Source of non-competitive ideal in the handbell community?

[J.-C. Coolen]

O great collective wisdom....

This issue has come to the fore of my mind in the last couple days:

What is the origin of the non-competitive ideal in the handbell community?

(And, I suppose, why not allow, or even foster, competition within
the handbell community?)

jc

[Michele Sharik]

I would like to know too!

Sent from my iPhone

> --
> Post: handb...@googlegroups.com
> Subscribe: handbell-l...@googlegroups.com
> Unsubscribe: handbell-l+...@googlegroups.com
> Digest: e-mail mdp...@gmail.com with subject line "Digest-L"

[F. Thomas Simpson]

Golly, what would a 'handbell competition" even look like?




Thomas

[Charles Peery]

I will stick my neck out and give you my "approaching sixty years of age" answer.  Keep in mind that I fully recognize it for what it is, and that I acknowledge there are many less rigid ways of looking at the answer to this question.

At one point, perhaps in the 80's, researchers and music advocacy groups were looking at ways to "sell" school music programs to the general public, in an alleged (but needed) effort to save them from the chopping block.  Long story short, through research and some painful attempts, it was concluded that non-musical rationales are not an effective way to do this and they do more harm than good in the long run.  Even things like the "Mozart effect" were somewhat hyped up (i.e., it has since been shown that again, it is too simplistic to say that "Kids are better at math if they study music!"  There are positive effects but not such direct relationships and it is certainly not confined to Mozart's music.)

So we did go through a period where there was an attempt to advocate bringing out similarities between music and athletics.  After all, athletics always seemed to be more popular, right?  (Of course, Oscar Wilde said, "Everything that is popular is wrong."  And I wonder if he might have been right.)  "This is our uniform" (holding up a choir robe.)  Again, this didn't hold up too well within the field of education, but that doesn't prevent the popular culture from gravitating to it decades later.  Now we have the "World Choir Games" and "American Idol" and any myriad attempts to turn music into competition.

The bottom line is "IS IT?"  When we appreciate, make, or teach music, IS IT?  My answer is:  no, it is certainly and obviously not.   Now, I'm not saying that a healthy sense of goal-directed improvement (if you want to call that competition by some stretch) is a bad thing.  I'm asking you to look at the intrinsic nature of making music and really tell me: is there anything innately connected to competition in there?   I think you know my answer already. (I'm open to hearing the answers of others.)  So to put that on from the outside for some motivational (read: manipulative) purpose is not only dishonest, but it is harmful and does not teach what we need to be teaching about what it means to be a musical human being.  Consistency, discipline, perseverance, objectivity... yes.   Competition?  No.

In addition, on a personal level, as the musical klutz/nerd who was ONLY good at school work and music (and not, say, P.E.) I really cringe at our culture's pervasive need to make athletics the model for every other thing.  Is the athletic model so perfect, so unsullied that it deserves to be the standard by which all other endeavors are measured?  (This is almost equivalent of the current "marriage" argument, but I digress.)  So, probably not surprisingly, I also cringe at the easy, thoughtless bandying about of terminology such as "worship team," and we've even debated the use of "handbell team" on this list.   I do understand the positive connotations to the word "team."  I'm just saying that my philosophy that music is not competition does not allow me to adopt or condone such terminology.

Chuck in St. Louis

[Nancy Tipton]

I don't know the origins of the concept that competition among handbell choirs is bad, but I do know it exists and is strongly adhered to by many handbell people. I'm not sure if you're referring to competition in a school setting or on an adult level, but my world revolves around teenagers.

I personally know of two competitions that involve high school handbell choirs. One is a high school music festival sponsored by the university my school is associated with. Of course, my school group cannot "compete" in the festival, since that would appear to be a conflict of interest. However, for many years I directed a home school group from my church that competed in this event. I know that the experience made me a better teacher, because I was forced to analyze what my ringers were doing--everything had to be perfect. In an ideal world, every director would do this at every rehearsal, but in reality it doesn't happen in many cases. The experience also made the teens better ringers, because they had to be much more critical of themselves, constantly pushing each other to clean up a sloppy passage, or to memorize a section, or to be more cognizant of the rise and fall of a particular phrase. As a result of their attention to detail, they derived much more personal satisfaction and enjoyment out of the music, because it truly became a part of them, whether they "won" or not. This festival is held in late October or early November, so for two months, our focus was solely on those two advanced competition pieces. However, once festival ended, I found the ringers were much more musical in all the other music we played throughout the rest of the year, because of the careful "habits" they developed in preparing for competition. I believe that the festival/competition contributed greatly to their musical growth as a group and individually. 

On the other hand, I adjudicate a competition every April, sponsored by a national association of Christian schools. During the competition, I will hear 18 - 20 high school handbell choirs--the 1st place groups from the various states in the organization. While a couple of the groups are sloppy in their approach, I always see some incredibly beautiful and musical handbell ringing as well. Again, I think the competition helps those good groups become exemplary. However, the one issue/objection I have to the event is that for a few of the groups (not all of them), their entire focus for the school year is "nationals"--we have to win state, and then we have to win nationals--and that's all that handbell choir accomplishes for the year--two pieces that they might play really well. I'm afraid that with some of the groups, there's not that transfer made to other pieces, and the students are not exposed to a wide variety of music. (For example, my high school group plays 10 - 12 different pieces each semester, so over the course of 4 years, a student plays a huge variety of music--at least 80 different pieces. They learn to perform and enjoy quiet, lyrical music as well as the virtuosic type of pieces a group would prepare for a competition.) 

Another advantage to a competition setting is that groups get to observe other groups through a critical lens; each year, my high school students observe this competition during our normal class period, since I'm judging the event. This year, one of the groups they observed played a piece we were also working on this past spring. My kids had insisted on playing it as loud as possible, and my constant pleas for dynamic contrast were falling on deaf ears . . . until they heard this other high school group play the same piece with dynamic contrast. After the performance I turned to them and said, "Those were dynamics." They said, "We knew you were going to say that!" However, the next time we played that piece in rehearsal, guess what happened? They actually added their own dynamic contrasts. Listening critically to the other group helped them to see the musical differences between their performance and the other group's, and to realize that getting softer in spots actually made the music much more exciting. 

So I said all that to say this: Competition in music education can be a good thing . . . and a bad thing. Just like everything else in life. It all depends on how a director uses it. I've often wished that either our state MENC chapter or the Guild had an event for handbells similar to concert festival for band and orchestra--an adjudicated setting where my high school group could be judged by experts and receive a rating of Superior, Excellent, etc. I think that if the Handbell Musicians of America is going to become significant in music education, this is essential.

That's my (controversial?) two cents!  

Nancy Tipton

jc

--
Post: handb...@googlegroups.com
Subscribe: handbell-l+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Unsubscribe: handbell-l+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

[Nick Hanson]

What a great question, JC!

As a handbell ensemble director at a school, I CRAVE competition for
my students. Using my high school ensemble as an example, we have two
major school concerts per year, three "minor" performances
(assemblies), and a wonderful local school handbell festival we
participate in during late April. The students do a wonderful job in
preparing for all these performances, but of course, they can always
do better. As the only handbell teacher these students have had (with
the occasional outside guest teacher), these students need others to
evaluate and adjudicate them besides me. When the constant feedback
they are receiving is "wow, the handbells sounded great!" from
teachers, parents, or their peers, then they are not receiving the
entire story. Yes, we do evaluate ourselves and talk about every
performance, but outside experts in our field would be such a benefit.
The other issue is that even though the annual handbell festival we
participate in is not a competition, the competition between the
schools still exists. Students in this day and age will always
compare themselves to others, in EVERYTHING they do. The festival
performance includes massed pieces (which is a wonderful experience
and learning tool for handbell ringers at this age), but it also
involves solo pieces by each participating ensemble. I guarantee you
every sixth through twelfth grader in that room is comparing every
solo piece being performed (some adults, too).

I do want to be clear that I don't crave competition where handbell
ensembles would compete against each other (though I'm not against
it). I do, however, crave the handbell ensemble competing against
itself. I would love to have a Saturday in mid-March where all these
local school handbell ensembles would perform for a panel of judges
and receive a I-IV rating. Next year, four of these high school
ensemble members will be organizing a quartet. They too need an
outlet where they are rated. The string and band members at our
school receive the recognition they deserve for all their hard work --
awards for the solo and small ensemble students, trophies for the
band. Handbell ensembles need that competitive experience as well --
ESPECIALLY in school settings. (and no, I am not the one to
coordinate this in my area, at least not yet!)

Nick Hanson
The Potomac School
McLean, VA

>> Subscribe: handbell-l...@googlegroups.com
>> Unsubscribe: handbell-l+...@googlegroups.com

>> Digest: e-mail mdp...@gmail.com with subject line "Digest-L"
>
>

> --
> Post: handb...@googlegroups.com
> Subscribe: handbell-l...@googlegroups.com
> Unsubscribe: handbell-l+...@googlegroups.com

[TimR]

On May 22, 11:43 pm, Nick Hanson <tintinnabula...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What a great question, JC!
>
> As a handbell ensemble director at a school, I CRAVE competition for
> my students.

As a high school student some 50 years ago, I really enjoyed those
solo-ensemble contests. They forced us to make extra effort
preparing, and they gave us the chance to perform and be rewarded.

I know the sports comparisons are not completely applicable, but in
some ways having no competition is like going to practice but never
having a game.

(Late in my college experience I made a mental switch to see final
exams as a chance for a peak experience rather than a test to be
dreaded - a trip to the state championship instead of the dentist.)

[Tim & Teri Gregory]

I was pondering this exact thought yesterday as I watched my daughter's middle school band festival. Why don't we do handbell festivals were groups can go and get graded with constructive criticism? As with bands, there could be divisions according to music level so groups would be compared to similar groups.

That seems like a great way to help beginning groups and help move our art forward.

Teri

Sent from my iPhon

[blanch...@cfl.rr.com]

I teach in a Lutheran school, and we do have such an opportunity every spring at the Lutheran Schools Music Festival. They have categories for Chorus, Band, Handbells, & Praise Band. Even though I only have the chime class once a week, they've participated the past 2 years and had a wonderful time!
Blanche Marie

[Silver Woodbury]

Hi, All!

I attended an event in Arkansas that was a combo critique and festival.
They had a clinician and 2-3 massed pieces that were rehearsed. After the
first massed rehearsal, each of the attending choirs performed a solo piece.
The remaining choirs listened intently and there was a small panel
consisting of the clinician and some of the attending directors and they
gave the performance a critique (on paper). They weren't given number
ratings/rankings, but I was told that was the case in the past. There was a
pretty good variety of pieces and skill levels. It was a particularly small
event, so it was pretty easy to manage.

Also, each choir brought a basket of "goodies" representing their particular
region of Arkansas. (I did not know the peanut is king in Arkansas! Nearly
every basket had something with peanuts!) All of the ringers filled out
tickets and a name was drawn to win each basket. It was a nice event.

I've had a more advance ringer suggest to me a more rigorous competition for
bells. She sings in Sweet Adelines and they compete nationally for rankings
and prestige. It's an interesting idea.

Silver

Mrs. Silver D. Woodbury
Silverbell Enterprises
Regional Independent Sales Representative for Schulmerich Bells
Oklahoma - Kansas - Arkansas - Northern Texas
Authorized Dealer for Murphy Robes in Oklahoma
10012 Carnie Circle, Yukon, OK 73099
405-519-0331 mobile
888-735-5407 toll-free voice and fax
silve...@cox.net or SWoo...@SchulmerichBells.com

[Paul Kinney]

Valerie Stephenson wrote:

I am no longer teaching, but when I was, I was also serving on our guild
national board. The boards decision, seldom riled against, was to be an
educational organization with no competitions. It's said better in our
mission statement.

I add:

The stories I heard were that the non-competitive ideal was developed in
the earliest days of AGEHR, when ringers gathered in New England to
ring together.This would have been in the early 1950s. I'm not so old that
I have first-hand experience, so I'm relying on the stories I heard (and
can't tell you who was speaking or where they were). As I understand it
the reason was to prevent one group from bragging "We're better than
you are!" and destroying the collegial nature of the festivals.

Paul Kinney
1st UMC Garden City, MI

[Daniel Reck]

Hi everyone,

I still remember fondly my high school band competitions in marching band and annual solo/ensemble contests.  Since then, I've had the privilege of conducting a different high school concert band in competition. 

In each case, the sense of anticipation helped us focus our work. It also gave us a reason to be especially self-critical in a positive way; it was about improving ourselves and bringing out our absolute best during both rehearsals and the eventual performance.

Of course, competitions aren't for everyone. And that's the great thing: Competitions and other adjudicated performances are not compulsory. Ensembles and musicians who are interested in these activities may choose to take advantage of the benefits, and those aren't interested don't loose anything.

I do believe that there should be a national and regional system of adjudicated handbell performances--perhaps not with all-out competitions like in Bands of America, although I'd be okay with that--which would offer opportunities for handbell musicians to receive expert feedback in an organized way that can be compared from year to year.  (That's getting back to the competing against yourself idea.)

Best regards,

Daniel

--

  Daniel M. Reck

  Director, Shadows of Bronze

  http://shadowsofbronze.org

[J.-C. Coolen]

Thanks, everyone, for your great comments--this has been very enlightening.

On one hand, I do like the non-competitive nature of handbell
gatherings...but, OTOH, I wonder if the explicit ban on competition
hinders both individual ringer development and the development of our
art form generally.

For other instruments (I'm thinking piano, violin, voice, etc),
competition seems to be an integral part of a professional music
education--and then, in the amateur arena (sorry for the
athletic/competitive terminology! :-) ), as someone else mentioned,
there's the barbershop example....so why not for handbell ringing?

...Coming at it from the opposite angle, are auditioned choirs, who
are members of Guilds with non-competition clauses, in violation of
that non-competition standard by holding (presumably competitive) auditions?

I'm not in favour of changing handbell culture into an *exclusively*
competitive culture...but might we gain by removing the
non-competition prohibition, and fostering/encouraging both
non-competitive and competitive opportunities for handbell ringers?
Might that be culturally possible (or advisable)--or would relaxing
the prohibition on competition diminish the current handbell ringer culture?

Your thoughts?

jc

[silverandbronze]

I have taken many concert bands and orchestras to compete at Music in
the Parks. There, individual directors may choose
between competing against other ensembles or competing simply against
a standard. The adjudicators are seasoned college
professionals.

The energy before performance is nearly electric. We call on
everything we have worked on throughout the year, proper warmups, good
intonation, adjusting to the acoustics of the room. It is also an
excellent opportunity for them to manage performance anxiety. At MiP,
everyone
is recognized for their participation at a grand end of day ceremony.
The schools cheer for their "team," but encouraging other schools is
highly valued. One school receives an Esprit de Corps award for
"sportsmanship." Everyone receives constructive feedback in written
and audio form.

I think handbells would greatly benefit from a national standard.
Competition does not mean that we have to be demeaning or
critical of each other. It could be a healthy way to be inspired by
other ensembles.


Martha Alford
(Flutist who never practiced harder than when someone was after her
chair in band...)

On May 22, 11:43 pm, Nick Hanson <tintinnabula...@gmail.com> wrote:

[nattwell]

I've read the comments regarding competition in the handbell world
with interest. I've long felt that absence of any sort of competition
is to our detriment. Even something like a master class being offered
at a festival would be a welcome addition for me. If you're not up for
some constructive criticism then just don't take part.

Something else that I think is tied to our non-competitive structure
is our lack of any sort of standardized or objective way to measure
achievement or excellence in handbells. If someone says, "I have my
Grade 3 piano" or "Grade 8 voice" or "a B.Mus. in clarinet
performance" you know what that means and you have a reasonable idea
of that person's level of expertise in their instrument. Not so with
handbells. For many reasons, for someone to say "I've been ringing for
10 years" is meaningless, as is "I can play level 4 pieces" -- neither
statement tells you anything about how proficient or how accomplished
that person (or their choir) is. A self evaluation or a required
recommendation from a director for a festival or event are completely
subjective and not very enlightening in the long run.

I think it's wonderful that we aim to be educational, inclusive and
supportive of ALL ringers, that a brand new choir can go to a festival
and be applauded, encouraged and praised without feeling that they are
being judged. Some recent Canadian events have included a "sharing
time" where people can demonstrate something they've just learned in a
workshop -- maybe solo or ensemble ringing for the very first time, or
trying 4iH or weaving. It is a "safe" environment for performing
(often not very well) but still being applauded and supported for your
efforts and your willingness to learn, and having the nerve to try.

However there's a flip side to that mindset. I think it can lead to a
false sense of accomplishment and unearned praise and accolades
because people are so concerned with being positive and supportive
that even helpful and constructive criticism is eschewed. I've seen
YouTube videos of performances that are just dreadful -- I can't
believe they were even posted -- and the comments will be all "Wow,
fantastic, so great, way to go..." Sometimes it seems no-one is
willing to state the obvious -- that a performance just wasn't very
good. I'm not advocating unkind comments or harsh criticism. It's just
that the perpetual praise can get pretty saccharin and ultimately, I
think, is counter productive. Honesty and reality, appropriately
delivered, can be a good thing. Just my thoughts...

Nikki Attwell
West Kelowna, BC

[Paul Kinney]

J.-C. Coolen wrote:

For other instruments (I'm thinking piano, violin, voice, etc),
competition seems to be an integral part of a professional music
education

I reply:

I wonder if another reason to avoid competition is because our art is so young.
We don't yet -- and can't afford to -- have one right way of doing things. I can
see a danger in competitions that groups feel they must do things a particular way
because they know the adjudicator thinks that is the way it must be done. All
that would do is make boxes harder to get out of. Just this last week Rima was
urging us to bust out of boxes. We are still innovating our art and don't want to
stifle developments.

[Stafford Handbells]

This is a fascinating conversation. We direct 7 different community
student and children's handbell ensembles and within days of reaching
one of our more advanced ensembles, the kids want to know, "when are
we going to festival?". Its an ingrained and respected and
motivational aspect of student life. Since we are not affiliated with
a church or school, we are always working on new performance
opportunities and have even toyed with the idea of hosting an
adjudicated event just to give our ringers that musical experience,
which IS a part of the musical universe.

However, one risks the disapproval of "breaking ranks" by crossing
the competition barrier. And, yet, don't we in actuality do this all
the time? Bronze choirs at regional festivals are selected by
audition. Even the Guild 's All Star Choir for Liverpool this summer
was selected by audition, and to add another layer of competition,
auditionees were DB attendees - a by invitation only ringing event.
The very concept o an audition, one of the oldest and most respected
means of musical and artistic evaluation, pitches one artist against
another.

Certainly no one is advocating an environment that erodes the
"fellowship of the ring " as my students call it. But when I see my
most advanced student ringers who have just played McChesneys Colorado
suite on their feet cheering our first level intermediate children's
group for mastering all the techniques in McChesneyss Old McDonald, I
think there is something to the idea of celebrating achievement for
achievement's sake.

On a final note, I so appreciate Paul 's comment about the youngness
of the art. Was the infamous Shelley merely a recalcitrant ringer
using poor technique or a musical innovator? If we fall into the
trap of saying that established technique trumps musical innovation,
then we might as well shut the book on evolving the art. I believe
there is no greater incentive for innovation than the pursuit of
rdcognized musical excellence. So perhaps it is time to reconsider
this question in guild circles as the art has evolved since the last
time the question was asked.

[Nancy Kirkner]

I'm in favor of both competitions and adjudications. I've benefited
tremendously from continuous feedback in private coaching, and, as
someone mentioned, there are "prizes" awarded all the time in the
Guild, just not through competition open to all who might be qualified
for consideration.

To correct a small factual error: DB is by application, not
invitation. The Liverpool team auditions were held at DB (which seems
logical - that's where many elite ringers gather), but there was an
opportunity to audition by video, I believe. Not all the Area Bronze
conference divisions are by audition/application, but maybe they
should be.

Just wanted to point out that adjudications and competitions aren't
necessarily the same thing. (Probably someone already made this
point.) It would be possible to have knowledgeable people give
written constructive feedback without necessarily ranking groups or
individuals. But is ranking such a bad thing? Like Nikki, I've
noticed many positive comments on videos that really don't deserve it,
and it gives a false sense of superiority. By the standards of non-
handbell musicians, we all have a lot of work to do.

I don't know as much as I'd like about how they do things in Hong
Kong, but (strictly my opinion) the rapid development of the art there
is partially due to an established system of adjudications and also to
a superior approach to pedagogy. If you aren't familiar with Emily
Li's work in the Hong Kong Handbell Academy, I commend it to you and
ask: Why isn't there a Boston Handbell Academy? A London Handbell
Academy? A Vancouver Handbell Academy? A Seattle Handbell Academy?
(OK, well, maybe you can throw that last one back at me.)

Regards -

Nancy Kirkner, Seattle
www.solobells.com

[Stephanie Wiltse]

Thanks for offering this correction, Nancy. You are exactly correct on all
counts.

All ringers have the opportunity to make the effort to try out for DB, All
Star Teams and the like. All Star auditions were held at Seminar 2011 and
the past two DB events, which made for a convenient way of scheduling
group auditions. There were a few people who made a special trip in for
auditions even though they were not registered for the event.

Several auditions were held via "Go To Meeting" and it was a very
interesting, and I believe effective, way to audition. This may be
something we'll see more of in the future.

Thanks again for setting the record straight!

Stephanie Wiltse
Grand Rapids MI

[Rima Greer]

My only issue with competition and adjudication is that it promotes conformity.   If you have to do it THIS way to win, then it stops people from even thinking about doing it THAT way...

Rima

I like the third way... or the fifth way... or the way we haven't thought of yet....

[F. Thomas Simpson]

But yet the very nature of being in something called a "choir" - is conforming.



Thomas

[Rima Greer]

I'm talking about the leadership of each group.   If there is a list of things you "should" be to compete, then you will only do the things on that list.

What if you could invent a new way to do a high jump that got you higher?   Great.  But what if your new technique is not allowed by the Olympics?  Would you bother to figure out how to do it?

I have nothing against competition, the olympics, or anything like that.  I'm just saying that there are consequences to having other people set the boundaries of what's "good".

Rima

[Nancy Kirkner]

Possibly. Or, in order to stand out from the crowd, people may try
something completely different. It's also possible to foster
innovation by specifically recognizing that as a category. My
Toastmasters group had a "stick your neck out" award.

Another way of looking at this: without open competition, people
advance through connections and self-promotion. That may be true in
every field, but is it the best way to pursue excellence in our art
form? Would you want to listen to an orchestra made up of people
chosen because of name recognition alone, or people chosen by
audition?

Nancy

On May 25, 1:59 pm, Rima Greer <rim...@mac.com> wrote:
> My only issue with competition and adjudication is that it promotes conformity.   If you have to do it THIS way to win, then it stops people from even thinking about doing it THAT way...
>
> Rima
> I like the third way... or the fifth way... or the way we haven't thought of yet....
>

> Digest: e-mail mdpr...@gmail.com with subject line "Digest-L"

[Thomas Simpson]

But people break the rules all the time Rima.

Look at Olympic skating. They have a ton of rules for what can't be done and what is good. But people do them anyways!

Something being labeled as "good" as a restriction never stopped anyone from innovating. Actually, quite the opposite. It encourage them to seek out better and newer ways!



Thomas

Sent from my iPhone

[Charles Peery]

I have enjoyed reading the posts.  I still stand by my original position.  After an entire teaching career (high school choral music) of taking kids to contests, festivals, adjudicated events, whatever you wanted to call them, I want to say that success at those events was not always without a good deal of self-promotion and politics.  This is one thing that makes me question the process.  Directors/schools/groups have a reputation-- for good or for ill-- and it is in play during the competition.  I saw people who should have known better get by with some shoddy things because they were well-regarded over the long haul.  I saw people who were struggling and achieving some slow, painful improvement who didn't get any credit for that because they were "known" to have mediocre groups. I was on the lucky end of this deal in that I always knew how to prepare my kids for these events and they always did extremely well.  You want to say it's because of good instruction, and without that it would be pretty difficult, yes.  On the other hand, I have to seriously consider that I change as a person when I enter into preparing for these types of events.  You have to if you want to do well, right?  I used to think I became the "Lawyer" me.  I think, "Where are they going to get me?  What will they say about this passage?  Will this dynamic level be of sufficient contrast?  What will my closing piece be, it has to WOW them."  So I did well, year after year after year.  They added sight-reading so they could be reasonably assured that some musical ability was being taught.  Well, it was, so that was no big deal to me or my kids.  Once you can do that every year, what else is there?  It becomes simply a game, a routine, an exercise.  Not entirely unmusical because you do have to worry about how it is actually coming across to the listener.  Is there tenderness, passion, commitment, precision in the sound?  But many parts of it are not about making music.  And then when you add in that your own ego can become hyper-involved, what is it about then?   I did it for all the reasons people have mentioned:  the idea of benchmarking, the idea of having a standard outside of your own back yard, a "second opinion" about your program.  I did it because kids seemed to enjoy it.  (If they crashed and burned, would they have enjoyed it then?)  I don't know anyone who did competitions who didn't hammer the same three pieces for five weeks before Districts, and then you'd switch one required piece and hammer that and the two previous ones for another three or four weeks for State.  Some directors began their three pieces for March contest in September and hammered them for the whole time!  I just have to wonder about that narrow focus, and whether it's good in the long run, educationally speaking.  I'm not saying it was harmful per se.  Just considering...if I know what musical competence (or better, excellence) is, why introduce all the extra-musical dynamics of a competition just so someone else can reassure me that I do know?  And since you don't know how an individual director will react to this situation (i.e., the director who starts their competition pieces at the beginning of the school year and gives minimal attention to any other literature,) I think it bears careful thought before one jumps in.

Chuck in St. Louis

[Judith C. Phillips]

THANK YOU, Chuck, for saying what I've been thinking through this discussion.   I've had a bit of experience with competitions - as a student, a teacher, and a parent.  I have worked next to colleagues who started the festival music in September and beat it to death all year.  I've watched groups crash and burn because their director didn't (possibly didn't know how to) prepare them properly.  I have also seen the pride of kids who scored well, as well as dealt with parents that truly believed that band existed only to fill a trophy case with awards.  My overall feeling is that putting the focus on competition interferes with the learning process.  Egos and reputations bend music-making into "winning".  Is it possible to win while learning?  Of course it is.  I would just rather see kids making music for the joy of it, than see them focused on ratings.  The director/teacher who can balance the pressure of competition with real teaching and learning, and keep the joy in the process as well, is the absolute best.
 
My own children's middle school band director taught in a different way.  He never took his bands to festival.  Instead, he filled their folders with interesting music, which they changed out at the beginning of every month.  They played two very good concerts every year.  All 4 children adored the guy, and grew tremendously in musicality as they worked with him.  That isn't the only way to run a program, but I liked what it did for my kids.  The only pressure they felt was to make the best music they could, and to make their teacher proud.  Some of them chose to go to solo and ensemble festival, which seemed to be all the competition they wanted.
 
One of the reasons I teach beginning band rather than middle or high school is that I don't want to deal with the hassles of adjudication.  I prefer to have the time and freedom to teach without constantly worrying about how the judges would rate us.  My kids are busily writing original tunes to share with their band classes right now.  If we had to play at festival, we probably wouldn't have time to spend on composition.  Every situation is different.  Competition is not always a bad thing.  The school district where I teach has one of those "good reputation" band programs, and all of those wonderful ratings have helped us keep the band program from being cut when budget problems put it in danger.  The choir program and the orchestra, neither of which brought home so many trophies, are both long gone.  If it takes competition to keep handbell programs alive and valued, it is something we need to think about.  We need to carefully consider both sides of the issue, though.  Thanks, -L folks, for the thoughtful and good discussion!
 
Judy Phillips
--happily teaching handchimes and 1st year band in Warren, Michigan
 

 

---

From: cep...@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [HB-L] Re: Competitions, adjudications, and pedagogy
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 21:19:21 -0500
To: handb...@googlegroups.com

--
Post: handb...@googlegroups.com
Subscribe: handbell-l...@googlegroups.com
Unsubscribe: handbell-l+...@googlegroups.com

[Daniel Reck]

Hi Rima and all,

Rima Greer wrote:

My only issue with competition and adjudication is that it promotes conformity.   If you have to do it THIS way to win, then it stops people from even thinking about doing it THAT way...

Rima

I like the third way... or the fifth way... or the way we haven't thought of yet....

This is a valid concern, but it can be mitigated by carefully designing the evaluation criteria. For instance, there are elements of performance for which we probably can agree on "what is good," such as balance in timbre and dynamics, good expression and articulation, and precision in performance of tempi and rhythms.  To a reasonable degree, these sorts of things can be measured rather uniformly. (I doubt that one would argue that 8 ringers producing 16 different attacks with 6 notes not appearing on the composer's score should be rewarded in the name of musical innovation.)

However, there are other elements--including many of the visual aspects of our performances as well as the specific musical interpretation we make for each score--for which there is no agreed-upon standard, and rightly so.  This is where the creativity lies.  In these areas, however, one can still judge creativity within a loosely defined scale for the sake of comparison (to your own group or to other ensembles).

For Bands of America marching competitions, bands are judged (if I recall correctly) in Musical Effect, Visual Effect, and General Effect. The GE category in particular is very loosely defined, and relies on the judges' vast experience with marching bands to assign fair scores. As a matter of course, bands are rewarded for creativity and innovation in their performances.  If they do something new and execute it well, the judges value this. 

Of course, if they do something new and execute if poorly, the band's score is dinged accordingly. Example: I saw a marching band perform on a giant mylar sheet stretched out on the field which was painted to give the impression the yard lines were tied in knots. (A great visual gag!) They marched the lines as though they were legit to great effect, but when several of the players got snagged on a wrinkle in the sheet and fell down later in the show, the judges were shaking their heads and furiously making notes. Although that was the one major gaffe in the show, and the band otherwise performed outstandingly in music and the rest of the visuals, it likely cost them a superior rating.

Thomas Simpson wrote:

But yet the very nature of being in something called a "choir" - is conforming.  

Perhaps, but "marching band" might also be said to be a definition to conform to, yet marching bands in the Midwest tend to use a style substantially different than bands from the South. There's lots of variations in that conformity. Likewise, Campanile and your local middle school group are both handbell ensembles, but no one would argue they are conforming to the same performance approach, ethic, or standard.

Rima Greer wrote:

 If there is a list of things you "should" be to compete, then you will only do the things on that list. 

Sorry, I don't buy it. Creative people like yourself choose to be creative, even in the face of (and perhaps deliberately in spite of) a  stated expectation of what you "should" do.  Outstanding handbell ensembles will do outstanding things regardless of any competitive system we might one day develop, just like Olympic athletes innovate approaches to achieving the gold by developing new and better techniques. If a competition system were to so completely stifle creativity, interest in the competition will drop off.

Finally, Nancy Kirkner wrote:

 Or, in order to stand out from the crowd, people may try something completely different.

Bingo! Any adjudicator watching two dozen ensembles in a competition is going to get bored if they all do the same thing. Groups that do something different (and really well) will be rewarded for exceeding expectations.

Ready, set, go!

Daniel

--

  Daniel M. Reck

  Media Director, Allegro Handbell Ensemble

  http://allegrobells.org

[Paul Kinney]

Rima wrote:

My only issue with competition and adjudication is that it promotes conformity.
If you have to do it THIS way to win, then it stops people from even thinking
about doing it THAT way...

I reply:

Leave it to Rima to summarize my point in two succinct sentences.

I read Chuck's posting (which I won't repeat) with interest. I see some of these
benefits of adjudication:

* Comparison against a standard
* Benchmarking progress
* A second opinion about the program
* External validation that the group is doing at least *something* right
* Unbiased suggestions on how to improve


But I also see these harms:
* Gloating rights from those judged as doing well
* Judges demanding things from a group that they are no where near able to meet
-- for example a judge complaining my church group doesn't play like Sonos.
* Judges offering comments based on reputation rather than specific performance
* Performers feeling bad because judges savage their work
* Those who don't submit to the process or those who don't do well are seen
as inferior
* Directors concentrating on the judging rather on education and musicianship
* The expectations of the judges may limit innovation

I doubt either list is complete. Your suggestions appreciated.

So far in my opinion, the harms outweigh the gains.

[Rima Greer]

On May 25, 2012, at 09:08 PM, Daniel Reck <danie...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Rima and all,

Rima Greer wrote:

My only issue with competition and adjudication is that it promotes conformity.   If you have to do it THIS way to win, then it stops people from even thinking about doing it THAT way...

Rima

I like the third way... or the fifth way... or the way we haven't thought of yet....

This is a valid concern, but it can be mitigated by carefully designing the evaluation criteria.

 

Ah, but that requires people in authority who understand the issue, and carefully design the evaluating criteria.  In my experience, people in that kind of authority plan to keep their authority by carefully designing evaluating criteria to keep everyone else following the old ways.   Leadership rarely leads to a new place.  It's usually only rebellion that moves things forward.  ;-D  

<snip>

 

Rima Greer wrote:

 If there is a list of things you "should" be to compete, then you will only do the things on that list. 

Sorry, I don't buy it. Creative people like yourself choose to be creative, even in the face of (and perhaps deliberately in spite of) a  stated expectation of what you "should" do.  Outstanding handbell ensembles will do outstanding things regardless of any competitive system we might one day develop,

 

One of the issues that some guild area leaders have identified is the problem of retaining advanced groups in the handbell community.  Many of these groups feel completely stifled by the status quo community, adjudication or no.  My very first experience at a handbell conference was several clinicians coming to talk to my group after we performed and saying, "you can't do it like that."   Just look at the ruckus that we all kicked up about moving a few bells around a table.   Sorry, it feels like crabs in a barrel to me, and codifying those attitudes in competitions that encourage conformity, IMHO, only makes it worse.   

just like Olympic athletes innovate approaches to achieving the gold by developing new and better techniques. If a competition system were to so completely stifle creativity, interest in the competition will drop off.

 

Yes, but they often have a HUGE deal to change the rules before they get any actual credit for what they do.   Have you seen "Strictly Ballroom"?   THERE ARE NO NEW STEPS.

Finally, Nancy Kirkner wrote:

 Or, in order to stand out from the crowd, people may try something completely different.

Bingo! Any adjudicator watching two dozen ensembles in a competition is going to get bored if they all do the same thing. Groups that do something different (and really well) will be rewarded for exceeding expectations.

 

Well, it depends on what you call "different".   When I look back at Campanile's first version of "different", I cringe.   We were nothing more than a bell choir playing new repertoire, memorized.   And there are still groups making that same leap 20 years later and still calling it "different".  It's not.  It's re-arranging deck chairs.  ;-(

Ready, set, go!

 

LOL!   I'm so happy we are having this discussion.   Only by hashing out all this stuff can we really look at ourselves and figure out where we want to go.

XXX
Rima

 

Daniel

--

  Daniel M. Reck

  Media Director, Allegro Handbell Ensemble

  http://allegrobells.org

[Rima Greer]

Hi Paul!

On May 26, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Paul Kinney <bel...@comcast.net> wrote:

Rima wrote:

My only issue with competition and adjudication is that it promotes conformity.
If you have to do it THIS way to win, then it stops people from even thinking
about doing it THAT way...

I reply:

Leave it to Rima to summarize my point in two succinct sentences.

 

Thanks honey!   OMG I can't believe we actually agree on something!  ;-D

* The expectations of the judges may limit innovation

 

Yeah, this is the one I'm concerned about.

I doubt either list is complete. Your suggestions appreciated.

So far in my opinion, the harms outweigh the gains.

 

We also have to look at the collective personality of our community.   Handbell ringers, please forgive my generalization here, tend to be rule-seeking humans.   Most of us like to know "how it's supposed to be."   When you put people in authority who enforce that idea, things get even worse.

[Linda Lunt]

Hello L –

 

I’m looking for a description of the “handshake game” that I once learned in a Tim Waugh rhythm class. All I remember is that you all walk in a circle and shake hands, but I don’t remember the rules. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

 

Thanks!

Linda Lunt

 

[Nancy Kirkner]

I can appreciate the valid concerns that have been raised. For those
who are against competitions:

Do you see any difference if we're talking about adults, not young
students, with voluntary participation?

Is it possible that depriving those who *want* to compete of the
opportunity to do so could be just as harmful to their development as
forcing people to participate?

Is it possible that *not* having a formal mechanism for recognizing
and fostering new talent further entrenches the old guard?

Just some thoughts to ponder.

Nancy Kirkner
Seattle
www.solobells.com


On May 26, 10:08 am, Rima Greer <rim...@mac.com> wrote:

[J.-C. Coolen]

Thanks, everyone, for your comments on this topic! I really
appreciated all your varied perspectives and input.

jc

[Stephanie Wiltse]

I'm still trying to figure out who the "people in authority who
enforce how things are supposed to be" are in the handbell world.

Stevie in Grand Rapids MI

[Rima Greer]

LOL!  True!  One of the cool things about the handbell community nowadays is that these things are more fluid than they used to be.

Rima

--
Post: handb...@googlegroups.com
Subscribe: handbell-l...@googlegroups.com
Unsubscribe: handbell-l+...@googlegroups.com