I am interested in hearing from members of the bands who performed in this years panorama how the players limit affected their performance? Did it kill your organizations morale?
There is an article in the WST news section that has an Exodus player claiming they lost 20 points because of penalty for going over limit. Is this true?
bugs
Views: 417
You need to be a member of When Steel Talks to add comments!
rules are the rules i am sure that exodus knew the were over limit,i have played with exodus already also renegades an the unit was picked the night before so u know if u are playing or not this should have never happened
I play in a medium band and the 70 player limit was known to all members of our steelband. Management and the arranger decided that if you cannot play the song correctly as arranged and know the song like "the back of your hand" you will not be selected to play. All members agreed to that and that's how it went down.
Ah never see players so in all my life come practice early and stay back after practice was completed! Also what we did, if their were players who knew the song well, at various stages of the competition they got a chance to play. So it worked well for us. During the lead up to the semis bands were told that they could have the maximum amount of players for their category fro semis and finals. A few days after PanTrinbago called a meeting and reverted to their previous decision about the player limit.
The player limit was a method of belt tightening due to the financial crisis, and the limit was imposed due to monetary consequences. What a disservice to the hardworking men and women of pan! Hope things get resolved for next year 2010 Panorama.
MakeItPlain > Sue-Ann AlfredMarch 5, 2009 at 1:10am
Sueli?
Financial crisis?
Listen - word to you. If you know anythig about pan, and you seem to - you would know that pan players getting paid - for those who have been fortunate enough, for playing in panorama, is a 'recent' thing.
Pan is in the soul, the psyche of people. It is in the blood. Money be damned. That was not what it was about, and never has been - not for the true panjumbie. And the vast majority of pan people who practice night after night fall into that category!!!.
People would play, those who made the cut -- if it is one hundred fifty people, if the 'limit' allows - and for free. Real pan people play for that 'feeling' of being transported 'literallly out of this world.' It is an out of body experience with the drums.
Just give them their uniforms, and they will play for the sheer joy and euphoria.
So - it's back to the 'politricks' of pan trinbago, Patrick Arnold, and his little circle of cronies. They decided to downsize the bands - that is to cut the power of the 'legendary bands.' Fullstop. Finance had NOTHING to do with it - if you asked those pan people who were 'dropped on the drag'!
I totally agree that getting paid for playing is always a bonus for me, in fact I pay to play, the hundreds of pounds I spend to fly down & play with All Stars. Its what you do if you love it!
But I really cant get over the stories about people getting dropped on the drag & onstage, Im in England & heard MONTHS before about this 100 player limit stupidness, so of course the bands knew.
The limit is definitly an UGLY thing for me, Pantrinbago ALREADY made it easier for bands to compete, when they split Panorama, so why the need to limit the bands?
2 more Questions, (& Im NOT taking away from bands acheivements this year, because I enjoyed their performances & they played to the rules),
Would Silver Stars have won, if the "top 5" were at full strength?
& would Deltones have made the finals?
Again I really want to stress that I am just giving food for thought, as these bands made the jump up from medium & small respectively!
Yes,
With all due respect to all especially to Boogsie, Phase 2 Pan groove management and players, I as a seasoned player from the "states" I felt inslulted Panorama Night! I knew this situation may have occurred but...
Phase 2 Steelpan Groove took a beating on the drag. It was UGLY! Players were crying, cussing, and arguing. Some people have played with the band for years (as stageside players, and as traveling musicians from other countries, like myself). I was disgusted by the management of the band. I thought the way they dealt with the rules was disrespectful. There were even some people who played that were also dissappointed in how the band handled the 100 player rule. I think the morale was brought down. How would you feel if you been working hard every night to play and were cut right before showtime? I do not think we played as freely on the stage as heard on nights in the yard. While this maybe up for argument, I know there were politics involved in who was picked to play on stage. Some players who were not liked (or possibly known by) others were not chosen. There was POLITICS or POLILIKS going on.
I have been a Phase 2/ Boogsie lover ever since, and still will remain but these issues NEED to be addressed and eradicated or we will not go far as we SHOULD and CAN as a pan community.
I also heard that these rules of limiting players was given to band earlier but was not strictly enforced until now. Is that true?
Maybe someone can clarify a few things for me...
1.Who made the 100 player rule? Why make the 100 member rule?
2. If it is for the even payment of players why cant bands choose the 100 they would like to play? Many play just for the love, although some compensation is nice!
3. If the pan leaders agreed on entering this rule, then why not inform your players, especially the ones who intend to play for Panorama night only! Where is the support for the players?
Possible solutions...
1. Have a registration process for all bands to adhere to. Players must register with the band before a certain time (a week before, 2 weeks, a month, etc.) If bands make the 100 players mark. Registration is CLOSED!!
2. Inform the players a few days earlier of the strict rules and let them decide if they will take the chance come and possibly play.
3. Choose your 100 players days before and thank the others for their time and effort. Perhaps the excessed players could play for Jouvert, Monday, or Tuesday.
4. Not have Panorama be the only event or competition occurring this carnival season.
I do not know how true the Exodus situation was with the 20 points deduction but I heard the same thing nonetheless. I heard that was the band where players were on the stage and couldn't play because of the limit? They had to stand there while their bandmates played. The Panorama 2009 DVD clearly shows the players not playing on stage.
When will we come to a point where we will have better communication and organization in our pan communities?
And this brings us to the bigger questions...
1. Are we player advocates or panorama advocates? Who or what do we support more?
2. Where is the pan community and orchestras after panorama? (esp. in Trinidad and New York)
3. Is our worth based around winning one competition?
Firstly - Patrick Arnold should be publicly flogged.
This latest fiasco of reducing the number of players in the large band, is a sign of kow-towing to many (including some of the other not-so-big orchestras) who feel that the traditionally large bands overall have maintained too much of the glamor and attention.
Crippling these big bands by limiting them is an incredibly effective way of doing this. And those who suffered? The players, especially the young ones, who were blind-sided and upset on the drag, etc. The same type of scene played out in other bands too, before they took the stage.
Since Patrick Arnold has been around, and on his watch (he is the "president", after all) - changes have been made that are not necessarily kosher. Too many to mention here. Just one, the so-called additional categories for medium and small bands since 2004, there has been bacchanal. And it really came to bear in on panorama night in 2009 for the large bands.
Not that the bands' management are not themselves to blame. Whether or not they liked the 100-player rule - Panorama night was not the time to make a statement at the expense of their faithful players. Rules are rules. Arnold was on record, in the press, saying that the rule of 100 players would be upheld on competition night, (even though he seemed quite comfortable that there was some disregard of it in the semi-finals.)
So - either, let's see:
1) Desperadoes, Phase 2, Renegades, All Stars and Exodus should have boycotted in protest - and not participated in the finals. This would have been the first and last year patrick Anrold pulled this kind of BULLSHIT. The fiasco and embarassment would have been horrendous before in "international" audience - if only three bands had turned up at his grand finale
2) For the love of the artform and their players, these five bands could have decided to bite the financial bullet (Unlikely) - and go on stage with their full numbers - knowing full well that they would have all been disqualfied - but prove their point, and their players would have still reveled on stage.
3) Shut the hell up, and take the shit continuously shovelled down their throats - and more goes down each year - by patrick arnold and Pan Trinbago - with all the backroom double-dealing. In that case, the bands' management should have leveled with their players, and cut people to suit the 100 player limit, days before.
Bitching about the rules after the competition makes no sense. There is not enough unity among the large steel orchestras that Pan Trinbago has to even pause when they make these types of "decisions", and bands' management didn't have enough balls to stand their ground. The five super orchestras should have all come together and told Pan Trinbago before the competition "this is what it would take for us - as the real 'draw' - to appear at your panorama finals night." The time to make your stand, is BEFORE the event. Not after results have been announced. Now, their players, and their bands have paid the price in all the hurt that has now gone down, and all the trauma.
And Arnold and Pan Trinbago got away with yet another pack of shit, laughing all the way to the bank.
It makes no difference which bands get the prizes. Remember Pan Trinbago keeps ten percent of all winnings from each band, in each category. So Silver Stars, for example, gives back one hundred thousand dollars of their million-dollar prize, for "administrative costs" as pan trinbago so interestingly put it some time ago.
So:
The winners:
Pan Trinbago, and the backroom dealers (the other bands management who clapped their hands in glee when they got this limit imposed).
The losers:
- The players, who cried, screamed, and whatever else when this unholy crap went down.
- The public, and true lovers of pan who know how fabulous it is to see one hundred and twenty or fifty or so players putting on a fab show.
- The steelpan culture/artform, which is slowly being strangled by new restrictions ever so often, to suit those who just can't make the grade on the grand stage.
Can all the people in this forum challenge Pantrinbago all during the year. as the public is being cheated as well. We are being cheated of sweet music from the ssound of that 120 players we are getting less for our money. First they cut the final bands to eight now they are cutting the players down. People who come to listen to sweet musicdo not really care when they go home but the feters are a different thing. Every year I complain verbally and on some occassions by letter to Pantrinbago, but one voice is useless. It was total disrespect this year. How do they see young people who practice night after night. Look at how they treat the other catergories, no TV coverage nothing. Pantrinbago is slowly killing Panorama. Where is the research they have done to prove that people will go and play in small bands if the larger bands are limited to one hundred? Perhaps Pantrinbago should cut out the complimentary tickets and then they would not need the ten percent. Pantrinbago is a nonprofit organisation and as such should act as one
Replies
Ah never see players so in all my life come practice early and stay back after practice was completed! Also what we did, if their were players who knew the song well, at various stages of the competition they got a chance to play. So it worked well for us. During the lead up to the semis bands were told that they could have the maximum amount of players for their category fro semis and finals. A few days after PanTrinbago called a meeting and reverted to their previous decision about the player limit.
The player limit was a method of belt tightening due to the financial crisis, and the limit was imposed due to monetary consequences. What a disservice to the hardworking men and women of pan! Hope things get resolved for next year 2010 Panorama.
Financial crisis?
Listen - word to you. If you know anythig about pan, and you seem to - you would know that pan players getting paid - for those who have been fortunate enough, for playing in panorama, is a 'recent' thing.
Pan is in the soul, the psyche of people. It is in the blood. Money be damned. That was not what it was about, and never has been - not for the true panjumbie. And the vast majority of pan people who practice night after night fall into that category!!!.
People would play, those who made the cut -- if it is one hundred fifty people, if the 'limit' allows - and for free. Real pan people play for that 'feeling' of being transported 'literallly out of this world.' It is an out of body experience with the drums.
Just give them their uniforms, and they will play for the sheer joy and euphoria.
So - it's back to the 'politricks' of pan trinbago, Patrick Arnold, and his little circle of cronies. They decided to downsize the bands - that is to cut the power of the 'legendary bands.' Fullstop. Finance had NOTHING to do with it - if you asked those pan people who were 'dropped on the drag'!
WORD
I totally agree that getting paid for playing is always a bonus for me, in fact I pay to play, the hundreds of pounds I spend to fly down & play with All Stars. Its what you do if you love it!
But I really cant get over the stories about people getting dropped on the drag & onstage, Im in England & heard MONTHS before about this 100 player limit stupidness, so of course the bands knew.
The limit is definitly an UGLY thing for me, Pantrinbago ALREADY made it easier for bands to compete, when they split Panorama, so why the need to limit the bands?
2 more Questions, (& Im NOT taking away from bands acheivements this year, because I enjoyed their performances & they played to the rules),
Would Silver Stars have won, if the "top 5" were at full strength?
& would Deltones have made the finals?
Again I really want to stress that I am just giving food for thought, as these bands made the jump up from medium & small respectively!
With all due respect to all especially to Boogsie, Phase 2 Pan groove management and players, I as a seasoned player from the "states" I felt inslulted Panorama Night! I knew this situation may have occurred but...
Phase 2 Steelpan Groove took a beating on the drag. It was UGLY! Players were crying, cussing, and arguing. Some people have played with the band for years (as stageside players, and as traveling musicians from other countries, like myself). I was disgusted by the management of the band. I thought the way they dealt with the rules was disrespectful. There were even some people who played that were also dissappointed in how the band handled the 100 player rule. I think the morale was brought down. How would you feel if you been working hard every night to play and were cut right before showtime? I do not think we played as freely on the stage as heard on nights in the yard. While this maybe up for argument, I know there were politics involved in who was picked to play on stage. Some players who were not liked (or possibly known by) others were not chosen. There was POLITICS or POLILIKS going on.
I have been a Phase 2/ Boogsie lover ever since, and still will remain but these issues NEED to be addressed and eradicated or we will not go far as we SHOULD and CAN as a pan community.
I also heard that these rules of limiting players was given to band earlier but was not strictly enforced until now. Is that true?
Maybe someone can clarify a few things for me...
1.Who made the 100 player rule? Why make the 100 member rule?
2. If it is for the even payment of players why cant bands choose the 100 they would like to play? Many play just for the love, although some compensation is nice!
3. If the pan leaders agreed on entering this rule, then why not inform your players, especially the ones who intend to play for Panorama night only! Where is the support for the players?
Possible solutions...
1. Have a registration process for all bands to adhere to. Players must register with the band before a certain time (a week before, 2 weeks, a month, etc.) If bands make the 100 players mark. Registration is CLOSED!!
2. Inform the players a few days earlier of the strict rules and let them decide if they will take the chance come and possibly play.
3. Choose your 100 players days before and thank the others for their time and effort. Perhaps the excessed players could play for Jouvert, Monday, or Tuesday.
4. Not have Panorama be the only event or competition occurring this carnival season.
I do not know how true the Exodus situation was with the 20 points deduction but I heard the same thing nonetheless. I heard that was the band where players were on the stage and couldn't play because of the limit? They had to stand there while their bandmates played. The Panorama 2009 DVD clearly shows the players not playing on stage.
When will we come to a point where we will have better communication and organization in our pan communities?
And this brings us to the bigger questions...
1. Are we player advocates or panorama advocates? Who or what do we support more?
2. Where is the pan community and orchestras after panorama? (esp. in Trinidad and New York)
3. Is our worth based around winning one competition?
Panmusiq4lyfe
Thanks for let us know what went down. The word is that it was very ugly in every band. This must never happen again. This is embarasssing.
bugs
This latest fiasco of reducing the number of players in the large band, is a sign of kow-towing to many (including some of the other not-so-big orchestras) who feel that the traditionally large bands overall have maintained too much of the glamor and attention.
Crippling these big bands by limiting them is an incredibly effective way of doing this. And those who suffered? The players, especially the young ones, who were blind-sided and upset on the drag, etc. The same type of scene played out in other bands too, before they took the stage.
Since Patrick Arnold has been around, and on his watch (he is the "president", after all) - changes have been made that are not necessarily kosher. Too many to mention here. Just one, the so-called additional categories for medium and small bands since 2004, there has been bacchanal. And it really came to bear in on panorama night in 2009 for the large bands.
Not that the bands' management are not themselves to blame. Whether or not they liked the 100-player rule - Panorama night was not the time to make a statement at the expense of their faithful players. Rules are rules. Arnold was on record, in the press, saying that the rule of 100 players would be upheld on competition night, (even though he seemed quite comfortable that there was some disregard of it in the semi-finals.)
So - either, let's see:
1) Desperadoes, Phase 2, Renegades, All Stars and Exodus should have boycotted in protest - and not participated in the finals. This would have been the first and last year patrick Anrold pulled this kind of BULLSHIT. The fiasco and embarassment would have been horrendous before in "international" audience - if only three bands had turned up at his grand finale
2) For the love of the artform and their players, these five bands could have decided to bite the financial bullet (Unlikely) - and go on stage with their full numbers - knowing full well that they would have all been disqualfied - but prove their point, and their players would have still reveled on stage.
3) Shut the hell up, and take the shit continuously shovelled down their throats - and more goes down each year - by patrick arnold and Pan Trinbago - with all the backroom double-dealing. In that case, the bands' management should have leveled with their players, and cut people to suit the 100 player limit, days before.
Bitching about the rules after the competition makes no sense. There is not enough unity among the large steel orchestras that Pan Trinbago has to even pause when they make these types of "decisions", and bands' management didn't have enough balls to stand their ground. The five super orchestras should have all come together and told Pan Trinbago before the competition "this is what it would take for us - as the real 'draw' - to appear at your panorama finals night." The time to make your stand, is BEFORE the event. Not after results have been announced. Now, their players, and their bands have paid the price in all the hurt that has now gone down, and all the trauma.
And Arnold and Pan Trinbago got away with yet another pack of shit, laughing all the way to the bank.
It makes no difference which bands get the prizes. Remember Pan Trinbago keeps ten percent of all winnings from each band, in each category. So Silver Stars, for example, gives back one hundred thousand dollars of their million-dollar prize, for "administrative costs" as pan trinbago so interestingly put it some time ago.
So:
The winners:
Pan Trinbago, and the backroom dealers (the other bands management who clapped their hands in glee when they got this limit imposed).
The losers:
- The players, who cried, screamed, and whatever else when this unholy crap went down.
- The public, and true lovers of pan who know how fabulous it is to see one hundred and twenty or fifty or so players putting on a fab show.
- The steelpan culture/artform, which is slowly being strangled by new restrictions ever so often, to suit those who just can't make the grade on the grand stage.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next