BY STEPHANIE ESLAKE
Disclaimer: This blog provides critical analysis of recent media events surrounding Shuan Hern Lee and the Lang Lang Shenzhen Futian International Piano Competition. It does not cast judgement on specific in-competition events.
I’d like to preface this blog with the fact that we’re probably in the same boat.
I didn’t attend this year’s Lang Lang Shenzhen Futian International Piano Competition.
Did you?
Many fellow music lovers across the world were also absent from the event. But, reading about it online, they’re certainly quick to judge what went down.
Shuan Hern Lee is a 16-year-old Australian pianist whose name has been dragged through the spotlight this month – and not in a good way.
In a public report, a Lang Lang juror wrote close to 1000 words of accusation against Lee, singling out the young pianist to claim he had exhibited disrespectful and unacceptable behaviour during his performance.
It’s since snowballed into an interesting and unfortunate case study that can teach us a little bit about the impact of online communication, and how we understand a competition’s duty of care and ethical responsibility toward its under-18 players.
So let’s take a look at the facts as they have been presented to us online (so far). And I’ll try to outline it clearly, because it’s a bit of a mess – much to the detriment of one emerging musician who is attempting to start his career.
What went down, anyway?
I recently read on Slipped Disc an open letter-style report written by Lang Lang Shenzhen Futian International Piano Competition juror Antonio Pompa-Baldi (a Cleveland Institute of Music piano professor). It detailed the participation of its competitor Shuan Hern Lee.
The juror’s report outlined a scenario in which Lee, a 16-year-old Australian-based pianist, had appeared intentionally to disobey competition rules.
While the competition was running, its authorities decided to increase the quantity of finalists from six performers to 10. So, to save time, they also reduced each finalist’s program from three prepared pieces down to two.
This removed the opportunity for all competitors to perform the one piece they’d selected themselves for the competition.
In the report, the juror states that Lee had “passed the first round with a very high score, and was positioned well to have a good chance at winning first prize. Then, something very strange, and very sad, happened”.
Despite the rule change, Lee played the banned piece.
He continued even over a ringing bell, the jury’s mic’d-up president telling him to stop, and audience members who were clapping and shouting for him to get off the stage.
“Shuan Hern did not stop. The bell kept ringing, but he kept ignoring it.”
Because the report appeared to be written with authority and in a reasonable tone, with these facts laid out I took it for granted.
I was surprised that any musician could act in such a way – continuing to play once being ordered to stop. To me, the action appeared disrespectful – not only of the individuals judging this competition, but of the institution of music competitions on a broader level. I cringed as I imagined the audience reaction as described in the report.
My opinion, then formulated on just one side of the story, was left alone until I later stumbled across a different picture.
Wait – there’s a different way to look at it?
Limelight Magazine contacted Lee to hear what he had to say about the matter – a respectful right of reply that included not only an interview with Lee, but an uncomfortable and very lengthy WeChat conversation between Lee’s mother and the competition organisers, which appeared to reveal a significant lack of clarity surrounding the rules. Lee said in the interview:
“From the misleading information provided by the committee to [the finalists], we thought we could still perform three pieces, just that the time may or may not be shortened.”
Further to this, he wrote in an open letter responding to the juror (published in Limelight, and first in Slipped Disc only after Lee had himself “asked” them to share his response days after the juror’s report had been in circulation):
“I am very sorry if I have offended you and the other jury members in this way, as I have never intended to break things up like this. I sincerely apologise solely to you and to the jury members for any disrespect caused. However please understand, that all this could have been avoided, if it were not for the committee’s heavy lack of clear clarification of rule changes.”
At this, my heart broke for this young performer. Lee, still a teenager finding his footing in a highly competitive and stressful industry, has taken a serious blow to his professional and public image.
And it’s a blow the whole world can see.
That an international competition – with all its power and the eloquent voice of its established piano professor juror – can publish such an extensive public criticism directed toward an under-18 artist is, in my view, irresponsible. Like many readers, no doubt, I took the original report at face value, overlooking the language of the report which, in retrospect, I now see is clearly loaded and filled with personal interpretations and accusations of Lee’s behaviour:
“It was very evident at that point that he was just doing it on purpose to create an embarrassing situation. He was on a mission to show every one that he was in charge, he was the boss. I have never seen anything like that before. It was surreal.”
While it was a professional scenario, further personal interpretations appeared to be injected into an otherwise formal report – see descriptions of facts such as: begrudgingly; belligerent; strange; sad; surreal; on a mission; spewing venom.
Indeed, Slipped Disc readers were divided in their own comments, but there were many who also sided with the juror on the basis of this account. They only had one side of the story on which to base their opinion.
One reader comment I came across goes so far as to contain a personal and racist attack against the artist (and I’ve chosen to include it here to illustrate to you the potential damage such comments can cause to an under-18 artist; but I’ve left a trigger warning in front of it in case you find it sensitive – it’s downright offensive):
- Do you […] find it unprofessional for a competitor to keep playing when asked to stop? That is a career ending move in my opinion.
- If all the other competitors got on with it this person should have done the same. Disrespectful in the extreme.
- TW: Racism – Oh dear; a tantrum from a musician who is behaving like a spoilt child!! He’s been brought up to believe he’s a little emperor and is beginning to find out that was a lie. Welcome to the world of 1 child families and INCREDIBLE expectations!
- His behavior at the competition and his social media posts have likely precluded him having a career in music. I have noticed that many of those with “artistic” temperaments are seldom true artists, just prima-donnas.
- Even he felt unfairly treated, he should have complied with the jury’s requirements and protested later in a more civil way. Or he could have resigned from the competition.
Objectively speaking, we just can’t know what happened between Lee and the judges unless we were there with them. But we do know that comments such as these have the potential to cause harm. They’re not reviews written in a professional setting by journalists; they’re not arts criticism. They’re public comments from people who read one person’s report, most likely weren’t at the event, and chose to “spew venom” (if I may “begrudgingly” recycle the juror’s wording) simply because they weren’t educated on the full picture.
Objectively speaking, not only was young Lee placed in a situation under which he experienced some level of stress surrounding hard-to-understand rule changes, but he also – at the earliest days of his career – has, effectively, been internationally portrayed as a rebellious teenager with no respect for authority.
Is a competition responsible only for ensuring performers adhere to its rules?
What if these rules change or may be poorly communicated?
How do we define the balance of power?
And does a competition have the right to single-out one child performer and make a public complaint against their behaviour?
Personally, I’d argue that a competition allowing the participation of anyone under 18 years old should be responsible for ensuring that musician has a safe journey – from entry to the event’s conclusion.
These sorts of events should encourage a healthy introduction into the world of competitive music performance. Not only was the juror’s complaint published, but – unlike Lee’s alleged “venom” spewed on his own social media account – this letter was published in an international and relatively high-circulation media publication. Wouldn’t a professional response on the competition’s own website have been enough, if they’d decided it absolutely necessary to state their position on the matter?
If I’d been placed in Lee’s position when I was 16 years old, I’d be traumatised and wouldn’t want to take part in a music competition again. And for Lee, it was his first-ever international competition in China.
In his report, the juror wrote:
“I think what young people like Shuan Hern need to always remember is that talent and ability should go hand in hand with humility and kindness.”
However, I don’t feel that airing the competition’s dirty laundry – so to speak – is acting out of humility and kindness. It indicates to me a clear power imbalance between a highly experienced judging panel, and a young musician trying to do his best with what he understood of the rules and, now, defending himself from accusations that you and I don’t even really need to know about.
In a previous interview with CutCommon, Lee told us: “Don’t change for other people’s tastes”.
Again, I wasn’t there at the competition, so I can’t really know what went down. I can’t judge the right from wrong action in this scenario, and neither can you unless you were there with them along the way.
Maybe Lee committed a terrible error. Maybe he did act disrespectfully. Maybe the juror was right and he was wrong.
But from the public debate between Lee and the competition, I’d say Lee certainly seemed to stick to his guns. And good on him for that.
You can read the original juror report here, and Lee’s response and interview here.
Disclaimers:
CutCommon values transparency and generating a safe space for young performing artists.
As a courtesy to Shuan Hern Lee, who is under 18, we corresponded with his mother prior to publication to confirm Shuan would feel safe with our analysis of his recent media coverage. His mother has supported the publication of this blog.
Shuan and his mother (or any other third parties) did not participate in any way in the creation of this media analysis, and may not necessarily share the opinions reflected in the blog.
Opinions of the writer do not necessarily represent those of the publication.
Reader comments quoted in this story appeared on Slipped Disc beneath the original open letter from the juror. They have been condensed in some instances for length only (precise wording remains unaltered). Names have been removed.
