Editorial ~ 2005 November

4-Nov-2005

This month we discuss the future of marching and the adjudicator selection process here Downunder.


The future of marching
 
No issue seems to be more divisive in Australian and New Zealand banding than marching.  Why is this so?
 
First, there's the origins of our movement to consider.  It wasn't until 1924, when the the first band to ever sit on a contest stage was the Newcastle Steelworks Band (conducted by Albert Baile) when they won the British Open Championship.
 
Also, our brass bands have been intrinsically linked to the military through Returned Services Leagues and Associations, and many remain that way today.  This link has caused brass bands to be marching bands, celebrating ANZAC Day and other significant events by participating in street marches, parades and other official commemorative functions.
 
Progressively, bands have attracted younger players and conductors; people who see the marching aspect as old-fashioned, outdated and 'uncool'.
 
As the British scene has become more professional - both in style of music and the calibre of musican attracted to it - the downunder scene has been challenging the way we perceive ourselves in the eyes of the public.  Brass bands don't have a great public image, and many are now blaming the tradition for holding back our progress.
 
But maybe this tradition is to continue for some time.  At the recent BBANZ Annual Conference, a remit was put before the meeting to make street marching at the National contest optional.  The motion was defeated.
 
Is marching essential to our movement?  Is it what defines us as a movement?  How do we want to be defined?  Can we break free?
 
What do you think?  Send us an email to downunder@4barsrest.com


Adjudicators

It seems that adjudicators are always prime targets for criticism. Regardless of the decision made, they can never please everyone. Here in the ‘Colonies' we have taken adjudicator bashing to the finest level – it's probably the ‘digger' in us reminding us to question all authority. But are we critical for a good reason? Is it possible that we really do have some suspect ‘experts'?

What is the process for selection of adjudicators in Australia and New Zealand? Undoubtedly there are many ‘same-old, same-old'; it's not that often that we are treated to ‘new blood', and when we do see someone new, there's a certain degree of skepticism: does this person really know what they're on about? Are they old enough/experienced enough? Who are they – do we know that person? It would be interesting to know whether there is a set process for adjudicator selection, and even more important - whether there is a process for adjudicator recruitment.

The question re adjudicator selection is quite general, and the next consideration is at what level do we hold this discussion? At the moment the State and District bodies all operate independently; with their own little sets of rules and ways of doing things. It seems that the idea of even standardising some of the basics (such as permits!) between the separate bodies is a difficult quest – so how could be possibly consider a standardised process for adjudicator selection?

But, even at a National level the process of adjudicator selection is often questioned. How is/are the adjudicator/s selected for the National Championships? Who decides whether there should be one, two, or even three behind the screen?  Just a couple of years ago there was an adjudicator from the UK for the Australian National Championships who not only surprised with his results, but was downright rude in general to banding in Australia. Was this situation the subject of scrutiny by the National Band Association? No doubt this adjudicator would have been less abrasive had there been a co-adjudicator.

Another aspect of banding that's intriguing here Downunder is that we still seem to employ adjudicators who have no formal qualifications. It's virtually impossible to gain employment as a teacher, performer, conductor or even eisteddfod adjudicator without tertiary qualifications, yet it's acceptable to have adjudicators for band competitions with just a ‘wealth of experience'. Yes, of course experience counts – but there are actually plenty of people ‘out there' who not only have experience, but have the piece of paper too. Then of course there's the notion of actually giving less experienced people a go – so that they can gain the experience!

In most areas of employment there is a system of review – surely it's a good idea to ask the same of adjudicators? There are plenty of people who are constantly striving to improve themselves and who would no doubt relish the opportunity to show proof of further study and experience. This in itself could become part of a selection process: someone who is keen and enthusiastic about their craft, and is getting out and keeping up with current learning and trends is surely a terrific consideration as an adjudicator?

There's another interesting scenario to consider in this discussion, and that's the adjudicator who is experienced and qualified, but with little or no brass band experience. It's an interesting one, because this person often has a different concept of how brass should sound – usually more orchestral. The ‘brass band' sound is unique and aims for a rich and mellow sound, yet an adjudicator with an ‘ear' for the orchestral (or perhaps American?) brass sound may be biased in a totally different direction. Witnessing an adjudication like this is quite startling!

What about the actual adjudication itself? Should there be a standardised process for all adjudicators to adhere to? Is this actually possible? Why do some adjudicators award points in the 80s and 90s, yet others in the 70s and 80s? How is it that a soloist can win with the same solo, played relatively the same, in more than one competition and with more than one adjudicator, and be awarded such a variance of marks? It's likely that there will never be an adequate solution to this – unfortunately adjudicators are humans – all unique individuals with their own set of values.

Regardless of what steps are taken to ‘tidy up' the adjudicator selection process here Downunder, human nature will always prevail. Adjudicators will always be subject to criticism – a bit like umpires really! But we do need to be more critical in the adjudicator selection process, because we need to move with the times; move at the rate that brass banding is moving. We are definitely ‘up there' with the rest of the world now, and our adjudicators need to have credibility to be accepted by the banding community. We need to be bringing in new talent; training and nurturing new adjudicators to encourage and push our band movement further. Adjudicators are our ‘experts', and these experts need to be absolutely proficient with brass banding not only Downunder, but internationally.

What do you think?  Send us an email to downunder@4barsrest.com


PRINT FRIENDLY VERSION