Rock Eisteddfod judges corrupt?
Wed, 19 Sept 2001, 11:12 amGilly17 posts in thread
Rock Eisteddfod judges corrupt?
Wed, 19 Sept 2001, 11:12 amThis is aimed to any of us that were involved with or viewed the Rock Eisteddfod Grand Final. The results stand as followed:
1. John Septimus Roe
2. Como
3. Perth Modern
4. Willetton
5. Mandurah Combined
To many of us involved with the schools production found these results rather suprising.
For the record, all my comments are not biased and I will not name my school for various reasons.
The general thought backstage was that Padbury (Harry Potter) and Yanchep (just a wish away from home) deserved places 1 and 2 respectively. Ocean Reef (Cobacabana) was of outstanding quality and also deserved to be in the top 5. Mandurah was thought to place higher, but 5th is a reasonable place. Willetton was alright, they deserved 4th and probably could have been beaten by Mandurah and other schools. Perth Modern was good, they always have been and always will be good so they deserved 3rd. Como: don't get me wrong, I loved their performance but the sets and costumes didn't really deserve 2nd. Watching the production during rehearsals you get to the finale and think "Finally, some colour in the performance!". And John Septimus Roe, simple idea and did a bloody good job of it, but most of us didn't think they deserved 1st place.
The performers choice award: who decides that? If the performers do, the only people they must of asked is the people from Como because I and most other schools would not say Como.
Hopefully there is a judge on this page that can answer this posting and shead some light on the situation. Comments?
How is it all judged and how did you get these results?
Cheers,
Alan Gill
1. John Septimus Roe
2. Como
3. Perth Modern
4. Willetton
5. Mandurah Combined
To many of us involved with the schools production found these results rather suprising.
For the record, all my comments are not biased and I will not name my school for various reasons.
The general thought backstage was that Padbury (Harry Potter) and Yanchep (just a wish away from home) deserved places 1 and 2 respectively. Ocean Reef (Cobacabana) was of outstanding quality and also deserved to be in the top 5. Mandurah was thought to place higher, but 5th is a reasonable place. Willetton was alright, they deserved 4th and probably could have been beaten by Mandurah and other schools. Perth Modern was good, they always have been and always will be good so they deserved 3rd. Como: don't get me wrong, I loved their performance but the sets and costumes didn't really deserve 2nd. Watching the production during rehearsals you get to the finale and think "Finally, some colour in the performance!". And John Septimus Roe, simple idea and did a bloody good job of it, but most of us didn't think they deserved 1st place.
The performers choice award: who decides that? If the performers do, the only people they must of asked is the people from Como because I and most other schools would not say Como.
Hopefully there is a judge on this page that can answer this posting and shead some light on the situation. Comments?
How is it all judged and how did you get these results?
Cheers,
Alan Gill
RE: Rock Eisteddfod judges corrupt?
Sat, 22 Sept 2001, 02:11 pmAlan Gill wrote:
-------------------------------
>>I know that there is no hope of changing the judges decision. This is discussion is mainly trying to figure out how the judges reached those decisions.
I didn't see the Eisteddfodd, so I can't comment on these particular judges.
But I was recently in a situation of being invited to judge a Yr 12 Mock TEE practical drama exam. It was harrowing to say the least!
I feel I was qualified to criticise and give constuctive comment, and having never seen the students before there could be no bias; but still the whole process of grading and ranking became surprisingly difficult. More difficult than when I have conducted auditions, because then at least I have a reasonably clear goal in mind for the auditionee to fulfil. This was simply ranking one set of performances against another.
Not that there aren't very clear guidelines for TEE adjudicators to follow. The guidelines try to be as prescriptive as possible as to whether technical and artistic elements fit into a "poor-standard-good" type of scale, and list specific areas where marks should be deducted if the skill is not demonstrated.
But even following these guidelines, the actual decision-making becomes very subjective. Differences in vocal competence, physical competence, directing skill, improvisation skill, characterisation, spatial awareness, audience awareness, etc ..were wide and varied and often subject to my interpretation. Although I tried to avoid it, it was difficult not to be influenced by what came before in the order of presentation (after watching six monologues from COSI it's difficult to assess my own judgement when someone presents a good Shakespeare...not that the others were bad, just that the change of pace influenced my reaction as an audience).
I didn't confer with the other judges, our collective results were simply compiled and averaged, and although I have every respect for my colleagues' ability and competence, I am sure that they probably felt the same pressures, and that there are probably some wide variations between many of our assessments.
In the end, you realise that you've done the best you can and it would not have been any less well judged than if someone else had done it - but the truth is that yes, some elements would have turned out differently with a different judge.
The thing to realise is that it is probably not the judges you are complaining about, but rather the whole process of judging and ranking the arts, which is a tenuous concept at best. But if you insist on setting yourself up for comparison at competitions like these (don't get me wrong, there is certainly merit in these events) then you have to accept how sometimes arbitrarily it can turn out.
I think the comment "Judges decisions are final and no correspondence will be entered into" is a telling one. The judges make the best of a difficult situation at that particular point in time, and while subsequent examination may reveal flaws in their decisions, that's the name of the game and there really is no point in pursuing it.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/-----------
Thou dissembling folly-fallen coxcomb!
-------------------------------
>>I know that there is no hope of changing the judges decision. This is discussion is mainly trying to figure out how the judges reached those decisions.
I didn't see the Eisteddfodd, so I can't comment on these particular judges.
But I was recently in a situation of being invited to judge a Yr 12 Mock TEE practical drama exam. It was harrowing to say the least!
I feel I was qualified to criticise and give constuctive comment, and having never seen the students before there could be no bias; but still the whole process of grading and ranking became surprisingly difficult. More difficult than when I have conducted auditions, because then at least I have a reasonably clear goal in mind for the auditionee to fulfil. This was simply ranking one set of performances against another.
Not that there aren't very clear guidelines for TEE adjudicators to follow. The guidelines try to be as prescriptive as possible as to whether technical and artistic elements fit into a "poor-standard-good" type of scale, and list specific areas where marks should be deducted if the skill is not demonstrated.
But even following these guidelines, the actual decision-making becomes very subjective. Differences in vocal competence, physical competence, directing skill, improvisation skill, characterisation, spatial awareness, audience awareness, etc ..were wide and varied and often subject to my interpretation. Although I tried to avoid it, it was difficult not to be influenced by what came before in the order of presentation (after watching six monologues from COSI it's difficult to assess my own judgement when someone presents a good Shakespeare...not that the others were bad, just that the change of pace influenced my reaction as an audience).
I didn't confer with the other judges, our collective results were simply compiled and averaged, and although I have every respect for my colleagues' ability and competence, I am sure that they probably felt the same pressures, and that there are probably some wide variations between many of our assessments.
In the end, you realise that you've done the best you can and it would not have been any less well judged than if someone else had done it - but the truth is that yes, some elements would have turned out differently with a different judge.
The thing to realise is that it is probably not the judges you are complaining about, but rather the whole process of judging and ranking the arts, which is a tenuous concept at best. But if you insist on setting yourself up for comparison at competitions like these (don't get me wrong, there is certainly merit in these events) then you have to accept how sometimes arbitrarily it can turn out.
I think the comment "Judges decisions are final and no correspondence will be entered into" is a telling one. The judges make the best of a difficult situation at that particular point in time, and while subsequent examination may reveal flaws in their decisions, that's the name of the game and there really is no point in pursuing it.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/-----------
Thou dissembling folly-fallen coxcomb!
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···