Today I heard a sports commentator say that in the Olympics, the focus is not so much on setting a new record as on winning a medal. In every event there is a Gold Medal to be won, and winning a Gold Medal is an achievement that everyone will remember.
It reminded me of a discussion we had once when I was on the jury of a music competition. After the final round, some of the jury talked about the possibility of not awarding a first prize. This is something that happens not uncommonly at music competitions. The idea behind it is that there is an Absolute Artistic Standard which competitors should reach, and if (in the opinion of the jury) nobody reaches it, then nobody deserves a first prize. Juries feel that it is their job to keep global standards high.
It was put to us by someone on the board, however, that we should think of the Olympics. Whoever runs, swims, cycles the fastest or jumps the highest in that particular year’s competition wins the Gold Medal for that event. The Gold Medal is never withheld on the grounds that someone ran/swam faster or jumped higher in 1924, 1988, 2012 or whatever. It’s awarded to the highest achiever in that event in that particular year. How unfair it would seem if, at the end of the 100 metre sprint, runners were told that no Gold Medal would be awarded because Usain Bolt ran it faster in 2009.
Sports and music competitions are not directly comparable, but still, there are enough similarities for me to think that the Olympic model is a good one. Whoever plays the best at that particular competition should have the first prize. I’m not sure who benefits if the jury withholds it on the grounds that no-one was up to the standard of so-and-so’s classic recording or such-and-such a pianist’s performance at Carnegie Hall in 1965.
The idea of ‘absolute standards’ is seductive, but even those might vary from era to era. On the whole it seems more sensible to award the first prize to whoever plays best on that particular evening. These days, the level of playing in international competitions is so high that there is little danger of a final round that produces nobody worthy of a top prize.
Withholding a 1st prize would be done on the basis of 1 person’s opinion, which might change in a different context. How many of the fellow judges would also have heard the reference performance cited by the 1 judge? And remember it perfectly?
Ruth, I don’t think a jury would ever withhold a first prize on the basis of one person’s opinion … it would have to be a majority opinion. You are right though that a memory of a long-ago performance might not be a secure basis on which to judge!
Very interesting, thank you.
I can well imagine that choosing not to award first place would be something of an own goal. Would pianists be happy to enter such a competition, running the risk of being told publicly that they’re not up to scratch.
Music exams on the other hand work a little differently and do, as far as I’m aware, try to maintain absolute standards. Any change in expectations comes in those syllabus-setting meetings, but that’s another topic!
‘Own goal’ is a good way of describing it. I have been present several times when no first prize was awarded in a music competition. The competitors were disappointed, the audience was disappointed, the sponsors were disappointed. Perhaps the jury felt they were upholding international standards, and maybe they were right to do so, but there’s no doubt that a competition which ends without a Gold Medal is very anti-climactic for almost everyone involved.