Discussion in 'The Rehearsal Room' started by Thirteen Ball, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. Thirteen Ball

    Thirteen Ball Active Member

    Indeed. Most informative isn't it? ;)

    I'm all for open adjudication. At least then it ends the ridiculous notion that the adjudicators don't know who's on stage. At least if they KNOW which band it is, they can ignore it and be objective, rather than sitting there trying to work it out.

    They can also look for re-written parts being played by other instruments, and all the other tricks that all bands seem to use now and again. I'd rather go on, play my own part, and know everyone else will be doing the same.

    There'll also be no excuse for 'conflicts of interest' either. ;)
  2. Gladis

    Gladis New Member

    So then rather than the adjudicators focusing on the band's ability (or inability) to work as a team and to perform a piece to the best of their abilities, they'll be looking out for people using 'tricks' to do well. What if there's no other way around re-scoring?
  3. paddo

    paddo Member

    rescoring should not be done, even if the players in question can't play the part. I know, what your going to say Gladis' I have in the past and probably will in the future play other parts that are not mine, and you know what I mean, but it's not right.

    Practice for most will eneable you to play most parts, and I do mean practice......:)
  4. Charmed

    Charmed Active Member

    And what about those bands that unfortunately do not have a full ensemble? Does this mean they should be penalised by either a)not attending a contest or b)attending but not able to cover the missing part(s)?
  5. paddo

    paddo Member

    eat my words now!!

    that is probably the only reason for doing it, what I meant was re-scoring for players that you have, can't play the part.......
  6. Gladis

    Gladis New Member

    And what i meant was band's who had no other way around it, i.e not a full ensemble (as charmed said). Paddo, you know well that I hate playing other people's parts instead of sitting down and seeing my own part in front of me, but if bands are unfortunate to not have a full line up then what's the other way around it?
  7. paddo

    paddo Member

    steady on Gladis.... I was not having a go at you love:)

    Yes I agree with you, but we both know that, that is not the only reason for re-scoring! classic example last year at the spring festival;) and you know what I mean and no not you!!

    Calm down lass, I need you stress free for the 1st?
  8. Gladis

    Gladis New Member

    :lol: I'm calm, I was just putting my point across, i also agree that if people want to keep their parts then they should be practised, which would help both sectionals (instead of note bashing) and the conductor's job of re-scoring. Anyway, just my thoughts. :lol:
  9. starperformer

    starperformer Member

    It's impossible to penalise bands for rescoring - and what's the point anyway? What does it prove in the long run?

    Your suggestion seems to be that it is OK for bands with less than 25 players to cover missing parts by rescoring. As far as I can see this would mean that it would be better to sack people who couldn't play their parts than let them on stage and cover exposed parts - so how are kids/learners etc. ever going to get stage experience in this system?
  10. Gladis

    Gladis New Member

    Not at all, I think all players should have a good chance at playing their own parts, not just one or two run throughs. People should (and hopefully this is the case) be given credit for trying to play/practise their parts, whilst stretching their ability. There's nothing worse than giving it your best shot just to have your part taken away from you.
    But that's different to the original point I made, which was that sometimes there's no way around re-scoring due to not having a full band, not through sacking people.
  11. brasscrest

    brasscrest Active Member

    So the question in that case then becomes whether the inability to field a full band should affect the band's result.

    Think about this: two bands play to identical marks from the (closed) adjudicators. One is a full band, and all the parts are played by the respective players (no re-scoring). One is missing a few players, and others cover those parts. Which one really did better? The one with all the players, or the one that was able to cover well enough to get the same mark?

    (I'm deliberately leaving out the case of a full band that rescores just to get a "better" rendition of a particular part)
  12. Thirteen Ball

    Thirteen Ball Active Member

    Couldn't agree more. I'll freely admit that the lack of a full team is one eventuality where parts may need to be covered. But a band with a full squad really has no excuse. Even when my own band's re-written parts in the past, put back row parts on front row, covered high trombone notes on tenor horn etc, I've never agreed with it.

    And yes, part of the reason I disagree so strongly with re-writing parts is that in the past it's normally been my part that's got re-written out of existence. If the basses are too loud, or there's a technical bit on BB that's covered on Eb, in the past, I've been the first to get knocked off, whether I can play it or not. It's never fun to get a copy of a test-piece, and cross half of it off befor you've even played it.

    But the main reason is that the composer wrote the piece that way for a reason. If He/She had wanted those parts on front row, or that note doubled on tenor horn, or only one bass playing that part, he/she would have written it that way in the first place.
  13. Gladis

    Gladis New Member

    This is a good question. On the one hand, both bands do as well as each other, the full band have done what the score asks them and played the piece to the best of their ability. The band with missing seats has also done well to achieve a convincing performance with player's missing, which can often be an awkward challenge. However, at higher levels, the case may be different when covering missing parts, depending on who plays them.

    Andi, What you said is the point I was making earlier. players should get a good chance at their own parts rather than changing things around before the piece has even been played
  14. starperformer

    starperformer Member

    So what if, to get a full team, you decide to bring in promising young players who aren't confident enough to play exposed parts?

    How do you distinguish between this form of 'cheating' and, for example, the age old practice of going down to one on a part in quiet sections for musical reasons (which is pretty much implicit in cornet, euph and bass parts anyway).

    And does anyone seriously think that using open adjudication would make it difficult to hide such practises from the adjudicators?!
  15. caramelbunny

    caramelbunny Member

    I don't think it's cheating at all to cover each other's parts...a band is a team and should be judged on combined the end of the day does it matter how you arrived at the right sound as long as you all got there together? :rolleyes:
  16. timbloke

    timbloke Member

    I've been following this thread with interest, and trying to work out which side of the fence I'm going to fall.

    Whilst I agree with those of you who are adamantly against any "re-scoring" I think I'd tend to agree with CB's last post - that banding is a team sport. We are not allowed to play more than one instrument, but there is nothing in the rules that say we cannot play more than one part if we memorise the part we are going to play (to avoid the legal issue of re-writing something).

    I agree that it can damage a player's confidence, drive and development if they are not given a challenge, but each case needs to be considered individually. For example, saying you have until the week before the contest to get that part right - or we'll move it. It may give people more drive to get it right.

    The problem with marking against the "re-scoring" is that we are not professionals. There are numerous reasons why we can't play a part - ability/experience, nerves, lack of time to practice, illness, a situation where you get a mental block on a particular note, etc. The adjudicator cannot know all this information, so is it fair that he should penalise the band without question? I think not. The aim of a contest is surely to get the best band performance, not the best set of individual performances.

    Maybe it is just a judgement call between a band completely re-writing a piece and swapping a few short sections for clarity. Surely any adjudicator worth his title would be able to make that judgement.
  17. Bayerd

    Bayerd Active Member

    Agreed, if it is a 'band contest', then it should go to the best band performance, regardless of how that is achieved. Surely if rescoring is obvious enough for the judge to hear he would mark down accordingly, if he couldn't tell, the result of the rescore must have been aurally close to the score, so what does it matter?
  18. Steve

    Steve Active Member

    I have to say Im all for a bit of re-scoring, provided it is beneficial to the performance of the piece in question. I am never keen on parts being given to other players because a.) someone cant do it or b.) there isnt somewhere there to play it, unfortunately the later is a part of banding as we all know.

    If an conductor believes the piece would be improved by using a different tone colour to that which the composer had intended then by all means go for it. An MD knows his tools and should be allowed to use them as s/he sees fit.

    I fully appreciate composers write music as they believe it should be played, however when writing a fictional book does the author constantly place notes throughout to make sure you are imagining it right? Does it not make a book more enjoyable when two people can discuss their interpretation of staging / imagery and come up with different ideas? Is that not what makes art subjective?

    Re-scoring is no worse in my mind than taking something off tempo, if it is what the MD believes the music needs then go for it as a little tamper here and there can make a great performance of a great piece something truly spectacular.
  19. PeterBale

    PeterBale Moderator Staff Member

    But if Agatha Christie decreed that "the butler did it", you wouldn't farm it out to the under-stairs maid to avoid the steps, would you?
  20. Steve

    Steve Active Member

    Whilst I appreciate you are extracting the proverbial Mr Bale, knowing the Butler did it is only part of the information. Deciding in your own mind how he did it within the confines of the text make the book what it is dont they?

Share This Page