Brass Band Logo

NJH Music Logo

Some of the contents of the pages on this site are Copyright © 2016 NJH Music
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Percussion Saga /Provided Percussion

Cathy Hill wrote:
> I don't want to dredge up the "provided instrument" issue,  but if
> contests are supposed to test the "whole" band, why hinder the
> percussion section?

I don't see why you shouldn't bring up this issue - it intrigues me!

History:
Not sure when it originated, but I'm assuming it was in response to band
requests for assistance?

Alleged Pros:
1.  Transportation can be minimised, as it tends to be the larger
components that are provided (timps etc)
2.  Assists less equipped bands by reducing the purchase or hiring costs of
equipment if a particular piece requires more than the 'normal' amount of
percussion (eg, 4 timps instead of 2)
3.  Banding fairness for everyone to use the same equipment that is
provided.  (So a 'richer' band can't have the edge because of superior
quality percussion?)

Realistic Cons:
1.  Transportation is still required for the ever-increasing additional
percussion gear - which isn't provided - so a minibus, trailer, coach etc
is still needed anyway (which also doubles up for the transportation of the
basses in some cases).
2.  The items that are generally provided are not normally the 'unusual'
items, so bands still need to source the borrowing/hiring of equipment, or
have already invested in the purchase of such because of other
pieces/contests where the equipment wasn't provided.
3.  Banding fairness to force the use of provided equipment is almost
impossible to justify.  Depending on the finances of individual bands and
members, it is unlikely any two bands will be playing identical
makes/combinations of brass instruments, so why should the percussion
section need to be treated differently?  The performance of a band may be
affected by the make, age or condition of the instruments being played, but
as Cathy Hill said, no-one would expect a brass player to use a provided
instrument because it's 'fairer'.  It'd be like asking athletes to wear the
same trainers, the make of which someone else has chosen!
4.  Different contests provide different equipment, and bands work very
hard to raise money to buy instruments, including/especially percussion. 
What is the point of investing huge amounts of hard-earned cash into
percussion equipment if they're not allowed to use it?

Conclusion:
1.  Contest organisers should provide percussion as an ***available
service*** to all bands, for all the good reasons above (transportation,
cost of hiring etc, assisting lesser equipped bands).  The kit available
should be clearly set out in the entry form and bands should be requested
to acknowledge *** if *** they require to use it for their performance.
2.  At the draw, the bands should reconfirm their use of the provided
percussion equipment, which is then noted for the 'stage stewards' to
co-ordinate (taking it off the stage when a band has its own percussion to
bring on, leaving it available for the band to take on when it doesn't).
3.  No band should be forced to use provided equipment.  If they've got
their own, let them use it, if they haven't, then thank you to the
organisers for enabling them enter the competition with a full complement
of instruments.

Was the forced use of provided percussion evident in the Championship
section too?  Is this saga something that happens regularly - being a brass
player (and allowed to play my own instrument), my normal involvement with
the percussion section amounts to carrying on a cymbal or suchlike, so I've
not had first hand experience of this somewhat bizarre situation.

One recollection I do have is when some percussion equipment was provided
at a contest (my memory fails me as to which contest, but it may even have
been an Area, but don't quote me!), and every band had to use it - it
looked pretty ropey/knackered, and half way through our performance some of
it fell apart - a skin split on a timp, or a timp pedal broke, something
like that?  Does this mean that to ensure true fairness, the rest of the
bands needed to have the provided percussion for only half a performance
too?  This is a rhetoric question, and I realise such problems can arise
with the bands' own equipment - but if we had been allowed a choice to use
or not to use the provided equipment, the gamble was at least left in our
hands, not at the mercy of some sub-standard equipment, the use and
maintenance of which we had no control.

I fully sympathise with all those who suffered (maybe not directly through
the result, but unnecessarily through the saga), at the Midlands contest. 
What do others think? (I apologise if this is a re-run of a previous thread
....)

CLAIR TOMALIN
Flugel
Clacton-on-Sea Co-Operative Band
E-Mail: c.roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ICQ#:  21868132


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

[Services] [Contact Us] [Advertise with us] [About] [Tell a friend about us] [Copyright © 2016 NJH Music]