The Burden of a Piano Juror

[mjzee]

I've been on many juries. Inevitably someone in the audience will ask the judges how they could possibly choose a winner from among the group of extraordinary talents on display. It's an awkward moment. To respond that jury members are music professionals who discern more acutely than most listeners the differences between performers has a tinge of arrogance—though it is true. Yet the question really is a good one. Last year, when my fellow judges and I discussed our decisions at the end, it was clear that we had all heard exactly the same things. And yet each of us assigned slightly different weights to the qualities we noted.

How does one value a hugely talented but impetuously irreverent young pianist against a more mature one whose restraint is marred by a streak of sentimentality? They each exceed the bounds of good taste, but in different ways. The age of the performer can become a determining factor here: It is natural (even important) for young people to go a little wild, and that is forgivable—the rough edges will probably smooth out over time, and one hopes a creative spark will live on.

In a jazz competition, one might imagine that other factors come into play, but there are far more similarities than differences. For example, the jurors who chose the five APA jazz finalists this year engaged in a vigorous side-debate about the legitimacy of a well-known professional performer who seems to have severed all connections with tradition. Signaling an awareness of the history of the art can be important.

More here:

WSJ