2008 Woodie Awards
Piano competition cheats contestants
Letter to the Editor
Bill McKee
Issue date: 10/27/06 Section: Letters to the Editor
- Page 1 of 1
Dear Editor,
The pianists who competed in the Ninth International Piano Competition were short-changed $5,500 worth of prize money.
The program promised prizes totaling $34,500 (first $15,000, second $10,000, third $5,000, fourth $2500 and fifth $2000). But the pianists were awarded only $29,000 ($15,000 for first, two prizes of $5,000 and two prizes of $2,000).
The board justified this by saying that there were no second- or fourth-place finishers, so the second and third best performers were declared to have "tied for third" while the fourth and fifth performers "tied for fifth." Not so fast.
When the second and third performers tied, they should have split the money for the second and third places, a total of $15,000 or $7,500 each. Instead, they were given only the third-place amount of $5,000 each. So, too, with the fourth- and fifth-place performers. Instead of splitting $4,500 ($2250 each), they split $4,000 ($2,000 each).
The board was trying to acknowledge how much better the first-place pianist was compared to the other competitors (he was!), but I think the solution they chose makes us look cheap. The pianists went to no small expense to come to San Antonio and compete, but I'd think twice about coming back to a city where they change the rules after you play the game.
Bill McKee, San Antonio Resident
The pianists who competed in the Ninth International Piano Competition were short-changed $5,500 worth of prize money.
The program promised prizes totaling $34,500 (first $15,000, second $10,000, third $5,000, fourth $2500 and fifth $2000). But the pianists were awarded only $29,000 ($15,000 for first, two prizes of $5,000 and two prizes of $2,000).
The board justified this by saying that there were no second- or fourth-place finishers, so the second and third best performers were declared to have "tied for third" while the fourth and fifth performers "tied for fifth." Not so fast.
When the second and third performers tied, they should have split the money for the second and third places, a total of $15,000 or $7,500 each. Instead, they were given only the third-place amount of $5,000 each. So, too, with the fourth- and fifth-place performers. Instead of splitting $4,500 ($2250 each), they split $4,000 ($2,000 each).
The board was trying to acknowledge how much better the first-place pianist was compared to the other competitors (he was!), but I think the solution they chose makes us look cheap. The pianists went to no small expense to come to San Antonio and compete, but I'd think twice about coming back to a city where they change the rules after you play the game.
Bill McKee, San Antonio Resident
Be the first to comment on this story