Discussion in 'The Rehearsal Room' started by euphsrock, Mar 14, 2010.
Not quite true; they mentioned Dyke switching parts as well ...
So sorry GJG. I stand corrected.
Nope - if it is a bari solo - a bari plays it! If it is a horn solo - a horn plays it! Simple. The conductor should not change the composer's written intentions, whether it is using mutes where mutes are not marked, or putting parts on to other instruments. We've been here before....
And dusters over bells just makes me laugh! If something is technically beyond someone then perhaps you have to ask another player to do it, but to give it to a totally different instrument just takes the biscuit in my opinion!
No-one came off Scot-free yesterday, especially in the cadenza passage, and irrespective of who or what played it - I'm sure my backside would have been tweaking a bit if I'd had to perform yesterday... :biggrin:
And that magical touch is subjective - subject to the band you are conducting!
Brighouse were great yesterday - I have no problem with their win. Congratulations.
They were one of the bands whose MD chose to use the flugel to play the solo horn part at letter U. I could see the logic here, as this freed up the solo horn to add to the underlying horn melody and enrich the ensemble.
Perhaps it would have been better for their MD to have suggested this change in instrumentation to the composer as the piece evolved. Then again, could it be that the composer actually wanted the sound of a high horn at that point? On the evidence of what I heard yesterday, it aint that easy to make a flugel sound like a horn.
Not at all. I agree with your point entirely, and since 4BR had already reported on the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Flower's preparations, they must have been aware of the reasons for doing it, so it seems daft for them to have commented on it.
its the modern trend at the moment sad really
I'm not sure how I can proove it Riger. I was there and so experienced te "longer" performance. I know that complaints were made by other bands, but I was not involved as I was just a spectator.
I suppose those in the audience with me would have experienced the same, but it's all circumstantial. Unless. . . One of the bands has an illegal recordin of the contest.
Oh hang on. I have one!!
You being deliberately thick? Surely you realise he was referring to the alleged contest rigging you claim happened?
Of course. Tongue firmly in my cheek.
People always talk about proof and evidence in these circumstances but there is no way to proove any of this.
Then perhaps you'd be better off not making completely unwarranted attacks on peoples integrity?
If it was my site, I'd just ban you.
I have not attacked anyone. I just said I was in he audience, they ran over time and as far as I can tell (and I may bs wring) they did not loose a point a minute. If they had they would not have won. How is that out of order. I was there!! Were you?
I didn't mean to address comments at anyone in particular here. I was speaking about a specific event in a discussion about contests and cheating.
It's hardly fixin a cricket match is it! No bookies have lost millions have they. No criminal charges would be brought even if you could proove beyond a reasonable doubt that Fodens were supposed to win the nationals in 1991! Another rumoured but unsubstantiated alleged fix, with that comment coming from one of the adjudicators who was determined to place the best band whoever they were.
Of course I can't proove it. And so what if I could. No court in the land would take it seriously because no one stands to loose anything of real value.
Sounds like an attack on the Organisers to me.
You have no proof but still like to throw around your biased opinions as if they were true. Why should the owners of the site allow you to post such unsubstantiated drivel?
How can I substantiate it?
I give up.
My Dad always said never argue with an idiot as they never know when to stop. Think he may have had something there.
Oooo that's just opened an old wound! Energy. Got the cassette!
Have you considered that Tred may have been so far ahead of the field they could afford to lose more than a few points?
You still don't get it, do you? It has nothing to do with the timings, or your watch, but that you have alleged that the contest organisers are guilty of wrongdoing.
I suggest you read the following carefully: (extract from a legal website):
"Two of the most commonly misused and misunderstood legal terms are libel and slander. Both terms involve defamation of a person's character, but they are different forms of defamation of character. Legally, there is an important distinction between the two terms, because libel damages are usually assumed, but in the case of slander, the plaintiff must usually prove special damages.
Understand the definition of defamation of character. Defamation of character is the communication of false information stated as a fact which brings harm to an individual or an entity, such as a business, group or government. For it to be defamation, the statement must be delivered in speech or in writing to at least one person other than the victim.
Learn when to use the term slander. Slander is used when the defamation of character is spoken. This can be person to person or a person speaking to many people.
Say the term libel when referring to the written defamation of someone's character. Libel is the defamation of an individual's or an entity's character which is published in a written medium, such as a newspaper. However, any written communication can be libelous as long as it's transmitted to a third 4
Use the libel term when the defamation of character comes from audible media. Now, most courts consider defamation of character made during a radio or television broadcast to also be libel, even though the defamation was spoken.
Know the absolute defense against libel and slander. There are a number of possible defenses against libel and slander, but the only one which is an absolute defense is truth. If the statement is true, it cannot be considered libel or slander."
Assuming that the reference to radio or television broadcasts could also reasonably be extended to posting on a public internet forum, I would say that the organisers of Wychavon contest might feel they have adequate grounds to sue you. As I read it, "defamation of character" is adequate grounds irrespective of any possible financial loss. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I wouldn't advise anyone to take any of the above as authoritative, however if I were in your position I might be inclined to be safe rather than sorry ...
I completely agree with the above statements. At the RAH on Saturday there were a number of Bands (yes, CHAMPION SECTION BANDS) who substituted players and one well known band who took the baritone cadenzas off the baritones and gave them to the horns to play (with some sort of manufactured cover over their bells). There is no way whatsoever that this should be allowed.
One "famous band" is known to have their conductor re write the bands parts for every contest to allow them to play to the strengths of his band. This is disgusting and should not be allowed.
I suggest that every member of every bands printed music should be examined as they go on stage and any band that has re written or is obviously substituting different players should have their music confiscated and replaced with a brand new "virgin" copy as they go on stage; that will teach them. I also suggest that, once a band has been caught doing this they are always provided with a new set of music by the contest organisers as they go on stage to perform as they obviously cannot be trusted.
Perhaps in lower sections we should be more tolerant, but in the Championship Section we should not allow this to happen.
Nice idea, but I doubt it would make any difference; do you imagine that the players in the top bands are not so good that any alterations could be memorised? Let's face it, it's not unknown for bands to go on stage and perform entire ents. programmes without music ...
Separate names with a comma.