Criteria Judging

floppymute

Member
"i dont do predictions, and i never will" Kevin Keegan 1999 i think
Its a case of subjective likes and dislikes, the TRANSPARENT adjudicators would surely welcome such a move, if only to minimise the "risk" of second guessing.
But the point that's being missed in all of this is that at a fundamental level, even with a tick-box system, whether the adjudicator ticks the box, or which box, is still down to a subjective decision.
It's the nature of any art form ..you can't make it objective.
Or are we so determined to turn contesting into a sport rather than an art form?
 

hayleyb

New Member
I see why you would find it helpful for a quartet, you would need one for each movement I would imagine. Would you find it useful for if you were a band competing in the British open or championship national finals when all the bands were excellent.
How would the criteria diffentiate fodens winning instead of Black Dyke because I think it would all be in the excellent criteria and they still wouldn't know what they have done to lose the contest?

No just one sheet for one quartet, same as larger contest ..overall performance determining where they are placed and how many marks they gained.

Point system will still determine order, and in unlikely case of a draw of points at the top two, then personal choice of winner is chosen. On the points sheet there is a space to add extra written remarks, so in a case of for example the British Open with these bigger, more experienced bands then it will still indicate WHY they were placed here and cut down on the amount of 'huffs and puffs' at the results, especially for those who complain, who actually did not hear any other bands. Just because it is a bigger contest doesn't mean they are going to simply just accept an individual/s personal opinion any easier than those in lower sections or lower key contests infact I think they are much less likely.
 

MoominDave

Well-Known Member
But the point that's being missed in all of this is that at a fundamental level, even with a tick-box system, whether the adjudicator ticks the box, or which box, is still down to a subjective decision.
It's the nature of any art form ..you can't make it objective.
Or are we so determined to turn contesting into a sport rather than an art form?

The competitors always have treated it as a sport. There's a disconnect in attitude between those competing and those judging - the artists. To try to bridge that gap to some extent seems like a reasonable aim to me.

On an earlier point, it's all very well pointing out that musical fundamentals are reasonably consistent within the world of brass banding, but the problem being debated here arises when adjudicators depart from those fundamentals. To pick an example from personal experience: when David Horsfield adjudicated our areas at Stevenage 3 years ago, he stood up at the end and declared that the most important thing that he was looking for in the 2nd movement of 'Festival Music' was a continuous forward flow to the music - and, sure enough, our remarks were full of tellings off for allowing modest rubato in natural places, and our eventual placing was way lower than seemed reasonable - and indeed made the main contribution to our relegation last year after many years in the top section. Had we known he was so down on rubato in that movement, we would have avoided its use; but short of asking him straight out beforehand, we couldn't have predicted that he would be so down on what is really quite a minor point of interpretation - both our musical intuition and existing recordings suggested strongly that a bit of rubato could be used effectively in that movement. If DH had distributed a sheet to all bands in advance containing a line such as "any rubato in the 2nd movement will be heavily penalised" then things may have been rather different...
 
Last edited:

euphalogy

Member
The competitors always have treated it as a sport. There's a disconnect in attitude between those competing and those judging - the artists. To try to bridge that gap to some extent seems like a reasonable aim to me.

On an earlier point, it's all very well pointing out that musical fundamentals are reasonably consistent within the world of brass banding, but the problem being debated here arises when adjudicators depart from those fundamentals. To pick an example from personal experience: when David Horsfield adjudicated our areas at Stevenage 3 years ago, he stood up at the end and declared that the most important thing that he was looking for in the 2nd movement of 'Festival Music' was a continuous forward flow to the music - and, sure enough, our remarks were full of tellings off for allowing modest rubato in natural places, and our eventual placing was way lower than seemed reasonable - and indeed made the main contribution to our relegation last year after many years in the top section. Had we known he was so down on rubato in that movement, we would have avoided its use; but short of asking him straight out beforehand, we couldn't have predicted that he would be so down on what is really quite a minor point of interpretation - both our musical intuition and existing recordings suggested strongly that a bit of rubato could be used effectively in that movement. If DH had distributed a sheet to all bands in advance containing a line such as "any rubato in the 2nd movement will be heavily penalised" then things may have been rather different...


My point entirely!! The adjudicator knows what he/she have been seeking as in your example, i dont see any harm whatsoever in letting that be known via contest organisers at an appropriate point of the pre contest preparations.
This then would save wasted rehearsal, and as in your case, the unmanaged risk of relegation.
The ABBA NABBC workshop in January and the Regional CD and the score are at odds with the 4th section piece re tempos A guessing game it is then.:clap:
 

DublinBass

Supporting Member
But the point that's being missed in all of this is that at a fundamental level, even with a tick-box system, whether the adjudicator ticks the box, or which box, is still down to a subjective decision.
It's the nature of any art form ..you can't make it objective.
Or are we so determined to turn contesting into a sport rather than an art form?

So in football...fouls, yellow cards and red cards aren't subjective?

(sometimes goals even seem subjective)
 

SMead

Member
The competitors always have treated it as a sport. There's a disconnect in attitude between those competing and those judging - the artists. To try to bridge that gap to some extent seems like a reasonable aim to me.

On an earlier point, it's all very well pointing out that musical fundamentals are reasonably consistent within the world of brass banding, but the problem being debated here arises when adjudicators depart from those fundamentals. To pick an example from personal experience: when David Horsfield adjudicated our areas at Stevenage 3 years ago, he stood up at the end and declared that the most important thing that he was looking for in the 2nd movement of 'Festival Music' was a continuous forward flow to the music - and, sure enough, our remarks were full of tellings off for allowing modest rubato in natural places, and our eventual placing was way lower than seemed reasonable - and indeed made the main contribution to our relegation last year after many years in the top section. Had we known he was so down on rubato in that movement, we would have avoided its use; but short of asking him straight out beforehand, we couldn't have predicted that he would be so down on what is really quite a minor point of interpretation - both our musical intuition and existing recordings suggested strongly that a bit of rubato could be used effectively in that movement. If DH had distributed a sheet to all bands in advance containing a line such as "any rubato in the 2nd movement will be heavily penalised" then things may have been rather different...

Dave, my point would be that even if an adjudicator didn't care for too much rubato in a particular section of a piece, for whatever reason, the band would still be able to score highly in all the other areas of the criteria, sound quality, ensemble, tuning, soloists, etc etc . The system I propose would safeguard the penalising of a band too heavily for an interpretational 'fault' .
 

MoominDave

Well-Known Member
I think your system well worth an extended trial personally.

In the case I outlined, the problem seems more fundamental though - the adjudicator was looking for something unexpected. The box system could minimise the effect of that, but not remove it entirely.
 

nigeb12

Member
Dave, my point would be that even if an adjudicator didn't care for too much rubato in a particular section of a piece, for whatever reason, the band would still be able to score highly in all the other areas of the criteria, sound quality, ensemble, tuning, soloists, etc etc . The system I propose would safeguard the penalising of a band too heavily for an interpretational 'fault' .

That's a good point! However, if each criteria were to have a maximum of 20, what do you think the realistic variance would be between top and bottom for each? I wouldn't mind betting that the lowest may be around 10 and top 19ish. Do you see an occasion when a band would get 1 or 2 points?? I'm not against the system I guess my point is that adjudicators seldom take advantage of the total marks available. We often see the top 6 bands separated by 6 points out of a possible 200. It would only take an adjudicator with a specific agenda to distort a result.
 
Maybe the criteria based system could be trailed at something like the Leeds International Piano competition. The adjudicators could open their remarks prior to the results with something like "the good news is you all got 20 out of 20 for intonation..." before going on to ask each judge for their points live and displaying them on a large Euro-vision style score-board. The same system could be used to increase the transparency of say the Young Musician OTY brass finals. In the event of a tie there could be the musical equivalent of a penalty shoot-out, with the competitors in joint 1st place could come back at the end to see who can play the highest note to decide a winner.
If scores were displayed at band contests after each performance, much like after each competitor in ice-skating or gymnastics it would also spice things up a bit. MD's would be able to make last second tactical changes......."right lads increase intonation and clarity by one point and it's in the bag - keep your eyes on me, I'm going for a a better stylistic interpretation in the last mvt., and let's go for those articulation points in the staccato section.":clap:
 

DublinBass

Supporting Member
If scores were displayed at band contests after each performance, much like after each competitor in ice-skating or gymnastics it would also spice things up a bit. MD's would be able to make last second tactical changes......."right lads increase intonation and clarity by one point and it's in the bag - keep your eyes on me, I'm going for a a better stylistic interpretation in the last mvt., and let's go for those articulation points in the staccato section.":clap:

You may be joking about displaying live scores, but that's what DCI does at their four day championships and they seem to do pretty well. 60,000 people in live attendance...broadcast to about 500 movie theatres (in fact at their 100 or so annual events they attract about 400,000 spectators)
 
They get an even bigger crowd and more viewers for public executions in Saudi, but probably not for musical reasons or because the judges are especially fair - although they do stick to pretty strict criteria judging.
 

DublinBass

Supporting Member
They get an even bigger crowd and more viewers for public executions in Saudi, but probably not for musical reasons or because the judges are especially fair - although they do stick to pretty strict criteria judging.

You may be onto something...perhaps there IS a way to deal with bands that cheat and help raise attendance?
 
so which contest could actually go for it and change things? it won't be the nationals/regionals/open/masters etc that use this first, but maybe a smaller contest might just be brave, and get a good write up in 4br etc and from there something might happen.

it would be good publicity for the contest that jumps first. if ABBA are as immoveable as an egyptian president then give it a couple more years and mr mead would have set up his own version, and ABBA will cease to be. no loss to anyone - ever.
 

Anno Draconis

Well-Known Member
so which contest could actually go for it and change things? it won't be the nationals/regionals/open/masters etc that use this first, but maybe a smaller contest might just be brave, and get a good write up in 4br etc and from there something might happen.

it would be good publicity for the contest that jumps first. if ABBA are as immoveable as an egyptian president then give it a couple more years and mr mead would have set up his own version, and ABBA will cease to be. no loss to anyone - ever.

I'd have been tempted to say Butlins, except that Stan Lippeatt has a big say in what happens there - and he's also ABBA Chairman (I think). Would be tough for him to sanction a judging experiment at Butlins when his own association, and in particular The Colonel :biggrin:, vehemently denies that there is anything wrong with the status quo.

You say it won't be the Regionals, but the Regional Committees control the adjudication process for their own contests, which is why some regions have two per section and some have one. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the SBBA decides that the Scottish Area - which is in fact the "Scottish National" doubling as a regional qualifying contest - should be judged in the same way as the Scottish Open. Three judges, seated in the open.
 

brassneck

Active Member
Anno Draconis said:
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the SBBA decides that the Scottish Area - which is in fact the "Scottish National" doubling as a regional qualifying contest - should be judged in the same way as the Scottish Open. Three judges, seated in the open.

I'm afraid not. All regionals are subject to the National Rules ...


Contest (definition)
The National Brass Band Championships of Great Britain
comprising the eight Regional Championships and the National Finals.

Rule 13.
a) Closed adjudication will be used in the Contests.
b) Adjudicators will be appointed by the Contest Management.
c) Adjudicators will award band places only.

 

Primary

tMP Assistant
Here are some related products that tMP members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to tMP’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to tMP discussions about these products.

 
 
Top