Committee members, what made the winner stand out?
On the increasingly rare occasions I do get feedback from my prelims, it's always a technical shortcoming that holds me back. Positive feedback is either a "good" or a checkmark but little else.
I never hear about committees describing the winner's audition performances. What makes them stand out? Technical polish? Stylistic literacy and knowledge? Creativity? Flexibility on immediate feedback?
It would be good for me to spend some time pursuing what sets the winners apart as opposed to my typical mode of avoiding mistakes.
1185 Views
Consistency is SO key. Especially with committees where the ensemble's CBA rules dictate anonymous voting and discussion only within a certain percentage of votes. If you really nail a couple excerpts but mess up/show some clear weaknesses on others, someone else who played more "average" but without any obvious "mistakes" is more likely to advance, especially in preliminary rounds. Not saying that's necessarily the way it should be, but often the way it is.
It's also very important to show clear stylistic differences and approaches between composers. We need to be able to tell that you listened to the piece, you understand what's going on in the other parts, you have a sense of what the excerpt is "about" (sounding light and sparkly, sounding rich, being rhythmically rigid OR FLUID - especially in opera excerpts, etc). I was on a panel once where we eliminated a lot of people because they didn't sound rough and ugly enough on one particular excerpt, where it was really called for! Not every excerpt should be painted with the same brush, it's about clarity of interpretation.