• Home Page
•  » COMPETITION
•  » The Jury

The Jury

2013 Senior String Division Jurors
	Donald Weilerstein, violin Faculty, The New England Conservatory & The Juilliard School Founding first violinist, Cleveland Quartet
	Norman Fischer, cello Founder, Concord String Quartet Professor of Cello & Coordinator of Chamber Music, Shepherd School of Music/Tanglewood Music Center
	Jane Coop, piano Concert pianist                                                                                                                                                                           Senior Professor and Head of the Piano Division, University of British Columbia's School of Music, Vancouver
2013 Senior Wind Division Jurors
	John Rojak, trombone American Brass Quintet Director of Brass Studies, New York University
	Richard Killmer, oboe Professor of Oboe, Eastman School of Music Former Principal oboe, St. Paul Chamber Orchestra
	William Purvis, French horn New York Woodwind Quintet Yale School of Music
2013 Junior Division Jurors
	David Holland, viola Former Resident Violist, Chamber Music Coach & String Orchestra Conductor, Interlochen Center for the Arts/Faculty, University of Michigan, Central Michigan University
	Merry Cadence Peckham, cello Cavani String Quartet, The Cleveland Institute of Music Director, Chamber Music Workshop @ The Perlman Music Program
	Bärli Nugent, flute Assistant Dean & Director of Chamber Music, The Juilliard School Naumburg Award-winning Aspen Wind Quintet
	William David, piano Pianist, Ames Piano Quartet University Professor Emeritus, Iowa State University

 

Review an archive of past Fischoff Competition jurors (through 2009).

The Fischoff takes great pride in inviting the nation's finest musicians and music educators to serve as Competition jurors.  Each Competition Division – string, wind, and junior – is adjudicated by the finest professional specialists in each field.  Jurors come together to form a larger panel for the Final round.

Selecting the “best” ensemble from all of the competitors can be a Herculean task.  The jurors do have some formulas on which they can rely.  However, their decisions are guided primarily by their own musical integrity and experience as performers and instructors.  They listen for interpretation – tempi and dynamics; ensemble performance – balance within the ensemble, blend, and unity of the members; technical accuracy – rhythm and intonation; and overall performance – poise, artistic impression, and expression.

Jurors individually rank the ensembles in each division. These rankings are combined, then averaged for each ensemble to arrive at a group’s composite ranking.  Rankings are a good method for determining the prize winners, but the real value for these young musicians comes from the written comments of the jurors.  The juror evaluations are distributed to all performing ensembles at the completion of the Competition.  From the written comments, the musicians gain valuable and constructive feedback, which is intended to stimulate their growth as artists and ensembles.

Identifying conflict of interest issues is very important to the integrity of the Competition.  During all Competition rounds, ensembles perform anonymously, identified to the jury only by number.  Conflicts of interest between jurors and ensembles or any individuals within an ensemble are carefully addressed and handled appropriately.