Editorial ~ 2007 June

This month we consider the sharing and promotion of bands, test music and prize money....what prizemoney!?

Secrecy and protection?

In a discussion recently with someone heavily involved in the brass band scene both in Australia and New Zealand, a statement was made: "Conductors in New Zealand may be different to those in Australia." 

This really got me thinking.  Firstly there are several conductors who are actually English - are they different to Australia and New Zealand conductors - and are they then 'different' depending on whether they live in Australia or New Zealand.

Feedback from different sources has tended to suggest that there is a particular 'protective' envelope around bands prior to an important contest - a general feeling of bands not wanting to share information such as their conductors names for example. Is this really the case?  If so, why?  Aren't bands keen to promote themselves along with the conductors and any news surrounding their activites.

Whether this is a factor common across all grades is unknown.

Perhaps this feeling is because, generally speaking, the pre-contest media hype is a very new concept Downunder, and the attitude is very much, "This is what we have always done therefore this is the way it is going to be", or is there some sort of perception that if the adjudictor finds out who the conductors are, this will influence their adjudicating decision - thereby suggesting the adjudicators integrity may be questioned.  So in effect, lets release as little information as possible and potentially avoid criticism of the adjudicators integrity after the event.  If this is the case - should this be a priority.

Do New Zealand conductors really want to be protected from the public knowing they are conducting a brass band?  If so, could someone please suggest why this is the case.   Do Australian conductors feel this same way?

To date, not one single band attending the 2007 National Championships has been forthcoming with information for the pre-contest articles.  Objectively, this could be because either bands (or their administrators) don't want to share, bands haven't had time to share, or bands couldn't be bothered sharing, or it simply isn't a priority.  Interesting.

4barsrest provides a medium for bands to promote themselves at no cost yet the majority of bands downunder just don't seem to want to take advantage of the service.

Lots of questions.

Tell us what you think?  du.comments@4barsrest.com

Test music

The coming New Zealand Championships is the first year of the introduction of the solo syllabus where entrants have been able to choose from a list of four pieces.  If entry numbers are any indication of the approval of the new system, then soloists are all for it. 

The biggest problem seems to have availability of the music from the preferred supplier.  A problem to be sorted before next year. Indeed, the BBANZ made this statement in its contest newsletter: "On behalf of the BBANZ Management Committee – we offer a sincere apology to any one who has experienced difficulties obtaining the test music this year. The only explanation we can offer is that the implementing of the new solo syllabus has been overwhelming for our preferred music supplier. The Management Committee is committed to improving the system for future contests."

The A Grade test piece is causing a few bands grief.  The demands of Concerto No. 1 for Brass Band by Bourgeious is an unpleasant and unrealistic challenge for some. 

Test piece choice is such an important decision.  In New Zealand, in lieu of a body such as a Musical Advisory Panel, the Chief Adjudicator at the NZ National Championships is asked to select the band test music for the following year.  A system which, on the whole, has worked well.

Choosing a test which will provide enough substance to separate bands but also be playable by all bands in a particular grade is the goal.  Hopefully the decision makers do have this at the forefront of their minds.

Tell us what you think?  du.comments@4barsrest.com

Prize money

The recent article http://www.4barsrest.com/news/detail.asp?offset=25&id=5733 highlights the huge difference between contesting in Australia and New Zealand compared with the UK and Europe.

Brisbane Excelsior have been Australian Champions for the last 3 years yet their prizemoney is an amazing $0.  Although  MIFB funding has been offered the last two years, this money must go directly towards the expenses of travelling to MIFB (which incidently only half covers the total cost) and is not a cash prize. 

Corporate sponsorship of any real significance seems to be virtually non-existent. Yet in the UK corporate sponsorship deals particularly for the higher profile bands, though sometimes insecure, are still very much available. 

The contest prize-money on offer is staggering.  The Whit Friday comp held last weekend dished out $125,000 in cash as prizes.  The fifth place band at the UK Masters were awarded $1250. 

Consequently, one could then say that brass banding in Australia and New Zealand cannot possibly hope to advance without adequate funding.  It certainly has little to no chance of matching the standards of its Northern Hemisphere friends - particularly at the higher end of the game.

Whilst government funding is readily available should bands choose to track it down, this funding can rarely be used for competition purposes.  So, should bands shift their focus away from the competitive arena and persue non-competitive performances and funding.  I maintain there is room for both if the organisation has a willing body of volunteers to help source the $$$.  Many organizations already have strong highly successful subscription series concerts, and other fund-raising abilities, which help to support their existence and contest expenses.

We are doing it tough in terms of money compared to our UK counterparts.  How can we change this?

Tell us what you think?  du.comments@4barsrest.com

^back to top