Editorial ~ 2006: June

10-Jun-2006

This month we give our views on Kapitol's Nationals Championships; The need for a banding Glasnost and the test pieces for the National Finals in Harrogate and London.


A Kapitol National

The news that Kapitol Promotions has secured ownership of the titles associated with the National Brass Band Championships of Great Britain shouldn't come as any sort of surprise. Even though the vast majority of bandsmen and women say they would like to see the ‘Nationals' owned and democratically run by the movement itself, there has never been any inclination or realistic desire to do so. 

Given that Besson went ‘belly up' some considerable time ago, and that in the last desperate months it had begun to resemble the last vestiges of a banana republic in the way in which it was run, if there had been any desire for the ‘movement' to own the titles surrounding the National Championships, then they should have stepped in then and there. That no one did, tells you more about the state of apathy that surrounds the movements real desire to democratically run itself than anything else.

Kapitol stepped in because it was in a position to see that something could be done to secure the titles – titles that quite amazingly hadn't been registered by Besson or anyone else for that matter.

It does not give Kapitol ownership of the Championships – that is a somewhat intangible question; but it does put them in a position whereby their existing financial commitment to the Regional Championships (although interestingly not Scotland), the Rules, Music Panel, Lower Section Finals and booking of the Royal Albert Hall until 2012, places them in position whereby they can run their version of a National Championship with the appropriate titles (Besson National Championships of Great Britain Ltd or National Brass Band Championships of Great Britain) to back them.

They do not own the trophies (ownership of the big National Cup still remains a mystery) and it does not stop anyone else from promoting their own version of a ‘Nationals' – as long as they get the right title to back it up. But can you honestly see anyone else having the time, energy and financial commitment to do it?  

Kapitol has acted swiftly, and cleverly, and has also secured financial backing for this year's event in London. They have also shown in the past that they are a company that can run the events both in Harrogate and Kensington professionally too.

Bands want to play at contests, and the vast majorities don't really care if that contest is run by a private company, a charity, a regional committee or even a national body. As long as there is decent prize money, good music and the facilities are up to scratch, they don't seem to mind too much if someone makes a profit out of it, as long as they are not over exploited.

In an ideal world, the movement, for the benefit of the movement, would run the Nationals. In 60 years though, no one has even wanted to do it that way.  It seems no one wanted to change that for the future either.

What do you think?
Send an email to:


Time for Glasnost

Why is it that the British Brass Band movement continues to believe it must retain a level of secrecy over the announcements of test pieces and judges for even the most minor of contests?

Is there some sort of banding ‘Official Secrets Act' that must not be breached when it comes to letting bands know what they have to first purchase, then play and be judged upon for contests?

It is a laughable situation that shows in our most introspective and amateurish light.

What is wrong with announcing as soon as the Regional Championships are over, the list of the test pieces to be played at the National Finals in six months times, or way in advance for the British Open, Pontins, Butlins or any other contest for that matter? Can't the organisers sort out their selections well enough in advance to do this? If they can't, then the decision should be taken away from them and given to people who can.

Do people really think that it would give any band an unfair advantage if they knew months, or even a year in advance what they would have to play come a finals? Wouldn't it improve the standard of the music played (especially in the Lower Sections) if bands had a greater amount of time to prepare?

And what about the judges?

What possible advantage could any band get from knowing who will be in the box for the contests well in advance?

The argument that there may be some conflict of interest between a judge and a band is nonsense. If there is, or may be, the judge in question should tell the organisers and a replacement should be sought. 

This year we have had the faintly ludicrous announcement of the test pieces for the Nationals (both well flagged on the grapevine to what had be chosen before hand) and the equally pointless non announcement of the men in the box at the Masters until literally the day of the contest.

All it tells the outside world looking in on us, is that we have yet to overcome the question of trust – that we are so sceptical of a breach of ‘fair play' that we persist with these antiquated conventions that should have been chucked away years ago.

It's time to open things out and get rid of our own in securities once and for all.

What do you think?
Send an email to:


The National test pieces

Talking about test pieces brings us nicely along to the selection for this year's National Finals.

The Lower Section Finals seem to have a fair old mix for which the Music Panel should be congratulated, although it would have been nice to report that room could have been made to showcase some of our most promising younger composers such as Simon Dobson or Peter Meechan. Perhaps they are being kept back for the Regionals next year?

Two of our most celebrated composer's, Alan Fernie and Philip Sparke will produce works that we are sure will be accessible and enjoyable for both performers and audiences alike, and it is particularly nice to see Philip's talents used again to test the bands on the first rung of the National contesting tree with his ‘Valerius Variations'.  

Alan has shown innumerable times in the past that he has the knack of producing works that are geared just about spot on for the level for which they are intended, and we are also sure that ‘Gothic Dances' will provide the Section 2 bands with something to enjoy both musically and technically.  

Peter Parkes meanwhile has shown over the years that he has a keen and perceptive ear to arranging, and his take on Gustav Holst's ‘Ballet from the Perfect Fool' should make for very interesting listening and performing.

A few eyebrows should be raised though with Gordon Langford's ‘Sinfonietta for Brass Band', a work that remains a real challenge for bands much higher up the pecking order than those in Section 3. Given that nationally the standard of Section 3 playing this year at the Regionals was pretty mediocre to say the least, this could be a very tough experience for the finalists.

Finally though, ‘Les Francs Juges', for the very best bands in the land at the Royal Albert Hall.

Even considering the intentions behind the decision, it is mind boggling that the Music Panel has come up with this half-baked, sub standard arrangement by Frank Wright that is colourless, poorly structured and is not even the best of his many orchestral arrangements that he churned out in the late 1950's and early 1960's because the movement had a paucity of anything else to play at the time.  

Why not ‘Benvenuto Cellini', a much sterner test of musical character and technique? Why not anything else for that matter, or even a new arrangement of the original instead of this old boot of a piece?

If we are to try and find the best band in the land, then we must do so by testing them in full. Only then does the real quality rise to the top. This piece makes it something more approaching a lottery, with bands and conductors ready and willing we are sure to add their own ‘additions' to enhance a monochrome piece of writing. 

‘Judges' was last used at the Nationals in 1961. It should have remained that way.

What do you think?
Send an email to:


PRINT FRIENDLY VERSION