ShareThis Page
Symphony’s Concerto Contest fails to find winner |

Symphony’s Concerto Contest fails to find winner

Mark Kanny

The Pittsburgh Symphony’s Concerto Competition has ended without a winner, the symphony announced Monday.

Four finalists auditioned for a jury of symphony conductors, musicians and staff.

The competition featured a strong online component, including posting performances by semifinalists on YouTube for the public to vote.

A winner would have received $10,000 and performed with Music Director Manfred Honeck and the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra at concerts on Nov. 30 and Dec. 2 at Heinz Hall, Downtown.

“We reserved the right from the beginning to not pick a winner, because what we were searching for was an unknown soloist at a level to perform a concerto with the symphony on its flagship series, the BNY Mellon Grand Classics,” said Bob Moir, the symphony’s vice president for artistic planning. “That’s where we set the bar. That’s what we were looking for. We did not find it.”

Presenting the first online concerto competition sponsored by a symphony orchestra was an exciting experience, Moir said, and everyone involved learned things that can be applied to a future competition.

“We did find some very talented young players we were happy to encounter, and we gave them all the encouragement we could,” he said. “I expect we will follow their development with interest in the future.”

The finalists were William Hagen, 19, of Salt Lake City, violin; ; Benjamin Hopkins, 21, of Los Angeles, piano; ; Manon Hutton-DeWys, 26, of New York City, piano; and Angela Park, 24, of Philadelphia, cello.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.