Whilst the Sydney International Piano Competition is close to completion and, no matter who wins it or how good they are, people will have varying opinions about the real value of such competitions to the competitors as distinct from the organisers and sponsors, there have come to my attention some questions as to why the Stuart piano, being of course Australian, is not an option for the use of the competitors.
It is of interest to the readers of this blog to contemplate the commercial and real imperatives that confront any piano maker who might decide:
a) to offer a piano
b) to be accepted, and
c) to invest in the logistics and requirements of the organisers who run these so called piano competitions.
Competitions need money to operate and it is not too surprising that piano makers are seen as a possible source of funds. They also need instruments for the incessant practice and, of course, for the performance stage but they really only want one! The right one that everyone believes is the best one or that everyone is used to playing; too many different pianos will only confuse the agenda.
When the first Sydney International Piano Competition was held in 1977 there were six different piano makers represented and seven pianos (two Steinways) which caused logistical chaos on stage and also in the minds of the competitors. In all reality it was difficult to really assess the performances as the variables were enormous. Indeed, Kawai was not at the first competition as it was thought by the dealers (Elvy's) not to be of the necessary standard. Ever since then there has been a thinning on the ground of the number and the brands of instruments presenting. I can’t remember whether was the last competition or the one before it, but there was then only a choice of Yamaha or Steinway. The addition of a Kawai is more recent.
Now for the back stage hurdles piano makers have to negotiate just to be considered to participate in the Sydney show. The organisers require not just the piano on stage, but a bevy of instruments small and large for practice purposes and also sponsorship contributions. All of this adds up to a significant financial commitment and, as most corporate expenditure must be justified, it is very difficult to find valid reasons why any maker would enter such an unpredictable and potentially damaging arena. For the ‘right’ maker winning or losing this war will have no material impact on their position in the piano hierarchy. As for the ladies left in waiting, it will be reduced to scrambling for the discount crumbs which are already being advertised as great deals, ex Sydney International Piano Competition pianos only played by competitors, pristine and virginal!
Cheap! cheap! cheap!
So much for a piano as investment, but of course the manufacturers may well get a taxation benefit from the write-down of such stock. Now I know for a fact that Stuart pianos are never discounted. A seven year old 2.9 metre grand was sent to England for evaluation purposes and ended up being sold for more than its original contract price, and no Stuart piano has yet been onsold for less than its original purchase price. Now that is an investment, I think most people would agree.
But what if your brand of piano is not used by the competitors, or more people choose Brand X over Brand Y? Imagine a piano quietly and patiently waiting for a player who never came to tickle its fancy. Such manufacturers share this cruel and unfair damnation without recourse or justification. The pianos, like sitting ducks, await their fate. What a hideous scenario for an instrument maker.
So, it really boils down to simple cash and deal that determines who supplies the pianos. Then there is the fear of the pianists, frightened out of their wits, who run the gauntlet along the line of least resistance from piano to performance in the vain hope of being recognised above the one that came before as the one that comes after is of no consequence!
If there is a question why piano makers would present for selection in such circumstances, I cannot but wonder why companies like Steinway bother at all. It has won its place long ago and what possible advantage would there be for them to be exposed to the vagaries of a competition whose viewers and listeners seem hell-bent on the juvenile business of ranking everything from the castors to the nail polish?! Such exposition can only leave an honoured maker diminished in the same heinous ranking system which is naively portrayed with the proclamation of 9 to Steinway, 8 to Yamaha and 3 to Kawai. Save us from this tedious and potentially malicious boredom!
Now in my view the answer to whether a Stuart piano should have been in the competition is, from a musical point of view, definitely yes but with the proviso that no other piano should have been allowed. That would have made the competition a genuinely Australian one instead of an imitation of countless other competitions, and provided a level playing field for all competitors to be judged. But, equally so, there is no doubt that the cost of such would have been enormous, I doubt that sufficient pianos would have been available and I’m sure that no discount deals would have been done to sell the pianos afterwards.
So on balance I’m glad that Stuart pianos were not involved, and I don’t doubt that Wayne is as well.