Would your band pay £150 pa and you £20 pa to create a budget to run UKBBA?

Discussion in 'The Adjudicators' Comments' started by TheMusicMan, Apr 22, 2011.


Would your band pay £150 pa and you £20 pa to create a budget to run UKBBA?

  1. Yes

    39 vote(s)
  2. No

    50 vote(s)
  3. I'd be prepared to pay less

    16 vote(s)
  1. TheMusicMan

    TheMusicMan tMP Founder Staff Member

    This is a poll that superscedes the previous similar poll as several people had voted before we corrected the text - which would have meant people might have voted differently.
  2. Kinrao

    Kinrao Member

    Creating a budget is the only way that the UKBBA will work, it's a great idea but it needs working capital.
  3. tubafran

    tubafran Active Member

    have voted but with the proviso that they offer exactly what was summarised in the Norwegian system
  4. eflatbass

    eflatbass Supporting Member

    Just a quick reminder of the figures. Assuming 500* bands, each with 24 members, and paying as per the poll, i.e. £150 per band and £20 per band member = £315,000 pa total.

    It means that each band, including members, would be paying £630.00 pa. That's just a fraction over 50p per week per band member.

    A small price to pay in order to create quite a useful amount of capital, don't you think?

    500* is the approximate number of contesting bands. There were actually 477 participating at this year's regional contests.
  5. Paddy Flower

    Paddy Flower Active Member

    When you add in other active UK contesting bands (i.e. British bands that have competed in the last 12 months) that number rises to 556. I think you could add another 100 or so non-contesting (but highly active) bands too.

    That would give a budget of around £413k. Surely something highly worthwhile could be achieved with this.

    I have a question though, didn't the EBBA -or a similar body- advertise for and then employ a full-time officer who's remit was lobbying and general promotion of the brass band movement (or did I just dream that?).
    Done last year sometime as I recall, what has come of that appointment?
  6. Blossom

    Blossom Member

    BFBB appointed Philip Watson, Development Officer in May 2005 and Terry Luddington, Liaison Officer appointed last year. I think funded by Arts Council money or Lottery funding.

    Is it questionable what impact they are having in developing BFBB when number of member bands seems to be in continual decline.
  7. Bayerd

    Bayerd Active Member

    I voted no, as in I wouldn't pay my £20. Whether the band would pay the £150 I don't know. I presume it'd go to a vote, if the band voted in favour I'm sure it'd be paid out of the main account.
  8. Anno Draconis

    Anno Draconis Well-Known Member

    I'd pay £20 personally, but I can't speak for the band. Given that we've just decided NOT to remain members of the BFBB on the grounds that, as far as we can see, we get cock-all out of it, I'd expect there to be considerable opposition to signing up to fund yet another talking shop. And there's the difficulty. Bands are, quite rightly, very unlikely to part with their hard-earned until they see something concrete being achieved, but without a decent pot of money to start with very little of consequence will be achieved.

    I haven't voted, because there isn't an "I would but the band most likely wouldn't" option...
  9. Forest Gump

    Forest Gump Member

    I voted no, i can't see any great benefit to a non-contesting bands.
  10. Pauli Walnuts

    Pauli Walnuts Moderator Staff Member

    I think that figure is well short - I haven't counted them all but a quick look at IBEW suggests a figure nearer to 1000 bands in the UK - suggesting then that the % who contest isn't the massive majority.
    Perhaps Gavin (assuming he still runs it!) could confirm how many bands are in his list?
  11. IanHeard

    IanHeard Member

    I voted no also, there is no need for UK body.
  12. eflatbass

    eflatbass Supporting Member

    I wonder if the voting is being influenced by the inclusion of UKBBA in the poll. In other words, if the capital raised were to be placed at the disposal of a different “authority”, whether existing or otherwise, would it make any difference to the way in which you have voted?

    This an open question in an attempt to determine whether people are voting “NO” because of the implied connection with UKBBA, or simply because they would not be prepared to participate in any additional fund raising exercise.
  13. Bayerd

    Bayerd Active Member

    For me it'd be no either way, but only because I'm not at a stage in life where I can be philanthropic.
  14. IanHeard

    IanHeard Member

    Excellant post,
    I fail to see why a Scot bander for instance would feel the need to prop up financially a new UK wide body, when from this end of the UK at least the SBBA seem to have everthing covered.
    The more I hear and read about this the more uncomfortable I feel.
  15. $hytalk

    $hytalk Member

    1225 bands listed on IBEW - 61 of these are SA and 30 have inactive websites, so they may have gone to the wall. That leaves 1135 bands. Contesting bands are in the minority. How are all these bands getting on without contesting or associations or governing bodies? Or are they?
  16. simonbassbone

    simonbassbone Member

    What does anyone expect the UKBBA or any other organisation to achieve?
    In my experience most bands operate in their own local bubble (like local wind bands, choirs and orchestras do).
  17. $hytalk

    $hytalk Member

    Hi Paddy - take the link and you'll get some answers.http://mad4bb.ning.com/
  18. leahcim_brass

    leahcim_brass New Member

    everywhere where there is a proper organisational body in the country (Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands...) bands (wind and brass!) are still flourishing and new youth projects, cross-over projects etc. are created every year.

    but in these countries, bands and players pay for it, especially in lower sections and non-competing bands.

    following the discussions in this thread - as a foreigner - i get the impression that many bands and players are moaning about the problems, but do not seem to be ready to do something against them. And I fear that this is only possible with even stronger private committment of every single player, financial committment included.
  19. fartycat

    fartycat Member

    Making Music (used to be called National Federation of Music Societies) charges £57 membership and we as a band get substantial benefits from being members. Charging £150 per band is very extreme and I can't see many taking it up.
  20. Paddy Flower

    Paddy Flower Active Member

    Thanks $hytalk, great site

Share This Page