Talk:Northwest Association for Performing Arts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Additions

I am concerned with two recent additions to the article:

Bands may not compete in a class below their size, but may choose to compete up a class. Many smaller bands compete in AA or Open class to seek a greater challenge in preliminaries. Some bands have even competed up two classes. North Salem and Sunset are two bands who have competed in Open Class with fewer than 90 members.

and

Bands that perform in Exhibition are evaluated by judges and given scores, but do not compete. Usually bands that host a competition perform in Exhibtion as a show of good faith. Century, Evergreen, Sprague, and Sunset have chosen this option in the past.

While these two quotes sound right with regards to what I have experience in the NWMBC, it would be nice if there were citations for the above information. Where is this information coming from? Ghindo 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing about citing for this article is that we have almost no sources that have already been published. The circuit doesn't make the news, and their website doesn't even have most of their official documents available. Those of us who have been editing (I wrote those two quotes) are basically creating an original source of information. The best alternative I can think of for the first example is to cite a recap sheet to prove Class. I don't know of any accurate source of data on number of competing members for Sunset and North Salem.--Vranish 01:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the following statement:

Many smaller bands compete in AA or Open class to seek a greater challenge in preliminaries.

The reason this statement cannot be attributed is that it is speculative. To know why a band enters a higher class would require interviewing the band director who made the decision. Since this sentence doesn't add value, it could be deleted.

One source for band size information could be an event program. For example, the Sunset Classic 2006 program shows that Sunset had 93 performers and entered AA class, and that North Salem had 75 and entered Open class.

The paragraph could be modified to read:

Bands may not compete in a class below their size, but may choose to compete in a larger class. Some bands have even competed up two classes. For example, in 2006 North Salem competed in Open class with 75 members.

The appropriate citation could then be added.

The following statement also engages in speculation.

Usually bands that host a competition perform in Exhibtion as a show of good faith.

This section could be modified as:

Bands that perform in Exhibition are evaluated by judges and given scores, but do not compete. Typically bands that host a competition choose to perform in Exhibtion, though there is no requirement that they do so. Century, Evergreen, Sprague, and Sunset have chosen this option in the past.

--PhilosopherBruce 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Programs are probably the worst source of information imaginable; the information is submitted nearly a month before the season starts, so everything changes. Sunset had 79 members (I know this for a fact), not 93, and they wrote that program themselves. But I'll make some changes. And although it is speculative without a citation, which doesn't exist anywhere on the net, everyone knows the reason that bands don't compete at their own shows: It looks cheesy to win trophies that you paid for awarded by judges you paid for. The reason Evergreen only recently (2005) stopped competing at their own show is that Sunset wouldn't let them compete in the Sunset Classic until they switched to Exhibition at the McKenzie Classic.

On another note, listing Southridge as co-champion is incorrect. As much as they may be tearing their hair out over it for the next year or so, Evergreen is Open Class Champion. Higher GE score is not used to simply "decide who receives the 1st and 2nd place trophies," it's used to determine place. Period. The note about Southridge's tie can still be included, but Southridge does not share the title of Open Class Champion with Evergreen. If it hasn't been changed in a few days, I'll just remove it entirely.--Vranish 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like we're mostly in agreement. True enough that an event program isn't necessarily accurate information. But as a supporting reference for an example of performing outside their size class, I think the event program shows the band director's intent.

I agree with your description of the tiebreaker issue with Evergreen and Southridge.

By the way, I was unable to find any mention of (or procedures for) awarding class championships in the circuit handbook. To me, it seems that the awarding of class champion trophies is a show sponsor's decision, rather than a formal circuit policy. Or maybe it's an undocumented tradition. The handbook implies that all bands compete in one class in finals, so the concept of having separate class champions based on the finals scores doesn't seem to be supported. But, this article isn't the place to discuss circuit policies. For this article, there were in fact class championship trophies awarded, and the article correctly presents the information. So I don't propose any change there.

That's interesting background info regarding those host band exhibition performances. I didn't know the history of that situation. For every guideline, there seems to be an exception though. Sunset both hosted and competed in the Sunset Classic this year, but that's understandable due to the unusual circumstance of it also being the championships.

As an aside, since the judges are selected by and their fees set by the circuit, I don't see a lot of conflict-of-interest there. I totally agree that it looks bad to win trophies at your own contest though.

As far as expanding the article's content, would a section on the circuit's scoring and adjudication philosophy be useful? From comparing the NWMBC procedures with other marching band adjudication standards, the NWMBC method has some unique features worthty of presentation. I offer to write up a draft for discussion here.--PhilosopherBruce 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical Winners?

Perhaps to expand this artical, we could add a subsection or new page as to who the winners of the previous competitions were. Perhaps for all of the 2006 shows, and the years before? Anyone up for that? We could find the results for all of the 2006 shows on the NWMBC website.

But as a side note, I don't think that the Pacific Coast Invitational should be included on the list of official NWMBC events. It doesn't even have a mention on the NWMBC website. Bands like Evergreen and Grants Pass are invited every year, but I don't think they've ever actually shown up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reticulum (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I think every winner of every competition is a little too much. I think the past winners of Championships of past years is a good idea. PCI ISN'T an official NWMBC event anymore, but in the past it has been.--67.171.180.243 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an internal link on the NWMBC web site (http://www.marchingband.org/documents) that has the recap sheets for the last few years. However I think the intent of the article is to discuss the circuit itself, and not particularly the competition results. That would be more appropriate for a linked article on the history of each specific contest.

I think PCI still belongs in the article, since it was a circuit show for many years and is part of the NWMBC history. Similarly, there are several bands in the participant list that haven't entered a circuit show in several years, but as former participants I think it is useful to keep them listed as well.--PhilosopherBruce 06:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

With the latest updates, is it reasonable to remove the "needs expansion" tag from this article? Sorry, I forgot to sign the last update about "governance". --PhilosopherBruce 07:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding a note.

The article mentions that bands may compete in higher classes, some doing so for the challenge, and specifically mentions North Salem as competeing in open class with 75 members. I thought I'd add a little note about how North Salem would have done if they competed in the class their band is sized for. Had they, they would have been A class champions and won all 5 caption awards. After that, I'd say bands choose to compete in a higher class for more of a challenge.

I'm going to go ahead and add it, and if there are any problems of arguments,we can just discuss it here.

For example, in 2006 North Salem competed in open class with 75 members. Had North Salem competed in A class (the class of which the band fits into), it would have been A class champion, and would have won all 5 captions at circuit championchips. This victory would have been by a margin of over 8 points for the total score. The possibility of winning by such a large margin may be the reason the band chose to compete up classes. This would enabled North Salem to compete with bands which achieved similar scores. Reticulum 11:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reticulum

I don't have any problem with your adding the note, it's an interesting observation. It's impossible to know whether the same performance would have gotten the same score in Open class competition as in Class A. Class A performs earlier in the day, the judges expectations could be different between the classes (either subconsciously or overtly), and there is also an effect fom the level of competition in that class. Too many variables to do more than speculate. It's an interesting point to consider.

--PhilosopherBruce 07:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, but a difference of 8 points between first and second place is largely meant to be symbolic as to why the band moved up classes. Most likely had North Salem actually competed in A class, its scores would have been lower than an open class performance Reticulum 10:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Retticulum

"Most likely had North Salem actually competed in A class, its scores would have been lower than an open class performance" First of all, I find that unlikely. On the topic at hand, why specifically North Salem? Sunset could claim an A class victory, with an 11.9 point margin. --67.171.180.243 03:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

North Salem is specifically mentioned only as an example of a band that competes outside its size category. Clearly there are a lot of other bands that do so as well. The text may read better as "...though its score may have differed...", rather than claiming it would necessarily be lower.

The discussion started by speculation on the many reasons a band might have for competing outside its size category, and NS was a handy example because there was an accurate count from a videotaped performance, and they're notably much smaller in number than the typical Open class band. As an A-sized band competing in Open, they're an extreme case of being out-of-category. The discussion then slid farther down the slippery slope into comparing scores from Prelims rounds between the different classes. That gets more into evaluating the judging criteria, and if we want to discuss that it should be under a separate heading.--PhilosopherBruce 20:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletions?

Is anyone else slightly miffed that new contributor "NWMBC" deleted some of the material we've been working on? Seems a bit rude to just zap portions of the article without leaving any explanatory comments, or seemingly referencing the Talk page. It's tempting to revert the changes, but you've got to admit the article is significantly streamlined by the deletions. How does the rest of the bunch feel about it?--PhilosopherBruce 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's rude. But I don't care too much. Although removing this:

"Although Evergreen won 1st place, their overall score was a tie with Southridge. The two bands received a score of 93.7 in finals (resulting in a tie), but Evergreen achieved a higher General Effect score, which is used as a tiebreaker according to NWMBC rules. Evergreen recieved a General Effect score of 37.9, while Southridge received a 37.8."

Seems unnecessary. --67.171.180.243 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I thought it played a good role. It showed a first hand example of whathappens when there is a tie. It's a first hand example. Also, I don't know if 'NWMBC' deleted the North Salem thing, but I thought it served the same purpose as a first hand example as to why Bands competed up classes. I'm going to go ahead and put both back. Since they were there originally, they should stay, and if anyone disagrees that the statements should be there, than they can present their argument, and a vote can be held over what stays and does not. 63.225.86.41 01:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reticulum

• I agree with you both, there was valuable content there. I like having it restored. --PhilosopherBruce 02:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed today that the description of the Evergreen/Southridge tiebreaker at the 2006 championships was deleted again. I will try restoring it again, this time as an example of the tiebreaker procedure in the section on the contest rules. Maybe it is more appropriate there anyway. --PhilosopherBruce 03:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Winter?

We've completely ignored the winter drumline and winterguard season. Shouldn't we do something about that? --67.171.180.243 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Class Champions?

I'm a bit confused about how Class Champions are declared. There is no guidance in the circuit rulebook. Are Class Champions based on scores after Prelims, or by their overall scores in Finals? Since Finals competition is based on Open class rules, and Prelims competition is based on class, I'd say it's more appropriate to use the Prelims results. What I think isn't very important, though. This is an encyclopedic article, and by the circuit rulebook, there are no official class champions. Perhaps this section should be deleted?

Also, I deleted the discussion about how North Salem would have placed if they had entered Class A. Looking back it after about a year's break, the material was speculative, and wasn't really appropriate in a discussion of the NWMBC band classifications. As an example of a band entering outside their size class, it's still good. But the rest of the material (discussing what makes a small band score well in a larger classification) was out of context. PhilosopherBruce 05:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename the page?

Since the NWMBC no longer exists, and is currently operating as the NWAPA, perhaps this is a good time to change the page name. Any objections?

Also, there are some new procedures for the fall 2010 season, I'll update those based on the fall meeting minutes. They address some of the years-old issues mentioned above. Tungsten58 (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)