JAVS Fall 2011

the other jurors recuse him/herself with regard to a given competitor.

Competition Content

Quarterfinals: 1. First movement of the Bartók or Walton concerti or first movement of the hindemith Der Schwanendreher 2. Two contrasting movements from a J. S. Bach Suite, Sonata, or Partita, or the Ciaccona from Partita No. 2, BWV 1004 3. Primrose transcription from prescribed list or Paganini Caprice Semifinals: Recital program not to exceed fifty-five minutes and to include: 1. Two contrasting movements from a J. S. Bach Suite, Sonata, or Partita, or the Ciaccona from Partita No. 2, BWV 1004, but different from those performed in preliminary round 2. Prescribed viola sonata by Arnold Bax, Arthur Benjamin, Luigi Boccherini, Johannes Brahms, Paul hindemith, or George Rochberg, or Benjamin Britten’s Lachrymae 3. Chamber music component (viola competition precedent): Divertimento, K. 563, first movement without repeat 4. Primrose transcription, different than that per formed in quarterfinal round 5. Commissioned work: Inner Voices for Solo Viola , by Peter Askim, a five-minute composition sent to each participant two months prior to the compe tition Finals: Full, three-movement concerto with orchestra (PIVC competition precedent) performed with New Mexico Chamber Orchestra, Gabriel Gordon, con ductor. Though several Classical concertos were allowed, all contestants selected either Franz Anton hoffmeister’s Concerto for Viola in D Major or Carl Philipp Stamitz’s Concerto No. 1 for Viola in D Major.

Competition Precedents

The 2011 PIVC set several precedents during its course. The opening proceedings and all that fol lowed over the next week were streamed in high def inition over the Internet and tweeted via Twitter, the first for a major instrumental competition. Kyogen Content Management System developed special soft ware for this competition, enabling score submission by individual jury members electronically through laptops to a central location. unlike other event scoring where the lowest and highest scores are omitted from a contestant’s overall rating, this soft ware deletes two of the nine scores at random. Though potentially controversial, random deletions were built into the software to eliminate, or at least mitigate, the potential for jurist collusion—asper sions regarding any given juror not intended. Preliminary tests using this software indicated results within fractions of a point of more traditional scor ing methods. Electronic scoring proved to be very efficient with ratings posted both online and on a stage monitor within seconds of a given perform ance. The top-scoring eight competitors were chosen for the semifinal round; the top three advancing to the finals. Inclusion of a chamber-music component in the semifinals was a major precedent for an instrumental viola competition, and the concerto performance accompanied by a chamber orchestra in the final round was a PIVC precedent.

May 31 through June 5, 2011

The first full day of the competition, dedicated to the single concerto movements, proved to be the

Computer displaying a contestant’s score immediately after a performance

J OuRNAL OF ThE AMERICAN VIOLA SOCIETy 14