The 'Official' tMP L&SC Regional Thread

Discussion in 'The Adjudicators' Comments' started by dyl, Feb 23, 2005.

  1. Flugelmahorn

    Flugelmahorn Member

    Agreed!!!! I seem to remember (if that's the right word for it!!!) spending a very very hazy night in there last September. We might not have won the contest that day but I think we won the drinking......
     
  2. MRSH

    MRSH Supporting Member

    And neither should you have to.

    Absolutely. And well said.

    The very best of luck in Harrogate.

    Cheers
     
  3. IYOUNG

    IYOUNG Member

    Hi Derek

    Sally says well done!!!!! Marvellous

    Ian
     
  4. Flugelmahorn

    Flugelmahorn Member

    It seems reasonable enough for all areas to have 2 adjudicators as Scotland and Yorkshire currently adopt that policy.

    However it can't always guarantee a favourable result. The first year it was tried out in Scotland (pioneers that we are) my band finished one from last and was promptly relegated.....! Sure that was a bitter pill to swallow but we came back fighting and made history in the process.

    But yes, it does matter where every band finishes. Everyone cares what result they get at the areas, so adopting a uniform policy on the number of adjudicators across all regions and all sections seems sensible and logical.
     
  5. Warmanns

    Warmanns New Member

    Thanks all - I appreciate it. :D

    Derek
    Soprano Sandhurst Band
     
  6. IYOUNG

    IYOUNG Member

    Agreed that uniformity across the regions would ensure an equal starting point for adjudication purposes but as Daff Cornet eludes to it still won't gaurantee a better result for your band.

    If by having 2 the chances of a rogue result are decreased, can someone explain to me how this would occur?

    Sure you may well get 2 differing views in the box but which one is correct?

    If the views are similar you get a result just like you do with 1 - is it right well its no different to having a result from 1 judge is it.

    What is effectively being said is taht we don't trust our judge
     
  7. 5010 Hn

    5010 Hn New Member

    Surely in the days before computer discussion forums and online opinions we just used to accept the adjudicators decision, didnt we?.................!!!!

    Perhaps its become far too easy nowadays to criticise them, particularly when our own bands didnt do as well as we thought they may have done. I guess we have to blame someone else, other than looking in our own direction! ;)

    As David Read said prior to the results on Saturday Evening; "I don't like the internet! ;) "
     
  8. HBB

    HBB Active Member

    Definately.
     
  9. WhatSharp?

    WhatSharp? Active Member

    Yes because there was no other choice. To whom would we talk to or voice our opinions?. the problem is is that there isn't (or as far as I can remember in 20+ years of contesting) any consistency among the adjudicators. On guy marks based on (for example) technicals (ensambles, tuning, dynamics) another marks on Interpretation (Tempos, rhythm, etc) or some vague personal opinion of what a band should sound like, and it is (and has been) a lottery which we are supposed to grudgingly accept (this is no slur on ANY bands performance this year, I'm talking about the whole adjudication process). This happens year in and year out, yet the areas is the most important contest in the banding year!.

    I appreciate that it must be very hard to set apart all the bands in a section, but surely the adjudicators themselves would find it easier if they were given some guidlines at to what they are supposed to be looking for rather than leaving it up to each individual to decide for themselves.

    I would like to see two adjudictors, one marks on technical aspect, another marks on interpretation (though I will agree this is still subjective but I personally feel that it's too important to ignore and would otherwise result in a every band playing exactly the same). In the event of a tie the highest technical mark gets it.

    P.S. To Sandhurst and Horsham... get your bums up north and bring back some Silverware! ;) good luck to you both.
     
  10. IYOUNG

    IYOUNG Member

    I understand what you are driving at here, but where is the evidence for what you say in the first paragrapgh? There is no evidence is there its just an opinion ( in this case yours).

    Do you really think experienced adjudicators like we had at the weekend do not take all these things into account when judging?

    You mention '' some vague personal opinion on what a band should sound like''
    do you not think years of experience in both playing and listening enables you to have a good idea about a band sound?

    If you would like to see a judgement with no subjectivity then thats fine, no problem you may as well employ a machine, but employing 1 or 2 judges means you will get their opinion, the only one that counts.
     
  11. barnybeebop

    barnybeebop Member

    Who is right?

    The debate about adjucitaion continues and opinion differs but one thing seems to be consistant is the need for cosistency across the regions. i.e. 1 or 2 adjudicators being the same.

    As we left the stage I heard organisers talking about the wind problem (not personal wind) but the draft affecting people. I said "Don't sort it now, it'll be the same for everybody then" Cosistency!!

    Heaven forbid, they may have even considered turning the lights on. Does anybody know Stevenage organisers to ask if we need stand lights and pegs next year.

    Our trombonist last night had the best part of 50 pegs on her stand when she turned up for rehearsal. Cracking.
     
  12. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    At the risk of having things thrown at me...

    I sat through all 17 Tams in the L&SC third section on Saturday, and tried to adjudicate on the section.

    It was an experience.

    I'll first post my typed up comments, and then throw in a few observations after any brickbats have died down...


    ***********************************************

    Name Enfield Motor Museum & Potters Bar Contest Band - S Jones

    Draw 1 White Shirts

    Start: OK but tempo is sedate

    Figure 1 Minor slips in Trom trio

    Animato Nice sound but not together

    Figure 2 Accel not together

    Figure 3 The 3/8 transition didn’t flow

    Allegro was not appreciably quicker

    Tuning into 4 suffers

    Figure 4

    Cornet soloist over Euph tune is not secure

    Figure 5

    Figure 6

    Figure 7 Tuning in SC - no contrast between F and P

    Figure 8 Soprano is shaky

    Basses q sq sq passage is not as defined as it should be

    Figure 9 P not quiet enough; not together

    Figure 10 Molto Allegro was too sedate.

    Figure 11 Presto No real contrast compared to earlier tempo.

    Figure 12

    Figure 13

    Figure 14 Good contrast F to MF in 12/8

    Figure 15 Di not get down to P

    Figure 16

    Piu Mosso Shaky Soprano

    Strep Troms not togther

    Figure 17

    Figure 18 to end

    A good ending

    Plus points of performance?

    A well thought out interpretation

    Negative points of performance

    Ensemble not always together; too many splits

    Overall 5.5/10

    *****
    Name Croydon Brass - A Caldon The Band in all Black

    Draw 2

    Start: Runs well

    Figure 1 Trom trio Nice sound

    Figure 2

    Accel Balance suffers in top end, cornets sound forced

    Figure 3 3/8 q=q not played as per the score.

    Figure 4

    Figure 5

    Figure 6 Bb Bass Solo OK

    Rall before Andante? Rep part forced initially, but nice thirds 2 before 7 and nice style

    Figure 7 Nice transition into 7. Good Soprano. Basses unsure.. Troms could be more prominent in the chorale

    Figure 8

    Allegro Good Soprano again

    Figure 9 Cornets not secure – why did Soprano play an octave up both times?

    Figure 10

    Molto Allegro – Soprano too loud

    Figure 11

    Presto – tuning suffers here

    Figure 12

    Tuning in Euphs and Basses suffers in the Doppio Movimento

    Figure 13 No dynamic contrast into 14

    Figure 14 Good Bass triplets before 4/4 Troms good in 12/8 before 15

    Figure 15

    Figure 16 Good Euph.

    Piu Mosso sq sq c doesn’t work

    Strep was good.

    Problems with producing the flutter.

    Good Soprano 6 before poco lento

    Figure 17

    Poco Lento – Flugel and Euph playing baritone were shaky

    Figure 18 Shaky into 18

    Plus points of performance? That you competed at all. Some incredible work given the lack of numbers and a well thought out interpretation

    Negative points of performance

    Too many (unavoidable) cues made playing very hard work for the principals, and the band tired towards the end.

    Overall – 4/10

    ******

    Name Hangleton - J Williams Dark Blue Jackets

    Draw 3

    Start:

    Cornets Good - Tuning suffers in Troms dsqs in low band suffers, as does tuning in mid band

    Figure 1 Trom trio Tuning suffers

    Animato no different in style

    Figure 2 Nice Euph

    Accel Spilts spoil

    Figure 3 3/8 q=q played correctly as per score

    Allegro - sounded like wrong notes in Soprano?

    Con Moto: In Euph counter melody, no accents evident

    Figure 4

    Cornet soloist over Euph tune – nice trill

    Basses at A Tempo are stodgy

    Con Moto – seems too quick

    Figure 5 I didn’t like the style of this section

    Figure 6

    Trom semi quavers didn’t sound at all.

    Solos into Poco Meno Mosso Good gliss in Troms.

    There was a Rall before Andante. Nice sound into 7

    Figure 7 SC not secure

    Figure 8 Nice dynamics on Cornet section

    Animando – Nice restrained Soprano

    Allegro – Is Controlled

    Basses not rhythmic at q sq sq pattern

    No FF at 1st Time Bar

    Figure 9 Accel – not together

    No dynamic contrast at Animando

    Figure 10

    Figure 11 Flows Nicely

    Figure 12

    Doppio Movimento is Stodgy

    Nice Cornet Solo into 13

    Figure 13

    Figure 14 Not convincing. Bottom end not together. Could have had more trombones here.

    Dotted cs cut too short

    Figure 15 Nice Muted Cornets

    Figure 16 Baritones and Euphs are not quite together in 12/8 runs.

    Strep runs well, but the last note in the trombones spoils it

    Tuning in basses into 17 suffers

    Figure 17 More definition needed in q sqsqsqsq qqq sequence

    Figure 18 to end Trom does well

    Plus points of performance? Some nice ensemble playing and solo work

    Negative points of performance Lacked pizzaz and definition in places. I would have liked more attention to detail

    Overall 5/10

    *********

    Name Hilgay Silver - A Clarke

    Draw 4 Scarlet jackets

    Start: A little quick

    Figure 1 A quick tempo here – how fast will it get later?

    Figure 2 Euph splits first note,

    Good ensemble

    Figure 3 - 3/8 q=q not convincing

    Con Moto? SC is safe rather than lyrical Soprano not secure

    Figure 4

    Intonation problems in Cornet soloist over Euph tune?

    Figure 5

    L’istesso tempo SC sounds forced. Nice Bass line. Some tuning issues in the section

    Figure 6

    Trom semi quavers did noit come through

    Bb Bass Solo is not secure, but is drowned out by the band.

    Figure 7

    Nice ensemble, but intonation problems present.

    No contrast for F to P

    Figure 8 Soprano is great 2nd time!

    Tuning in band suffers 2nd time

    Eb Bass sq run is drowned out.

    Basses q sq sq figure is crushed rather than timed.

    Not together into 2nd time bar

    Figure 9 This is better

    Figure 10 Animato Quicker Troms wild!

    Molto Allegro is better.

    Figure 11

    Baritones do not come through on tune.

    Presto is OK, but I could take more volume here.

    Figure 12 Last quavers into 2/4 not secure

    Allegro Agitato Nice SC

    Figure 13

    Figure 14 Cornets qr q q figure over main theme is not clear.

    Figure 15

    The gradual Crescendo could have beem better sustained. Solo cornets answering phrase could have been more precise.

    Figure 16

    Strep – duplets could be tighter

    Basses into 17 are stodgy

    Figure 17 Recap flows nicely

    Poco Lento – Too quick – Nice plaintive baritone, though. Accompaniment is too loud here.

    Figure 18 to end Ending is Allegro Subito, not Andante.

    Plus points of performance

    Some excellent Soprano, and some good ensemble playing

    Negative points of performance

    Some intonation problems. Tempos might have been better considered. Q=96 must be different from q=anything else.

    Overall 6.7/10

    *********

    Name Jersey Premier Brass - G Saynor

    Draw 5 Navy Red Lapels

    Start: Good

    Figure 1 Trom trio is nice

    Figure 2 Euph shines here

    Figure 3

    3/8 q=q is correctly played.

    Cornet Soloist over the Euph Solo is well played, if a little dry

    Figure 4 SC shines

    Basses at A Tempo are nicely controlled

    Figure 5 Lovely playing and execution before L’istesso Tempo

    Figure 6

    Bass Trombone solo has intonation problems. Bb Bass Solo is good.

    Nice SCs riposte before 7, if dragged back too much for my liking.

    Figure 7 Lovely SC and Flugel here

    Figure 8 Good transition – into Allegro

    Trom gliss is over done 10 into Allegro

    Basses are good in the q sq sq figures.

    Figure 9 Accel into Molto allegro is not together

    Figure 10 Molto Allegro Good ensemble

    Figure 11 Accel – not quite together to

    Figure 12 I’m not convinced by the transition into the 12/8

    Figure 13

    Figure 14 Basses triplets into are well played. Snare plays well under this.

    Figure 15

    Figure 16

    Figure 17 Flows well.

    Poco Lento – Tuning suffers in Flugel – Baritone is a little shaky

    Figure 18 to end Trom style could have been better

    No Allegro Subito at the end.

    Plus points of performance

    Solo cornet stars throughout.

    Warm sounds throughout the band

    Good dynamic contrast

    Negative points of performance

    Few – ensemble not together on a couple of occasions

    Beat that…

    Overall 9/10

    ***********

    Name Grimsdyke Brass - S Broughall

    Draw 6

    Start:

    Figure 1 Trom trio not convincing

    Animato Cornets were too relaxed here; no contrast in tempo or style

    Figure 2 Nice Full Euph sound.

    Accel was too sedate

    Figure 3

    3/8 q=q not played as instructed on the score

    Allegro Soprano not secure; trill didn’t sound right

    Not tight into figure 4

    Figure 4 Nice SC

    Basses at A Tempo not secure

    Figure 5

    L’istesso tempo - Not convincing in the ensemble

    Figure 6

    Why did you Rall before Andante?

    Figure 7 Flows well, nice sound.

    Nice Basses, but tuning issues in Euphs.

    Figure 8 < > is forced

    Animando –articulation is not convincing

    Snare not secure 2nd time

    Nice solo horn P entry 9th bar

    Figure 9 Accel was too loud

    Figure 10 Molto Allegro could have been quicker

    Figure 11 Presto is not together

    Figure 12 Troms could have been better controlled, but they did play the dynamic.

    Allegro Agitato – Nice basses

    Figure 13 Flows well

    Figure 14 Cornets over main theme do not convince

    Too much Euph into 4/4

    Figure 15 triplets rushed by Cornets bar 2 and 4

    Soli cornets answering phrase is not balanced, but gets better towards 16

    Figure 16 Soprano not secure into Piu Mosso

    Strep is good

    I didn’t enjoy the flutter sound.

    Figure 17 Flows well on recap but Soprano trill is inaudible.

    Poco Lento – Flugel and Baritone have tuning issues

    Figure 18 to end Nice Trom

    Plus points of performance?

    Some good ensemble in places, and Bass section work was enjoyable.

    Negative points of performance

    A lot of splits and I could not pick out differences between Animandos and Accels. Tempi might have been better considered in relation to one another.

    Overall 6.6/10

    **********

    Name Stantonbury Brass - J Jenkin

    Draw 8 Red jackets

    Start:

    Intonation problems in Troms entry

    Cornets not secure before flutter notes.

    Figure 1 Again, intonation problems in Trom trio

    Figure 2 2 Nice Euph, flows well.

    Figure 3

    3/8 q=q Correctly played as per the score

    Allegro – tuning problems here.

    Con Moto SC – Tone could be brighter here – then does brighten

    Figure 4 Euph is nice but rushes; Nice Sc over Euph tune.

    Figure 5 Soprano is drowned out

    L’istesso tempo – Cornets rush

    Tuning suffers in Sc and Soprano into 6

    Figure 6

    Bass Trombone not secure

    Bb Bass Solo is well played and styled, but the Abs are badly out of tune.

    Figure 7 Tuning suffers in mid band

    No dynamic contrast from Flugel to SC (bars 3,4,6,:cool: Horns sound comes through, but tuning suffers. Overall this is too loud.

    Figure 8

    Soprano is better second time

    Bass q sq sq figure is crushed

    Untidy into 9

    Figure 9

    Figure 10 Good Basses at 10.

    Figure 11

    Untidy through Martellato, but troms sound good here.

    Figure 12

    Doppio Movimento Good Basses

    Allegro Agitato Euph rhythm does not sound correctly.

    Figure 13

    Figure 14

    not balanced as Bass end overpowers Cnts

    Figure 15

    Piu Agitato is untidy

    Figure 16

    Untidy SCs.

    Good Soprano into Piu Mosso

    Strep Troms are untidy

    Flutters are not secure, nor are Basses into 17

    Figure 17

    Poco Lento –Baritone plays well, spaces triplets nicely, but is overpowered by Flugel in the duet.

    Figure 18 to end. Nice Trom Solo, and excellent Crescendo 5 bars out

    Plus points of performance?

    Enjoyable Performance. Euph has a lovely tone, and Basses did well in places too.

    Negative points of performance

    Bass end (up to Baritones) tended to overpower top end at times; some untidy work.

    Overall, 6.9/10

    *********

    Name Bradwell Silver K Durbin

    Draw 9

    Start:

    Good start to Bass entry. Cornets then not secure

    Figure 1 Trom trio has nice style

    Euph picks up nicley

    Figure 2 Nice ensemble after Euph, but the cymbal is too much

    Figure 3

    3/8 q=q not secure

    Allegro Soprano not secure on solo

    SC solist’s style is a little dry; nice articulation. Horns not secure 2 before 4

    Figure 4

    Cornet soloist over Euph tune – 1st note not secure

    Figure 5 L’istesso tempo is quicker

    Nice descending Cnt sqs into 6

    Figure 6 Nice Solo Trombone

    Bb Bass Solo OK, but tuning problem on Ab

    Andante Too much Euph here.

    Figure 7 Soloists d not get down to P when required. Intonation problems here. Basses do not accent enough 2 before 8.

    Figure 8

    Animando is too quick

    Allegro – no contrast in tempo here

    Soprano is unlucky – better the 2nd time. Bass runs are OK.

    Figure 9 Cnts not secure in sq sq q q bar 2 and 4

    Figure 10 Flows well

    Figure 11

    Presto Whip crack is not in time.

    Figure 12 No FFF in bar 5.

    Doppio Movimento – basses and Euphs/baris not together

    Figure 13

    Figure 14 Cornets over main theme do not come through

    Bass triplet runs do not come through on either occasion

    Figure 15

    Solo cornets answering phrase is not secure, but better 2nd time

    Rep and 2nd not secure into 16.

    Figure 16

    Piu Mosso sq sq c not secure

    Strep is OK, nice Bass Drum!

    The bass tone suffers into the recap

    Figure 17 Poco Lento – Flugel too bright in the circumstances and Baritone has tuning problems

    Figure 18 to end Tuning suffers on last note.

    Plus points of performance?

    Some fine ensemble playing, and the band seemed to enjoy being on stage.

    Negative points of performance

    A few balance problems and some rhythmic passages were insecure, the sq sq q in the 12/8 especially.

    Overall 6/10

    *********

    Name Chinnor Silver - D Pegram

    Draw Black and Gold

    Start:

    Intonation problems in Troms

    Basses are heavy, but it works and the overall effect is good.

    Figure 1 Trom trio Nice style, but some intonation problems

    Figure 2 Flows well.

    Horns play well in small ensemble.

    Figure 3

    3/8 q=q is not played as on instructed on the score

    Soprano almost makes it.

    SC plays fluently, but the tone is a little dry here

    Figure 4

    Euph shines here, SC trill is lovely.

    Basses at A Tempo are beautifully controlled and P

    Figure 5 Soprano is well defined here.

    L’istesso tempo? SC does well.

    Figure 6 Good dynamic contrast here.

    Bb Bass Solo does well, bar the low “D” being out of tune. Could have milked it more, though.

    Figure 7 Nice serene feel to this section.

    Tuning suffers here in Euphs (A#) and in solo parts in upper band(5 bars in and beyond)

    Figure 8 Euphs tuning again.

    Allegro was a little conservative but it was well played.

    Eb Bass sq run is there but could have come through more

    Good Basses in q sq sq passage.

    Figure 9 SC top As not always secure

    Figure 10 Percussion drags here

    Figure 11

    Baritones and Euphs join the cornets well here

    Accel is well executed by the band.

    Figure 12 Well done Troms.

    Triplets 6 bars into 12 could be better defined

    Allegro Agitato Euph splits – shame – well played otherwise. Good SC answer to this phrase

    Figure 13

    Figure 14

    Figure 15 Piu F is conservative in its volume, but well played.

    Rep/Flugel/2nd and Baris shine into 16

    Figure 16 Soprano rushes a little.

    Strep Tuning in Troms

    Good Bass transition into 17

    Figure 17

    Poco Lento Baritone is not quite secure to start with – could give more time to triplets

    Figure 18 to end. Nice Trom Solo – Very Nice Cresc, tuning on last note.

    Plus points of performance?

    Good overall performance; Good interpretation by MD. This was an exciting performance, depicting the story well. Band seemed to enjoy it.

    Negative points of performance

    The band seemed to tire towards the end; opening could have been tighter.

    Overall 8.5/10



    continued....../
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2005
  13. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    And more...

    Name Hungerford Town - T Crouter

    Draw 11 Black and Gold

    Start: Sedate tempo

    Troms entry is wild. Harsh accents, harsh sounding flutter as well

    Figure 1 Trom trio Tuning problems and not secure

    Figure 2 Cymbal is too loud

    Figure 3

    3/8 q=q not played as noted on the score

    Allegro – sop nearly makes it.

    Con Moto SC tone could be warmer.

    Figure 4 Well done SC

    Tuning suffers in the lower band

    Figure 5 Well done Soprano

    L’istesso tempo Intonation problems in Euphs. Rep/Flugel and 2nd Cnt not secure

    Figure 6

    Solos into Poco Meno Mosso, wrong notes in Bass Trombone; Bb Bass Solo is excellent

    Figure 7 Very serene feel, but intonation problems in Sc and Flugel

    Figure 8 No contrast F bar 1 to P bar 3.

    Allegro Good solo horn.

    Basses not secure towards 1st time bar

    Soprano improves 2nd time through

    Figure 9 is not fluent

    Figure 10 Nice pick up into Molto Allegro, but some odd notes appear before 11

    Figure 11

    I didn’t like the whip crack played on a wood block.

    Figure 12 Did not reach FFF when required.

    Allegro Agitato not together

    Figure 13

    Figure 14 Cornets cannot be heard over the main theme

    Basses triplets into 4/4 are fluent, but there are tuning issues.

    No separation in q qr sq figure in bass end.

    Figure 15 Piu F doesn’t mean P

    Cornets scrappy bar before 16

    Figure 16

    Piu Mosso is nice

    Strep – scrappy troms.

    PP flutter figure is great!

    Figure 17 Tempo seems different on recap.

    Poco Lento –Baritone triplets could be better spaced in baritone part; intonation problems occur here as well as wrong notes.

    Figure 18 to end Good Trom solo, good finish

    Plus points of performance

    Some good individual playing, especially the Bb Bass.

    Negative points of performance

    relationship between tempos could have been better; intonation problems common. Troms could be more subtle.

    Overall 6.5/10

    **************

    Name Woodbridge Excelsior - E Howells Red Jackets, Percussion outside right

    Draw 12

    Start: Too fast!

    Timps behind the band

    Figure 1 Tempo waivered at times

    Figure 2 Moves along nicely, but cymbal overpowers

    Figure 3 SC, Soprano not secure Nice horn riposte before 4

    Figure 4 Cornet soloist over Euph tune not secure

    Con Moto Percussion is not with the band – Tuning in cornets is poor.

    Figure 5 Not together

    L’istesso tempo Tuning in cornets again

    Figure 6 Euph Solo into Poco Meno Mosso not secure , Bb Bass Solo is too staccato – Ab badly out of tune, overall not secure

    Figure 7 A bit quick

    Figure 8 Use of crash cymbal again spoils overpowers the band

    Animando not together

    Allegro – not together

    Eb Bass tuning on D after sqs suffers second time

    Basses – q sq sq pattern is not defined well enough

    Figure 9 Cornets not together. Nice dynamic contrast in 2nd repeated section

    Figure 10

    Figure 11

    Figure 12 Dynamic didn’t reach FFF

    Allegro Agitato not together – solos not secure

    Figure 13

    Figure 14

    Cornets over main theme Not balanced

    Basses triplets into 4/4 not together

    Untidy back row under muted cornets soli; not secure into 16

    Figure 16

    Strep - Not secure - great bass drum before piu lento!

    Figure 17 Poor – not together tuning a big problem here.

    Poco Lento –Too quick, baritone shines bar small intonation problems

    Figure 18 to end Tuning in Trombone part – Triplets not defined

    Plus points of performance?

    FFF execution of the bass drum!

    The band enjoyed themselves, despite the problems.

    Negative points of performance

    The tempos were far too quick for the band to play comfortably Choice of clash cymbal was unwise, as it was overpowering when used. Ensemble work was too loose in many places.

    Overall 4.5/10

    ************
    [font=&quot]
    [/font] Name Hitchin - M Hurrell Navy Blue;

    Draw13

    Start:

    Premature Trom entry spoils. A very sedate tempo

    Figure 1 Nice trom trio

    Animato Cornets rush a little

    Figure 2 Nice ensemble

    Figure 3

    3/8 q=q – not played as directed on the score

    Allegro Well done Soprano

    Con Moto SC and Euph have tuning problems

    Figure 4

    Cornet soloist rushes triplet sqs

    Con Moto is very steady – perhaps as slow as 120?

    Figure 5 L’istesso tempo is quicker than the previous section

    Figure 6 Repiano – tuning on descending Dim 5th

    Nice SC Soli 2 before seven

    Figure 7 Flugel sounds a bit forced. Where are Troms – everything else should complement the trom theme here. Euphs are too loud

    Figure 8 Soprano shines

    Animando No contrast from F (bar 1) to P (bar 3)

    Eb Bass nice run of sq but top D is #

    Playing is untidy into 9

    Figure 9 Too much gliss from Torms

    Figure 10 Nice Basses

    Molto Allegro Far too sedate

    Figure 11

    Where is the FFF at the martellato?

    Presto? Again, the tempo is sedate, but this is a very nice sound.

    Figure 12 Allegro Agitato well handled for 4 bars then waivers.

    Figure 13

    Figure 14

    Cornets over main theme are lost – band is not balanced.

    Figure 15 Good Basses

    No tempo change at piu agitato. As this has a MM marking, the change has to happen

    Figure 16

    Flugel and Soprano not secure

    Strep – tuning suffers in Troms; block chord not together before piu lento; basses not together

    Figure 17 Poco Lento Stately rather than the plaintive tones I would have liked – Tuning in Flugel and Baritone. Baritone rushes triplets.

    Figure 18 to end: Tuning in Trom – Sedate end omits Allegro Subito

    Plus points of performance?

    A nice rounded performance with a few blips. The slower tempos meant some sections were easier to play.

    Negative points of performance

    Whilst well played, the slower tempi made the piece lack urgency and excitement, and this has cost you in terms of points awarded.

    Overall, 7.5/10

    ********************

    Name Hemel Hempstead - G Weeks Dark Blue

    Draw 14

    Start:

    Troms Untidy

    Not together before the flutter

    Figure 1 Weak trio

    Animato Percussion not in time

    Figure 2 Cymbal sounds ick! Accel Moves on well

    Figure 3

    3/8 is q=q not played correctly

    Allegro Untidy

    Con Moto Nice SC – but tuning suffers in ensemble

    Figure 4

    Cornet soloist over Euph tune is not secure

    Basses at A Tempo - Not together in quintuplets

    Con Moto – Percussion is not with the band

    Figure 5 Very untidy

    Figure 6 Tuning Bass Trom; Tuning on Bb Bass, especially the Ab and bottom D

    Figure 7 Pleasant enough chorale effect, but troms could come through more

    Figure 8 Good soprano

    Eb Bass good, but top D out of tune

    Basses not controlled on q/sq pattern before the repeat.

    Figure 9

    Not secure

    Figure 10 Tuning in Basses

    Figure 11 Untidy

    Presto In the circumstances, too quick

    Figure 12 Troms FFF but wild.

    Allegro Agitato – Not together

    Figure 13 Not enough dynamic contrast

    Figure 14 Well balanced

    Figure 15 Untidy

    Figure 16 Soprano + Flugel Tuning

    Good Soprano trill

    Tuning in troms

    Figure 17 Not together on recap.

    Percussion out of synch with the band

    Poco Lento – Well done Flugel – Baritone attempt is good in style, but tunning suffers, and band over powers them

    Figure 18 to end

    Plus points of performance?

    Despite a few problems, a good effort by a solitary percussionist

    Soprano played well

    Negative points of performance

    Ensemble playing was weak and needs work.

    Some balance issues to consider and the choice of cymbal worries me.

    Overall 3/10

    *************

    Name Jubilee Brass (Oxford) - K Membury Red jackets

    Draw 15

    Troms –tuning poor

    Basses/Euphs Not together

    Figure 1 Trom trio not secure

    Figure 2 Nice Euph

    Accel – there was an uncontrolled crescendo here

    Figure 3

    3/8 q=q not played as written on the score

    Allegro Soprano notes secure

    Figure 4 SC Nice, but the q – triplet sqs not played correctly

    Con Moto –Accents too heavy

    Figure 5 Some nice snare work in this section

    Figure 6

    Trom semi quavers didn’t come through

    Bb Bass Solo 1st entry late, and sequence not played in time

    Rall before Andante?

    Figure 7

    Nice chorale effect but a few tuning problems

    Figure 8 Soprano better second time

    Animando not together

    Allegro – sop not secure

    Raucous into 1st time bar and 2nd time bar

    Figure 9 Forte answers are too heavy

    Figure 10 Moves along well, but tuning issues in the lower band

    Figure 11

    Baritones could have been louder – didn’t come through

    Presto – could have been quicker

    Figure 12

    Doppio Movimento - Unitdy

    Allegro Agitato – Nice Euph

    Figure 13 Not enough dynamic contrast

    Figure 14 Balance problems – 4/4 was not together

    Figure 15 Solo cornets answering phrase is well controlled, but better articulation is needed in the euph part.

    Figure 16

    Strep Tuning in troms suffers – Flutter not controlled

    Nice bass drum! Tuning in basses

    Figure 17 Poco Lento – Lovely Flugel but Baritone sounded too nervous

    Figure 18 Weak run into 18

    Trom solo good

    Plus points of performance

    Good work by the (only) two basses. Percussion discrete and SC nice in places. Nice Chorale around 7

    Negative points of performance

    Articulation needs work

    Ensemble needs to be more relaxed

    Overall 4/10

    **************

    Name Great Yarmouth - S Philpot

    Draw 16

    Start:

    Tuning in Flugel

    Figure 1 Bass Trom tuning suffers in trio

    Animato moves nicely

    Figure 2

    Figure 3

    3/8 q=q not played as per the score and is not together

    Allegro Soprano not secure

    Con Moto Band Drowns out SC and Euph

    Figure 4 q and triplet sqs not correctly timed, and trill is not secure

    Nice Basses at A Tempo

    Figure 5 L’istesso tempo is not together

    Figure 6 Nice ensemble, but embellishments not secure

    Solos into Poco Meno Mosso , Nice “Bass Trombone”; very mellow Bb Bass Solo

    Andante is very serene.

    Figure 7

    Can’t hear Trom chorale

    Flugel Solo not secure , and intonation problems occur throughout this section.

    Figure 8 Well done Soprano - very sweet in bar 3.

    Nice Eb Bass run is spoiled by an out of tune top D

    Basses crush q sq sq figure.

    Figure 9 not P

    Figure 10 Trom intonation problems

    Figure 11

    Back Row not together

    Martellato is good

    Figure 12 Troms wild!

    Doppio Movimento is not under control

    Allegro Agitato band is not together

    Figure 13

    Figure 14 is well balanced

    Figure 15 Basses are behind on triplet q figures

    Euphs not together

    Figure 16 Can’t hear Euphs and baris triplet q undertone

    Strep tuning and pitching of notes is a problem here.

    Where is the flutter? Doesn’t come through

    Figure 17 Recap is not together

    Poco Lento – Bold Flugel, but the odd tuning problem; Baritone rushes triplet qs

    A chord is either too quiet or missing 2 before 18.

    Figure 18 to end No Allegro Subito

    Plus points of performance

    Did well to cover absence of a Bass Trombone; Lovely Bb Bass Solo

    Negative points of performance

    A lot of tuning issues

    Overall 6.8/10

    **********

    Name St Sebastian Wokingham - D Richards

    Draw 17

    Start:

    Very heavy style at the start… but it worked.

    Figure 1

    Figure 2 Troms too heavy here.

    Nice Swell at Accel

    Ensemble moves well at Animato

    Figure 3

    3/8 q=q not played as per the direction on the score.



    Allegro – well done Soprano

    Cornet Soloist does very well bar one split; lovely warm tone.

    Figure 4

    Basses at A Tempo do well.

    Con Moto moves well.

    Figure 5

    Figure 6 Trom solo Slips up here –shame.

    Bb Bass Solo has some tuning issues.

    Nice transition into Churchyard scene.

    Well controlled SCs 2 before 7

    Figure 7 I can’t hear the Trom chorale

    Figure 8 3rd bar is too loud. No contrast from bar 1.

    Eb bass run spoiled by out of tune top D.

    Solo Horn not secure

    Bass q sq sq section is not secure

    Good 1st time bar.

    Figure 9 SCs split most top As

    Horns do well in second section

    Figure 10 Molto Allegro I would like this to be quicker – has a 4 feel to it.

    Figure 11

    Excellent Martellato

    Figure 12 Good Bass end in Doppio Movimento

    Allegro Agitato is not quite together - Nice trom accompaniment- SC solo is not secure

    Figure 13

    Figure 14 Band is not quite secure into 4/4

    Basses triplets into 4/4 – Tuning suffers in Eb upper register, but nevertheless, nicely styled

    Figure 15 Basses good again

    Figure 16 Cornets seem timid at Piu Mosso.

    Lovely clear Soprano trill

    Strep Troms tuning suffers on duplets.

    Figure 17 Good recap.

    Poco Lento – Very nice Plaintive Flugel – Baritone tends to rush triplets.

    Figure 18 to end: Allegro Subito sounded more like an Accel, but still well played.

    Plus points of performance?

    Great Interpretation by Conductor. SC has a good day. An enthralling, exciting performance at times.

    Negative points of performance

    Couple of slips at key times that cost.

    Overall 8/10

    *****************


    Name Draw Points Position
    Jersey 5 9 1
    Chinnor 10 8.5 2
    St Sebastians Wokingham 17 8 3
    Hitchin 12 7.5 4
    Epsom and Ewell Silver 7 7 5
    Stantonbury 8 6.9 6
    Great Yarmouth 16 6.8 7
    Hilgay Silver 4 6.7 8
    Grimsdyke 6 6.6 9
    Hungerford 11 6.5 10
    Bradwell Silver 9 6 11
    EMMPBCC 1 5.5 12
    Hangleton 3 5 13
    Woodbridge Excelsior 12 4.5 14
    Croydon Brass 2 4 =15
    Jubilee Brass 15 4 =15
    Hemel Hempstead 14 3 17
     
  14. DublinBass

    DublinBass Supporting Member

    Will correlation coefficient is 0.64, which is bordering on brillant (what I would give to 0.70 or above).

    (of course for the seven bands I saw I had a perfect 1.00 correlation coefficient :p ;) )

    It just goes to show you how that even when two judges statistically agree (or almost), there is so much variation.

    PJH
     
  15. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    Thank you, Pat.
    I never had any doubts.
    Now, would you mind expaining what a correlation coefficient is? :biggrin:
     
  16. dyl

    dyl Active Member

    Hehe.

    Excellent write-up Will. Cheers.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2005
  17. sparkling_quavers

    sparkling_quavers Active Member


    A correlation coefficient is a number between -1 and 1 which measures the degree to which two variables are linearly (straight-line) related. If the relationship is positive correlation then if one value has a high value then so does the other! If there is perfect positive correlation then teh value is +1, perfect negative correlation (ie one has a high value and one has a low value) would be -1. A value of 0 means no correlation between the 2 sets of data at all.

    In terms of your results that means 0.64 that means a good positive correlation between your placings and the adjudicators. A value of 1 would have meant that all your placings were the same as the guy in the box and -1 that you had got them totally opposite to him!



     
  18. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. *Bows immodestly*

    Sometimes I'm so brilliant, I astound even myself.

    (And do you know, some people actually take that statement seriously?!!?)
     
  19. djstoneham

    djstoneham New Member

    Will

    Your comments about Epsom & Ewell Silver Band (Draw 7) seem to be missing! Otherwise an excellent post.
     
  20. DublinBass

    DublinBass Supporting Member

    Well done Sparkly...let me also add that in addition it is an expression of randomness (had to get that in there for the tMPers)...in this case 0.64^2 ~ 0.45 or 45% of the variance in their predictions is explained by how the bands played, while 55% is still random interference. While that may seem like a lot, in statistical terms it is still quite good.
     

Share This Page