PIANO LEAGUE | EDITORIAL (NEW YORK, 2 OCTOBER 2024) – The Leeds International Piano Competition, which recently concluded its 2024 season, introduced new jury voting processes designed to address the gender gap in classical music and the industry overall. This was the first competition Leeds hosted with these new equality-driven measures. Although the intention behind these shifts aims to promote equality among participants and level the playing field for female pianists in a traditionally male-dominated field, it begs the question – are there unintended consequences?
It is unequivocal that changes must be implemented; but how those changes are implemented is still up for debate.
The gender gap in classical music has long been a debate: just earlier this year, the UK Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee published a report titled “Misogyny in music.” The report aims to address the underrepresentation, discrimination, and abuse of women in key roles in the music industry. In response to this report, and to the all-male finalists of the 2021 Leeds International Piano Competition, Leeds CEO Fiona Sinclair published an op ed in The Guardian titled “Lost in music: why piano competitions must address the gender gap.”
“As a woman CEO of a female-founded music competition, the resonance of gender inequality strikes a particularly discordant note. Our journey began with a poignant moment in the 2021 edition of the Leeds International Piano Competition, when all five finalists were male. As the curtains fell on the competition, we were compelled to confront this.”
– Fiona Sinclair, Leeds CEO
Above: 2021 Leeds International Piano Competition finalists
Kaito Kobayashi, Ariel Lanyi, Dmytro Choni, Alim Beisembayev (winner), Thomas Kelly
Photograph: Andrew Benge/Getty Images
In 20 Leeds competitions, only two women have won first prize. Although the competition is female-founded, only 31% of applications come from female pianists. Sinclair mentions in her op ed that “Among members of the World Federation of International Music Competitions, men won 82% of the most recent 40 major piano competitions, and more than a third of these had all-male finals.” Interestingly, this shifts when looking at violin competitions – where women win 75% of first prizes. So why do female pianists have such a different trajectory?
Leeds’s response to these inequalities led to significant changes in the clauses of the jury voting process for the 2024 competition. The potentially problematic clauses are highlighted below.
- 4.6. If there are two candidates with equal scores competing for one place and one is a woman candidate, we ask the Juror to consider advancing her first.
- 4.12. For the Leeds & Bradford Rounds…If this voting results in a single gender outcome or an outcome that significantly reduces the ratio of women to men in the Competition, there will be the possibility for a revote.
- 4.13. The Jury’s decision is final. However, prior to the final validation of results, the CEO reserves the right to initiate a Jury discussion if a vote is subject to misinterpretation, or in the instance of a single gender result.
- 4.22 [Semi-finals round]. In the instance of a single gender outcome or an outcome that significantly reduces the ratio of women to men in the Competition, the 3 Competitors with the highest number of votes cast will be accepted and names revealed, and there will be a revote for places 4 & 5 from the remaining 7 competitors.
Although some of Leeds’s implemented changes, such as blind judging in the shortlisting process for the first round and unconscious-bias training for jury members, are commendable and fair, asking jurors to “consider advancing [the woman contestant] first” or revoting in the event of a single gender outcome cause other issues to come into play in the long run.
Competitions are meant to highlight merit and reward exceptional talent. And while processes such as blind judging actually promote an evaluation of talent alone, advancing a female contestant over a male contestant in the event of a tie does not.
When external measures like gender-balancing quotas are introduced, they risk casting doubt upon the integrity of the competition – and upon the female pianists who do advance. Their success may be unfairly questioned: did they advance because of their ability as pianists or did they advance because they benefitted from equality initiatives that put them ahead of a male pianist in the event of a tie?
While rectifying long-standing and institutionalized imbalances in representation in the classical music world is essential, necessary, and extremely relevant, how these imbalances are corrected is just as important as the imbalances themselves.
Without the correct foundation, equality measures can undermine confidence in both participants and competitive environments themselves. A competition such as the Leeds International Piano Competition is critical for emerging talent, and transparency in judging and selection is paramount. A focus on improving access and shifting the pipeline of talent itself in the early stages of musical development may be more beneficial – and would avoid introducing other imbalances in the efforts to reduce them.
Diversity and equality are important but they cannot overshadow core values of merit and fairness that ultimately define music competitions. It’s time to reevaluate how we approach inclusivity in the world of classical music – without compromising fairness and integrity in the process.
– THE PIANO LEAGUE EDITORIAL BOARD –
