When Steel Talks

Everything Related to the Steelpan Instrument and Music

For years I have been hearing about 'what the judges are looking for' and  'the direction of the judges' as it relates to the arrangements offered by the bands. This year someone even singled out the arrangements of Boogsie and Carlton Zanda as the arrangements of the future, what the judges are now gravitating to. If what the judges are looking for strictly relates to improvements in areas of an arrangement, I have no problem with that. If it is geared  to individual pieces, I have no problem with that either.

However if the judges are determining the direction of musical style of a panorama season then I take great exception to that. What do you my fellow bloggers think about this, is it an issue or none issue? Personally I think that the judges subtly insert themselves into the competition as the integrity of panorama judging has been compromised over the years. There was a time when results were hardly even queried because they were in line with what john public recognized. 

Within recent times more and more results are being questioned by john public, who by the way knows his panorama arrangements. Why don't we have these issues when the steelband music festival comes around?

Views: 204

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't think that additional time should be alotted to the judges to re-listen to the bands performances on final night, that would tack on about 2 + more hours before results ...too much time to allow for mischief/ foul play.

I do think though that that idea would work well for the periods between preliminaries and semi-finals and from semi-finals to finals for the judges to become more acquainted with the musical portrayals of the bands this way by the time final night comes, they should be very much well equipped  to detect any additions and/or subtle differences in the music and adjudicate accordingly.

I do agree that Panorama is very difficult to fairly adjudicate in one sitting that is why the time between the various stages should be used proficiently to bring the judges together with "fresh ears" and Hi-Def surround sound to revisit the works of these orchestras.

I wonder what would happen if the judges were to listen to Panorama Finals "blind?" While the audience could appreciate the visuals, the judging would be purely on the music. They could still be there live...but shielded from the stage and all monitors. This type of thing is often used in music schools to eliminate possible bias and to help judges focus on the music.
Good idea AMD
NO! NO! NO!  Come on guys.  This is PANORAMA we are talking about.  It is music, excitement, pandemonium.  The air is electric.  The judges needs to feel the excitement in the air.  They need to feel a bands energy and experience the crowd's reaction.  They have to be up close and personal with the performances.  All these elements comes into play in the final tally of points, especially when the competition is tight.  If the judges are sequestered in some remote location, I really do think that something will be lacking.  As far as additional time to judge, I would veto that idea in a heartbeat.  It is my humble opinion that PANORAMA should be judged in real time.  Bands perform, judges adjudicate, decision is rendered right there and then.  No one has to agree with, but at least think about it.  Peace!
Unfortunately that same excitement is increasingly being generated not by the music itself but peripheral activites such as pyrotechnics, hired antics, etc. As how is that at all fair or appropriate in a ostensibly musical competition?
Hi Noah, point well taken, but please do not misunderstand what I am saying.  I am not in favor of ANY of the extra gimmicks.  I am fully on board with the idea that ALL OF THE EXCITEMENT SHOULD BE GENERATED BY THE BANDS PERFORMANCE.  To that end it is the responsibility of the Panorama Governing Body to nip all of the peripheral mumbo-jumbo in the bud.  In addition bands who are fed-up with the crap, need to stop grumbling in the background and take a formal stand.  They need to let the authorities know that they are deeply concerned that panorama is now more theatrics than music.

 "To that end it is the responsibility of the Panorama Governing Body to nip all of the peripheral mumbo-jumbo in the bud".

But they haven't; they have allowed it to grow. And, I agree that the competitors are the ones who must give the directive.

 

 "The judges needs to feel the excitement in the air.  They need to feel a bands energy and experience the crowd's reaction.  They have to be up close and personal with the performances.  All these elements comes into play in the final tally of points, especially when the competition is tight." [emphases mine]

 

Now you can understand the "wow" factor - that undisputed effect upon the judges' minds of the crowd's  appreciation for the visual.

Therefore playing first which is usually a pannist's dread, actually became an asset for All Stars. Everyone had to play catch up pyrotechnically.

Hence, I contend  that is exactly what "separated" All Stars and Exodus - not the music - since Exodus had to be  "discredited" (to use Sidd's word) 2 points more than All Stars because of their "lack of" visual impact.

To further demonstrate, assess both Fonclaire and Deltones. 

Perhaps with Deltones the judges, like me, had to make a special effort to hear the middle of the band instead of the music coming out to greet us, and even if that is in fact the case, too many marks were "discredited" from them.

With Fonclaire, the stuck-on CD music depicting a storm before and after the piece (Pan Elders did likewise in the Medium catagory), could not be considered part of the arrangement, perhaps special [audio] effects? Yet the judges "discredited" Fonclaire less than Deltones who, in my view, surely had the more distinguished arrangement between the two. 

RSS

© 2020   Created by When Steel Talks.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service