Bonnie Kellert is a faculty member of the Levine School of Music and also conducts private lessons in her studio in Potomac, Maryland. She is Past President of the Montgomery County Music Teachers Association and the Washington, D.C. Alumni Chapter of Mu Phi Epsilon Music Fraternity and was an active board member of the Friday Morning Music Club of Washington and the FMMC Foundation. She has served as national judge for the Mu Phi Epsilon Scholarship Awards, the International Young Artist Piano Competition, and for affiliates of Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Music Teachers Associations. She has given master classes at Western Maryland College, Columbia MTA, the Levine School of Music and lecture recitals for affiliates of MSMTA and VMTA. Lectures include the Smithsonian Institute's Resident Associate Program, Maryland State MTA Convention, and the Columbia Institute of Fine Arts in Virginia. An MTNA nationally certified teacher, her students have consistently won awards at local and state competitions of Maryland State and Washington, D.C. Music Teachers Associations. Bonnie Kellert performs frequently as a soloist and in chamber ensemble. Her solo recitals have included the National Gallery of Art, Phillips Collection, Cosmos Club, and American University, and she has been featured on radio and television locally and abroad. She has won several competitions, including First Prize in the Washington International Competition for Pianists and the Jordan Piano Award, and she was also a semi-finalist in the William Kapell International Piano Competition. A student of Leon Fleisher, Emerson Meyers and Alexander Lipsky, she holds a B.M. and M.M. in Piano Performance from Peabody Conservatory of Music, which she attended under full scholarship and with academic honors.
Bonnie Kellert
Levine School of Music
Potomac, MD
301.340.0765
bkellert@erols.com
I am grateful for this opportunity to write to you, my musical contemporaries. I feel that my remarks should focus on something meaningful, something I feel passionate about. This time, my passion is about competitions -- actually, what we ourselves might do to enhance them. This is perhaps a highly charged topic drawing strong reactions from all sides, but my goal is not to be provocative or ruffle feathers. I believe there are genuine musical issues at stake here worthy of discussion in a forum like this.
I accept that competitions are a necessary evil, a part of dealing with large numbers of aspiring young musicians. But what I observe and really object to is an ongoing trend that emphasizes technique rather than musicianship. I think there are things that we musicians and educators can do to shift this trend to the betterment of our art.
I realize that musicianship is a complex notion, but I believe that it involves the following essential ingredients in balance:
From my vantage point, as a competition winner, jurist and chairperson, it seems to me that many young pianists today are too narrowly focussed on technical aspects of their playing and striving to impress with technical prowess. I am attracted to the musical aspects of a performance and, as a judge, my comments on technique reflect the means of achieving musical goals. I admit that technique is a necessary attribute, but I feel it is far too dominant an element. Granted, some repertoire showcases technique and it is impressive to hear blinding technique, but entire programs featuring fast and loud playing are fatiguing and disheartening. Understand that I have deep respect for pianists who have developed enormous technical skills, but athleticism itself is not musical. Note perfect performances are also impressive, in their way, but isn't there more to music making than mere robotics? Emphasis on technical ability and note perfection in the competition venue seem so important to some juries that playing wrong notes or having memory slips, which are very human, are deemed grounds for dismissal. Technically demanding works, featuring roaring percussive passages, facile finger work, or cascading octaves lead to center stage, while the more artistic, introspective contestant is left waiting in the wings. When was the last time someone won a competition with a Mozart Concerto?
Are we selecting repertoire in order to please jurists? I watch fellow teachers assign sophisticated and challenging pieces that impress on technical merit alone. Is this the legacy we want to pass on to our students? How many of us have sometimes found it necessary to teach more advanced pieces in anticipation of upcoming competitions because past experience has shown that judges are often swayed by technically demanding repertoire? What a sad reflection.
I am also bothered by competition situations where the required piece, performed by fifty contestants, can genuinely lead a jury panel to distraction. Exhausted from repetition, their selection settles on a "middle of the road" interpretation. Is it then any wonder that they sit up with attention when someone performs an optional selection, particularly a demonically and technically challenging piece? As long as a required piece is an imperative for comparison, hours and hours of listening will dull most senses and adversely affect the final decision.
As I said earlier, I believe we can change the strategy. I think it is important to first understand the pyramid of influences at work here. At the position of highest influence, there's the formulation of the competition itself, its repertoire, and the guidelines for judging and judge selection. Next, there are the judges who impart their tastes and attitudes to the evaluation process. Then there are the teachers who are intent on producing winners. And finally, there are the students who aim to please. Everyone can find a level of involvement that is comfortable and effective.
We can, and we should, get more involved in guiding competition committees. I love to see competition repertoire that offers greater opportunities for artistic expression and mature thought. We can use our influence as teachers to address these issues, say, the next time we serve as competition director or on a jury or other selection process. We can revise judging standards and procedures to encourage more thoughtful appreciation of musical temperament and not mere flash. If the opportunity presents itself, we can choose or nominate judges, or at least voice opinion about past judging selections.
We can also affect outcomes in our studios. In my own teaching, I've learned to:
Great musicians of the past had a mastery of idiomatic style. They held their performances together with thoughtful analysis of the structural concept, yet incorporating sensitivity, expression and flair. They promoted a singing style and a singing tone without forcing the tone. Unspliced recordings, often of live concerts, reveal occasional imperfections, but these giants were wise enough not to allow their interpretations to be impeded by these minor occurrences. Consider the likes of Lhevinne, Schnabel, Fischer, Samaroff, Cortot, Horowitz, Rubenstein, Gilels, Richter, Kapell, Fleisher or Gould. These masters are remembered for their spontaneity and fire, their projection of distinctive personalities, their refinement and excitement, and not just their supreme technical facility. The great performances that leave you breathless, that stick with you for a long time, involve far more than technique.
I've advised you to guide your students, and now I'd like to share guidance my teachers gave that stuck with me. It should be apparent that I come by my opinions honestly. Emerson Meyers advised me to "...strive to be a musician first, and a pianist, second." Leon Fleisher said "...The pianist is there for the sake of the music... Students love to be in the trenches, digging out and working on their technical problems. Once they are solved, they think, they'll worry about the rest. I want them to think about concept right from the beginning, because that determines how they should work on the music."
In a Clavier magazine interview with Carol Montparker, Fleisher went on to say that, "...There's always room for greatness (in today's competitions), but the level of mediocrity is continually rising... Judges often choose the safest, least-likely-to-embarrass candidate, (one) who is not necessarily the most brilliant talent...the one that is least offensive to the greatest number of jurors... I think the quality of any competition is determined by its jury... I sit on juries less and less (because) there are more problems with competitions than solutions... It's a diseased system from many points of view."
These remarks were made nearly twenty years ago and perhaps Fleisher has become more optimistic today. As I've said repeatedly in this article, I believe the situation can be ameliorated. I'm an optimist. I believe that pessimism and apathy are self-fulfilling. All of us should strive to make the situation better and more rewarding. I hope that budding young pianists are encouraged at all levels to make musicianship their top priority. Biography:
| TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|