Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Fair Piano Competition - by age or by level?

Well, the person who enters a nine year old playing level 2 into any kind of competition has judgment issues.

Competition has it's place, but it is not for everyone.

Oh, but there are actual competitions with categories for age 9 playing level 2 pieces. You just have to find out where that is and then avoid it like the plague.

I was told that some of the free-for-all festivals were set up deliberately in a way so that experienced players can compete side-by-side with the more novice players. At these events, some judges will take it upon themselves to judge Liszt Tarantella harder than Burgmuller Arabesque.

It still think it's the "best", not meaning optimal. It's a compromise but it works for most people. Those younger students can get the experience and then when they're older they can play easier rep and win.

And by the way, what's wrong with having it be "just" a performance experience? If you have a student that is going to be pursuing a career, they will have to get used to the whole competing/auditioning thing where they set their own goals for their performance and enjoy the process of sharing their talent with the panel, no matter who else walks in the door.

Folks, I'm going to reiterate that there are competitions, and there are COMPETITIONS.

When we're talking about events at which many thousands of dollars of scholarship money are given out, this is a serious business. At an event of this sort, it's unlikely that the organizers are interested in hearing a fifteen year old play Mozart's K545. At events of this sort, age-based criteria seem quite sensible. Scholarship auditions are about "the best," and as fraught as that judgment may seem, the "best under ten" has some meaning.

I have no problem with students who seek out competitions as performance opportunities. But there is a reasonableness criterion. It's a waste of just about everyone's time, including the performer's, to have a young person playing a repertoire that is completely out of line with the event. Teachers should do some due diligence to ensure that there is an appropriate match between the student's ability and training, and the event for which they are entered.

+1

There is no such thing as a "fair" competition.

The problem with having level based competitions (as opposed to age based ones), is that levels are too subjective. The criteria for delineating categories for different levels would be too fuzzy. ..PLUS I think a lot of scheming teachers would opt to put their best students in an "lower level" competition, so that they would have a greater chance of winning first place.

That's not what I meant. I'm not talking about wasting anyone's time, and I also mentioned I was referring to competing AND auditioning. You go in and do your best, but you NEVER know who else will walk in the door, so you always have to have your own goals. That is very far from saying that you go to a competition when you're not a serious contender just for the experience.

edited to add: And I would never encourage a student to try for a competition that they had no chance of winning. Nor would I have them enter something that wasn't enough of a challenge for them.

When the question was first asked I thought the answer was obvious. Students who have been studying for 5 years would compete against other students who have been studying for 5 years. Students who have been studying for 2 years would be competing with those who have been studying for 2 years. It just seemed logical. Now I understand that a student who has been studying for 8 years could compete against a student who has been studying for 2 years because they are the same chronological age. It just seems very strange. What is the logic behind that?

When I grew up playing music we (my brother and I) were entered every year for the local festival competition. I did a grade exam, six months later there was the festival, 6 months later the next grade exam, and so on till I left home. It's just what we did. The competition was organised by age, so it was 'under 10s' then 'under 11s' etc. Basically it meant you could only enter if you had started around age 7, otherwise you were way behind everyone.

Sometimes I won, I was delighted. More often than not, I didn't win. Didn't upset me, as I wasn't expecting to win out of 20 performers. I was nervous, and it was good performance practice for me.

Now I am teaching the whole scene is different, and I'm not sure why. Most of my students seem to learn much slower than I did. Fully half of my students don't start at the 'normal' age of 7. The whole learning picture is much more diverse. There are very few of my students I would consider entering for competitions.

That's the point, and the question asked by the OP. Not everyone starts lessons at the same age.


Is it possible that the system is reflecting what you knew in your childhood and that it has not kept abreast with present day realities?

It's pretty much useless to go by the student's length of study because:

Kid A, started at 7, played 3 years, can play Liszt

Kid B, started at 7, played 3 years, can play Burgmuller

Kid C, started at 7, played 3 years, can play stuff from Piano Adventures Level 2B

Now, there are some competitions that dictate a prescribed repertoire for each age group and/or years of study. But then the Liszt kid can just pick the hardest piece and play it perfectly. The Burgmuller kid can pick the middle-of-the-road piece and play it fairly. The PA2B kid can barely play the easiest piece listed.

That's why some local competitions here did away with age AND length of study, and turned the festival into a free-for-all.

This is a competition with which I am very familiar:

Levels for the Classical Period competition

They break the applicants up into age ranges. The ranges are fairly narrow, so they don't have high school students competing against elementary age kids. This is perfectly logical, given the goals of the event. This event is not designed to satisfy egalitarian sentiments. All nine year olds are in the same category, and all fifteen year olds are in the same category. They seek the best in each group. If someone finds that criterion obnoxious, they won't enter their students or their children, and that's fine. The university that hosts the event is not interested in finding,



They simply want the best, as judged in a preliminary round by their piano faculty, and in a final round by an outside evaluator who then teaches a subset of the winners in a master class.

Again, if you find this distasteful, don't enter. In fact, you will not find much cannon fodder in the older age categories. This event draws from three big states, so very few people are likely to travel two hundred miles to have no chance. Some local kids enter who have little chance, and for them it's just a performance opportunity in front of two judges. You'll note that there is also an entry fee. Fees of that sort are less about making money, and more about erecting a nuisance barrier to reduce the number of irrelevant entries.

It's incumbent upon the teachers to understand what these events are all about, and select the ones that match the students' abilities and sensibilities.

I think it's a big mistake to consider events like this using the same fairness notions as events whose purposes are quite different.

It's not a matter of obnoxious but a matter of logic. If a 13 year old started at age 12, and another 13 year old started at age 5 but they must both compete, how does that work? The only way that I can see that working is if the first one plays material that one could reasonably expect someone with one year of studies, and one expects skills that someone with one year of study may be able to acquire. Then the same criteria commensurate with the other student's background. Is that how it works?

I have not chosen the age at random. My child auditioned for placement in a special school with limited openings, having had one year of instruction, while many of the others had 6 - 8 years of instruction. All the applicants were around the same age since they were entering grade 9. In the application the private teacher stated the student's year of studies, and the grade level of the piece was commensurate. If it's along those lines then there is some logic. (He got in back then, btw.)

Why do you think that they must both compete? A thirteen year old who started at twelve is unlikely to have the skills to "compete" in any real competition of the sort that I have given in the link above. If they do, more power to them. If they don't, perhaps they should not enter.

If an organization is looking for "potential," then they can choose the most "potential-worthy" by whatever criteria seem best. Listen to the nine year old who has had two lessons and decide potential. Listen to the nine year old who has played since three and decide potential. Choose between them. That's fine. But if the organization is interested in awarding the nine year old with the best chops at this moment, then the one who has had only two lessons is unlikely to be given the $500 and the master class with Leon Fleischer.

I'm not trying to find a Golden Rule of Fairness to govern all selective processes. I think that is a fool's errand.

Likewise, I think organizations that cannot make up their mind about what it is they are trying to accomplish with their "competition" set themselves up for all sorts of failures, snafus, and ticked off teachers and students. It's rather difficult to be all things to all people.

Hmm. Just thinking out loud.

As an assessment tool, if I could compare children with the same time in lessons, I could evaluate the teacher. Teacher A's 3 year students are consistently better prepared than Teacher B's, I know who to send my child to. Teacher A's 10 year old student is better than Teacher B's 10 year old, but that doesn't tell me much.

As a research tool, it would be interesting to know the difference between the 3 year student who started at age 6 vs the 3 year student who started at 9 or 12. Academically speaking, and given equal instruction of course.

Interesting, rather than to group them by age and by level, you are suggesting the third way of grouping, by experience (years of study). Haven't seen one.

Not sure if it is practical though, how do you verify the experiences? Also, don't you think the slower learners, like playing level 3 after 4 years study will feel really bad? since she can compete at level 3 but must compete with people at mostly at level 4 or 5?

I liked the ones that are grouped by aged under.
Like under 9, under 11, under 13 etc.
If you are 10 you can go the under 9 group, but you are welcome to go the under 13 group if you can compete at that level.

But again, don't sent the kid to a competition unless she is ready to compete, i.e. has a chance of winning.

I guess the logic is not to punish the ones started early.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm wondering how it's done. If you have a 12 year old with 2 years of lessons, and a 12 year old with 7 years of lessons, how do you group by age? How does that work? (Literally).

Why should anyone be punished. It's an event, not a court trial. (?)

Well, a 7 year old started at 4, and a 12 years old stared at 9, both studied for 3 years, do you think it is fair to put them together to compete?