[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: 1998 All England Masters

To: <brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: 1998 All England Masters
From: "Rod" <rodg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:52:45 +0100
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <199805262316.AAA27376@sand.global.net.uk>
Priority: low
Reply-to: brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi Alec

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alec Gallagher [mailto:alec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 27 May 1998 00:14
> To: brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: 1998 All England Masters
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod <rodg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 26 May 1998 18:43
> Subject: RE: 1998 All England Masters
>
>
> >First I don't agree that the adjudicators are paid purely to
> give their own
> >personal opinion. They are selected on the basis of their knowledge and
> >experience, provided with a score, and asked to judge a performance.
> >Obviously if they think that the conductor has given a wrong
> interpretation
> >they will make an adjustment to their score, but that has to be the only
> >time they give a personal opinion as such, and probably should
> not be given
> >as much weight as the other criteria, simply because it is a personal
> >opinion.
> >
> >The rest of the judging should, as far as possible, given the
> odd lapse of
> >concentration and the difficulty in keeping some sort of memory
> of what all
> >the bands sounded like, be a matter of their musical knowledge, viz.
> tuning,
> >intonation, tightness, clarity, following score markings and speed etc.
> >Given this I can't see that there should be more than plus or minus 3
> across
> >three judges with 20 bands!
>
> Leaving aside the matter of what constitutes a 'wrong'
> interpretation (!!!),
> everything above is all, no doubt, highly commendable, but it is nothing
> more than a wish list. As I have pointed out in another posting,
> adjudicators have no rules to work to.  So if they want their
> personal likes
> or dislikes to influence the placings (which in my opinion is what they
> should do) they are perfectly entitled to do so.

A wrong interpretation is any performance that differs from the way they
would have conducted it !

It isn't a wish list and all the adjudicators know that theirs is not the
only way to perform a piece, and the band should not therefore be overly
penalised because the adjudicator doesn't like the way it was conducted. You
shouldn't apply draconian marking on a band that has spent considerable time
and effort to perfect a piece to their conductors satisfaction just because
his interpretation is different. If it is purely a question of an opinion as
to who is the best band why not pick the first three people to walk by the
contest venue, offer them the fee and abide by their decision - it can't be
any worse :-)

> >Is it a case of the adjudicators not being given any guidance on how they
> >should adjudicate? or what criteria they should use?
>
> Yes.

They shouldn't need guidance or rules but if common sense doesn't prevail
then perhaps they should be given some guide lines to work to in future. Too
many rules are best avoided as evidenced by the daft punishment of Oxford,
albeit with a totally different set of rules!

Regards
Rod Gibson
Haverhill Silver


--
unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help' to
listserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

References:
- Re: 1998 All England Masters
  - From: Alec Gallagher

Prev by Date: Re: Possibly reason behind Masters result ?
Next by Date: RE: 1998 All England Masters
Previous by thread: Re: 1998 All England Masters
Next by thread: Re: 1998 All England Masters
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread