Discussion in 'The Adjudicators' Comments' started by Bbmad, Mar 29, 2015.
That's too many concentration will diminish during the contest
I tend to think that almost all area sections have more bands within them than can reasonably be sorted with any hope of accuracy. Once you get beyond 10 or so, the subjectivity inevitably starts to outweigh the objectivity in the middle of the table at least. The NW 4th section in the mid-80s had 40 bands in it one year! The next year it had fewer than half as many - I would guess for obvious reasons of what's-the-point-of-this-ness.
The only sections that actually have an adjudicable number of bands in them are seen as having an alarming shortfall of banding talent in the area.
Perhaps that is what he means, though I wouldn't refer to that as a pyramid, would you? A proper pyramid structure would be like the football one, with local leagues feeding into district leagues feeding into area leagues feeding into regional leagues feeding into national leagues. So, for example, we would retain Championship, and Sections 1 and 2 (and even 3), perhaps, at the current Regional level, but, below that, there would be parallel feeder leagues from more localised districts which might encourage more of the lower level bands to compete because it wouldn't require such long journeys, demanding test pieces (both technical-wise and instrumentation-wise) or such big sections, or whatever. So, in the North West, Section 4 might be replaced by three parallel Section 4's (comprising bands from three different districts within the NW Area) and with the winner of each gaining promotion to Section 3. In turn, Section 3 might even be divided into two sub-regions, in order to bring the number down to seven or eight bands in each.
Now, personally, I wouldn't like such a set-up, but I paint the illustration merely to say that that is what a proper pyramid structure would look like, and not merely a re-population of the current five sections.
Well, I do.
4BR are happy to "knock" the professionalism of adjudicators so what is sauce for the goose and all that. I notice one adjudicator has seen fit to respond on 4BR's comments page and they share my opinion of 4BR providing contradictory editorials.
I notice today's editorial equates the standard provided by adjudicators with the amount they are paid. Now, obviously, I can spot an April Fools joke when I see one, but I do think it is pretty poor to be publishing that.
I note once more his comments regarding the 1st Section not being fit for purpose.
Can anybody tell me what this purpose is other than existing between the 2nd and Championship Sections? I thought it was created to help reduce section sizes in some areas.
It's meaningless word vomit, a bit like their description of the "ignored and almost forgotten second section". Ignored by 4BR!
I think what they want to see is a section below the championship that would be suitable for the setting of the kinds of test pieces which are (often not really correctly) regarded as 'too easy' for championship, but 'too hard' for 1st section. But in the main this is a group of pieces whose problem lies not in the level of their difficulty, but in their age - the top section classics of the 80s (Ballet for Band, Dances and Arias, etc.) are still hard, but the top section became so familiar with them that they don't seem so any more. Either of those pieces would make as good a top section area piece as The Torchbearer - better, in fact, I would say - but are much more likely to turn up in the 1st section (indeed BfB did in 1997, where it received an awful lot of ropy performances) because they are seen as old hat.
The problem is not that the 1st section is not "fit for purpose", in the phrase that 4BR likes to employ on the subject - the problem is that it isn't taken seriously enough on its own merits. This doesn't mean setting harder or easier music - it means setting music that makes the musicians think.
I should imagine that 4BR have thought very hard about what a pyramid system would look like but for whatever reason have chosen not to publish it. This is the best proposal I can come up with - for the Yorkshire Area.
The Super Dooper Section
3 Band's consisting of Grimethorpe, B&R and Black Dyke. No relegations is this section.
Being the only 3 bands capable of even attempting such materpieces as "The Torchbearer" these bands would would compete against each other for eternity in the hope of winning the £10 Billion Pound winning prize.
4BR would maintain a 100% record in predicting the top three in this section each year.
Registration of players not required.
Each year, the top 3 placed bands in this section qualify for the Finals.
The Championship Section
6 Bands comprising of the likes of Carlton Main, Rothwell and Hepworth would compete in this section, knowing that they aren't quite capable of competing with the super dooper bands, these bands would compete for 1 token qualification spot, so that they get to have a big day out in London each year. The prize is for the cost of diesel to the Albert Hall.
1 relegation spot.
Music standard, "Songs from Uranus" by Bob Sherunkle or similar.
The First Section
8 Bands comprising of nearly ran Championship bands and aspirational first section bands compete for 1 promotion and 1 relegation spot. Musical standard "Pictures of Glasgow" by Doc Fox, or similar.
The Third Section
10 bands comprising mainly of the forgotten second section bands compete for 1 place into the First Section.
2 Relegation spots.
2 Bands to qualify for the finals.
Music standard, "Music For a Festival" or similar.
The Fourth Section
The remaining 30-40 bands would compete in the 4th Section. To save wasting the adjudicators time with a real competition, bands would be required to video a performance of "Hootenany" and send it to 4BR. To prevent ridiculous notions of aspiration within the lower sections, the 2 promotion spots would be calculated based on a 25 year aggregate/average score.
Did you steal that from Iwan's desk? Or have you been sneaking round Kapitol's offices again?
Nothing wrong with Hootenanny (the "Chicken Reel" would probably be more of a technical test than some historic 4th section pieces), but surely its better to make it own choice, with alternatives of "Instant Concert" or "The Floral Dance"? Or for the more progressive bands, "Pirates of the Caribbean"?
"4. Legal Doping"
I thought he was going to out me for using beta blockers.
Seriously though, most bands in sections 1,2 and championship are competing to avoid relegation rather than to get promotion.
I don't understand fully how the system works in Scotland but we seem to have some bands that go up and down a section almost annually.
This may well have been my last contest. Not sure I can put myself through that again.
Hadn't thought of it like that before, but that's a very succinct way of putting it; certainly applies to our band. We really don't want to be in the Championship section, firstly because we know we're not good enough, but also because we simply don't want the stress and hassle. At the same time, we don't really want to be in the second section either. But if you try too hard to not come in the bottom half of the results you end up being promoted anyway. Come to think of it, in 2012 we came well inside the bottom half of the results, and got promoted anyway. There's definitely something wrong with the system, but I'm really not clever enough to put my finger on exactly what it is, much less to suggest an alternative.
TBH, if the decision were mine alone, I'd simply not contest and concentrate on doing good concerts; but some of the band enjoy the contests ...
Caught red handed.
Good idea, gets my vote.
I think most of us are missing a big point here, Iwan Fox is answerable to no one, his site is free for all to view so therefore he likes to say things that may be controversial or contradictory why, simple because we all rush to the site to read what he has said (we may not like it, or agree with it or we may love it) but the point is we went there and so 4barsrest can go back to their advertisers and tell them the site had 1000's of hits on the 1st April and most would have seen the adverts and a certain percentage would have clicked on a link...... would you like to advertise on the site !!!!! And next week he will say something else which will get us all loving him or hating him, it works, how many have been to 4barsrest today to read the article ? I rest my case.
Publications which we subscribe too tend to give a lot more detail and are better researched because as someone who is paying for a service thats what we (well certainly I) expect.
But I'm sure there is room in the world for all types of information sources.
You know what ScottishCritic, you are right.
Iwan Fox is not answerable to anyone and the good service from 4BR outweighs the bad. And like any "yellow journalist" he does a good job of creating controversial and interesting talking points. So, long may it continue. And as far I can see no one has said that they hate him, why would they? I for one have never met the fella, so I will presume that he is a decent man.
But in the same way, Bbmad is not answerable to anyone either, so if I disagree then I will use Tmp (as long as the Tmp mods allow) to say that the recent 4BR comment are cobblers of the highest grade.
Separate names with a comma.