do privileged people really need to play these games, as in: I have a “status symbol” you don’t, when they couldn’t even make what goes into the status symbol (sports car for all I care lest I mention something more dear)?
As is displayed with: “Arseniy Strokovskiy claims firstly that the videos by his Duo were “opened only once”, and that “only admins of the competition had access” to these videos.”
And then there’s negation of what quotation marks clearly signify in regarding “rigging.”
Pity there’s no subtitle listing available directly to explain the meaning of such psychological gimmicks of mind games……
Dear Nijinski,
You might like to take up the issue of ‘first’ vs. ‘firstly’ with Cambridge University Press.
Its grammar guide states: “We often use first, especially in writing, to show the order of the points we want to make. When we are making lists, we can use first or firstly. Firstly is more formal than first.”
I’m sure they would be interested in your views on the matter.
It would be interesting, if not only there was more concern as to whether someone’s application was listened to, that when someone posts something it’s actually read for what it is.
My POINTS were NOT regarding whether firstly or first was correct, it was regarding what they REFERRED to, which again is pushed to the side.
Firstly should refer to that the video views, the analytics of them weren’t showing up to have been viewed, and firstly, there should have been concern in addressing that that’s a very valid report to make, and should be honored, looked into, it should be attended to in a way that there’s an explanation.
The way you go about, after saying you’re bowing out which you haven’t, with this obfuscation of any clear point that deserves attention but you seem to act as if you’re above, and thus the whole confusion technique….
Would you be trying to convince people that everything is fair regarding what’s going on, it certainly isn’t convincing…..
And secondly, firstly, as clearly a form of adverb (ordinal adverb) would imply action or a verb, to use that once again to denote action avoiding what the initial motive was…….
And to fuss about “grammar” quote a number of grammar rules that have nothing to do with what’s being said, or that actually deny grammar (one can use quotations marks to imply something is said in a way that’s seen as false, whether it’s the case of the viewer or the person who made the statement in quotations, which you used; but when it’s used to imply a stretching of meaning then you find yourself free to deny such grammar, and act like denying the meaning of quotations changes the meaning, which it doesn’t, but go and fuss about that as if it does to imply your have a superior “knowledge” of things)…
As I said it’s confusion technique, or just plain malicious arrogance. You haven’t read posts, the issue regarding the missing analytics wasn’t dealt with, and you’re misusing grammar which I find comparable to a reference I’m making twice now, as to how people would try to trip up Jesus and misused scripture (this being regarding “Sadducees” not “Pharisees” both titles in quotations marks, how they gave their profession a bad name is quite wide spread, by now) which I’ve already mentioned. Do you THINK you could stop:
https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-174-tuesday-morning-in-temple
3. The Sadducees and the Resurrection
174:3.1 (1900.1) Before Jesus could get started with his teaching, another group came forward to question him, this time a company of the learned and crafty Sadducees. Their spokesman, drawing near to him, said: “Master, Moses said that if a married man should die, leaving no children, his brother should take the wife and raise up seed for the deceased brother. Now there occurred a case where a certain man who had six brothers died childless; his next brother took his wife but also soon died, leaving no children. Likewise did the second brother take the wife, but he also died leaving no offspring. And so on until all six of the brothers had had her, and all six of them passed on without leaving children. And then, after them all, the woman herself died. Now, what we would like to ask you is this: In the resurrection whose wife will she be since all seven of these brothers had her?”
174:3.2 (1900.2) Jesus knew, and so did the people, that these Sadducees were not sincere in asking this question because it was not likely that such a case would really occur; and besides, this practice of the brothers of a dead man seeking to beget children for him was practically a dead letter at this time among the Jews. Nevertheless, Jesus condescended to reply to their mischievous question. He said: “You all do err in asking such questions because you know neither the Scriptures nor the living power of God. You know that the sons of this world can marry and are given in marriage, but you do not seem to understand that they who are accounted worthy to attain the worlds to come, through the resurrection of the righteous, neither marry nor are given in marriage. Those who experience the resurrection from the dead are more like the angels of heaven, and they never die. These resurrected ones are eternally the sons of God; they are the children of light resurrected into the progress of eternal life. And even your Father Moses understood this, for, in connection with his experiences at the burning bush, he heard the Father say, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ And so, along with Moses, do I declare that my Father is not the God of the dead but of the living. In him you all do live, reproduce, and possess your mortal existence.”
174:3.3 (1900.3) When Jesus had finished answering these questions, the Sadducees withdrew, and some of the Pharisees so far forgot themselves as to exclaim, “True, true, Master, you have well answered these unbelieving Sadducees.” The Sadducees dared not ask him any more questions, and the common people marveled at the wisdom of his teaching.
This stuff is also SERIOUSLY making me laugh.
I often put commas in, as something is spinning itself out, and when it’s done a period. That’s what poetry also does.
Some people would actually try to tell Emily Dickinson how to punctuate, or who knows what else.
And as judging goes. I once had “my” music selected to be played, or rather what I let happen and didn’t get in the way of it being there, and there also was poetry to be read. And so I submitted a bunch of poems. The lady who had “adjudicated” my poetry was at the performance, and wanted to get together with me. So, I thought OK, maybe I can learn something, not having any thoughts one way or the other about it. Apparently I got her real comfortable (and I think she had other intentions which I truly don’t) because at the climax of this “learning” experience she said: “I think your poetry is like Emily Dickinson’s, and I don’t think her whole following is founded.”
This is someone who had a whole literary magazine, and was on all sorts of committees, and….
Fortunately, I’m not included in this attempt to eradicate the world of Emily’s poetry
Hi Arseniy,
This happened to me with a preliminary video sent to a flute/woodwind competition in Latvia in 2017. Not hard to see one view from Latvia, totaling 2 seconds. The piano had barely played one chord! (My entrance would come after three chords—such a hassle to wait that long.)
At the time that investment in the accompanist and the application fee was a big commitment—just praying to get a chance somewhere!
All the Best
Sadly, music competitions for years have been problematic due to partisan jurors. A tragic example: I recently did some research on a now forgotten American violinist named Arnold Sukonick. The favorite pupil of Toscha Seidl at the end of his life, Sukonick was a competitor in the 2nd Tchaikovsky competition and a favorite to win. David Oistrakh, a member of the jury pulled him aside after several rounds and asked him to stay in Russia to study with him. When Sukonick refused, he was dropped from the competition. It destroyed his career as a violinist and he went on to do other things in music and theater in LA until he was hit by a car while in a phone booth. His nephew keeps his legacy alive as best he can. A private recording made later in life with little practice on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-iNjNzLtWw
An interesting story, it is especially offensive to the contestants if their videos were really worthy of attention. As a fan of creating cool videos, I know what I’m talking about. I spend a lot of time creating clips, of course, thanks to this source I have already optimized this process, but still, if my videos don’t get views, I get upset and start thinking that my work is in vain, I’m sure that the contestants whose videos were not watched by the jury had the same feelings.