|
|
Post by AnotherPianist on May 21, 2006 11:47:40 GMT
Just wondering if you agree with the verdict from last night  . |
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on May 21, 2006 12:43:05 GMT
Who actually won?
|
|
|
|
Post by saxophonist on May 21, 2006 12:43:26 GMT
I would have chosen Mark Simpson (then again im baised towards woodwind)
|
|
|
|
Post by saxophonist on May 21, 2006 12:43:49 GMT
the clarinettist won nat
|
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on May 21, 2006 12:44:02 GMT
Ooh ace
|
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on May 21, 2006 12:51:16 GMT
I've not watched it yet, I taped it, so won't get to see it until Wednesday now I think. I'll vote then.
|
|
|
|
Post by elidatrading on May 22, 2006 9:58:28 GMT
I was just looking back at the 2004 one and I wondered about something - is there some rule that if you reach a high stage in the competition you can't re-enter? I can't find anything about such a rule, but surely Ben Grosvenor, for example, having reached the final at the age of 11, ought to have stood an extremely good chance of winning at 13, so why didn't he re-enter? Is it just a matter of it not being the done thing? Then again, if he left it till he was 17 he'd surely be almost certain to win it wouldn't he so why not just do that? I'm baffled!
I'm also fascinated by the idea of a harmonica player geting through to the quarters - wish i'd had access to BBC 3 of 4 or whatever it was!
Liz
|
|
|
|
Post by saxophonist on May 22, 2006 19:32:16 GMT
I dont think so, because it said one of the oboe players in the semi finals got to that stage 2 years previously.... dont quote me on that tho
|
|
|
|
Post by AnotherPianist on May 22, 2006 19:46:36 GMT
One of the oboe players in the semi-final was actually also a semi-finalist last year. I'm not sure if there are rules about this for the actual final though. I guess Benjamin Grosvenor didn't re-enter because he doesn't really need the 'launch' anymore: I've seen adverts for him playing concerts with various professional orchestras. He can get professional engagements now so I guess that it wasn't worth all the work of doing the competition again . I did actually feel in general that the standard this year (by the time the rounds got to the TV) wasn't as high as it was last year, although in fairness we didn't really see enough of the other semi-finalists this time to judge properly.... |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on May 22, 2006 21:28:45 GMT
I was just looking back at the 2004 one and I wondered about something - is there some rule that if you reach a high stage in the competition you can't re-enter? I can't find anything about such a rule, but surely Ben Grosvenor, for example, having reached the final at the age of 11, ought to have stood an extremely good chance of winning at 13, so why didn't he re-enter? Is it just a matter of it not being the done thing? Then again, if he left it till he was 17 he'd surely be almost certain to win it wouldn't he so why not just do that? I'm baffled! The most likely reason is that reaching the final gained him all the publicity he needed and\or wanted. People have been talking about him ever since. Thinking about it, entering again would have been risky. Imagine the comments if he failed to reach the final again. One of the biggest of all competitions for pianists is the Leeds International. Agents attend the early rounds and 'snaffle up' the best of those who do not progress to later rounds, players of clear potential for a successful playing career. There are more ways of winning from competitions than people imagine. Here is a story I heard a few years ago and have no reason to disbelieve. Artur Rubenstein was unhappy with the jury's choice of winner for his competition one year, and felt that a different competitor was a far better player. For the succeeding year, he made it a condition of appearing at a venue that the venue should also engage the young artist in question. I know who really 'won' that competition ;D Steve  |
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on May 28, 2006 11:18:20 GMT
I liked the pianist, and thought the clarinettist was good. The guitarist bored me, the percussion, well it was good but did seem more of a visual show, and the trumpeter also bored me.
So I voted for the pianist. I hated the piece that the clarinettist played, yuk, yuk, yuk.
|
|
|
|
Post by saxophonist on May 28, 2006 14:35:33 GMT
The guitarist was ssooooooooooooooooo boring, i like the concerto the clarinettist played
|
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on May 28, 2006 14:37:22 GMT
I just find that no matter how hard a guitar piece is, it just doesn't seem as impressive as some other pieces on other instruments. Oooh no..I really didn't like the Nielsen concerto...I thought it was very random and didn't seem to go anywhere...but that's just me ...  |
|
|
|
Post by saxophonist on May 30, 2006 19:47:13 GMT
I liked the Nielsen, then again it was that long ago i heard it i prob just cant remember it, i just find the guitar a boring instrument full stop (no offence to any guitarists)
|
|
