Kapitol Rules

bumper-euph

Member
Why don't they have all the regionals on the same weekend , if there are enough adjudicators, and then you would get the same "band" as you would the rest of the year..........maybe !! The players could then be registered at the start of the year and run for 12 months at a time .
:pig
 

owain_s

Member
Why don't they have all the regionals on the same weekend , if there are enough adjudicators, and then you would get the same "band" as you would the rest of the year..........maybe !!
Even if it proved possible to book venues to coincide, this would prove a real problem for those who play in one area and conduct in another. There's several examples I can think of straight away where this is the case between the North West and Yorkshire.
 

hobgoblin

Member
Spare a thought for conductors. Many conductors of the top bands in the strongest areas also have a few steady earners in the other areas which are also reliable qualifiers in the less competetive areas. This provides a valuble alternative income and chance to compete if their main band has not qualified for the finals.
 

Accidental

Supporting Member
Why don't they have all the regionals on the same weekend , if there are enough adjudicators, and then you would get the same "band" as you would the rest of the year..........maybe !! The players could then be registered at the start of the year and run for 12 months at a time .
:pig
I'm not sure what that would change from the current ruling which means noone can play in more than 1 band or 1 region anyway?

And remember the current pool of adjudicators includes a lot of conductors who can't be in two places at once!
 

stevetrom

Well-Known Member
Watch as the bands with the fattest cheque books (and/or most reckless management) buy in a set of top cornermen, and see the same players in the same seats up north and then down south two weeks later.

How would that help improve banding? And what happens when bands with matching line-ups in different regions both qualify for the national?

how many lower section bands have fat cheque books?

I did suggest some restrictions, like only 1 band in a section, so top bands with fat cheque books won't be able to sign all the top players. But players that enjoy their banding and are happy yo play with 2 bands would be able to help both bands go to the contests.
 

hobgoblin

Member
It might be a positive step to relax the registration rules for the lower sections to help them compete/attend, but the top bands would doubtless be held to ransom by 'professional' banders pimping themselves out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bumper-euph

Member
Does it make any difference if a player registers say, for a band in England, can he then play for a band in either Wales or Scotland ? or does the rule cover the whole U.K.? Something I've often thought of.............
 
A lot of interesting and insightful opinions . During the 25 years I've been contesting we've never had to option to borrow for the nationals but during that same time the number of players has dwindled. We are also at a point where the music we now play has become more demanding with regards the number of percussionists needed ,with 3rd and 4th section bands needing 3 or 4 percussionists . I agree that the option to borrow may not be needed for every section ,as some sections have a greater pulling power but perhaps a more sensible approach to lower section bands may be warranted .
 

Bbmad

Active Member
A lot of interesting and insightful opinions . During the 25 years I've been contesting we've never had to option to borrow for the nationals but during that same time the number of players has dwindled. We are also at a point where the music we now play has become more demanding with regards the number of percussionists needed ,with 3rd and 4th section bands needing 3 or 4 percussionists . I agree that the option to borrow may not be needed for every section ,as some sections have a greater pulling power but perhaps a more sensible approach to lower section bands may be warranted .
How about flexibility in the rules to allow the sharing of percussionists in the lower sections?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bbmad

Active Member
Do you mean some sort of day transfer system
Sort of. I am thinking the following scenario:
Contest requires 4 drummers:
Band A has 2 drummers registered
Band B has 2 drummers registered
Each band can borrow the other bands drummers so that both band bands go out with 4.
 

Euphonium Lite

Active Member
Sort of. I am thinking the following scenario:
Contest requires 4 drummers:
Band A has 2 drummers registered
Band B has 2 drummers registered
Each band can borrow the other bands drummers so that both band bands go out with 4.

Why would you go into a contest with 4 drummers? 4 percussonists on the other hand.... ;-)
 

hobgoblin

Member
Most bands only need two perc players for 10 months of the year - a kit player, and a timpanist/triangle/cymbals/shakey egg/maracas type. Then for some reason we are all expected to sprout 2 Evelyn Glennie types from god knows where for the sake of a test piece or two.
 
Most bands only need two perc players for 10 months of the year - a kit player, and a timpanist/triangle/cymbals/shakey egg/maracas type. Then for some reason we are all expected to sprout 2 Evelyn Glennie types from god knows where for the sake of a test piece or two.

Spot on why not standardise for percc as we do for the brass
 

Bbmad

Active Member
Spot on why not standardise for percc as we do for the brass
It would make sense especially in the lower sections where players are at a premium. Also it is unbelievable how many different items of kit some of these pieces require, very often kit that bands don't own so players don't get the chance to practice.

Post edited to correct mis-spelling of 'lower'. Please do not use this again as it is belittling to the bands involved; any future such posts will be deleted without further warning. PB, Mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bbmad

Active Member
Bear in mind that it doesn't just mean ruling out pieces with lots of percussion. If the rules standardise on two players, then pieces which only need one are also ruled out.
Again, maybe a good thing. How is it reasonable to require four percs one year, one the next, then maybe 4 the year after that. That is the situation that we are in now and the total inconsistency may be a reason why percs are difficult to recruit and retain. The brass section is generally standard so why shouldn't the drums?
 
Bear in mind that it doesn't just mean ruling out pieces with lots of percussion. If the rules standardise on two players, then pieces which only need one are also ruled out.
Not quite as two can share.
Also several 'old pieces' have had percc added could we not have some re-written for two players.
 

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