What would you look out for? What would you let go? What would you pick up on and point out/criticize? This is purely a 'curiosity' thing, not intended to spark a heated debate, nor should it be used as a vehicle for slagging off adjudicators. This, I should add, is NOT connected to Fulham's imminent appearance at Harrogate. It's simply an idea that struck me after many years of seeing/hearing different adjudicators for lower section contests, seemingly (according ONLY to my ears, of course) looking for different things. My personal (and nothing more than that) outlook - bear in mind I accept I'm not a qualified adjudicator - is to look for (a) balance and intonation. I tend to find that if you consistently achieve the former, (i.e. melodies and focal points in prominence, accompaniments balanced but not over powering etc.) a lot of the latter will happen anyway. (b) Tempi, within reasonable limits, not too fussed if the band in question can make a convincing performance whether it's close to the printed tempi or a few bpm out. I listen to recordings of top bands, orchestras, ensembles and tempi never stay the same, even if marked as such, as conductors aren't metronomes! (c) Individual mistakes and splits - again, we're talking lower section level, so these are to be expected, even amongst the winning or qualifying bands, but if the balance, intonation (I am convinced you cannot give a musical performance without these two being a major factor) and the sense and flow of 'performance' from start to finish are achieved, (allowing for a few splits/slips) as opposed to sounding like it's being performed in 'small sections' like the rehearsal. I personally wouldn't consider giving prizes to bands who are technically fairly accurate but are beset by problems in the balance and intonation department. Now you know why I'm not a qualified adjudicator.... ;-) Over to you, folks!