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: more Rock Eistedd-fodder
Sun, 23 Sept 2001, 11:10 pmAlan wrote:
>>The experience isn't about winning, it's about having fun..
>>I'm just trying to comprehend the judges decisions....
>>to know what the judges are looking for so that they can plan their school's performance better...
I reckon you should rather concentrate on what you think an AUDIENCE is looking for, which is quality entertainment. If that guides all your decision making, then you shouldn't have to worry about the judges, you can be confident that you're planning your performance properly. And if you're lucky enough to score a mention, then that's a bonus - but that's all it is, really.
It's a hard concept to come to terms with, I know that young performers put a lot of emphasis on the award aspect. But the paradox is that ultimately, even though the judging system often demonstrates an educated opinion, it is kind of meaningless at the same time, which is both a consolation and a reason to not get too big-headed about any of it.
Pia wrote:
-------------------------------
>>What is more important....the QUANTITY of schools involved in the rock eisteddfod challenge, or the QUALITY of the performances? Also within performances, which is more important...?
I find it very hard not to answer QUALITY, but then, "quality" is such a difficult word to define! (Read Robert Persig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence" to see how trying to define it can drive you mad!)
For some in the audience, the fact that their kid gets to be up there onstage doing their best is part of that "quality" value. The magnitude of the event and the thousands of people who creatively contribute in their own exciting way are part of the "quality" of the event. There will be ideas of "quality" that don't necessarily look polished or professional, but impress nonetheless...particularly those who achieve much with simple concepts and/or shoestring budgets. And not everyone in the audience is going to like the fact that some schools have more money to spend on achieving a "professional" look, but for some, the quality is in seeing, or being part of, a slick, flashy-looking big-budget number...and that, too, is a valid idea of "quality".
My memory of watching this type of event is that most of the audience has a vested interest, in their kid or their school or their friends (or arch-enemies!). But that accounts for only maybe 10% of the evening. So for the other 90-odd %, entertainment is paramount...and variety is part of the key. If a school presents a segment with a few select dancers rather than a massed troupe, that may add to the entertainment value, simply by being different. Quantity is a variable to be considered, but I would say it is subservient to quality.
...And part of the quality, for me, is the fact that it may encourage someone to find and follow their dream. - I was a performer at the Eisteddfodds in 86 & 87 (luckily, not competitively...I was part of the Education Department's "Dance Clips" team that entertained the audience while the scores were being tallied...so I knew the audience was watching, but the judges WEREN'T..!). I have strong and fond memories of the whole event, from rehearsals to backstage chaos to cheering audience...and in no small way it influenced me to pursue the long and crazy career that I'm now enjoying.
If it has the same effect on any of today's young participants, then, fantastic...that's worth any amount more than what some long-forgotten judges might have been thinking.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/=====/------------
>>The experience isn't about winning, it's about having fun..
>>I'm just trying to comprehend the judges decisions....
>>to know what the judges are looking for so that they can plan their school's performance better...
I reckon you should rather concentrate on what you think an AUDIENCE is looking for, which is quality entertainment. If that guides all your decision making, then you shouldn't have to worry about the judges, you can be confident that you're planning your performance properly. And if you're lucky enough to score a mention, then that's a bonus - but that's all it is, really.
It's a hard concept to come to terms with, I know that young performers put a lot of emphasis on the award aspect. But the paradox is that ultimately, even though the judging system often demonstrates an educated opinion, it is kind of meaningless at the same time, which is both a consolation and a reason to not get too big-headed about any of it.
Pia wrote:
-------------------------------
>>What is more important....the QUANTITY of schools involved in the rock eisteddfod challenge, or the QUALITY of the performances? Also within performances, which is more important...?
I find it very hard not to answer QUALITY, but then, "quality" is such a difficult word to define! (Read Robert Persig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence" to see how trying to define it can drive you mad!)
For some in the audience, the fact that their kid gets to be up there onstage doing their best is part of that "quality" value. The magnitude of the event and the thousands of people who creatively contribute in their own exciting way are part of the "quality" of the event. There will be ideas of "quality" that don't necessarily look polished or professional, but impress nonetheless...particularly those who achieve much with simple concepts and/or shoestring budgets. And not everyone in the audience is going to like the fact that some schools have more money to spend on achieving a "professional" look, but for some, the quality is in seeing, or being part of, a slick, flashy-looking big-budget number...and that, too, is a valid idea of "quality".
My memory of watching this type of event is that most of the audience has a vested interest, in their kid or their school or their friends (or arch-enemies!). But that accounts for only maybe 10% of the evening. So for the other 90-odd %, entertainment is paramount...and variety is part of the key. If a school presents a segment with a few select dancers rather than a massed troupe, that may add to the entertainment value, simply by being different. Quantity is a variable to be considered, but I would say it is subservient to quality.
...And part of the quality, for me, is the fact that it may encourage someone to find and follow their dream. - I was a performer at the Eisteddfodds in 86 & 87 (luckily, not competitively...I was part of the Education Department's "Dance Clips" team that entertained the audience while the scores were being tallied...so I knew the audience was watching, but the judges WEREN'T..!). I have strong and fond memories of the whole event, from rehearsals to backstage chaos to cheering audience...and in no small way it influenced me to pursue the long and crazy career that I'm now enjoying.
If it has the same effect on any of today's young participants, then, fantastic...that's worth any amount more than what some long-forgotten judges might have been thinking.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/=====/------------
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···