Talk:Van Cliburn International Piano Competition

"Career advancement"
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)

Criticism
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)

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