I just want to announce that my Kids from Flamingoes just called to say thanks because they got their cheques today. So I am extending the thanks to everyone especially the WST Forum for their contribution to the discussion.
I also want to thank McQuilkin for again stepping forward to give some explanation and accountability.
I understand that all the bands did not receive their cheques and I believe that it is because they did not hand in their information on the day of the preliminaries.
Flamingoes was requested to hand in their list of players before they performed and they complied ... so the other bands which did not do so and who still have not done so ..Talk to your management because every job that you do you either have to clock in a card or present an invoice to get paid. It is in your interest to compile accordingly this way it will cause less delays and not give an excuse for the money to remain in the bank collecting interest that you might not be a benefactor of.
Anyways the Battle is not quite over because next year will come around and if this situation is not remedied ...the relapse is going to happen next year.
My simple suggestion is for the management of the bands of T&T to insist that this preliminary money be paid one week after the preliminary round for all the bands who will submit their proper lists of players (invoices). This will avoid the hassle of having to wait three months or more after the preliminary round ...This is not unreasonable since as PTB states that this money is directly from the Government for the individual Pan players who participate in the preliminaries.
It should not be tied up with NCC or other Pan Trinbago business
..I'm just saying.......
Respect in democracy for everyone to have a say
Salah
Replies
well said,let me take this opportunity to wish a happy birthday to Mr. Ray Holman--22nd april
McQuilkin,
My point is that because we have different categories and arrangers are subjected to this limitation.
but I am not advocating for everyone to go play in other bands because as you pointed it out that you could only be at one band at a time. The reality is that a percentage of people do play with more than one band and one way of addressing that issue is categorizing them like the arrangers that is the essence of my argument.
Salah
Maybe I am from the old school but this is a competition and my band is playing for bragging rights over the others and thus I need my players every night that my band is going through its paces.Salah I am sure as an arranger you understand that.So which band are these players rooting for or which one are they putting everything into their performance.Another thing is trying to convince the Government that players should be paid for playing with a band in each catergory.What we are trying to do is to get some kind of compensation for them for playing on the road as bands are compelled to pay insurance and cabs to pull their trailers which have to be made to certain specs leaving the band with almost nothing to pay players.Our argument is the disappearance of live music on the road and the cost to the bands.
A point of concern,
There are good Pan players in Trinidad and Tobago and some people can definitely play with more than one band confidently ( I don't know about 10 bands) . But my point is that Pan is still seasonal and it is the only time that the "Panman-/Panwoman" can make a dollar and they should be allowed to do so ..but there should be a system in place...maybe something like the arrangers in each category as was previously mentioned.
Salah
But what happens when that dollar becomes 80 cents? Every time that is suggested people scream bloody murder but at the same time we need to look at the larger picture. Pan is a market that is small enough as it is, even while being heavily subsidized by the government. So while Pan Trinbago cuts $1000 checks for phantom players who exist to fill a disproportionately large demand, everyone is ready to cuss them if they say it will be less next time.
And in regards to the poor panman getting by on panorama money, I don't know about everywhere, but in my experience most of the extreme hustlers are UWI students. And a lot of them neglect class and schoolwork during the season. Is that worth making a dollar?
Thank you Noah for that is the kind of comment that I look forward to seeing on this forum.Rest assured that I will take your two suggestions to the next Executive meeting and if they find favour you will be given the credit.I see a problem though what;s to stop the hustler from the conventional band from hustling in the single pan band?
I should clarify. I don't think there is a problem with players playing with more than one band. I do it myself. Musically it can be very positive, in that one may experience different categories, different arranging styles, to support an arranger who might have several bands, or to keep playing if their band runs out of the competition. And they should rightfully be paid for their efforts. Maybe the same rule as exists for arrangers, one band per category. It is the players who overdo it in an obvious bid to make as much money as possible that are the issue... but as long as there is a thirst for players, hustlers will step up and offer their services. Seeing as fewer young people seem interested in pan as they once were, I think the only alternative is to go the other way and make a slight reduction in band sizes, for example, Max. 100 large, 70 medium, 50 small, 35 single.
Put it another way. I don't think there is really a way to control hustlerism as regards payment or other imposed rules. Players have ways of getting around existing rules for the prelims check for instance. In fact I don't think it's even fair to limit players to one band, for the reasons I outlined above. But the increasingly damaging practice of playing for as much money as possible would be curtailed greatly if min/max was reduced and bands felt less pressure to "make numbers". Supply and demand would match up more evenly.
Noah
You have raised a couple interesting points, that merits serious considerations
Salah
People are so concerned abut this supposed evil empire taking advantage of the players. But at the same time, there are players who are taking advantage of the system, and the music suffers. The idea of playing for money and not for love of the music or the instrument is being encouraged more and more with this hustler behavior. PT tried to stop this by one person=one check, which resulted in a bunch of aunties and cousins suddenly "playing" with a bunch of bands. And until PT reduces the size limits of the bands, this will continue and PT, the bands, and the movement will bleed money. For most bands struggle to make the minimum, and warily have to use the hustlers to fill that gap. Sadly that gap tends to only be filled on stage...
I feel the need to state that this isn't an observation made from three thousand miles away when I watch panorama on the internet. I am there, I work with bands, arrangers, and managements annually. I see the problems and I hear their concerns. And my viewpoint doesn't stop at the Phase IIs and Neal and Massys and Exoduses and WITCOs and so on, but extends to those bands and arrangers who catch their ass every year, have no sponsor, and have to compete with each other for renegade players like pigeons fighting over breadcrumbs. Don't believe me? Visit a few east conventional bands on the nights leading up to single pan prelims in that region and tell me what you see...I bet it won't be a band practicing.
I hope Mr. McQuilkin is still visiting this forum because I would like to respectfully propose two changes to the system which would help this issue.
1. Reduce size limits for each category by fifteen to twenty players. A lot of bands struggle to make numbers, and resort to hustlers who by and large are in it just for the prelims check and don't care if the band makes it through, as only the PT prelims check is guaranteed when working with an impoverished band. And now that the PT check is seen as up in the air, these bands might not even be able to depend on the hustlers anymore, and may have to drop to a smaller category or not come out at all, neither of which are positive for the bands or the movement as a whole.
2. Move single pan competition to later in the year. Single pan has become an attractive way for hustlers to get many checks and do less work. But the conventional bands suffer. Moving this out of the carnival season would alleviate that. The single pansides almost universally play older tunes so timeliness of music is not a concern. It would also spread out the money throughout the year which means less bookeeping at once for PT, and another windfall for players out of the carnival season. Bonus: the single pansides, freed up from panorama during carnival, could instead focus on fulfiling that long-lamented lack of pan music on the road. I know people on this forum would just love that. And wouldn't we all like to see more pan events throughout the year?
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next