Was The Playing Field The Same?

The playing field is always affected. In its most simplistic sense, bands play in a noisy environment, what with crowds around and all that. They also have to contend with noisy audiences who show little or no respect for the fact that a performance is going on. Again, they also have to contend with the microphone-controllers who could make or break a performance, as evidenced on final night when one or two of the bands were playing. Who knows, maybe the person wasn't paying attention to the band's start, thus causing a portion of the performance to not be properly heard. When the results were called, some bands found themselves in some pretty odd placings, if I may say so myself.

There are lots of factors which influence what happens with bands on stage and which easily would suggest an unlevel playing field. On Saturday, I found myself wondering why some bands were so powerful while some others were light...all as a result of the "miking of the band", and certainly not the size of the band.

The point is extremely well taken that a big name band can easily warrant an audience to stay till the end. It is also well-known that pan-lovers have their bias toward a band of their choosing and as such will not earnestly shower praise on others in the competition simply because they were not really being attentive. This happens with the judging too..the influence of the human element presenting itself as part of the medium of judging the competitions. We are all aware that the number that a band of lesser quality than another pulls tells a story about what is likely to occur even before the actual performance. So, one has to conclude that the field of play is never the same for everyone. It is the same situation year after year.I guess that such is the reason why we now have what is known as the TOP FIVE STEEL ORCHESTRAS. It is common knowledge that certain bands are money-spinners, and that every now and again one is dumped so as to give the impression that the field of play is level.

And, as we are on this issue, it may be important to note that in panorama, the music of which is difficult to adjudicate because of the percussive nature of the steelpan, bands that get the judges nod before playing a note, that make the lesser errors, and have a cleaner sound than others, are the ones that will obtain the stronger placings. It may not necessarily matter how excellent one's music might be.

So when one talks about the playing field, one has to determine a clearer picture of what one is talking about as there are certainly various characteristics which make up such a field in the steelband panorama. It is a topic for another discussion. BTW, does anyone truly believe that all the judges provide us with fair and balanced judging? Some may be truly encouraging while others may not... And who knows, they can also encourage a band to play faster or slower in the next round so as to make it easier for their bias to fulfill itself...who knows.... Everything I have said here has been known to happen at one time or another, with the evidence of such irregularity being easily disposed of. In short, it is unfair, unreal and unacceptable to have, year in year out, to go through this kind of experience at the whims and fancies of a few whose bias influence the end result to the extent that one's whole pan season is diminished or destroyed systematically, and by pusillanimous personalities who do not really have the pan and the panman at heart, and who, when they look at a steelpan, only see the dollar sign that gleams in each eye. How is that for levelling the playing field?

Replies

Danny Serrant February 23, 2012 at 9:35pm

There is a saying that goes like this;"UNTIL WE CHANGE THE WAY WE LOOK AT THINGS,THE THINGS WE LOOK AT WILL NEVER CHANGE".
Steve "Carter" K. February 23, 2012 at 11:05am

Very nice observation Eric . It shows a different aspect of the Judging system when I thought it would have been the same for all categories . Your Post indicate how important different views are on the same topic . Thanks .
- Cecil hinkson > Steve "Carter" K. February 23, 2012 at 11:21am
  
  I don't think the judges were the same this could be the reason for the difference in the scoring.
  - Gerard Clarke > Cecil hinkson February 23, 2012 at 11:52pm
    
    They are not the same. The four categories each have a separate panel.
Eric Rollnick February 23, 2012 at 10:06am

Speaking of level playing fields, Before there was Large medium and small catagories in panorama the large bands were always the winning bands so it seems size was a major factor in scoring. (Did the judging criteria have a ruberic for size or volume?) So to "even" the playing field the 3 categories were created. Note this year in the large band catagory the top 3 scores were: 279, 274, and 271 respectively. In the medium catagory the top 3 scores were 288, 284 and 279. Were the different catagories judged by different criteria? If the 3 top medium bands were in the large catagory would they have won? I would doubt it.
- Gerard Clarke > Eric Rollnick February 23, 2012 at 6:31pm
  
  Judged by different judges. The large band people are "hard markers" as shown in the past.
ed cee February 23, 2012 at 2:08am

The playing field is always affected. In its most simplistic sense, bands play in a noisy environment, what with crowds around and all that. They also have to contend with noisy audiences who show little or no respect for the fact that a performance is going on. Again, they also have to contend with the microphone-controllers who could make or break a performance, as evidenced on final night when one or two of the bands were playing. Who knows, maybe the person wasn't paying attention to the band's start, thus causing a portion of the performance to not be properly heard. When the results were called, some bands found themselves in some pretty odd placings, if I may say so myself.

There are lots of factors which influence what happens with bands on stage and which easily would suggest an unlevel playing field. On Saturday, I found myself wondering why some bands were so powerful while some others were light...all as a result of the "miking of the band", and certainly not the size of the band.

The point is extremely well taken that a big name band can easily warrant an audience to stay till the end. It is also well-known that pan-lovers have their bias toward a band of their choosing and as such will not earnestly shower praise on others in the competition simply because they were not really being attentive. This happens with the judging too..the influence of the human element presenting itself as part of the medium of judging the competitions. We are all aware that the number that a band of lesser quality than another pulls tells a story about what is likely to occur even before the actual performance. So, one has to conclude that the field of play is never the same for everyone. It is the same situation year after year.I guess that such is the reason why we now have what is known as the TOP FIVE STEEL ORCHESTRAS. It is common knowledge that certain bands are money-spinners, and that every now and again one is dumped so as to give the impression that the field of play is level.

And, as we are on this issue, it may be important to note that in panorama, the music of which is difficult to adjudicate because of the percussive nature of the steelpan, bands that get the judges nod before playing a note, that make the lesser errors, and have a cleaner sound than others, are the ones that will obtain the stronger placings. It may not necessarily matter how excellent one's music might be.

So when one talks about the playing field, one has to determine a clearer picture of what one is talking about as there are certainly various characteristics which make up such a field in the steelband panorama. It is a topic for another discussion. BTW, does anyone truly believe that all the judges provide us with fair and balanced judging? Some may be truly encouraging while others may not... And who knows, they can also encourage a band to play faster or slower in the next round so as to make it easier for their bias to fulfill itself...who knows.... Everything I have said here has been known to happen at one time or another, with the evidence of such irregularity being easily disposed of. In short, it is unfair, unreal and unacceptable to have, year in year out, to go through this kind of experience at the whims and fancies of a few whose bias influence the end result to the extent that one's whole pan season is diminished or destroyed systematically, and by pusillanimous personalities who do not really have the pan and the panman at heart, and who, when they look at a steelpan, only see the dollar sign that gleams in each eye. How is that for levelling the playing field?
- terry > ed cee February 23, 2012 at 4:13am
  
  A thought for consideration: Would electronic voting by live audience present at prelims & finals AND by viewers (telephone, computer etc.) improve (or further 'bias') the outcome? American Idol, as one example.
  - Gerard Clarke > terry February 23, 2012 at 6:27pm
    
    Much further bias to the outcome big time.I will be able to select the ten finalists, without hearing a note!!
Darius Lecointe February 22, 2012 at 9:53pm

I don't think the panists look at the spectators when they are playing. I doubt they are conscious of the audience's presence when they are performing.

of 2

This reply was deleted.