Iwan Fox's call for immediate change today on 4br

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 38.5%
  • No

    Votes: 8 30.8%
  • Its too much, but I'd be prepared to pay less...

    Votes: 8 30.8%

  • Total voters
    26

Anno Draconis

Well-Known Member
Ive voted yes, two questions though

1. Would the role of officer be a full time post? The only reason i ask is that sort of wage would suddenly lure some famous names out of the woodwork, we know the names!!! Perhaps they are not that interested in the future of banding now and more making a few quid, but if 35k was on the offing, those names would all of a sudden become really keen on all matters banding for the future!!! Would the post be expected to be a full time job for someone and not simply another financial string to many bows.

We do indeed know the names; this is part of the issue here. If UKBBA is to succeed, it can't be simply another means for the so-called great and good who currently have an iron grip on UK banding politics to line their pockets. I know it's cynical, but I've studied banding history and I know how it works, I'm afraid.

I don't believe this - a senior nurse does'nt get that much!
There are plenty of bands out there that have great difficulty collecting subs from THEIR OWN BAND!!!!
Why and how would they pay more? Sorry to put such a negative vibe on it and if we REALLY could achieve that kind of income, then why the B.....y hell do we not Own the national championships?
Get real guys!

I can't imagine Paddy's proposal ever working, if I'm honest, but using the excuse that bands can't collect subs from their own players is a bit of a cop-out. Players are quite capable of putting their hands in their pockets as and when it suits them. It's simply a matter of incentive, and whether players want something badly enough.

The issue is, I suspect, that in too many bands there's a significant minority of players who don't actually want it; don't give a monkey's about banding in general, or even if their own band survives. I gave up playing myself, for nearly 8 years, because I got so hacked off with banding politics and the ways things worked - I'd be willing to bet we all know at least one person who's done the same, is on the verge of doing it, or is only one crappy result away from doing it. These boards are littered people saying that they "don't play anymore" for one disillusioned reason or another. There might be +/-500 contesting bands, but that doesn't mean there are 500x28 banders who care much about the future of banding. So going to every band and saying "cough up £20 a year plus subs to play or you can't enter contests" is likely to induce some players to hang up their instruments for good. I'm not suggesting that's neccesarily a bad thing, believe it or not - I'm coming round to the point of view that it would be better to have fewer, better run, oversubscribed, busy, successful bands than the current situation of too many bands, too few players to go around.

This is the UK Frode! You will see from some of the reactions to Paddy's and my posts, and the way in which the poll is going, that bands may be crying out for change, but many have no wish to contribute financially.

I think that's unfair. Bands have no wish to contribute to a bottomless pit of money that doesn't achieve very much - the BFBB being a prime example. My band has been regularly paying them £100 a year (until now, we've decided not to renew) and I can't really see that we've received any benefit from it. It's gone to pay the salaries of a Development Officer and a Liaison Officer, who (as far as I can tell) have done nothing that has benefitted my band in any way. If we were guaranteed the comprehensive list of functions that Norwegian bands get from their National Association I'm sure we'd be keener to chip in.

It may come as some comfort to know that this is a situation that almost every UK sport has found itself in at some point. Because we in Britain were the inventors and/or pioneers of a great many sports, the "governing bodies" often grew up organically, by accident rather than design, and left a rather disorganised legacy. For instance the MCC controls the laws of cricket (they even own the copyright on them), even though it's technically just a cricket club, not a national association. At one stage there were 3 competing National Associations for Athletics. So banding's not unique in having a disorganised mess at national level - it's a lot easier to set up decent national structures from a clean start, like they had in Norway or Switzerland. However unless something gets done here in the next few years, I firmly believe that brass bands will more or less die out in the UK in my lifetime. Then those of us that love them will look enviously at the continent, US and New Zealand for their thriving band movements.
 

Fedman

Member
I think that's unfair. Bands have no wish to contribute to a bottomless pit of money that doesn't achieve very much - the BFBB being a prime example. My band has been regularly paying them £100 a year (until now, we've decided not to renew) and I can't really see that we've received any benefit from it. It's gone to pay the salaries of a Development Officer and a Liaison Officer, who (as far as I can tell) have done nothing that has benefitted my band in any way.


I know nothing will really be achieved by me getting involved in this thread but I have to point out to Anno Draconis that he is totally WRONG. The Development Officer and Liaison Officer of the BFBB are funded by the Arts Council not by his band's subscription.

I didn't see AD at the BFBB AGM when he could have changed things and I doubt I will see AD at the UKBBA meeting in the summer.

I was like you once, shouting from the sidelines - it never achieved anything. There are things starting to happen quicker now because we have the Liaison Officer full time and the Development Officer 3 days a week, supported by a part time administrator. Everything else is done by volunteers. These things could have happened earlier if more bands had joined and paid for it.

As for the great and the good - I have played in every section and conduct a third section band - I am not great but I do try to be good.:)

Nigel Morgan
 

IanHeard

Member
Although I could see the benefit of a subcription to one of the four National banding bodies, I fail to see why a non-governing over-arching UK body would need to be in receipt of our hard eaned cash, indeed after time I don`t see why the UKBBA would need to exist at all!
I have read the UKBBA`s aims and objectives and most, if not all of them will be and in the case of the SBBA already are, the job of the four national bodies.
State funding of the Arts is now to my knowledge totally devolved, an extraneous UK body will only complicate matters and muddy the water in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

brassbandmaestro

Active Member
That the meeting has been postponed, or the emerging cracks?


Well they saying they want to be readily prepared for this next meeting? And they want to be quite frocused, so that's why I don't think there are any cracks! They just want to make sure they have everything ready, which is fair enough?
 

IanHeard

Member
Well they saying they want to be readily prepared for this next meeting? And they want to be quite frocused, so that's why I don't think there are any cracks! They just want to make sure they have everything ready, which is fair enough?

I think the words "expressed opposition" might suggest a crack or two BBM.
 

Anno Draconis

Well-Known Member
Nothing wrong with "expressed opposition", surely that's the essence of debate? If they weren't open to alternative points of view and prepared to change their recommendations after hearing them, what would be the point of view of asking for them, or even holding the summit?

That siad, surely the fact that there are parts of the brass band movement for whom change = kryptonite can't have come as a surprise. Time to redraft proposals should have been built in. Changing the date is a bad, bad idea - to me it signals a lack of seriousness and commitment.
 

Pauli Walnuts

Moderator
Staff member
No - as they receive funding from the Arts Council for these roles, I would expect them to be helping bands in general - it's difficult to separate funding activities to grow the movement without non-members benefiting. (assuming of course that this is what these roles are about. ).
At this stage, i am only interested in understanding what those roles are designed to achieve - we can't debate whether they are truly for the benefit of banding unless we know what they do - that's a later discussion and possibly, another thread (depends on how OT this is considered to be).
 

Laserbeam bass

Active Member
Nigel. it would be useful for the debate if you could expand on what these roles actually do and in particular, how they help bands that do not contest.

thanks.

It would probably be better to ask that to Nigel Morgan, rather than to Andrew Baker aka Anno Draconis. The clue is probably in his signature line :rolleyes:
 

IanHeard

Member
That said, surely the fact that there are parts of the brass band movement for whom change = kryptonite can't have come as a surprise. Time to redraft proposals should have been built in. Changing the date is a bad, bad idea - to me it signals a lack of seriousness and commitment.

....or perhaps that the whole premise of an over-arching UK body was never ever going to be a go-er in the first place, and that the closer we have gotten to 'put up or shut up' time, the cracks have ideed appeared.
I honestly believe that the whole exercise was well meant, but at the risk of repeating myself why would the Scottish Area/National Committee as an example be in favour of a UKBBA?...Anyone?
 

Thirteen Ball

Active Member
....or perhaps that the whole premise of an over-arching UK body was never ever going to be a go-er in the first place, and that the closer we have gotten to 'put up or shut up' time, the cracks have ideed appeared.
I honestly believe that the whole exercise was well meant, but at the risk of repeating myself why would the Scottish Area/National Committee as an example be in favour of a UKBBA?...Anyone?

Firstly - Why are you already talking about it as if the process HAS failed? OK it's obvious from your posts on the subject that you'd quite like it to for whatever reason - but don't bury a man before he's hanged.

Secondly - the SBBA probably has no interest in a UK authority at all, because they seem pretty well organised as it is. In fact, they've already routinely implemented several measures (compulsory membership for registered bands, consultation of the movement, trialling new adjudication methods, etc) that English bandsmen on here have been calling for for years now.

As I said in a previous post, though as a confirmed sassenach it galls me to admit the scots do anything better than us (;) ) in this case they've clearly got the right idea.

So UKBBA may end up as an irrelevance, when what we clearly need is an ENGLISH organisation to sort out English banding issues - the first of which IMHO should be to implement almost all of the current Scottish systems and practices.
 

MoominDave

Well-Known Member
or the Norwegian systems and practices...

Frankly, I still think that the quickest route to coherence is for English regions to affiliate to some other better run system, whether it be Scottish, Norwegian, or other.
 

$hytalk

Member
Has anyone considered the fact that the ukbba people may have had a massive response to their feed-back invitation? Personally I think BFBB or EFBB is the way forward, they already offer what a lot of people on here are looking for!http://mad4bb.ning.com/
 

IanHeard

Member
So UKBBA may end up as an irrelevance, when what we clearly need is an ENGLISH organisation to sort out English banding issues.......

No need to tell ME, I (pretty much alone!) been saying precisely that on here for years.
Nice to see that the penny is finally beginning to drop.

The key to our future is how the 6 English regional commitees chose to interact with and their willingness to accept Governance from the new EFBB.
 

Thirteen Ball

Active Member
No need to tell ME, I (pretty much alone!) been saying precisely that on here for years.
Nice to see that the penny is finally beginning to drop.

Ahem. Have you read the rest of the thread - or just jumped on the UK bit? Several other folk have been suggesting that the scots, norwegians and other european countries have things far better organised right from post 1. If you've considered yourself a lone voice up until now then you've clearly been speaking in the wrong places. However I stand by what I've said before. That if we are going to have a national championships of Great Britain then we do need a UK wide organisation to implement the rules correctly - and if you're going to take part in the championship, them membership of that organisation should be compulsory. I'm not going to reiterate the reams of good ideas several posters have already listed along those lines, but I'd suggest you go back and read them. At which point you might realise how inaccurate the part of your statement I've bolded above is....

The key to our future is how the 6 English regional commitees chose to interact with and their willingness to accept Governance from the new EFBB.

No. The key is whether the EFBB has any more power, relevance and ability to consult and change the way the brass band movement in England is run than the BFBB does, and whether any real and long-standing benefit can be gained by bands from joining it.

Put bluntly, if it ain't gonna improve anything, then bands won't join.

Until there is a unified body which competing bands have to join if they want to register for contests, we don't even have the mechanism to ask our membership what needs changing, and then implement changes based on that consultation. If the EFBB isn't going to fill that gap, then it won't change anything.
 

Product tMP members are discussing

Top