Talk:Van Cliburn International Piano Competition

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

"Career advancement"[edit]

I've removed this sentence from the Criticism section of the article:

" The Van Cliburn competition, according to Ivry, has turned into an opportunity for career-advancement."

In a sense this is correct, but I really don't think it's a new thing, and it may not be a criticism at all (of course people enter competitions to advance their career, what's why they exist). In any case, it's something which could be said about any competition at any time, not just the Van Cliburn now, as the original context makes clearer (the whole sentence from which this is taken is "Watching real talents fall by the wayside in such competitions (Australia's Andrea Lam, another example, was stopped in the semifinals) is part of what happens when musicmaking is turned into a public contest for career-advancement"). --Camembert (talk)

I agree that this is something which could be said about any competition at any time. It is a criticism of music competitions in general, not just of this one, and does not belong here.

There might be a place for criticism of a particular competition, if it's about the integrity of the voting procedures, or the qualifications of the jurors, or apparent conflicts of interests such as where jurors are also teachers of entrants, or the rules are changed to apparently permit certain entrants or disbar others, or whatever (see the Criticism section of Sydney International Piano Competition, for example). But not just what is essentially "I would have chosen someone else as the winner". There will never be agreement about who the winner(s) should have been, but that's a subjective thing and it does not amount to criticism of the competition per se. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Why does this Ivry article deserve a paragraph? We all know the clickbait trick of making asinine controversial statements to attract page views, and that's all I think of this person. "What was the jury thinking?" is a clickbait title. He gratuitously insults Tsujii and Kobrin, more evidence that this is just clickbait. What are this person's musical credentials? Who is he to say, other than for shock value, that the Van Cliburn jurors have no ears? Only Rachmaninoff, Arthur Rubinstein, or their equals, if even, could make such a statement without sounding asinine.

I don't think Wikipedia should ratify clickbait prostitution. Instead, I suggest a list of links to published articles on the 13th Van Cliburn, including Ivry's, and deleting the paragraph of Ivry's opinions. Other than as clickbait, his opinions have no special value and don't deserve to be highlighted. I'd like to hear some thoughts before I make that edit.Ten-K (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. The article cited is pure publicity. Should be removed!