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

Re: Cambridge adjudication

To: brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Cambridge adjudication
From: Peter Younghusband <monkey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 17:14:43 +0800
Priority: low
References: <ROy55HAOnHb1EwnY@doghorn.demon.co.uk>
Reply-to: brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I didn't spot anybody whingeing about the idea of the new adjudication system -
just passing comment about the capability and possibly the 'inner rules' re
sound, interpretation and musicality or whatever it was.

I agree with Martin in that if each adjudicator was given something specific to
look for that the bands should have been told.

Lighten up! We all know that contests are a waste of time and effort - but it's
good to air a few graces nevertheless!

Monkey

Kevin Williams wrote:

> I think you've missed the point here. The Masters is the best organised
> contest of the lot so why all the fuss over an adjudication system that
> the bands were given the choice to vote for or against - the same that
> happens each year for the testpiece. The organisers should be
> given credit for trying something different. It's no good whingeing
> about it afterwards - you should have voted against it in the first
> place if you didn't like it. I don't see your problem - if you get
> placed anything above 15th you're almost guaranteed to be invited back
> next year anyway. Anyhow, it's all about winning - and none of you would
> of managed that under any system !!
>
> Cheers,
> Kev.
>
> --
> unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help' to
> listserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

References:
- Cambridge adjudication
  - From: Kevin Williams

Prev by Date: Re: Important Information
Next by Date: Re: Cambridge adjudication
Previous by thread: Cambridge adjudication
Next by thread: Re: Cambridge adjudication
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread