A wry, light-hearted view of our band adjudicators
WHEN I was a youngster the usual situation at band contests was that one adjudicator would be the order of the day and that sole adjudicator had the broad shoulders necessary to take all the criticisms that came his way after he had decided who the best three bands were.
In those days there were never any female adjudicators appointed.
With one adjudicator you could always say that despite your band playing a very good performance “the adjudicator did not appreciate our performance and on another day with a different judge we might have won!”.
After all is said and done it is down to the personal opinion of the adjudicator and different adjudicators have different opinions.
Ask two adjudicators in separate boxes to place 20 bands in order and when comparing their lists you may find the first six could be the same, but they may not have them in the same order, but from 7th to 20th there would undoubtedly be a real mish-mash. Because of the constant criticism of the sole adjudicator it was decided to have two.
Do two adjudicators always agree on the best band? What then transpires when they don’t?
Basically two adjudicators can come up with difperhaps ferent winners and therefore some compromise has to be agreed. How do they manage to compromise? We never seem to get bands sharing the first prize. So is the result decided by the adjudicator who can look the most intimidating?
I always get a mental picture of Laurel and Hardy in the box when waiting for the adjudicators to emerge and cannot help but smile when I imagine them arguing over whom is going to be the recipient of that winner’s trophy.
So what happens when there are three judges as occurred at the recent national finals? Do the organisers invite one big bloke and two smaller ones in order to reduce the time it may take to find a winner? How do three very strong personalities get together and arrive at a winner, when each has a different favourite?
I once read the adjudications of the first three bands at the national championships and I could not have picked the winning band from the adjudications.
I am really intrigued as to how the three adjudicators agreed, not only on the winner, but also on the order of the three bands who were, in my opinion, all as good as each other.
When there is more than one adjudicator then they should not be housed in the same box, but should be in separate boxes and points given for each band’s performance and at the end points are added up and the winner is the band that has the highest total.
No compromise needed, but at least two boxes are required or even three, which means more cost.
I have my doubts about two or three boxes being the order of the day in the future, but I believe that that is the best way forward if more than one adjudicator is used.
Of course using this system could produce no clear winner and more contests could end with tied results. Wow – what an interesting situation that would create.
Perhaps having just one adjudicator giving an honest appreciation will do the business, economically, and perhaps more efficiently because of the saving of time and will allow bandsmen to still believe that under a different adjudicator they might have won.
The photograph above shows Cory celebrating their win at the 166th British Open at Birmingham earlier this month and at least the general concensus was that they were outstanding winners so the open adjudicators were not required “to don the gloves”!
Cory – 2018 outstanding British Open Champions
Comedy duo Laurel and Hardy remind David of some of the band adjudicators – in jest of course!