Powered by TCPDF (

Transcription

1

2 Powered by TCPDF (

3 VARGAN MAKERS COMPETITION, arranged within Vargan Festival 2016 Results and preliminary report I. General information II. Supplements to the system for determining the winners III. Details about expert-appraisers of the competition IV. The list of competition participants V. Main nominations winners: low instruments VI. Main nominations winners: medium instruments VII. Main nominations winners: high instruments VIII. Additional nominations winners IX. Absolute major title on the main rating X. Questions and answers Attachment: nominations, evaluation criteria Translated by Tatyana Soboleva

4 I. General information I.1. The arc vargan makers competition took place September 2016 in Moscow. Arc vargan is a kind of the oldest reed instrument known to different nations under various names (jew s harp, jaw harp, mouth harp, maultrommel, khomus, kubyz and so on). I.2. The competition was held in the context of the Vargan Festival 2016, under the aegis of «Artistic metal» chair of S.G. Stroganov Moscow State University of Art and Industry, with active assistance of Association of blacksmiths and metal-makers of the Sakha Republic (this is an official representative office of Blacksmiths Association of Russia) and Russian blacksmiths Academy named after Zimin. I.3. The organizers and founders of the festival and the competition were: Fund of assistance to the national musical instruments revival Vargan in the name of Nikolai Sobolev, Olga Prass, Natalia Ducheva; the project Vargan.ru. The competition coordinator was Aksenty Beskrovny and the assistant was Anna Dmitrieva. I.4. More than 30 makers from different regions of Russia and neighboring countries participated in this event both personally and remotely. They provided 82 instruments for evaluation. The following people took part in the competition personally: Alexandr Dernovoy (Ukrain, Kharkov), Ivan Khristophorov (the Sakha Republic), Nikolai Burtsev (the Sakha Republic), Ivan Nazarov (Gelendzhik), Sergey Khatskevich (Belarus, Pinsk), Viktor Dyomin (Vladimir), Roman Dorogov (Moscow). The full list of participants is attached separately. I.5. For today the event is one of the biggest successful vargan makers competitions in the world (if we take into consideration the total number of participants and instruments, provided for the competition). I.6. All makers who expressed a wish to participate and who provided their instruments by the start of the event, were admitted to the competition. The makers qualification was different: for example Roman Dorogov from Moscow provided one of his first instruments to the competition from one side, and Sergey Pyzhov from Kherson who was one of the winners of the international competition The best khomus of the world (1991, Yakutsk) and Roman Gotovtsev from Yakutsk, who had taken II place in the first international competition The best vargan of the world (Yakutsk, 1991) from the other side. I.7. The evaluation process lasted for two days (September 16-17) at S.G. Stroganov Moscow State University of Art and Industry chair «Artistic metal» classrooms. During this time more than twenty experts evaluated all vargans. A list with Evaluation criteria of musical instruments was sent in plenty of time to all valuers, it contained a system with 7 main and 2 additional categories (see attachment). The final rating was calculated on September 18. Further work was to check the correctness of received data and to prepare this competition preliminary report.

5 II. Supplements to the system for determining the winners II.1. The winners determination had a pre-selected scheme (see attachment): three main nominations and one more was added, but additional nominations were left unchanged. II.2. If we take into consideration the competition specificity, we can see that some makers dominated only a few hundredths and a few thousandths of a mark. That s why organizers and coordinator decided to extend the chosen system of winners determining: in addition to I, II and III places Diploma holders of I, II and III degrees were added: Diploma holders of I degree: final evaluation* within 5% less than first three winners of the nomination; Diploma holders of II degree: final evaluation * within from 5% to 10% less than first three winners of the nomination; Diploma holders of III degree: final evaluation * within from 10% to 15% less than first three winners of the nomination; *For additional nominations the evaluation of additional criteria is used corresponding to these nominations. II.3. The competition results are definitive. The competition report is preliminary and will be published in the future in the expanded version.

6 III. Details about expert-appraisers of the competition III.1. The process of instruments evaluation was taken place on September The expert evaluation took all together. 21 of expert-appraisers participated in the event. Two of them are known and acknowledged all over the world, such as Aron Szilagyi from Hungary (he was a jury member of the international competition The best khomus of the world arranged in Yakutsk in 2011 as a part of VII International Congress and Festival Khomus in the World Cultural Space ) and Mindigafur Zainetdinov from Bashkiria (a soloist of Bashkirian State Philharmonic Society, world virtuoso in playing kubyses, honoured worker of culture of the Bashkortostan Republic). III.2. The following demands were made to all invited appraisers: Playing skills above-average Playing experience on different types of vargans The ability to feel confident in different types of playing It was also welcome in appraisers candidates selection if the appraiser had an experience in a public playing, in passing special training courses, and in a long-term vargans playing etc. III.3. Among invited guests, who had necessary experience in vargans playing were the following: Four laureates of the competition «Khomusstar» for single players and musical collectives practicing in vargan playing (this is an annual event of Permanent Representation of the Sakha Republic under President of Russian Federation): Maria Finogenova, Natalia Kochetkova, Igor Dmitriev, Ivan Ilin. Sofia Elovikova the winner of the vargan competition of the II international festival of the overtone music «Overtonik» in Kiev; Diploma degrees holder of many training courses and famous teachers; a permanent participant of many other vargan and musical events. Igor Vyazanichev technologist of radioelectronic equipment and professional sound technician, who organized several dozen of concerts of vargan music. Julia Shustova graduate of Russian Gnessin Music Academy. Alexandr Bratetsky professional musician, teacher of vargan and harmonica playing. Victor Orlov professional musician and vocalist. Pavel Kormakov musician multi-instrumentalist. Nikolai Sobolev, famous not only as a performer of international level, who tested during his practice thousands of vargans of different nations of the World, but as one of the leading teachers of playing vargans. III.4. In addition vargan players were invited, who had multiannual working experience in this area, who had diplomas of different training courses, who regularly visited concerts of different styles of vargan playing and who had thoroughly knowledge of possibilities of different musical instruments. Among them were: Alexey Baev, Artur Nezametdinov, Vitaly Obukhov, Dmitry Veselov, Konstantin Bobkov, Konstantin Lipatov, Ruslan Nezamutdinov, Sergey Simakov.

7 III.5. It is worth saying that mentioned earlier Igor Dmitriev, Vitaly Obukhov and Artur Nezametdinov are employees and assistants of specialized vargan shops, who have multiannual working experience with all types of vargans. III.6. Many-sided approach in appraisers selection is oriented on data analysis that allow to determine the deviation of expert opinions of professional musicians from other expert opinions of musicians having experience in different categories. This topic will be touched in details in the special competition report (appraisers anonymity will take place, and the appraisers data will be widely used).

8 Powered by TCPDF (

9 IV. The list of competition participants. IV.1. The list of participants of vargan makers competition *Comment: participants 13, 19 and 25 failed to provide their instruments. Maker Region Numbers of competition items 1 Sergey Litvinov Samara 1-L*, 1-M*, 1-H* 2 Andrey Borisov Samara 2-L, 2-M, 2-B 3 Shamil Mansurov Ulyanovsk 3-M, 3-L 4 Victor Ustinov Moscow 4-L, 4-СB 5 Sergey Makaseev Tolyatti 5-M, 5-L, 5-B, 5-O 6 Andrey Romanov Nizhny Novgorod region, Lyskovo 6-L, 6-M, 6-H, 6-B, 6-O 7 Eugeny Volgutov Republic of Khakassia, Abakan 7-L, 7-M, 7- H 8 Dmitry Babaev St. Petersburg 8-L, 8-M, 8-H, 8-B 9 Sergey Pyzhov Ukraine, Kherson 9-L(u), 9-M, 9-HB 10 Mikhail Sysuk The Zabaikalye Territory, Darasun 10-L, 10-M 11 Alic Stepanov Republic of Bashkortostan 11-L, 11-M, 11-H 12 Nikolai Burtsev The Republic of Sakha, Yakutsk 12-L, 12-M, 12-B, 12-O 14 Dmitry Glazyrin Chelyabinsk region., Snezhinsk 14-L, 14-M, 14-H 15 Victor Dyomin Vladimir 15-M 16 Alexandr Dernovoy Ukraine, Kharkov 16-LB 17 Vasily Kovatsenko Saratov 17-M 18 Mikhail Masko Ulyanovsk 18-L, 18-M, 18-H, 18-B, 18-O 20 Sergey Svetlichny Ukraine, Kharkov 20-MB 21 Pavel Seleznyov Moscow 21-LB 23 Roman Sklemin Perm region, Okhansk 23-L, 23-С 24 Sergey Khatskevich Belarus, Pinsk 24-L(u), 24-L, 24-M, 24-H 26 Ivan Nazarov Gelengzhik 26-L, 26-M, 26-H 27 Roman Dorogov Moscow 27-H 28 Ivan Khristophorov 29 Innokenty Gotovtsev The Republic of Sakha, Khangalassky ulus, Oktemtsy The Republic of Sakha, Namsky ulus, Namtsy 28-L(u), 28-L, 28-M, 28-H, 28-B, 28-O 29-M, 29-B 30 Sergey Fomenkov St. Petersburg 30-L, 30-M, 30-H 31 Nikolai Gogolev The Republic of Sakha, Vilyuisky ulus 31-LB 32 Uvarov Nyurgustan The Republic of Sakha, Yakutsk 32-LO 33 Gerasim Tarabukin The Republic of Sakha, Yakutsk 33-LB, 33-С 34 Roman Gotovtsev The Republic of Sakha, Yakutsk 34-M, 34-H, 34-B 35 Vlady Tchemchyoev The Republic of Sakha, Vilyuisky ulus 35-M, 35-B *L(u) basic tone below 42,4 Hz; L 42,4-63,5 Hz; M 63,5-95,2 Hz; H basic tone above 95,2 Hz; B additional nomination Beauty / aesthetics ; O additional nomination Originality of design idea.

10 IV.2. Geographic variation map of the competition participants

11 V. Winners of the main nominations: low instruments V.1. Winners of the main nomination «Lower World» Low vargans with the basic tone up to 63,5 Hz (mot higher than contra octave B / B1 +50 c+) Maker Instrument number Final evaluation I place Dmitry Babaev 8-L 8,895 II place Nikolai Gogolev 31-LB 8,198 III place Gerasim Tarabukin 33-LB 8,188 Diploma holder of I degree Diploma holder of II degree Diploma holder of III degree Alexandr Dernovoy 16-LB 8,181 Dmitry Glazyrin 14-L 8,074 Eugeny Volgutov 7-L 8,031 Sergey Fomenkov 30-L 8,031 Sergey Litvinov 1-L 7,976 Mikhail Sysuk 10-L 7,914 Andrey Borisov 2-L 7,886 Alic Stepanov 11-L 7,769 Victor Ustinov 4-L 7,719 Mikhail Masko 18-L 7,613 Andrey Romanov 6-L 7,588 Ivan Nazarov 26-L 7,307 V.2. Winners of the main nomination «Deep World» Low vargans with the basic tone below 42,4 Hz ( contra octave E / E1 +50 c and below) Maker Instrument number Final evaluation I place Sergey Pyzhov 9-L(u) 8,383 II place III place Not to award Not to award

12

13 Powered by TCPDF (

14 VI. Winners of the main nominations: middle instruments VI.1. Winners of the main nomination «Middle World» Low vargans with the basic tone from 63,5 Hz to 95,2 Hz (up to great octave/ C2-50c F-sharp major of the great octave / F#2 +50c) Maker Instrument number Final evaluation I place Sergey Pyzhov 9-M 8,845 II place Sergey Litvinov 1-M 8,564 III place Sergey Fomenkov 30-M 8,376 Diploma holder of I degree Diploma holder of II degree Diploma holder of III degree Not to award Dmitry Babaev 8-M 8,160 Victor Ustinov 4-MB 8,107 Vasily Kovatsenko 17-M 8,005 Nikolai Burtsev 12-M 7,993 Innokenty Gotovtsev 29-M 7,990 Dmitry Glazyrin 14-M 7,988 Gerasim Tarabukin 33-M 7,930 Eugeny Volgutov 7-M 7,886 Mikhail Sysuk 10-M 7,871 Andrey Romanov 6-M 7,862 Andrey Borisov 2-M 7,852 Sergey Khatskevich 24-M 7,714 Mikhail Masko 18-M 7,681 Sergey Svetlichny 20-MB 7,662 Ivan Nazarov 26-M 7,586 Vlady Tchemchyoev 35-M 7,514 Shamil Mansurov 3-M 7,414 Roman Gotovtsev 34-M 7,398

15 Powered by TCPDF (

16 VII. Winners of the main nominations: high instruments VII.1. Winners of the main nomination «Upper World» High vargans with the basic tone above 95,2 Hz (G of the great octave/ G2-50c and higher) Maker Instrument number Final evaluation I place Sergey Pyzhov 9-HB 8,771 II place Sergey Litvinov 1-H 8,343 III place Dmitry Babaev 8-H 8,274 Diploma holder of I degree Diploma holder of II degree Diploma holder of III degree Not to award Alic Stepanov 11-H 7,943 Mikhail Masko 18-H 7,905 Sergey Fomenkov 30-H 7,865 Dmitry Glazyrin 14-H 7,314 Ivan Nazarov 26-H 7,302 Eugeny Volgutov 7-H 7,200

17 Powered by TCPDF (

18 VIII. Winners of the additional nominations VIII.1. Winners of the additional nomination Beauty / aesthetics Maker Instrument number Evaluation on a criterion Beauty/ aesthetics I place Roman Gotovtsev 34-B 8,737 II place Nikolai Burtsev 12-B 8,700 III place Innokenty Gotovtsev 29-B 8,684 Diploma holder of I degree Diploma holder of II degree Sergey Pyzhov 9-HB 8,632 Dmitry Babaev 8-B 8,524 Victor Ustinov 4-MB 8,350 Diploma holder of III degree Andrey Borisov 2-B 8,095 VIII.2. Winners of the additional nomination Originality of design idea Maker Instrument number Evaluation on a criterion Originality of design idea I place Mikhail Masko 18-O* 8,941 II place Andrey Romanov 6-O** 8,316 III place Ivan Khristophorov 28-O*** 7,706 Diploma holder of I degree Diploma holder of II degree Diploma holder of III degree Not to award Not to award Nikolai Burtsev 12-O 7,684 *18-O: Prototype of vargan with shiftable flyweights, that allows to make instrument tuning within octave with no additional complications. (flyweights are desighned on exact displacement of a based tone to certain notes, specified on flyweights). **6-O: Vargan fixing in six places. ***28-O: Three reeds khomus.

19

20 Powered by TCPDF (

21 Powered by TCPDF (

22 XI. Absolute superiority according to main evaluation XI.1. Final rating according to main criteria, absolute superiority (The first thirty instruments among eighty two are given) Maker Instrument number Final evaluation 1 Dmitry Babaev 8-L 8,895 2 Sergey Pyzhov 9-M 8,845 3 Sergey Pyzhov 9-HB 8,771 4 Sergey Litvinov 1-M 8,564 5 Sergey Pyzhov 9-L(u) 8,383 6 Sergey Fomenkov 30-M 8,376 7 Sergey Litvinov 1-H 8,343 8 Dmitry Babaev 8-H 8,274 9 Dmitry Babaev 8-B 8, Innokenty Gotovtsev 29-B 8, Nikolay Gogolev 31-LB 8, Gerasim Tarabukin 33-LB 8, Alexandr Dernovoy 16-LB 8, Dmitry Babaev 8-M 8, Victor Ustinov 4-MB 8, Dmitry Glazyrin 14-L 8, Eugeny Volgutov 7-L 8, Sergey Fomenkov 30-L 8, Vasily Kovatsenko 17-M 8, Nikolai Burtsev 12-M 7, Innokenty Gotovtsev 29-M 7, Dmitry Glazyrin 14-M 7, Sergey Litvinov 1-L 7, Alic Stepanov 11-H 7, Gerasim Tarabukin 33-M 7, Mikhail Sysuk 10-L 7, Mikhail Masko 18-H 7, Andrey Borisov 2-L 7, Eugeny Volgutov 7-M 7, Mikhail Sysuk 10-M 7,871

23 X. Questions and answers Will vargans photos be available? Yes, all instruments were photographed and will be included in the vargans catalogue. The catalogue will be published both with final and enlarged report version. In the preliminary version several winners photos are published. Was video recorded? Yes, during the competition separate fragments were recorded, videos of some instruments were also recorded which included comments of evaluation work. All this will be published gradually. How much did it take for appraiser to evaluate each instrument? Did they quickly complete the forms? Experts had a possibility to devote enough time to each instrument. Usually the evaluation process took for four hours and more by each appraiser. In some cases appraises worked for two days. They filled all forms reasonably. In certain cases there are not only marks in the forms, but also explanatory comments on the margins. Will it be possible to read how exactly did some experts or other evaluate vargans? The data on this topic will be used fragmentarily (in order to improve voting system in future during organization of similar events) with the anonymity of the evaluators. Will the statistics of average results be published as far as certain criteria are concerned? Yes, statistics collection is one o the main goals. The information about instruments of the winners and diploma holders will be included in final extended report. Each maker will be able to find data on his vargan. Are all marks also as high as first thirty instruments from the absolute superiority? No. The final marks dispersion as far as main criteria are concerned is located within the limits 3,97 8,895.

24 There are too many instruments for evaluation for one time, aren t there? To evaluate more than eighty instruments at once is a really difficult job, but it is possible. Remember, how thoroughly keen jew s-harpers sort dozens of similar instruments in shops, in order to chose new one in their collection, or how they examine sets of instruments of each other during the events. For most of evaluators this is normal everyday action, which can be considered as preliminary preparation for more difficult working process. We can also draw a parallel with international competition «The best world khomus» (2011, Yakutsk within the framework of the VII International Congress and Festival Khomus in the World Cultural Space ) where only 3 hours to evaluate 119 instruments were allocated. In total 16 hours to evaluate 82 instruments during the competition of the Vargan Festival 2016 were allocated. And as it was already mentioned each appraiser spent for 4 hours on average (in some cases even more). Was the competition coordinator included to the appraisers? No. Where will new and enlarged materials about the competition be published? On organizers social media pages, among news of internet portal Vargan.ru. Organizers will also try to notify the competition participants about new publications on the subject. When is the next activity planning to be held? At the moment the next competition is planned to be held in August 2017 (within the framework of IX International vargan congress in Moscow). Where is it possible to ask additional questions? All questions can be dent to the competition coordinator: aksenty@beskrovny.ru, vk.com/aksenty (Aksenty Beskrovny). After discussion of the raised topics with organizers, answers will appear in the renovated materials of the project.

25 Supplement: nominations, criteria evaluation and creation of instruments rating 1.1. Main competition nominations: «Lower World». Low vargans with the basic tone up to 63,5Hz (mot higher than contra octave B / B1 +50 c) «Middle World». Vargans with the basic tone from 63,5 Hz to 95,2 Hz (up to great octave/ C2-50c F-sharp major of the great octave / F#2 +50c) «Upper World» High vargans with the basic tone above 95,2 Hz (G of the great octave/ G2-50c and higher) «Deep World» Low vargans with the basic tone below 42,4 Hz (contra octave E / E1 +50 c and below) 1.2. Additional nominations: Beauty / aesthetics. General aesthetic was evaluated in the nomination, a case appearance also played the role in this category. Originality of design idea. In this category vargans with new construction features were being assessed in this category, which are different from old ones or widespread The makers could present one vargan to each of the above-mentioned nomination. Meanwhile if the maker did not present his instruments to additional nominations «Beauty / aesthetics» and «Originality of design idea», his instruments could participate in these nominations automatically in case they were presented in main categories (but not more than one vargan in each additional nomination) Each musical instrument was being assessed according to the standard ten point scale in nine categories. The first seven categories (I-VII) were the main ones, according to which the final rating were calculated and the winners were determined. Additional paragraphs (VIII-IX) helped to determine winners in these additional categories.

26 2.1. Main criteria: - I. Ergonomics / usability. Usability when you hold the musical instrument, when you play. The vargan tongue does not have to touch the corpus when playing in different ways: with different speed, different amplitude and beating. - II. Two-way beating. It is necessary to get to know if the instrument is adapted for two-way beating. - III. Clearness of sound. In other words we may say the vargan tune. Here you can access if it is easy to hear different overtones while playing the instrument. In this case it is necessary to hear clearly these overtones in different parts of the sound spectrum. - IV. Intensity of sound and the quality of timbre. To hear additional sounds is not always bad. Rich timbre can allow to use different and interesting techniques of playing where groups of overtones and background musical spectrum can take place. From other side if you start to hear background parasitic overtones then this timbre can not be called qualitative. - V. Harmony/ timbre balance. The vargan spectrum of sound is divided into two parts: controlled by the player and uncontrolled. In this case it is necessary to determine whether these two parts of vargan sounding go together harmoniously. - VI. Sustain quality / dynamic range. In this category it is necessary to assess the sustain quality, and not only sound duration. For example: the possibility of using sustain techniques both with quality sound; the possibility of playing different sound levels, amplitude levels and different speed. - VII. General impression. This item imply general effect that the instrument makes on a person. If the misbalance was taking place in the previous items, this article will partially compensate it The final evaluation on main criteria was counted by the sum of marks. Herewith the coefficient of the first six criteria was 0,15 and the coefficient of the seventh was 0,1. In other words the criteria«ergonomics / usability» and «Two-way beating» gave 30%to the final evaluation, criteria related to the instrument sounding gave 60%, and one more criterion «General impression» 10%. The computing formula is the following: Bс = 0,15 * (B1+B2+B3+B4+B5+B6) + 0,1*B7 B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7 are marks for the following above-mentioned criteria I-VII. The mark is in the range from 1 to 10, where 10 is the maximum point. Bс is a final mark. In that way Bс could also change from 1 to 10. The final rating was composed according to final marks.

27 2.3. Additional criteria: - VIII. Beauty / aesthetics. General aesthetic, a case appearance also plays the role in this category. - IX. Originality of design idea. In this category new construction features are being assessed (in comparison with old ones) Additional criteria rating does not influence on the final main criteria rating. Average score on these additional criteria is being used in order to determine the winners only in the additional categories Also during winners determination in the nomination «Beauty / aesthetics» musical quality was considered. If marks on the criterion exceeded three and more times the meaning of the final evaluation on main criteria, in this case the instrument would have to be withdrawn from the competition. For example, if a maker collected 10 points in the criterion «Beauty» and only 3 points in the final rating on main criteria, the instrument would not be able to fight for the prize places.