The role, responsibility and accountability of adjudicators

For consideration

The role, responsibility and accountability of adjudicators is an area which has received a lot of attention recently. Many aspects were debated on 4BRDU last month, as opinions were offered in response to the 2006 Victorian Championships retrospective.

Brian Buckley is the Secretary of the UK Association of Brass Band Adjudicators (ABBA).  Derek Broadbent is the current Chairperson and in practice, Brian tends to steer the Executive Committee on matters of Continuing Professional Development and also lead on the investigation of complaints relating to the performance of Members.  On a more local level, in Wales, Brian has introduced a training programme for young aspiring adjudicators which he speaks more of in his contribution.

On the basis of a request from 4BRDU, Brian Buckley, has generously offered to contribute to this issue by way of the following document which he has written specifically with our needs and issues in mind.  The document is both extensive and thorough, and based on years of experience.  This comes from one of the most highly respected men in the business who is largely responsible for leading the way on the adjudication front in the UK and indeed, arguably, the world. 

Brian's writings deserve careful consideration and thought by the relevant bodies. 4BRDU also extends enormous thanks to the generosity and willingness of Brian to help us in our cause 'downunder'.

THE ROLE, RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF AN ADJUDICATOR
CBrian Buckley
6th November 2006

1. INTRODUCTION
The role of an adjudicator at a brass band contest or any other closely allied event such as a solo or ensemble contest, should be self evident; that is to place the ‘competing' bands, soloists or ensembles in a structured order of merit that justly reflects the degree of accomplishment or level of performance achieved in a single competitive event. Where such an event may be sub-divided into several parts, namely, own choice test; fixed test piece; hymn tune; march; plus the inclusion of other peripheral aspects such as programme content, presentational details, then the same outcome must be achieved. This means that the aim is to identify the best performance of the contest in terms of musical integrity and technical proficiency. Clearly, this means that the "best band, soloist or ensemble", may not, on occasions give the best performance.

In situations where competitors are visible to the audience, but screened from the view of the adjudicator, the audience appreciation of a performance will be influenced both visually and aurally. The visual aspects can be quite influential in terms of the track record of the competitors. For example, within the audience generally, there will be a different air of expectancy afforded to well known, famous or established personalities or bands, whereas the adjudicator is subject to a more acute aural influence only. There are a number of simple tests that can confirm that this pseudo ‘spatial' listening (sight and sound) can be less effectively judgemental than ‘non spatial' listening (sound only). In the U.K. the adjudication process may be conveniently sub-divided into two distinct parts, namely the Critical Appraisal of each performance, and the subsequent Comparative Assessment of all performances in a particular event, so that a reasoned and justifiable order of merit that can withstand scrutiny emerges. However, elsewhere, there are some contests where the aspect of Comparative Assessment may not be appropriate due to the use of a set of prescriptive criteria that must be applied absolutely. This, of course can lead to tied results. Such an approach is favoured for examination purposes where a level of achievement and not an order of merit is the desired outcome.

It is essential that competitors are given constructive feedback on their performance. This serves a dual purpose. For most levels, the feedback in the guise of formal adjudicators' comments on individual performances may be helpful for the competitors to understand their ultimate placing in the order of merit for an event. At different levels of achievement, such as the lower sections in band contests and for solo competitors with minimal experience, constructive criticism relating to both effective and inadequate aspects of a performance is educational. At the highest level of bands, such commentaries are likely to be less appropriate. Feedback may be given as a written statement whilst the band is giving its performance, or electronically by means of spoken remarks into an audio system that is simultaneously recording the performance. Both systems need adjudicators to be well experienced musically, facile in the use of a suitable range of vocabulary and also in the application of an open but objective approach to the task in hand. These aspects bring into sharp focus the musical background of the adjudicator in terms of experience, education and most importantly, training.

2. TRAINING
I have initiated, with the active co-operation of the Welsh Brass Band Association, an informal training programme for potential adjudicators. Candidates for this programme must demonstrate a requisite level of experience either as players, conductors or preferably both. Participants have usually undergone a formal education in music, including performance, graduating in their chosen study area. The programme in Wales is normally about two years in duration and will include a range of contests such as, a fixed test piece; own choice tests and an ‘entertainment programme' style event. The participants will work together, but under the same conditions as the official adjudicator(s) of the selected contests viz., closed adjudication following attendance at the draw for order of play (unless this order is pre drawn). I act as a facilitator, encouraging discussion at the conclusion of each performance and in producing an order of merit of the competing bands. Initially, participants start at circa Section 2/3 levels, becoming exposed to the higher level bands as confidence and ability progresses. Prior to the start of each event, the official adjudicator discusses the adjudication process with the participants and after the results have been announced, a discussion takes place between the adjudicator and the participants. The relative merits of each performance are considered with those present justifying the reasons for establishing an order of merit. The official adjudicator has always been enthusiastic to participate. Embarking on this training programme, trainees find it quite difficult to simultaneously:-
• follow the score being performed,
• listen to the performance,
• write a constructive critique,
• retain reference points for significant aspects of the critique.

This is an excellent example of multitasking requiring:-
• well practised score reading,
• knowledge of repertoire,
• appreciation of the technical capabilities of brass instrumentation and the use of percussion,
• well honed awareness of musical shapes and styles,
• fluency in the use of vocabulary and phraseology.

Obviously some participants quickly demonstrate an aptitude for this rather complex multitasking and become relatively facile in their use of ‘standard' phrases to support their written critique. Nevertheless, it is helpful at the outset to encourage the trainees to simply build an overall impression of each performance using a basic range of performance criteria to assess the performance levels of the competing bands. They can then progress to writing a full critique as confidence builds. In the U.K. a more formalized and structured programme has been implemented by the National Association of Brass Band Conductors (NABBC) in conjunction with the University of Salford (U.K.) leading to the Award of a Licentiate Diploma in Brass Band Adjudication. The administration of this Diploma is governed by the Regulations of the University of Salford, so candidates accepted for this course of study must register as students of the University of Salford.

Candidates are required to provide evidence of their suitability, by indicating their musical experience as conductors, players, arrangers, composers or teachers, highlighting experiences as an adjudicator and as a successful player and conductor. Normally, they would also expect to be members of NABBC. The course of study is in two parts, with Part I consisting of an exercise in scoring (within a specified time period) and an examination in score reading, aural perception (writing adjudications of different performances of a brass band piece of music), together with a viva voce type discussion of a performance of band music to include technical and musical aspects, also knowledge of brass and percussion instrumentation.

Part II comprises a minimum of six (6) assignments covering different types of contests and grades of bands. The candidates will be situated in an enclosure adjoining, but not in contact with, the official adjudicator. The candidate will produce written remarks and an order of merit, which will be compared with the official order of merit. These will be sent to the examiners for assessment. Upon completion of six assignments, the examiners will award a pass or fail or may require one or two (maximum) further assignments. The recommendations of the examiners are then sent to the University's external examiner (music) for validation. Successful candidates are awarded the Licentiateship Diploma at the Graduation Ceremony of the University of Salford.

3. ASSOCIATION OF BRASS BAND ADJUDICATORS (ABBA)
This is a progressive, autonomous organisation in the U.K., that in 1999 emerged from the Panel of Adjudicators administered by Boosey and Hawkes. Adjudicators were selected from this panel for the annual series of regional (there are eight regions in the U.K.) qualifying contests that culminate in the National Championships held in the Autumn. Inclusion on this select panel was by peer review of the nominees' prowess in specific and wider aspects of music making with particular emphasis on status and/or competitive success. In 1999 there were 47 founder members, but currently membership has increased to almost 70 members. Again, membership is restricted to a rigorous peer review of ability and track record. Members must demonstrate extensive musical knowledge including an understanding of traditional repertoire and, importantly, an acute awareness of contemporary repertoire. To assist in the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) of members, ABBA have developed a number of initiatives to enable those associated with competitive aspects of brass bands to understand more about the process of adjudication. Consistency of approach is a vital aspect, since some facets of judging may be more prone to personal subjectivity than others. It is important for an adjudicator to maintain an open mind with regard to all performances. For example, three bands can play a section of music at the same tempo, one may sound laboured, another may sound uneven and scrambled, whereas the other may emerge as being fluent, rhythmically precise, with the music well spaced. Thus pre-conceived notions about tempo are misplaced since the metronome mark cannot be absolute for many reasons that include ensemble proficiency musical style and acoustic liability.

Likewise, the training of a new generation of adjudicators as part of a structured ‘correct style' progression is important. When a panel of adjudicators are appointed to officiate at a contest, the panel should ideally demonstrate a blend of maturity, experience and evidential potential. Open forums to discuss matters of concern, together with focused topics such as the application of Performance Assessment Criteria (PAC) remain an integral part of the purposeful and progressive approach by ABBA to "maintain and improve a professional level; and to protect and enhance the status of Brass Band Adjudicators".

The range of Performance Assessment Criteria (PAC) initially presented by Alan Morrison at ABBA's 2006 CPD session has now been summarised following discussion by the Executive Committee of ABBA. The use of this criteria is intended to facilitate an overall consistency in standardizing the task of adjudicating and should assist audiences, bands and conductors to understand more precisely what adjudicators are listening for in performances. In strictly alphabetical order, the criteria embraces:-
• Accuracy of pitch and rhythms
• Appropriate style, including the use of vibrato
• Balance and blend
• Colour and general band sound
• Control through dynamic and pitch range
• Dynamics, expression and shape
• Inspiration
• Mixed understanding
• Precision and ensemble
• Quality of soloists
• Slips
• Tempi, in relation to interpretation
• Tempi, in relation to technique, i.e. too fast/slow for comfort
• Tuning and intonation

Obviously, all these factors have an ever changing order of importance within the duration of a performance. Mature adjudicators have invariably used this criteria in the past, but the published list helps to quantify the adjudicating task in more precise terms than hitherto.

4. ADDRESSING THE AUDIENCE
At most competitive events, part of the adjudicator's role is to explain what factors have influenced the decision making process. At the majority of levels, this can be highly informative and educational, both for the audience and the competitors but at the very highest echelons of banding, these aspects become much less obvious.

Nevertheless, when the adjudicator does address an audience, it is important to explain precisely and without ambiguity the factors that contributed to the order of merit for that contest, coupled with the overall impressions of the standards of performance displayed by the competitors. Such an explanation must be crystal clear and concise and must match the results! The correct use of phraseology is fundamental to minimize ambiguity and misunderstandings amongst the audience who are listening intently, but perhaps under varying degrees of duress or tension. Adjudicators should always remain fully aware that the audience is knowledgeable, certainly to varying degrees, but it is likely that there will be many present who have just as good a critical capability as the adjudicator and who will also have listened impartially to the entire contest. It is wise to remember that there are people who listen to what you say, and not just listen to you speaking!

5. ADJUDICATION PANELS
Historically, the two major contests at Championship level, viz. the British ‘Open' formerly held at Belle Vue Manchester, but now staged at Symphony Hall, Birmingham and the National Finals, held at the Royal Albert Hall, London since the mid 1940s, have used three Adjudicators as the Adjudicating Panel. One member was originally considered to have the role of a referee, to be consulted in instances where there may be differences of opinion. This approach has largely been discontinued with each panel member making an equal contribution to the process of comparative assessment. More recently, the successful Cambridge ‘Masters' contest and the new English National Championships Contest have used a panel of three Adjudicators, with the former moving from a solitary situation where each adjudicator was housed separately but unsighted from each other and the competing bands. More recently, the trio of adjudicators now work alongside each other. This facilitates the continuing discussion and beneficial of performances. Likewise, the National Finals for the Lower Sections (1 – 4) have traditionally used two adjudicators, with this approach now being extended to the Regional Qualifying Contests, thus reflecting the importance of these events. This development has strengthened the potential of the organizers to demonstrate accountability by providing a more balanced opinion on each performance for the entire order of merit relative to each section. This is crucial to bands now that promotion and relegation conditions are being unilaterally applied on a countrywide basis.

Other major invitation contests in the U.K. such as the Grand Shield Spring Festival, the Scottish Arena, Pontin's Contest in the Autumn and the Butlin's Mineworker Contest at the start of the New Year also use Panels of two adjudicators. The British Solo Championship Contest also uses two adjudicators in the qualifying round and in the final itself. Such panels are common too, in the major European contests as, for example, in the Siddis Contest in Norway.

The North American Brass Band Championships also use a panel of three adjudicators, nominally from different musical backgrounds. The appointment of more than a single adjudicator at these important contests enables the organizers to select adjudicating panels where the members have different blends of experience. This enables each performance to be assessed using a wider perspective of opinion, both for the Critical Appraisal and the subsequent Competitive Assessment (should this be the mode of adjudication used) of the performance of each competing band.

Similarly, National, State and Zone contests in Australia and New Zealand where the competing bands can be of a similar level of competence and delivery in performance merits an immediate move away from the use of single adjudicators to the more advantageous introduction of adjudicating panels.

The increased expense involved in this desirable progression is small in comparison with the costs incurred by competing bands who attend these prestigious events, the overall benefit being much improved accountability for the subsequent results.

6. CODA
So to the traditional maxim – the adjudicator's decision is final. So be it, but remember, all adjudicators you are inevitably accountable for the output of their findings and therefore open to informed scrutiny to justify their decision, should this be considered appropriate and necessary.

.