The Dublin International Piano Competition starts today, but what makes a great competition winner, and are the judges always right? Five experts share their views
JOHN O’CONOR
Founder and jury chairman of the Dublin International Piano Competition, first prize winner of the Beethoven Competition in Vienna
What is the best thing about piano competitions?The fact that competitors might be heard by somebody who would give them concerts. And if you win, you get concerts. It's that more than anything else.
What is the worst thing about piano competition?The competitive nature of it. And also often juries, because there are some people who invite people on juries so that they will be invited back on to other juries. And some jury members don't actually remember what it was like to compete, the nerves, etc.
What makes a great competition?The prizes and the opportunities, how it helps you get a reputation, get concerts and an agent. There are some competitions with huge prize money, but you never hear the winner again.
What makes a great winner?Something special, something that's almost indefinable. The winner has to have the technique to play whatever they want in a unique way, special without being too controversial. A great winner needs to be practical, to be businesslike, and know how to respond to the offers that will come in.
How often have you fully agreed with the jury's verdict in competitions?There have been many times I've disagreed. I remember people who didn't get through who should have – Alfredo Perl not getting into the final at the Beethoven Competition. François-Frédéric Guy didn't play so well in Dublin, but he also didn't get to the final in Leeds, which he should have. We've only ever had one unanimous first prize winner in Dublin. And you find jury members playing politics. It's so annoying.
If you could change one thing about piano competitions, what would it be?Give everybody concerts; give everybody in the final as many concerts as possible.
HUGH TINNEY
First prize winner of the Pozzoli and Paloma O’Shea competitions
Best thing?The opportunity they afford young pianists to perform and get their name known.
Worst thing?The fact that not everybody can shine in them. They don't suit everyone's temperament. And they're not always fair.
A great competition?A great winner. Murray Perahia, Radu Lupu at Leeds, players who were destined to be great artists. All competitions hope for a Perahia or a Lupu. They don't come around very often. Also, the way the competition is run, the way competitors are treated, how they're looked after, practice facilities, and the competition being fair. A balanced repertoire, and sufficient opportunity to give people a fair hearing.
A great winner?That's almost self-explanatory, in that to some degree it's retrospective. Take Radu Lupu at the Van Cliburn [International Piano Competition] in the 1960s, the fact that he famously didn't take up all the engagements. Despite that, in the long run, I would argue that they had their best winner ever. He enhanced their reputation.
Agree with the jury?More often than not. It's a case of what level of detail you look into. Quite often you agree with the winner, but not with the other placings. And there are always notable people who get eliminated early.
Change one thing?The composition of the jury. The sense that there is perhaps a number of people who make careers out of being jury members bothers me. It means that competitors see the same jury members at different competitions, which can be dispiriting for competitors. Competitions should seek fresh ears to listen.
ULRICH GERHARTZ
Director of concert and artist services, Steinway & Sons, London
Best thing?To meet a lot of new talents who are trying to get on to the concert platform, and who will, hopefully, ultimately become our clients. For that short period of time, wherever, Dublin, Tel Aviv, or Leeds, there is a real focus on the piano, on piano playing, on piano repertoire and on the pianos that are being offered.
Worst thing?For me, it is the pure stress of having the pianos as good as possible, and keeping them as consistent as possible. The politics is stressful, too. The more piano manufacturers are involved, the more politics goes on, about who plays whose instrument.
A great competition?A great winner makes a great competition. The winner is key. And high-quality entries ensure high-quality winners. What makes a competition enjoyable is the hospitality that's offered to everybody who's involved.
A great winner?You need play the piano very well, have unbelievable musicality, great stage presence, the stamina to go from round one to the finals, and not just be a soloist, but someone who can also communicate with a conductor and orchestra.
Agree with the jury?Full-heartedly so far, only in three places – Dublin (Max Levinson and Antti Siirala), at the Rubinstein in Tel Aviv and the Tchaikovsky in Moscow (both Daniil Trifonov).
Change one thing?Fewer playing in the first rounds, or reduce the amount of time they are allowed to play in round one.
PHILIPPE CASSARD
First prize winner of the Dublin International Piano Competition
Best thing?To get visibility from professional people, from the jury, the media, the audience, and concert promoters. It's a good way to be heard live, to be recognised, to be considered.
Worst thing?To be as stupid as a sport competition. Music is not sport. One has absolutely not to confuse speed and loudness with art.
A great competition?Ten minutes of pure music made by a very young, unknown talent. It's like a hidden diamond. I like being surprised by that kind of thing. An example, 12 years ago in Dublin we spent a terrible day during the first stage with five or six butchers, the keyboard serial killers I call them, and then Yevgeny Sudbin began with Beethoven's Bagatelle, Op 120 No 6. In one minute this became the lightest, happiest day in the competition.
A great winner?Good nerves and great heart.
Agree with the jury?Rarely about the first prize but there are always one or two placings I agree with entirely.
Change one thing?Sometimes I would like to do things the opposite way – have the jury on stage and the competitors judging them. I would love to do that one day. It's easy to judge, but very difficult to perform.
FINGHIN COLLINS
First prize winner of the Clara Haskil competition
Best thingThey give you a platform, to measure yourself against your peers, see where you stand, give you access to the members of the jury. And a lot of promoters attend, and make choices on the basis of what they hear rather than the jury's verdict.
Worst thing?They are the most nerve-racking of all the forums which you might have to perform in, facing all the jury members with scores, comparing you with everybody else. That can lurk at the back, or even at the front, of your mind.
A great competition?An unbiased jury, a jury of integrity, good organisation. The piano has to be good, the hall has to be good, and you have to be able to practise in advance.
A great winner?A great winner has to be able to cope with all the engagements that will be offered, not only be able to play the piano well, have the stamina that's necessary for all the travelling, know how to deal with agents, promoters, and not burn out after six months.
Agree with the jury?It's rare that you agree with everything, particularly in the first and second rounds, or the order in the finals. Maybe, half and half.
Change one thing?It would be interesting to experiment with putting a screen up, so the jury couldn't see, but only listen.
