AD's comment about registration is well thought out, but I'm not altogether sure that it should be abandoned altogether.
The question we should be asking is what does it (registration) add to banding. In what way does it make it
better? Because we have to pay for it. So unless it's adding value to our banding it needs to be spannered off in favour of spending money on things that do.
Here are the arguments in favour, that I'm aware of - feel free to add others.
- It stops bands "buying in" a set of super-deps from an elite band to help them win a contest.
- It ensures that the band you see at a concert is the same one you see at a contest.
- It stops one superstar player playing with 4/5 bands on pieces where there is a high pressure solo - e.g. solo trom in Eden or Year of the Dragon, solo cornet in English Heritage.
- It stops bands from using professional players.
- It lets everyone feel that there is, as quoted above, a 'level playing field' - in other words it creates a sense of reassurance that you're getting a fair crack of the whip at any given contest.
Those were all issues in the years BEFORE the registry started. But in those days there was a LOT of prize money sloshing around, and a lot of works band sponsors wanted victories at any cost for the bragging rights. The prize money at the biggest contests in the early 20th century could easily have paid an average working man's annual wage, so the incentive to play fast and loose with the rules was real [Example: in 1877
Linthwaite Band won £60 at Edinburgh Contest while average earnings were a little below
£42 pa]. Now? For most bands the biggest contest of the year is the area, where if you're lucky you'll win £200 and the chance to spend £6-7000 on going to the acoustically and atmospherically challenged Cheltenham. The biggest contesting payday is Butlins, but if the band pays for everyone's accommodation any winnings get quickly swallowed up (unless you clean up in the top section - so that's one band out of 70-odd that makes a profit). Almost all bands make a loss on contesting. So here's the counter arguments:
- Who'd spend that sort of money these days? Who, in fact, HAS that sort of money? And if they had, how many elite level players are there that are champing at the bit to earn a couple of hundred quid travelling the length of the country to spend every night playing an assortment of lower section test-pieces?
- It actually prevents the concert band from being the same as the contest band, because it excludes players in bands that have (for example) an extra couple of young players who might enjoy the contest experience but aren't yet experienced or confident enough to sit there without help, it exludes, 'spare' or 'utility' players which some bands are lucky enough to have and it excludes players who regularly play with two bands but can only register with one. And at the top level, it does nothing to prevent a couple of Swiss/Norwegian/NZ superstars flying in for Area week and flying out again the day after the contest. And it never will, because many overseas associations don't register their players, so even using overseas registration wouldn't solve it.
- This used to happen in the days where there was proper money to be earned from contesting. If you went and won a few £10 soloists prizes, or an instrument, plus a share of the prize money in the days when people were on a few quid a week, it was well worth the hassle. Now? You'd need to pay most top soloists a proper soloist concert fee if you wanted them to help you out and the prize money at almost anywhere except Butlins and the Doc Martins doesn't come close. It's simply not an issue any more.
- No, it doesn't, and that hasn't been the case for many years. Possibly ever. Cory had the RLPO's Principal Trom on stage at the Open. A lot of 'end chair' players at the best bands are essentially professional musicians anyway. If you count people who teach their instrument, there are many more. And actually if pro players want to indulge their love of music by helping out their local band on their nights off, why shouldn't they?
- This is the only one that actually might still apply, but as you can see from ^this lot, there's not a lot of sense in that.
It's long been my opinion that all registration achieves is cost bands money, cause unnecessary bureaucracy and exclude people from contesting at a time when bands are desperate for players. The cost of contesting and the difficulty of fielding a full band 52 weeks a year has seen the number of local association contests dwindle massively and most bands now commit to no more than five a year - many do much less. Asking for MORE money to operate registration (which, one way or another, seems to be the implication of this thread) is adding insult to band-movement-killing injury.
