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?
Mon, 24 Sept 2001, 09:17 amHi Craig
> 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.
With you entirely on this one. The whole business of judging the arts is so fraught with difficulty you have to wonder why people bother!
How can numbers scribbled on paper or ticks in boxes satisfactorily describe a response to a theatrical event?
On the other hand, a 'judging' process that encourages informed debate, discussion and justification of responses and results has the potential to be both an enlightening and educational experience.
Jackie wrote: "There is absolutely no benefit in this type of discussion."
Frankly? Crap.
It is largely by informed debate and discussion about what has and hasn't worked in performance that we can grow, mature, move on and develop as artists and performers.
Cheers
Grant
> 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.
With you entirely on this one. The whole business of judging the arts is so fraught with difficulty you have to wonder why people bother!
How can numbers scribbled on paper or ticks in boxes satisfactorily describe a response to a theatrical event?
On the other hand, a 'judging' process that encourages informed debate, discussion and justification of responses and results has the potential to be both an enlightening and educational experience.
Jackie wrote: "There is absolutely no benefit in this type of discussion."
Frankly? Crap.
It is largely by informed debate and discussion about what has and hasn't worked in performance that we can grow, mature, move on and develop as artists and performers.
Cheers
Grant
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···