Adjudicator Feedback - A Trial Run

Discussion in 'The Rehearsal Room' started by brassneck, Mar 19, 2005.


A Sample Feedback Poll For Adjudicators

  1. My band was in the prizelist

    38 vote(s)
  2. My band was NOT in the prizelist

    47 vote(s)
  3. The results were fair and acceptable

    51 vote(s)
  4. The results did NOT reflect general opinion

    34 vote(s)
  5. The adjudicator showed understanding and knowledge of the bands/music in our section

    48 vote(s)
  6. Adjudicator showed indifference to the general standards of bands/music in our section

    25 vote(s)
  7. Comments were helpful, honest and constructive

    51 vote(s)
  8. Comments were vague, misleading and unhelpful

    25 vote(s)
  9. I would recommend this adjudicator for future contests

    53 vote(s)
  10. I would not recommend this adjudicator for future contests

    27 vote(s)
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    The poll options limits us to a maximum of 10 questions so I have tried my best to summarize competitors feelings towards adjudication on the day. Hopefully I have covered aspects that is reflective of the adjudication process :)

    N.B., I was PM'd by Roger Thorne not too long ago asking if something was missing from the thread ... only thing I can see is the lack of the facility for a rating scale rather than a yes/no poll format!
  2. groovy

    groovy Active Member

    I felt our adjudicators gave evry good and fair crits, apart from one or two small points which I wouldn't agree with. On the whole though, fair placing for us. I didn't hear the winning band but I trust that they too were fairly placed.
  3. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    If a feedback system was used, do you think certain adjudicators would think twice before accepting a job (given that they would have to accept the disclaimer for monitoring purposes)???
  4. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    Oh, I must add that when you answer the questions that you choose one of the two options for each of the five categories. It already has become a bit of a nightmare trying to analyse the current results. (oh, hindsight is great but it's always too late .... oo-errr! that rhymes!). :redface:

    e.g., 1 or 2, 3 or 4, 5 or 6 etc.
  5. ian perks

    ian perks Active Member

    We were juged by Mr Roy Roe at the Midlands Area 1st Section 2 weeks ago playing Comedy.

    His remarks i have got to say were 100% correct on how we played i cant argue one bit with them, they were constructive and very fair plus he was right in what he said about our playing to.:clap:
    Good soloists:) but band playing could have been a lot better also a number of bars were untidy as well.
    On refelction when we came off the stage we KNEW we had not played very well and would not feature in the TOP 10 in fact we came 13th / 15 bands and deserved it as WELL
    Once again WELL DONE MR ROY ROE for been 100% RIGHT with our performance:clap:

    Ian Perks
  6. DublinBass

    DublinBass Supporting Member

    While there is no rating scale (ie a score from 1 to 5)...if enough people submit their opinion about a specific adjudicator, you should get to some extent a sliding scale rating for each adjudicator (although I think a knowledgable statistics person would argue otherwise).

    We have to ask tMM ifhe can increase the number of poll options to have yes/middle/no.

    I'll enter my poll after the areas today :D
  7. TheMusicMan

    TheMusicMan tMP Founder Staff Member

    Can do...:tup just drop me a PM with your requirements and I'll sort it.
  8. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    I'll agree to that! :wink:
  9. mikelyons

    mikelyons Supporting Member

    We had John Berryman.

    His comments were pretty accurate and I am certainly not disappointed with our placing - apart from the fact that we could have played it better.
  10. HBB

    HBB Active Member

    I knew coming off the stage that tehre were too many splits to come in the placings, however many people were shocked with the adjucators (Mr. Brownbill....) placings.

    Something wasn't quite right that.

    Also, his remarks were SO negative, that it was almost depressing to read them - saying that we only played well for about 1.30minutes!
  11. Red Elvis

    Red Elvis Active Member

    No complaints about Mr Read in the 1st section at L&SC - a very informative summing up at the end and the written comments also relevant and to the point. Reading the relevant thread in "adjudicators comments" seems that all of us in that section were happy with the job he did for us on the day.
  12. Laserbeam bass

    Laserbeam bass Active Member

    Except for the joke about the Rienzi turns ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
  13. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    .... tell us! :p
  14. Red Elvis

    Red Elvis Active Member

    Lets just say that had I been adjudicating Mr Read's comedy (ie joke telling , not the eponymous piece!!) skills he'd have lost marks for timing and delivery !!!!!
  15. Owen S

    Owen S Member

    I agree about David Read at Stevenage. Then again, he's been consistently excellent when adjudicating us before, particularly at Folkestone, that even if we were sure we'd played well but he'd placed us low down, we would have assumed that we'd missed something fundamental.

    Of course, if this poll had been posted this time last year...

    EDIT: I do wonder how helpful this poll is really likely to be. This is going to preferentially attract those unhappy with their results, whereas a questionnaire sent to band secretaries a week after the results should produce a much more balanced survey, especially if you assume any band who doesn't reply must be happy.
  16. Played at 1st section Yorkshire areas.
    I cant remember the names of the two adjudicators but I think that the final placings were pretty accurate, going off what people said on the day. I think they did well overall.
  17. DublinBass

    DublinBass Supporting Member

    Just filled mine in for London Champonship Section...

    I thought David Read dida bang on job. A few bands could have flip flopped a place here or there in my mind, but that is always going to happen.

    The only comment I would add is that I wish in this day and age, judges comments could be word processed. The comments I was able to read seemed insightful and helpful, but sometimes I was left wonderingwhat it said :)
  18. madsaz

    madsaz Member

    I don't think that the format as you are able to do it here is likely to be helpful - the questions are too closed. I appreciate it is because of limitations in the Poll function.

    I agree a scale would be better - especially as your two points are at the extremes of opinion and a lot of us are much nearer the middle.

    If we want clearer and constructive feedback from adjudicators, we must be prepared to do the same! Its not enough to say we thought they were good or bad. We should explain what was good and what we would like more of. We should give free text comments.

    For instance John Berryman wrote us a lovely set of comments, warm and encouraging with only 2 blips that he picked up on - which is great to be complemented. BUT there was little to work on. I'm sure we had plenty to work on - and don't want to get complacent.

    I guess if we were a band of kids who played badly, we would want it the other way round - if an adjudicator listed every fault it would be soul destroying.
  19. Steve Marcus

    Steve Marcus Member

    That logic also makes sense mathematically. In any given competition, there can be only one winning band.

    In response to a fine article by Stephen Roberts which was posted on about his experience as an adjudicator at the recent NABBA Competition, Ian Williams wrote:

    Now, members of some bands may be "disappointed," but certainly not "angry" about the results of this year's NABBA Championship Section. Brass Band of Central Florida gave an excellent performance. But Mr. Williams raises an interesting point (you can guess which position Chicago Brass Band drew). However, the amount of time required for adjudicators to listen to the actual live performances and then review recordings AFTER the live performances may render Mr. Williams' suggestion impractical. With the six bands that competed in the NABBA Championship Section this year, the time consumption for this "review" would be considerable. In a competition where there are 18 or more bands in each section, such a procedure would be extremely lengthy.
  20. DublinBass

    DublinBass Supporting Member

    Fair enough Steve, but I wouldn't be so quick to write off this 'review' as in the UK, I ahave found results to take anywhere from only 15-45 minutes or so to be compiled (and depending how long the judge talks for) announced, where if I recall there is a 2-3 hour gap for NABBA between the last band and the announcing of the results. While an adjudicator couldn't go back to listen to everything a band played, it is more than enough time to play parts of a track to refresh their memory.

    Now if you're saying because of the relatively small number of bands at NABBA it works, where it might not for the British Open, I could agree, but don't forget each band in the UK only plays about 40-50% of the music so the length of the performances isn't as long either. Plus a judge may just want to have a relisten to a few bands that he/she thought were close.

Share This Page