Many have written to me regarding the endless stream of articles from ABBA (Association of Brass Band Adjudicators). Either ABBA are criticising me for having an opinion, or justifying their ancient ways, or criticising others for criticising them, or criticising other countries for daring to show initiative with different systems of judging. Nothing of what they have announced fills me with any confidence that the current leaders of ABBA are the right people to address the changes needed in the current set up of the brass band movement's contests.
Spokesperson Mr Derek Broadbent has not only been busy judging many brass band contests recently but has also thrown down the gauntlet for those who think they can do it better to try. Well, under the current self appointed ABBA system for recommending judges, there is not much chance of that happening. They are fiercely defending their unelected position in the brass band world. You may think that brass band adjudication is a pretty thankless task but why is it that Messrs Broadbent, Buckley and Brownbill are so busy? They must be the best in the business surely.
I was asked to attend a meeting with ABBA and had prepared comparative adjudication systems from many different spheres of music contests, from international solo contests (not just brass), to wind band contests in USA and Austria, Switzerland and Austria as well as brass band contests in USA, Switzerland and Norway. I have comparative analytical data from marking systems for marching bands contests, ice dance championships and gymnastics. They accuse me of speaking in rhetoric but the truth seems to be, given their refusal to meet, is that they don't want to know. The status quo suits them. Can the system of the ABBA man driving home from a contest, content that he's done the best he can, above criticism given 'the judge is always right' and ‘you can't question the result', be a musically fair one given that there are no marking criteria for the bands or audiences to refer to. The musical lottery that often results is demoralising for all except the winners and the judge. The apologists for the 150 year old system frankly would do well to really find out how out of step we are with the rest of the music world. I found Roy Newsome' s description of the Swiss Open's 5- man judging system as ‘dodgy' quite embarrassing and having been at this years contest in Lucerne can vouch that it's an immaculately run contest run by people who have listened and evolved the contest to the fairness and benefit of all bands. His assumption that the one man in a box system ‘seems to work alright' was interesting too. At the same time in this point in the brass band world's evolution we sent children up chimneys and gas light powered our houses. That seemed to work alright too !
There is no other music contest that I have come across in the whole world of music where such inadequate ancient systems are still the norm. It's clear the ABBA leadership do not want transparency of marking systems where judges individual marks are revealed. Surely if we have talented thoroughly competent judges we should want to know exactly what they thought. They are experts after all.
The dismissal of criteria based marking by many in ABBA is also in my opinion premature. I have seen some quite superb systems sent to me be leading lights in the brass band world but either ABBA don't know about them or refuse to embrace them nationally. Which is it? I think this aspect of the debate is crucial now.
If the ABBA leadership cannot seek to embrace the change and updating of our systems, they should make way for those who can.
I also wanted to show ABBA some of the correspondence I'd received from round the world. As they don't want to meet me I will send them by email this week copies of this correspondence as it's important they realise the strength of feeling there is. I do not expect a reply, as I've already written to them twice with no reply !
It is time for those who've promised support but prefer to keep their heads down to speak up too !! It's our brass band movement, not ABBAs.
Steven Mead 1st November
PREVIOUS ARTICLES
25th September
I have read with interest a lot of the correspondence that has been aired on web sites, forums and in the brass band media in the last week. Its clearly a subject that divides us !
People seem by their responses to be putting themselves into one of three ‘camps'.
1. Those who believe the current system of brass band adjudication is fine, that is to say, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes you play well and get nothing, other days you just play OK and get a nice surprise. The catch words seem to be "Don't worry about it, it's always been that way and you'll never change it." As a good friend of mine said "look, you do your best on stage then go and get pissed !" There are many in this camp !
2. There are some who believe passionately that we should move with the times and update and upgrade our system of adjudicating brass band contests, but given the lack of a fully authoritative controlling body in the UK Brass band movement such change will probably never happen. Fairness to all competing bands is the likely outcome especially once you get out of the top 5 or 6 places.
3. There are many who believe that change is necessary and is possible, but the mechanism by which such change can come and the rate of change, is not known, due to the ancient and fractured structure of our UK band movement.
Readers of this article will identify their own position in this debate within one of these three categories.
Many in the first category also seem intent on stifling any debate that could bring change, and seem right now to be intent on shooting the messenger and the message. I'm quite happy to accept personal criticism, but it seems others are not.
We live with an imperfect system of judging band contests, but because listening and the appraising musical performance is to many totally subjective, you will never have a system which is perfect. What's more they've never experienced anything else in their lives.
While I'm not interested in a perfect system (it cant exist), I and many others can envisage a better one.
I'm interested in a system where the appraisal of the musical performance is done against recognized and accepted criteria both technical and musical. If such guidelines for judges and bands were agreed I believe we would have a fairer system. It may also attract the much needed new blood into the adjudicating fraternity.
The system we have is so archaic, where one ,two or three people are asked to sit in a box or tent for up to 8 hours, unable to be part of the performance that everyone else in the hall enjoys and starts with a score and blank pieces of paper. They then judge all by comparative analysis and no other guidelines whatsoever. No guidance is given, except that the best band should win and the worst should come last and try to the get the others is the right order too.
So, they listen and write at the same time trying to weigh up somehow with their own personal system the weighting of excellence or otherwise of a clean accurate performance with musicality, faithfulness to the score, variety and extremes of dynamics, quality of soloists, tuning and balance, control, elegance, etc
If they are on their own then only their opinion counts, if there are two or three then a consensus is sought by discussion.
The bands, according to Derek Broadbent , from the Association of Brass Band Adjudicators seem to prefer the box as it provides anonymity for the judges and the some of the judges seem to prefer it for concentration.
There are problems with the notion of the box always providing 100% anonymity.
There are some issues here:
- some judges, from my experience like to try to guess the bands, they think they recognise style, timbre and soloists. It doesn't necessarily lead to higher of lower marks but I think it clouds their opinion.
- some boxes in the past have not always been visually ‘secure', with small holes where judges can peep at the stage if they so wish, and I have heard well documented stories of a well known judge , on his own, been seen straining to see the identity of bands through tiny spaces in the construction, as each one came on stage.
- If you are claiming complete guarantee of judges having no knowledge of band's identities , then in these days of technological advancement, it should be a complete prerequisite that all judges should hand in their mobile phones before the draw is taken so no-one can think to send information to a judge whether he or she wants it.
Let me clarify, I have never come across a judge who I deem as dishonest, or actly improperly, but it's the system that is troubling.
The other problem with the box is that it restricts sound. I've personally judged several times where, safely trapped in the box, I have been so disappointed to hear the sound of the first band , either because the box had to be located in a remote part of the hall (or balcony of the hall) or because the sound of the band was not full and vibrant as you would expect, but slightly muffled with colours stifled and sounding too distant. Surely the judges should be in the best place to hear everything.
If I asked someone who'd paid to go to hear a great band or orchestra in concert to wear a pair of headphones, and sit under the balcony, they would say quite rightly they‘d prefer to hear it naturally without impediment, in a seat of their choosing.
So, what would the advantages of doing away with the box ?
Well, until there is a proper ratified system of BB adjudication in place, not many advantages at all, save they can hear the bands better and have greater powers of recall (ie visual as well as audio memory and written notes). It would also allow judges to see what is going on, both the good and the other stuff (by which I mean artificial methods to obtain soft sounds, the deliberate milking of applause by conductors, soprano parts been played on her solo cornet, and so on). It would make for totally honest playing.
Obviously perceived disadvantages would be that personal favouritism , dislikes, personalities etc could be influential. Whilst there is ‘no-criteria' based marking this is not something I would advocate either. You'd win and lose at the same time.
What about the individuality of each judge coming as they should do from different backgrounds and experiences, and different generations hopefully? What about, for example, the composers perspective, an international perspective, an orchestral perspective. Right now in my opinion, there isn't enough variety in the adjudicating fraternity. In the UK in particular it seems to many to be a closed shop.
Most other European countries do it much better.
Doesn't it seem sensible that we should actually benefit from what each judge really thinks, rather than what is agreed on. The danger of one voice in the jury leading others has been raised before but because of tradition there hasn't been an impetus to change this. There are some very strong personalities amongst our leading experienced judges. In a panel of three should their opinions carry more weight ? If the marking system was different, and all the votes count, this problem would go away.
But without criteria based judging one could easily have the scenario of :
Judge 1 : Really liked it, thought it was exciting, gave it 93,
Judge 2,: Didn't like it so much, thought the slips were too serious, gave it 87,
Judge 3 : Didn't care for it because some of it was too fast and too loud, and gave it 80.
You can see the danger is that would arise with 'no-criteria' based judging. This was revealed I believe at the judging experiment at the All-England Masters Championships where very wide spread positions occurred when judges were left to their own devices, ie no marking scheme.
Whether the box is kept or dispensed with here I personally don't mind, although my preference , if pushed ,would be to dispense with it. I think in a civilised society you don't invite musicians hopefully at the peak of their career, so sit in the claustrophobic conditions as a box, offer no powers of visual recall, and don't drink water of coffee in case they have to use the chemical toilet in front of their colleagues. I ask you !
The way forward could be:
1. Criteria -based judging, with different criteria established for each section (Championship to 4th section), and for each type of contest including entertainment contests. I and some colleagues are creating now sample criteria sheets for Championship and 4th section as the basis for discussion only. Bands would see a transparent system of scoring that would be applied to their performance.
2. Independent marking by judges in all contests, with no conferring.
3. Larger panels of judges: 3 for all the major contests including the Area's, 5 for the National Finals, where the highest and lowest marks are not included in the aggregate scoring.
4. A body should be set up to review contest adjudication and monitor the performance of judges. Judges should be able to give feedback to this body to continually improve the scoring criteria. Judges who regularly mark outside say a % difference to the average mark awarded, should be monitored carefully.
5. Judges should be paid more, to enable them to do sufficient preparation time on the score and to attract more high quality talent into the judging fraternity.
6. A trial period of 12--18 months could be established to try on the new system for contests where the organisers are keen to test the new system.
BB adjudication can never be totally objective, but in the quest for fairness for all musicians, we should try to make it more objective than it is now.
The debate will continue.
18th September
Thank you all for the literally hundreds of messages of support. Now it seems we are about to talk about the issues that are facing the brass band movement, particularly with regard to our competitions and how they are adjudicated.
It is clearly something that has aroused much debate and the overwhelming message I've received from bandsmen and women is that such a stand was long overdue. There are some who are intent in shooting the messenger rather than listen to the message. Others have tried in the past but the tradition-locked backward looking view of many, and those who find themselves in privileged positions within the brass band hierachy, have resisted change. Why? Surely all those of us who care deeply about brass bands also care about the movement's future. I urge people to take off the blinkers and start to envisage a dynamic UK scene where we all work together in the spirit of cooperation for the good of our art. We must be inclusive, from the village band to the national champions. Every person who plays in a band and who enters competitions deserves fairness and a careful appraisal of each performance. In the lower sections particularly encouragement as well as 'marking' and ranking should be the norm. Clear marking strategies should be made clear to all participating bands, rather than the 'we know best' approach and inadequate explanation.
Please take a listen to an interview I gave (17th September) on www.4barsrest.com
If you believe in change in the brass band movement, get involved, don't spectate. This is not a one man band !
Thank you for your support.
16th September 2009
I have been part of the brass band movement since around 1978, as many of you know, as a member of leading bands, as an adjudicator, and now as a conductor. Brass bands are in the bloodstream of so many hundreds, no ,thousands of enthusiasts both in the UK and around the world.
These people dedicate their lives to their bands, sacrificing family time, time with their children, even work prospects to give loyal and dedicated service to their band.
Whilst many will accuse me of sour grapes I think it is time to say a few words about what seems to many to be a lack of consistency of adjudication that besets our movement.
My own band Whitburn today (Sept.12) came 17th at the British Open with a performance that most observers had in the top 6 or 7. I have no problem with the results of the first 4 or 5 placings, some of the ‘professional' bands we have today are quite simply in a league of their own with large financial resources and a large percentage of truly professional players. I have no problem whatsoever with the success these bands have, which allows under the current rules for such bands to do well. They are at the pinnacle of our movement. Any aging relative may be able to put them at the top of a long list of contenders in any competition such as the British Open. My beef lies with the fact that many of our adjudicators seem to have no enough powers to correctly assess a long list of bands after the obvious contenders. The criteria necessary to judge as many as 18 bands are not laid out clearly, leaving bands disaffected and bewildered.
I know this is controversial and will provoke debate, but it is time to air my opinion. Easier to keep silent of course and let travesties of adjudication continue for years to come as the number of bands dwindle and players vacate the movement.
I think it is time for an overhaul of the contest adjudication system particularly with regard to selection and appraisal of judges, many of whom have been doing the same role for over 40 years . They and the people who represent them seems intend on maintaining the status quo, whilst the band world seems to be needing more fresh minds, people who are actually currently involved in music making at a high level. I have had discussions in recent years with contest organisers and there is a mood for change. Some have been brave enough to use new faces in the 'box'. For years judges refused to address the audience at the end of a contest. Thankfully in the last 2 or 3 years this situation at least has changed.
I would advise contest organisers to seek out younger adjudicators, with more stylistic awareness, more powers of recall. We must find judges less set in their ways and to use David Reads comments addressed to the assembled audience on the afternoon of the British Open as an example, less of the ‘we know best' and ‘things aren't as good as they used to be.' Yes, they are, they are vastly superior and the music we play is more complex, demanding greater research, greater intuitive reaction to different performances and greater powers of recall to a large number of performances.
The time has come for change, and quickly. Judges need to more precisely analyse and appraise each performance and the have the ability to put these in a ‘correct' and logical order.
With the greatest respect the results of the 'minor' placings at today's British Open were 'surprising' and left many confused aqnd disappointed.
I know its fashionable to take any result on the chin but I think its time to put my cards on the table. For me the Open 2009 was the straw that broke the camels back.
In my opinion there is not enough talent within brass band adjudicating to do justice to the level of bands we enjoy here and if we don't fix it fast, the death knell of the brass band movement will ring faster and louder than ever we could dare fear.
I think we need a new generation of perceptive and able musicians to judge contests at all levels. Contest organisers should take heed, and quickly, if band contests don't descend into farce.
Reward our long service colleagues with medals, awards and honour for they have given good service for many years, but you simply cannot go on allowing some in our movement to continue to judge with the regularity they currently do. They are too set in their ways.
The time has come to take a stand.
If it has opened a can or worms then so be it. I will stand and fight my corner for what I believe in. It's either that or walk way.
The future of brass bands in the UK and around the world is too important to keep silent.
I hear changes are afoot and not before time.
Steven Mead 16th September 2009
I already knew that feelings on the subject of brass band adjudication were running high and this is why I had been having discussions with many in the movement over the last year or so. But the massive amount of correspondence I've received in the last two days has convinced me that change is certainly overdue. Not just a tinkering with the system but a root and branch overhaul. I've received support from composers, conductors, players the championship section bands, members of other bands from Saturday's contest, members of the audience from the weekend , brass players who've recently giving up playing out of frustration about the situation; all seem united in their desire for change. Somehow the much needed overhaul of the British brass band scene has to be done with the consensus of those in the bands or we will fall back into a similar trap we are in now, but a different one.
Where is the democracy in the brass band movement ? How are the players who give up their free time to play in a brass band ever consulted in how things are run? They are not. And I think they should be
No I'm not talking about the inmates running the asylum, I'm talking about a truly democratic process for the first time in this country whereby members of our movement , tens of thousands of brass players, young and old can have a say in how things are run. I'm expecting a lot of resistance and old habits die hard but surely it's better for old habits to die than watch players vacating the movement. I don't think we can sit back any longer.
I have been contacted by so many who dreamed of change for so long and many had given up hope. The sour grapes brigade will sing their familiar song and contest victors may well shrug their shoulders but I urge people to think beyond the last two days and this week but to a vision of how they want the band world to look in a year or two, or five. To those players in bands who are in their late teens and early twenties, can you envisage a brass band world where your young offspring in years to come are encouraged to play in junior bands.? Surely we should plan for the state of our band world, just as this country and the rest of the world have had to contemplate climate change .The world has started to take steps to save the planet, so surely we can take steps to adapt a brass band world to the society in which we live now.
As I said before, it's easier to say nothing. But the price we pay for that is that we have to live with the frustration that a much loved pastime is being withered by a lack of direction and realism.
15th September 2009