LipService
Member
Some time ago I posted a topic on 4BarsRest with regard to the adjudication system currently adopted in Brass Band Contesting. The reply I received was something along the lines of "don't worry your silly head about such things", but I wonder what the wider views on my suggestions are.
Firstly, I do not play in a band, I can't even read music, but I am an avid follower and supporter of banding and contesting. Secondly, the reason I feel moved to make an opinion follows the almost laughable decisions made by some adjudicators.
It is quite obvious to me that the adjudicators are very aware of who is on stage. Taking away the quality of the best bands themselves, they still have the reception of the audience to go by. So my suggestion is this...
Why not have the same three adjudicators, but only one listen to each band at a time and the other two wear headphones for the performance. The major advantage of this is that the adjudicator doesn't hear the band before, or the band after the one he/she is marking. This not only eliminates the temptation to compare bands, but it means that they are marking only 6-8 bands rather than 20+.
An obvious pitfall is that a band will be judged by one adjudicator alone, but after all, there is only one adjudicator at the Area's, some marking up to 30 bands a day. Maybe some would consider this unfair... but a tad fairer than the adjudicators being swayed by the fact all know who is on stage.
The major hurdle in all this is that adudicators differ immensley on how they mark. Some look for clarity, interpretation or dynamics, some will stick rigidly to the score. I assume these judges are chosen on experience and indeed this is a most valuable asset, but how can someone who, lets face it, may not be as 'up-to-date' on the newer styles of music and far advanced players, be given the task of judging?
With the massive diversity of music today, I feel this hurdle could be overcome if adjudicators were to be given guidelines on what they MUST look for and mark on. This not only lets the judges work alone, but would also give the bands themselves far more notice of what exactly the adjudicators are looking for (instead of the finding out on the day of the contest.)
For example, we have all known for some time that the Nationals test piece is to be selected variations from Enigma Variations. You will get some bands that will try to emulate an orchestral style, but if you have two judges that are looking for a purely brass band sound... it's asta la vista!
We all think in different ways, you will never get two judges give exactly the same opinion on one piece or one performance - however, if given a path to follow, I think you will find that there will be a lot more close decisions made, unlike what was experienced in the range of scoring at the Masters.
It is more than probably that I have made some huge faux-pas and not taken into consideration some detail that will put my suggestions to bed for good, but these are the opinions of someone on the outside looking in.
We have the best brass bands in the world in this country... so let's have the best adjudicators to praise them.
What say you :?:
Firstly, I do not play in a band, I can't even read music, but I am an avid follower and supporter of banding and contesting. Secondly, the reason I feel moved to make an opinion follows the almost laughable decisions made by some adjudicators.
It is quite obvious to me that the adjudicators are very aware of who is on stage. Taking away the quality of the best bands themselves, they still have the reception of the audience to go by. So my suggestion is this...
Why not have the same three adjudicators, but only one listen to each band at a time and the other two wear headphones for the performance. The major advantage of this is that the adjudicator doesn't hear the band before, or the band after the one he/she is marking. This not only eliminates the temptation to compare bands, but it means that they are marking only 6-8 bands rather than 20+.
An obvious pitfall is that a band will be judged by one adjudicator alone, but after all, there is only one adjudicator at the Area's, some marking up to 30 bands a day. Maybe some would consider this unfair... but a tad fairer than the adjudicators being swayed by the fact all know who is on stage.
The major hurdle in all this is that adudicators differ immensley on how they mark. Some look for clarity, interpretation or dynamics, some will stick rigidly to the score. I assume these judges are chosen on experience and indeed this is a most valuable asset, but how can someone who, lets face it, may not be as 'up-to-date' on the newer styles of music and far advanced players, be given the task of judging?
With the massive diversity of music today, I feel this hurdle could be overcome if adjudicators were to be given guidelines on what they MUST look for and mark on. This not only lets the judges work alone, but would also give the bands themselves far more notice of what exactly the adjudicators are looking for (instead of the finding out on the day of the contest.)
For example, we have all known for some time that the Nationals test piece is to be selected variations from Enigma Variations. You will get some bands that will try to emulate an orchestral style, but if you have two judges that are looking for a purely brass band sound... it's asta la vista!
We all think in different ways, you will never get two judges give exactly the same opinion on one piece or one performance - however, if given a path to follow, I think you will find that there will be a lot more close decisions made, unlike what was experienced in the range of scoring at the Masters.
It is more than probably that I have made some huge faux-pas and not taken into consideration some detail that will put my suggestions to bed for good, but these are the opinions of someone on the outside looking in.
We have the best brass bands in the world in this country... so let's have the best adjudicators to praise them.
What say you :?: