The 'Official' tMP L&SC Regional Thread

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

  1. barnybeebop

    barnybeebop Member

    correlation coefficient

    I knew I should have gone to University as this thread is now getting interesting.

    Good write up Will, seems to be more honest and accurate than most adjudicators. Not in a results factor, just in the lower sections many people must have come off stage thinking they made a right 'cock-up' of something and it doesn't get mentioned.

    I would prefer it if every minor slip, tuning problem etc. was noted, it wouldn't affect the results because it would be the same for everyone. i.e. mark the piece from a perfect score downwards, so if a Champ. section would get 190 on a 1st section test piece, then 1st section bands playing the same piece would be getting about 175 and down from there.

    At least you would know he's listening for everything and the result wouldn't just come down to nicest sound, although each band could have included, marks for interpretation and overall sound.
     
  2. GJG

    GJG Well-Known Member

    Just like to thank Peter Bale for his comments on our performance in his review of the 1st section on 4BR, especially the bit about "impressive playing from the trombone section".

    Thanks a bunch, Peter; it's taken me years to browbeat the trombones into submission, they're going to be bl**dy insufferable now !!

    :rolleyes: :wink:
     
  3. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    Ah, Sorry about that. Will post them when I get home tonight.
     
  4. stephen_clapton

    stephen_clapton New Member

    I think Will gave us (Chinnor) a very good accurate write up. On the day we could of played better, and the hall never makes it easy, but there is always next year!

    That was the one bit I couldnt play correctly all the time, so im pleased you liked it!
     
  5. Simon_Horn

    Simon_Horn Member


    I think a rather harsh adjudication!! ---> From your remarks all the the bands you are basically are saying we didn't really play the piece with 5.5 compared to some of the other scores you give for some bands that, in my view, didn't get anywhere near!

    I'll stick with Brownbill's result thanks!

    Simon
     
  6. starperformer

    starperformer Member

    What it goes to show is that correlation coefficient counts for s**t when 4 bands could play it and you put one of them 13th
     
  7. Simon_Horn

    Simon_Horn Member

    Good call star-performer! I wonder if Will the Sec will publish the remarks that his band got this time around?
     
  8. WoodenFlugel

    WoodenFlugel Moderator Staff Member

    Well, thank you for your constructive and unbiased view. May I remind you of the tMP rules - here. There is no need for that type of response or language. At least Will has the balls to post up his opinion (and lets not forget that shall we? His opinion) under his own name rather than choose to snipe at people whilst hiding behind an anonymus username.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2005
  9. starperformer

    starperformer Member

    Sorry about that - I always get overexcited when talking about statistical analysis.

    The last thing our movement needs is to encourage complete incompetents into careers in adjudication. I don't have a problem with people voicing their own opinions - but please don't try to dress them up as some kind of impartial/useful critique.
     
  10. barnybeebop

    barnybeebop Member

    Well said, I don't know Will the Sec although I have been Internet stalking him for a while. But he did say he had a go at adjudicating the 3rd section and it was an experience but I thought his comments were less vague than what ours were from the actual adjudicator.

    Less kind words used maybe, but referring to an earlier post of mine. It should be completely honest and every detail picked up, every slip, tuning problem, missed entry and big splits taken into account. Add on marks for interpretation and general sound and everyone, winners through to losers would know that they didn't get away with certain things and exactly what they need to work on for next time.
     
  11. WoodenFlugel

    WoodenFlugel Moderator Staff Member

    I agree, but unless I'm missing something Will has never stated that he is about to become an adjudicator, and to call him a "complete incompetent" is extremely harsh, unfair and downright rude again I point you to the tMP rules. I would guess he posted his thoughts as an interesting comparison / contrast to your adjudicators comments - nothing more. At the end of the day the only person who's opinion really counted for anything was your adjudicators.

    Sorry, but again I'm missing the part where Will says "bands must listen to my comments and act accordingly", and I have to say that Will or the tMP team have never stated or implied that these opinions were anything more than that - opinions.

    If you'd care to look around some of the other "area" threads you will see several other tMPer's have made similar posts. Those posts have been largely met with mature, well thought-out replies - whether those replies are in agreement with the initial comments or not. Please feel free to make a mature and balanced judgement on Will's comments - as almost everone else here has done - but any further posts of the nature of your first attempt will be removed from this thread.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2005
  12. IYOUNG

    IYOUNG Member

    I wasn't going to bother anymore with this as its becoming a tedious thread butl lets put it another way......

    I enjoy tmp but would ask the mods to seriously re-consider whether the introduction this year of these so called ''alternative'' adjudications are in anyway helpful and constructive to the debate.

    Will the Sec is in this case of course entitled to his opinion. But what it isn't is a correct one, that belongs to Malcolm Brownbill and I for one think its about time we stuck with that.


    Ian
     
  13. David Pegram

    David Pegram Member

    Wil has clearly said these are his thoughts,well done to him and others who take the time.What would we discuss if every one had to agree.
     
  14. Spanky Rear

    Spanky Rear Member

    From some reactions to W the S's efforts I get the impression that whoever was adjudicating would come in for some stick if what they had to say was 'unpalatable'.
    There's an old saying 'if you can't stand the heat don't go in the kitchen'. I get the impression that adjudicators [the real ones that is] already tone down their comments bearing in mind the sensitivities of Bands.With this in mind I think adjudicators comments should always be taken as erring on the side of diplomatic kindness.
     
  15. barnybeebop

    barnybeebop Member

    I agree that they are being diplomatic but instead of the phrase 'Cornets Insecure'. I'd prefer 'wrong notes' or 'mispitching in cornets'. Far clearer and not offensive just accurate.

    'Insecure' is vague could refer to anything from nervousness, mispitch, splits or not together and unfortunately is being used regularly.
     
  16. DublinBass

    DublinBass Supporting Member

    In my mind..."cornet's insecure" would be along the lines of a thin tone, too soft, notes not spot on the beat, tone shaky perhaps? I think it is a very descriptive term.
     
  17. barnybeebop

    barnybeebop Member

    Precisely my point has been proved, the adjudicator put 'cornets not secure' when they sound in time, confident but unfortunately wrong notes are coming out.

    That's not 'not secure', it is 'not secure pitching in upper register' or 'mispitching', my pen would prefer the phrase mispitchng at it's clear what he's heard and concise.

    Keeping it real, not politically correct.
     
  18. DublinBass

    DublinBass Supporting Member

    Then adjudicators just need to make sure they use my proper definition of the term!!! :p

    Only joking...perhaps insecure is an over used phrase and does need clarifying by an adjudicator.
     
  19. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    I said at the top of the first post that I would make some observations after the brickbats had been thrown - and the first one is that the first band on was by far the hardest to adjudicate. I'd done a fair amount of preparation, and I (thought I) knew the piece reasonably well, but a few bars after Simon's stick went down, I suddenly realised that I needed to have done more.

    The process got far easier as it went on, and from band 3, I felt more confident that I could be happy with my opinion.

    Simon, after all the bands had played, other people threw in the names of bands that they felt would be close, and almost all of them said your band should have been there or thereabouts. That confirmed my worry that the bands playing numbers one and two got a raw deal in terms of my attempt at adjudicating. Given the chance to listen to your performance a second time, it is likely that the comments would be different. The whole point of me sitting through all the bands was to find out if any of the common complaints actually merit consideration - in this case, the dreaded number one draw kicked in. In retrospect, given the opinions of the vast majority of people I spoke to afterwards, I tend to agree with you - my attempt at adjudication on EMMPBCC's performance is likely flawed. That said, I saw little point in changing things many hours after the event with the benefit of hindsight and other people's views. An adjudicator's opinion isn't influenced by outside factors, so I didn't let mine be. (You'll also see that Croydon were placed markedly lower in my rankings - from number two. I also wonder if my view on their performance would have been different if I didn't know how few players they had.)

    As you rightly say, and I would heartily endorse, it is the official adjudicator's opinion who counts, not mine. You clearly impressed him, and on the back of your good result on Sunday the band should be in contention for promotion next year.

    Other things I observed -



    • It's tiring - even with the comfort break, one or two more bands would have been all I could cope with.
    • It's easier to further review bands after the last band if you can remember what jackets they played in, and if you see any familiar faces. (This applied to those marked between 6.5 and 6.9)
    • It's harder to be objective if you have seen the same conductor with a band over many years. If you can see them, do you judge them against the current test piece, or subconsciously against what you know they've been capable of in the past?
    • Do you inadvertently penalise some bands for a particular mistake, and not others? (3/8 q=q springs to mind, here - on at least two occasions, I was still writing about figure two, and couldn't honestly say if it was played as instructed on the score.)
    • How awful the hall is - some bands sounded like they had no bass end, and others like they had 20 basses and thirteen trombones.
    • It is quicker to right "SC not secure" and move on and keep listening, than to identify absolutely what the problem is. Should you focus on one particular error and perhaps miss some excellent playing or maybe a worse error in the next section as a result?
    To Ian Young - you have a point - if I do decide to judge the bands myself in future, I'll think very hard before publishin them. I did, however, clear my intent to post with the tMP team before I posted them.

    To starperformer - I'm not the best musician in the world, and I'm not the worst either. Completely incompetent, though? No. As to your comment about inviting completely incompetent people into the adjudication world, if we don't start getting people to become new adjudicators, then the contest movement will suffer, and maybe even die. Your comments will hardly encourage anybody, will they? In addition, a lot of people have called the current crop of adjudicators exactly what you have called me. In at least two cases in the last round of regionals, complainants may have had a point. If you wish to discuss any issues with me personally, I'll be at Hadleigh. You can't miss me - 6 foot 4, twenty ish stone, and I'll have a name badge on.

    To Simon, I won't publish all the comments made on Fulham's performance as the decision to do so would have to be made by all the band's members. The thrust of it, though, was that it was rushed at the start (yep!), good first movement otherwise, good march, tuning suffers in trios in intermezzo (yep!), and overall, the FFs were too loud and the intonation at that dynamic suffered. (maybe...OK, yep!) Any of these points might have cost us second place, but although there was supposedly only one further point in it, Norfolk Wherry were said to be streets ahead. You can also read what Nigel said about my band's performance further back within this thread.

    Overall, I think this has been an eye opener, in that as many brickbats have been thrown at me as at the men whose opinions did count in other sections - but other people have been positive too. You can't please all the people all of the time, and in this case, I obviously didn't, and I doubt any "real" adjudicator has either. Personally, I can only record one instance where the band I was playing in got a better result than I expected, so this is probably about right.

    If I did offend anybody, it wasn't my intention, and I offer my apologies.

    To sum up, and to close my involvement in this thread (Happy to discuss by PM if people wish) I will say three words.

    Adjudication is difficult.
     
  20. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    :eek: .... that was almost like a confessional!
     

Share This Page