View Full Version : Box or no box......
sparkling_quavers
04.12.2002, 15:16
Should competitions use open adjudication or should we keep the box?
dave jake
04.12.2002, 15:20
Keep the box and make them sum up and give the results from insiide the box too. :wink:
Make the box open top so we can chuck stuff in it.....
McEuphie
05.12.2002, 12:48
Who would be more intimidated, the band or the adjuducator?
I have voted for keeping the box for 2 reasons:
1. I think it is less intimidating for younger players and the more nervous amongst us to think that the judge is just listening to us rather than staring us in the eye
(it also allows us to move the more technical stuff around the band, rather than having players panic and struggle - and I can hear you saying "but they'll never do it if they don't have a go" but what do you want - to take part or to win! Opinions welcome!!
2. The box should make it a more level playing field - you will still get bands who only ever play 1 test piece so could be recognised.
I played in one open adjudication contest where one of our bass players was a good friend of the judge and chatted to him before the contest started - and this in no way influenced his decision to give us the prize for best bass section! We also won best soloist (soprano) and section prize.
So keep on boxing!
sparkling_quavers
05.12.2002, 13:06
The box should make it a more level playing field - you will still get bands who only ever play 1 test piece so could be recognised!
Hmmm that is presuming the audjudicator doesn't know who the bands are when he is in the box anyway :shock: :shock:
RE: Part swopping...I agree there is a place for this but there has to be a limit. Younger players should be encouraged to take part in contesting and if they can't cope with a few bars I think it is fine if this is given to someone else. But I have played in bands where certain positions are not even given a chance. Back-row cornets etc have parts taken off them during the 2nd/3rd rehearsal on a piece. That doesn't exactly give them a change does it?? It's all about making the best of what you have got but I don't see the point of having token players in the band. If you are not going to let them play anything then why have them sitting there?
also, it is not against the rules so why would it matter if the adjudicator saw it? We all know it goes on anyway!
Now here's a thought. :idea: How about adjudication by machine. :shock:
Work colleagues and myself were trying unsuccessfully to identify a track on a collection of mp3's the other day when someone suggested ringing a phone number. We held the receiver near the speakers for about 10 seconds then a machine texted a message to us identifying the track.
If machines can do that over telephone wires and match 10 seconds of music to a database of thousands of songs, then surely it would be simple to judge a specific piece against a reference performance - or indeed one generated from the score. The box would be just that - a box of electonic trickery - totally unbiased and instant summing up. No waffle about the 2nd cornets being a little soft but an accurate '2nd cornet .327 decibels out at bar 53' 'Bb bass 6 hertz out of tune and came in .06 seconds late at bar 34.
I actually did my college thesis on something like what BH is saying.. a music database which queried via musical input rather than metadata such as composer, genre etc..
First point. It's hairy stuff...
Second.. It's going to be a lot easier to analyse a relatively simple common or garden mp3 track than a full 18+ part brass band score. Loads of reasons for this. Sheer complexity. Size, time.. An average test piece is 15 mins say. That's 900 secs. Based on my experience, given a sampling rate of 8Khz (very low) that generates an on the fly wave analysis file with almost 8million samples. In order to process this, an expensive computational transform must be performed on each set of samples, and then further computations performed on the resulting sample sets. All this drops the quality of an already existing sample. And this is only to try and identify a spectographic representation of the music.
Any analysis must then be performed on a sample which has probably lost much of the bass line (lies too low in the frequency scale) and is going to be quite complex.
Also, our ears are used to hearing certain sounds. We probably "tune out" the normal overtones which contribute to timbre, and hear a rich fundamental. A computer is going to pick up everything it can. Now, add 25 other sounds, each with their own overtones on top of a given sound, and you start to imagine the chaos that mathematically exists.
CD quality music has at least 8 times the sample rate above.. that's at least a 64 times increase in the time required, and the space required for initial analysis.
Techno-speak aside, isn't music all about creating emotion, not playing pitch perfect. To my knowledge, we're a way from music-appreciating computers just yet..
I think you have just talked yourself into the job.
I think you have just talked yourself into the job.
and in true software-development style I drop it onto the top of the massive pile of work already scheduled to do...
I actually did my college thesis on something like what BH is saying.. a music database which queried via musical input rather than metadata such as composer, genre etc..
First point. It's hairy stuff...
Second.. It's going to be a lot easier to analyse a relatively simple common or garden mp3 track than a full 18+ part brass band score. Loads of reasons for this. Sheer complexity. Size, time.. An average test piece is 15 mins say. That's 900 secs. Based on my experience, given a sampling rate of 8Khz (very low) that generates an on the fly wave analysis file with almost 8million samples. In order to process this, an expensive computational transform must be performed on each set of samples, and then further computations performed on the resulting sample sets. All this drops the quality of an already existing sample. And this is only to try and identify a spectographic representation of the music.
Any analysis must then be performed on a sample which has probably lost much of the bass line (lies too low in the frequency scale) and is going to be quite complex.
Also, our ears are used to hearing certain sounds. We probably "tune out" the normal overtones which contribute to timbre, and hear a rich fundamental. A computer is going to pick up everything it can. Now, add 25 other sounds, each with their own overtones on top of a given sound, and you start to imagine the chaos that mathematically exists.
CD quality music has at least 8 times the sample rate above.. that's at least a 64 times increase in the time required, and the space required for initial analysis.
Techno-speak aside, isn't music all about creating emotion, not playing pitch perfect. To my knowledge, we're a way from music-appreciating computers just yet.. Thank God for your last paragraph. I lost the will to live halfway through!!!!
Reminds me of that vinyl record scanning program...
The idea is that you scan in a vinyl record at high resolution, and the program can actually read the image and recreate an MP3 track from it...
Haven't tried it myself, but I believe it takes AGES to read the image.
Computers are getting faster and faster, sometime in the future, the "electronic adjudicator" WILL exist.
(I hereby copyright the terms "Adjuditron" and "Adjuditronic", as that will be how it's referred to... make cheques payable to me, etc etc... :D )
I would say we keep the box. Would there be any less moaning on a result we didn't like if the adjudicator could see us?
(I hereby copyright the terms "Adjuditron" and "Adjuditronic", as that will be how it's referred to... make cheques payable to me, etc etc... :D )
I've always sort of liked things with "-o-matic" tagged on the end of them...
Thank God for your last paragraph. I lost the will to live halfway through!!!!
Isn't techno-speak fun? ;)
The box should make it a more level playing field - you will still get bands who only ever play 1 test piece so could be recognised!
Hmmm that is presuming the audjudicator doesn't know who the bands are when he is in the box anyway :shock: :shock:
RE: Part swopping...I agree there is a place for this but there has to be a limit. Younger players should be encouraged to take part in contesting and if they can't cope with a few bars I think it is fine if this is given to someone else. But I have played in bands where certain positions are not even given a chance. Back-row cornets etc have parts taken off them during the 2nd/3rd rehearsal on a piece. That doesn't exactly give them a change does it?? It's all about making the best of what you have got but I don't see the point of having token players in the band. If you are not going to let them play anything then why have them sitting there?
also, it is not against the rules so why would it matter if the adjudicator saw it? We all know it goes on anyway! Oh dear Sparkling quavers....In National Contests " It is against the Rules " some years ago one Area Committee checked every Bands set of parts, as they came off stage, and several bands had altered their parts...Thankfully they were disqualified..If you want to CHEAT, you should pay the price...What about the Bands that don't alter parts....All Bands have the same "Test Piece" and it should be a level playing field, if you can't play a part then you should expect to lose points..If you did it in a written exam and were seen you would be disqualified, so whats the difference...And yes I know it goes on, and by top bands as well..Try looking at Corys parts when they won the National Finals last time, maybe hence no recording....But it will still occur..Brian
spookybiking
09.12.2002, 20:05
If theres more than one adjudicator they should be in seperate box (Cause im sure they are all in one box if theres more than one person)
Roger Thorne
09.12.2002, 22:50
Swapping Parts!
If it's good enough for Black Dyke (and I've seen that first hand at the National Finals) and all the other top bands, it good enough for everyone!
If Bands didn't enter contests because certain players within the band couldn't play the odd bar, I bet there wouldn't be many bands on the contesting circuit.
Swapping Parts!
If it's good enough for Black Dyke (and I've seen that first hand at the National Finals) and all the other top bands, it good enough for everyone!
If Bands didn't enter contests because certain players within the band couldn't play the odd bar, I bet there wouldn't be many bands on the contesting circuit. If a composer wrote his music in the way that he did, and the Test Piece Selection Panel in their wisdom chose it..they both did that because thats what they wanted.If the front row players ( lets say ) can't manage their part, who do you give that to..et al around the Band...Because Black Dyke do it does not make it right, or any other Band..More Power to those brave enough to perform all their own parts.
If the front row players ( lets say ) can't manage their part
More importantly, if the basses can't manage their part who're you going to give it to? :?
Roger Thorne
14.12.2002, 10:34
Frisp wrote:
More importantly, if the basses can't manage their part who're you going to give it to?
That's just a case of swapping the player! :oops:
Continuing the theme on swapping parts there is a very interesting article in this weeks British Bandsmen by Tabby Clegg on this subject.
Well worth a read.
Wonky_Baton
15.12.2002, 00:22
I believe there are 35 bands in some sections. Therefore it is obvious a human adjudicator cannot go that long without taking a leak. When there is a box he can have a leak into a bucket or chemical toilet, depending on the section/quality of contest and then blow his whistle (metrophorically speaking).
However take the box away and there is going to be a problem of protecting his modesty. There is the option of having a catheter fitted but then this would need to be removed prior to the results as the adjudicator could be accused of taking the pee. :lol:
Why can we not keep the adjudicators in the boxes on a permanent basis? It would save them the worry of ending up in intensive care courtesy of the band they placed last! They get sarnies.... cups of tea.... and the catheter idea is spot on! They could negotiate for a duvet but depending on the finances of that particular contest they may have to forefeit this...... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Di xx
(Who hopes everyone who reads this has a similar warped sense of humour!!!)
(Who hopes everyone who reads this has a similar warped sense of humour!!!)
You mean ye're not serious?
EIBB_Ray
15.01.2003, 19:06
Here's another "outside the box" idea. Why have live adjudication at all? You simply record the contest performance, ship the annonymous recordings to the adjudicators and they'll mail in the results. Now wouldn't that all be fun?
The subject is one that is encountered in all judged events; Does the identity of the performer affect (even non-intentially) the decision of the judge? Can you imagine Olympic figure skating being judged from tapes where the face of the skater is obscured by a big blue dot? I think we need to accept that anyone who's ethical will try to judge without predjudice. There cannot possibly be a perfect system, the downfalls with both approaches exist and we need to accept that any (even unintentional) unfairness is part of the game and there's always the next contest. At least you Brits have more opportunities (I think, pardon my ignorance if I assume too much). For us in the states, it's pretty much a "wait until next year" deal.
Lannerman
16.01.2003, 00:16
Answer.
Two Judges. One Box.
One in. One out.
Collate and average results (as at Masters).
Announce Placings.
Job done, everyone happy.
Or is that asking too much?
stephen2001
16.01.2003, 10:33
Definately closed adjudication!
I always think there is too much potential for a lot of bias if there is open adjudication.
I could give one example where it possibly is biased (according to friends though!) but I don't exactly want to start a war on here so I'll keep schtum!
And I would much prefer if there was 2 adjudicators for the major contests (regionals especially) so there are 2 people's interpretation of the piece merged together determining the final mark.
My 2 penneth worth anyway
WhatSharp?
23.01.2003, 08:40
If a composer wrote his music in the way that he did, and the Test Piece Selection Panel in their wisdom chose it..they both did that because thats what they wanted.If the front row players ( lets say ) can't manage their part, who do you give that to..et al around the Band...Because Black Dyke do it does not make it right, or any other Band..More Power to those brave enough to perform all their own parts.
I agree that parts should be played as the composer intended, however sometimes that is a luxury which bands cannot afford. In the lower sections and most certainly around London (where even the championship bands are struggling), finding players (of any calibre) is becoming extremely difficult, it is becoming a necessary evil to shift uncovered parts onto another instrument and to make the best with what you have. This is by far better than not competing at all.
If a composer wrote his music in the way that he did, and the Test Piece Selection Panel in their wisdom chose it..they both did that because thats what they wanted.If the front row players ( lets say ) can't manage their part, who do you give that to..et al around the Band...Because Black Dyke do it does not make it right, or any other Band..More Power to those brave enough to perform all their own parts.
I agree that parts should be played as the composer intended, however sometimes that is a luxury which bands cannot afford. In the lower sections and most certainly around London (where even the championship bands are struggling), finding players (of any calibre) is becoming extremely difficult, it is becoming a necessary evil to shift uncovered parts onto another instrument and to make the best with what you have. This is by far better than not competing at all.Then if you want to contest, enter with a smaller band..I've won prizes with bands of 19 players....and parts not played,what was played however was good in the opinion of the adjudicator, but what we didn't do was alter parts..What ever the reason for altering the printed score or parts it remains cheating, and you should therefore be penalized. If all contest organisers adhered to this we would get back to contesting under fair conditions for all bands.if this is not acceptable, don't contest..I know many very good bands who do not contest, yet still remain excellent bands.
What about bands who complain about relegation from one section to another....I can't remember hearing of a band complaining about being promoted....A friend of mine on an Area Committee, had great idea.."Put all bands in the Championship Section, that will solve the problem. Only three prizes for the contest, so cheaper to run, big entry guaranteed,a long day tho ! and a difficult task for the adjudicator,Again, bands complain if there are too many bands, The Judge cannot possibly concentrate for that long ! And how would you choose a test piece to cater for all competing bands,But there would still be bands take legal action against Area/Regional Committees, as in the UK this seems to becoming the norm, as I read, and hear of every year..I think I got out just in time!
I think the problem a lot of bands have is not the fact they are being relegated but the fact that one man is still adjudicating the most important contest of the year! Oh, and the problem that it is all based on one contest a year (surely 2 adjudicators and more contests taken into consideration would stop it being such a lottery for all bands not in the top or bottom three?) Addionally, we need *constructive and useful* remarks. Some do give them, others give a pile of absolute tripe (ie 'unbalanced' ummmm... what instruments/where exactly???)
Additionally, I *have* heard bands complain about going up a section before. The time that springs to memory was the introduction of the 1st section. Some 3rd Section bands were promoted to 1st section, and a lot of them did not do well and lost players to lower section bands!!!! There were a few who did float though, which is great news. Never did understand what the officials were doing with that (though I was probably too young to care!)
Phew! Got a bit of a rant out there! Hope I didn't offend too much! :)
WhatSharp?
23.01.2003, 10:53
Bands that complain about relegation / promotion (yes I did hear once of a band which complained about promotion, very rare I agree) should just learn to accept it. On a similar note I don't agree with this idea of bands being promoted after apealing. One particualar band I know of have been promoted twice now after complaining. If my band goes down we go down. I have had experience of this since my previous band were demoted from the first section back to second after only 1 contest and a result which we (and others) felt was unjustified. However we just put up with it, that was the result whether we agreed with it or not. But then conversely the band I currently played with was promoted after it's first year in the third section so it goes both ways.
It does seem to get blown out of proportion by the banding press, but then given how out of touch the majority of the banding press is with regard to lower sections this does not suprise me.
Putting all bands in the same section will only serve to reduce the number of bands competing. Contesting (as you know) takes a huge amount of time effort and money and if all that comes to nothing bands will not do it and you'll end up with just championship section bands, which would rapidly decline since their source of players (the "lower" sections) will become extinct. Contesting helps bands to set a standard and work to that standard, without any yardstick to measure themselves by it is very difficult to improve, concerts are all very good (and yes I enjoy them immensly) but they don't provide the same amount of work ethic that contests do (they should I know, bands should work just as hard on concert performances as they do on contesting).
Straightmute
23.01.2003, 11:38
Certainly the promotion/relegation issue seems to argue in favour of keeping the box, since I wouldn't want the adjudicator to be dealing with those things - 'if band A comes seventh or below they'll go down' etc. etc.
One thing that the box does ensure is that bands are judged on how they sound, and nothing else.
I'm always interested to hear arguments that seem to imply that '2 adjudicators are twice as correct as 1'. Some of the least comprehensible results I've heard have been managed by multiple adjudicators, whereas one man's judgement is very clear. There's always the concern that with multiple adjudicators there will be some sort of messy compromise which results in (what the majority regard as) the best performance coming second or third. The recent Masters results confirm this, but at least they are transparent and accountable, unlike at the National Finals where the two guys magically agree the same mark and are always in complete agreement all day...
D
I like Alan Morrison's idea of some sort of guidelines given to conductors beforehand of what the adjudicators are looking for.
That way at least a band knows where they will pick up or lose points.
The only worry about this is loss of interpretation - but especially in lower sections this comes second to getting it right.
Just my two pennies worth - adjudication should always be from a box. Conductors will always try tricks to help play the piece - it's part of the art of conducting a test piece.
Straightmute
23.01.2003, 13:56
[color=blue]I like Alan Morrison's idea of some sort of guidelines given to conductors beforehand of what the adjudicators are looking for.
That way at least a band knows where they will pick up or lose points.
I've spoken to Alan about this since I'm also very much in favour of adjudicators supplying us with the criteria by which they assess our performances. I'm not sure that he means guidelines specific to each piece (which would certainly adversely affect the musicality of our performing) but something more general: e.g. do they reward good tuning or penalise split notes? how important is interpretation? does a band that makes mistakes at the correct tempo beat a band that plays slower but more accurately?
D
I have been a member of the National Association of Brass Band Conductors for many years,as are the vast majority of the top adjudicators. In every area of the NABBC, they run seminars on the Area Test Pieces, these are open to all,whether members or not. They are usually fronted by a top band from that area, and a top conductor/ adjudicator.At most of them you will find the adjudicators on the contest circuit, who join in with the disscussions on the various pieces.Most of them will tell you " Play the right notes,in the correct rhythm and in tune, and certainly in Section 2 and below you are well on the way to winning a place in the top three. Very often these are the things that let bands down, and not the interpretation. Get the basics right first..
Andy Duncan
02.02.2003, 20:56
Hi all,
I seem to be swimming against the tide of opinion here, but I think the time has come for open adjudication.
It would attract more (and hopefully some very good) people to the absolutely crucial task of adjudication - Not everyone is willing to spend eight hours stuck in an old plywood cage with just a whistle and a bucket of sand for company!
It would also send a signal to the broader musical world that the brass band movement now trusts those who it chooses to act as judges to judge fairly without the need for a blindfold. Everybody knows that even inside a box the adjudicator knows from the buzz in the hall when a 'name' band is about to play. Open adjudication simply accepts this reality.
How often have you heard someone say something like this?
"I listened to every one of the top six bands today and I would never ever have placed them in that order!"
But, how often does the same person then add.
"Mind you, having said that I could see the bands, so I suppose I can't really comment!"
Look at other musical competitions. Wind band contests, countless choral competitions, Young Musician of the Year - even Pop Stars!! None of these choose to put their adjudicators inside a box.
One theory behind the idea of ‘the box’ is that a non-visual environment leads to more accurate decision making......Is this true? Has there ever been a bad result made by an adjudicator in a box?
However, the most worrying reason for using 'the box' is trust. We just can't trust certain adjudicators not to favour certain bands. As long as the present deep seated mistrust of adjudicators is prevalent there is no hope for open adjudication. So, the familiar tatty old plywood cream boxes will probably remain part of brass band contesting life for a while to come yet. Which is a pity.
Lastly, along with open adjudication should come the practice of having three independent adjudicators for the bigger contests. This is because judging a musical performance is both personal and technical. Three separate independent open adjudicators will even out the unavoidable individual musical bias of a single adjudicator.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.