I just heard my last student's contest solo this week -- tomorrow is the BIG DAY. This year I have eleven students playing solos and four playing in small ensembles for the annual spring music event universally known as "Contest." It's not really a contest, more of an assessment test in which students prepare solos and ensembles to perform for an adjudicator. The adjudicator (just call her "judge") writes (hopefully) constructive comments and affixes a rating number to the upper right hand corner of the comment sheet. A first division rating (I) is the best; a II is good but not enough to qualify for a trip to the state level; a III is, well, average; a IV is below average and in need of an intervention; a V means the student is on life support, musically speaking.
I know this system well. In addition to having coached solos and ensembles for the past 25 or more years, I have judged solos and ensembles at the Regional and State levels. This is the high school music program equivalent of World Figure Skating; the best of the best get to move on to the Olympics, while the also-rans have to wait until next year to try again. And, like the figure skating scoring system, the solo & ensemble festival scoring is highly subjective.
Not surprisingly, a number of urban myths have developed over the years. As a judge and a flute teacher, I try to dispel the myths, but the same ones keep cropping up year after year. So, as a public service -- on the eve of the Kansas Regional Solo and Ensemble Festivals -- I would like to address some of the more persistent ones.
1) Judges are instructed to only give a I rating to 10% of the students. Untrue. In nearly two decades of festival judging, I have never once been instructed to give a certain percentage of Is, IIs, etc. Judges are given a guide sheet to aid them in determining a rating. For example, a I performance is "an outstanding performance, with few technical errors and exemplifying a truly musical expression. This rating should be reserved for the truly outstanding performance." Contrast that with the description of a III performance: "An average performance, showing accomplishment and marked promise. Lacks one or more essential musical qualities, has musical weakness, and ineffectively uses existing instrumentation." Given the open-endedness of the descriptions, it's perfectly understandable that one judge's I rating may be another's II. As in figure skating, music performance ratings vary from one judge to the next.
2) It's better to play 1st in the morning, 1st after lunch, or 1st after the morning and afternoon breaks; the judge is fresh, relaxed, and more lenient. Uh, don't count on it. A truly outstanding performance is appreciated no matter what time of day the judge hears it. I've given IIIs to the first three or four performers and Is in the middle of the afternoon . . . and everything in between at all times of the day. The student's performance time is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. The advantage depends on the level of preparation.
3) Judges are always comparing performances, especially if more than one student plays the same piece. Well, maybe. But honestly, once the next student walks into the room, I've forgotten the performance I just heard. I shift my focus to the student standing before me and give that student my undivided attention. There are simply too many performances to listen to throughout the day for me to consciously make comparisons. Besides, I'm a professional -- my job is to comment and rate each performance as I hear it.
4) I will get a lower rating if: a) my piece is too long, b) my piece is too short, c) I play an unaccompanied piece, d) my accompanist sucks, e) I use my music instead of playing from memory. Okay, some of these concerns may be valid, but it depends on the rules set down by the State High School Activities Association. In Missouri, for example, there is a minimum and a maximum time limit, and there are penalties for going over or under; in Kansas, there are no such time restrictions. Each student is allotted a time slot of about 8 minutes or so, which includes tuning to the piano. If a student goes over his or her time, he or she will simply be asked to stop playing. It doesn't affect the rating, but it's kind of a bummer not to finish the piece. Some states require memorization; in Kansas, it varies by instrument. All my flute students need to know is that memorization is not required at Regional or State in Kansas. There is also no list of "acceptable pieces" in Kansas, although there is such a list in Missouri. Kansas students may play unaccompanied pieces; however, pieces that require piano accompaniment must be performed with an accompanist. Performing without the necessary accompaniment could result in disqualification.
As for the performance level of the accompanist . . . well, that's another subjective element that requires an adjudicator to use his or her best, uh, judgment. Officially, judges are supposed to comment and assess ratings only on the solo, not the accompaniment. But I've judged many a solo where the accompanist was a real detriment to the overall performance. It's hard not to downgrade the soloist when accompanist issues so adversely affect the performance that the student can't perform his or her best. The best defense is a good offense: Get a good accompanist in the first place and schedule enough rehearsals with that person to feel confident and secure in the performance. And don't wait too late -- good accompanists' schedules fill up fast!
5) The judge graded me down because: a) she didn't like the way I was dressed, b) the music stand wasn't the right height for me, c) I played a piece that was too easy/hard. Judges are cautioned not to comment on dress or choice of music; if the judge did make such a comment, then you might have a legitimate grievance. I said might. But think about how you present yourself -- your dress, posture, and choice of music say a lot about you as a musician. How do those things affect your perception of your favorite rock artist, for example? As much as we like to think it's only about the music, the fact is the way you present yourself visually absolutely affects the way you play. It's difficult to stand up straight and be comfortable in 4-inch heels. If your feet hurt, you will probably be distracted and won't play your best. A good rule of thumb: Dress nice, but comfortably. If you look sloppy, you tend to play that way; if you look polished, you tend to play that way. It's your choice.
A word about the music stand -- it is yours to use however you wish (within reason). If it's too high or too low when you walk in the room, adjust it to the height that's comfortable for you. Remember, judges are not allowed to converse with the student. As a judge, I may be thinking you need to raise the music stand, but it's not my place to suggest it. If you don't adjust it and you end up bending down to see the music, then I am perfectly within my rights to put a minus sign (-) in the space next to posture. And I have done so, many times. Use some common sense. It's your performance; it's your responsibility to make it your best, not the judge's.
As for the difficulty of the piece, judges at Kansas events are generally told not to comment on the choice of music, which covers everything from the grade level of the piece to taking cuts, even the style of the piece. Technically, you could play "The Star-Spangled Banner" or "Mary Had A Little Lamb," and I would have to rate you on how you played, not what you played. But be assured -- if you miss a note or two in "Mary," play out of tune in the national anthem, or fail to play any dynamics, I am perfectly justified in giving you a II or even a III rating. Playing a super-easy or super-hard piece will NOT automatically result in a I rating! I'm only impressed by you playing the Chaminade Concertino if you play it in its entirety and up to tempo. And if you can't hold out the opening high D in the 1st movement of the Mozart D Major Concerto for the full 16 1/2 counts without going flat, then you probably shouldn't be playing that piece. It's as simple as that. It's a little too late this year, but here's a word of advice for next year: Choose a piece that emphasizes your strengths, not one that exposes your weaknesses.
Judging music festivals is a thankless job. It's a long and tiring day, and it doesn't pay very well. Those of us who continue to judge year after year do so because we enjoy hearing young musicians perform, and we genuinely want to help them improve and develop. Those are the same reasons so many of us teach private students and coach them through this annual rite of spring. Luckily, I'm not judging this year! I'm on a bit of a sabbatical from it, so I get to sit at home tomorrow and wait for the phone calls from my students telling me how they fared. My work is done. It's out of my hands now -- and in the judges'. Boy, I sure hope some of my students end up in the 10% bracket -- or at least get to perform right after the lunch break when the judge is refreshed. Maybe she'll be lenient with the student playing "Mary Had a Little Lamb" . . . as long as my student plays all the dynamics . . . like I coached her . . .
