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

RE: Controversial Contest Results

To: "'brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Controversial Contest Results
From: Dafydd y garreg wen <mavnw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:50:17 +0000 (GMT)
In-reply-to: <F12EB47BC314D21194FE00A0C9CF9EC9BAA39E@seer.bluews.com>
Priority: low
Reply-to: brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Jeremy Bowman wrote:

> But what if this contest was the Area?  You wouldn't want to take that on
> the chin would you? When it's your bands name against a poor result, which
> is undeserved?

The Areas are by no means exempt :- the last year before I left to go to
University, Wantage played 'Ballet for Band' in the L&SC areas 1st section
- a piece rather beyond us as a band in the normal run of things, but one
on which we worked hard, and produced a worthy if unspectacular
performance on the day. I heard several (IMO) considerably worse bands on
the day (and listening to our recording reinforced my opinion), but we
were placed last with consequent demotion to the 2nd section.

>
> Why should we live with it?  Surely it's time for a different approach to
> contesting adjudication, one that forces adjudicators to justify each and
> every bands position.  This would prevent the " top 3 + raffle " approach
> that we seem to have to suffer at smaller contests (and entertainment
> contests) in general - why?
>
Far too much hassle, far too much paperwork, far too much time required -
think how impatient bands are at the end of a long days contesting waiting
for the result, and then think how longer they'd have to wait. Simply
impracticable.

Dave Taylor


--

References:
- RE: Controversial Contest Results
  - From: Jeremy Bowman

Prev by Date: Re: Classical composers & brass band
Next by Date: Article in 'Midlands Metro', I think
Previous by thread: RE: Controversial Contest Results
Next by thread: Re: Controversial Contest Results
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread