3 in a box (split from Black Dyke thread)

Discussion in 'The Rehearsal Room' started by bassinthebathroom, Nov 6, 2010.

  1. bassinthebathroom

    bassinthebathroom Active Member

    Ridiculous to suggest that Derek Broadbent is biased towards a band he conducted over 30 years ago.
    I also wish people would stop trying to rationalise adjudicatiors' results - it is by its very nature an irrational thing. When you ask a man (or two, or three, or even the very occasional lady) for his/her/their personal opinion on a performance, it is going to be just that; their personal opinion. As we know not everyone shares the same opinion - the world would be very dull.
    As for 4barsrest, I think it's not unfair that their predisposition towards bands with a Welsh element is widely documented, even if not perhaps accurate. Anyway, just another man (or men, or woman's, or whoever's) opinion. It stands as an opinion, but (unluckily for Dyke it would seem) they are not employed to adjudicate contests.
  2. Alyn James

    Alyn James Member

    ....and that's why they should be in separate boxes....
  3. Bayerd

    Bayerd Active Member

    I've never really understood what the benefit to separate boxes would be. You'd probably get a different result, but who's to say that it would be a better one (apart from the new winning band). Could you elaborate so I understand? Thanks.
  4. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    I wonder if they would text each other if in doubt? :rolleyes:
  5. MickM

    MickM Member

    Have open adjudication and issue them with these!
  6. Eleanor91

    Eleanor91 Member

    haha, funny Idea.
    maybe they should try it, this would put an end to very long contest days!!! :p
  7. defnotsimon

    defnotsimon Member

    Whether you have 3 people in 1 box or in different boxes the result is still the same........... the result.

    But on the original post please lets not forget that banding is a voluntary thing, as in you are in a band because you want to be not because you have to be. No one is in any chair forever and everyone will move on at some point. Good on David Thornton for deciding that he wants to go on to new musical horizons.
  8. Bayerd

    Bayerd Active Member

    Can't fault that Mick, we'll all be in the pub for lunchtime with one of them....:biggrin:
  9. PeterBale

    PeterBale Moderator Staff Member

    I think the main argument for keeping them separate is to avoid the possibility of someone with a strong personality exerting an unrepresentative influence on the other(s).
  10. Bayerd

    Bayerd Active Member

    Shame on the weaker one in that situation then :rolleyes:
  11. WoodenFlugel

    WoodenFlugel Moderator Staff Member

    While this is all very interesting - its not really about Black Dyke anymore, so if someone wants to start a thread about the merits of 2/3/4 adjudicators in seperate boxes (or not) then please feel free so we can leave this thread for discussions on the recent player changes at Dyke. Cheers!
  12. Alyn James

    Alyn James Member

    Sorry Ian, first time back since my post.

    Bayerd - I just have this feeling that an average derived from three "irrational" opinions might provide more representative placings.
    Peter and Bayerd - the personality thing....we all know it goes on.

    Dyke/Cory/Fodens? - Great bands whoever plays for/conducts them. Loads of rumours going round. It's getting interesting....
  13. Euphprechaun

    Euphprechaun New Member

    Haha... excellent! thats the way forward definately!!! All that preparation and to be buzzed off after about two minutes of playing...!!! Everyone would that that sooo well!!! Funny nonetheless Mick!
  14. yoda

    yoda Member

    I know a mod has asked us to leave this, but i couldnt without saying the following........

    There are lots of people with very short memories clearly. This was Tried (at the request of competing bands) at the Cambridge Masters a number of years ago.

    The up shot was a total farce with 3 VERY different sets of results. when amalgamated they did indeed produce a winner, but one put one band in the top 3 and another put them in the bottom 3...... :)

    I expect then that this "experiment" wont be happening again in a hurry because no one want to look silly. That said, each gave an honest assessment based on what they heard. Just goes to show that it is always a personal opinion system (and there is nothing wrong with that as it is the best we have come up with over many years of mucking about with it). It was very funny tho, and IMHO invalidates somewhat the point of having 2 or more even in the same box, as there will usually be differences of opinion (I know as I have been a part of this). The differences may be negotiated (as has always been the case when i have been involved) or (and I stress this is NOT my experience) the "senior" will make the call.

    Lets get back to just one, as any more than one just muddies the waters

  15. Jan H

    Jan H Moderator Staff Member

    posts have been split off and moved to a new thread.
  16. euphalogy

    euphalogy Member

    Xlent post!! hear hear!! :clap:
  17. I blame Dave...
  18. DublinBass

    DublinBass Supporting Member

    I think three separate adjudicators is a good idea for several reasons.

    1) As already mentioned, a strong personality can dominate the cause. If you are going to have three adjudicators get three opinions...if you want just one opinion, only use one adjudicator.
    2) Three adjudicators getting three different winners is probably a better representation of actual opinions of the performance. Not everybody in the audience fancies the same band...why should we expect adjudicators to?
    3) The transparency will make it easier to identify (and then get rid of) "bad" adjudicators (That is adjudicators that don't conform to the general opinion.
  19. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    Well said, Pat!
  20. Simon Preshom

    Simon Preshom Member

    I liked the old Masters system. Yes, it threw up some 'strange' ones but by definition it is the fairest. No judge could hide behind another, no judge could talk down another...each ones opinion mattered equally...and shouldn't that be the way?

    How many times have you heard a speech from a judge in a results ceremony saying 'we agreed on all the placings from top to bottom' or 'we were in total agreement about the order of the prize winners'. Take a look at the results at the masters when they ran the three seperate box system....how many results did they agree on (ie all judgings gave the same placings)?..........the answer..........1! Tells you all you need to know.

    Yes, there might still be a Dyke coming 8th or YBS coming 17th after a great performance, but we would have transparency and know what each judge is thinking and how they came to the decision etc.