Some things you just cannot explain. Here is a video of the act The Colorado Blues Society chose to send to Memphis for the solo/duo part of the International Blues Challenge. This is video from his actual performance in Memphis last night.
Now, here is a video of one of the acts that lost out in Colorado to the act you see above. This is their actual performance in the Colorado IBC.
Does the first dude play all his songs like that? In other words, is it 15min of solo harp tunes in that vein, or does he play some guitar, loop, etc.?
If the CO IBC stuff is anything like it is in MN, it is 90% politics and 10% dress. Nic obviously wore the wrong type of hat and how dare an act not have a suit jacket!!! ---------- Custom Harmonicas Optimized Harmonicas
Rick, A little showmanship on Al & Nicks part would have probably paid off. Setting in folding chairs and dressing casual didn't make them any points. If ya watched the video with the sound off, it would have been easy to see why they picked the first act. And that's unfortunately what some of the judges did.
Last Edited by on Jan 31, 2013 11:49 AM
There is no bigger fan of the IBC, and local Blues Challenges to get there, than me. It's as fair as it can be, but it ain't scientific by any stretch. So I always tell people to be prepared to see the whole thing go kaflooey at any moment. The "best" doesn't always win.
I've said this endless times, but it is about the audience. And audiences usually don't hear what we hear - even at the IBC level. What and how you play is only a part of the equation. Here is who went from MN this year:
What I don't understand is why anyone's surprised that showmanship and looks out trumps substance in the music business. It's been going on since the first note was played. I do though understand your frustration. They just need to learn from this experience and not let it happen again.
Last Edited by on Jan 31, 2013 12:18 PM
I think politics is involved in these decisions all too often. Once in the 90's I went to watch a British NHL (National Harmonica League) harp competition the winner was extremely mediocre, whilst there was another guy clearly playing circles round everyone else. He came no where in the running at all. It quickly became apparent that the winner was in with the in-crowd. There and then I swore I'd never attend another of those types of events and to this day I haven't.
1. Blues Content: Everyone has his or her own interpretation of what is and is not Blues. Thus, any given three-judge panel will include members with varying opinions of Blues, covering the spectrum of Blues whenever possible, from the most traditional to soul/blues and rock/blues. Bands should pick material carefully. At the Memphis semi-finals and finals, the judges are Blues professionals, not a bar crowd, and are likely to be unimpressed with song selections that are uninspired. (Call this--with all due respect to Sir Mack Rice and Wilson Pickett--the "no Mustang Sally rule.")
2. Vocals: The acts vocal skills.
3. Talent: The acts instrumental skills.
4. Originality: Original work is encouraged. Cover tunes are allowed but playing the recorded rendition lick by lick is discouraged; will not be looked upon favorably by the judges; and will be reflected in scoring.
5. Stage Presence: Over the years, the quality of talent has risen so dramatically that we no longer consider this an "amateur" competition. Most contestants have performed on stage enough to know that they are not simply playing music, but putting on a show. This category rates how "sellable" a band may be.
To reflect the relative importance of each category in the success of a band, a band's score in each category is weighted. Raw scores for Blues Content is multiplied by four, Talent and vocals by three and Originality and Stage Presence are multiplied by two. The total in each category represents the Weighted Score for that category. Total possible weighted score is 140.
1-3 Typical of a beginning blues band. 4-5 Typical of a local weekend band. 6-7 Typical of an advanced local band but not yet ready to headline a major blues club. 8-9 Typical of the quality of blues artists who headline major clubs. 10 Typical of those who play the main stage at major festivals such as Telluride or King Biscuit Blues Festival. ____
I don't have a score sheet and am not going to take the time to do the math. If there were anyone who had master knowledge of scales and rubrics on this board, it'd be me. That isn't bragging, as it isn't necessarily cool, but I am qualified in my remarks.
Looking this over, and going just on these two vids plus the :30s slide on of Yoder on YT...
I don't see where there would be a huge edge for Al and Nic just because Nic plays some great blues harp. My gut and ear tells me they are the better group for my listening pleasure, but when it comes down to the scoring, I don't know how many points that would net them beyond Yoder.
IMO, unless you put a huge divide between them on talent, I can see where Yoder's appearance and act would net more points. The only "wow" between the two is Nic's harp playing (I am assuming Yoder's guitar work is competent), but it apparently wasn't enough to outweight Yoder's visual appeal.
Listening to ONLY those two clips and not over thinking it:
Blues Content A&N - Weekend Yoder - Weekend
Talent A&N - Advanced (I could have easily put weekend) Yoder - Beginner
Vocals A&N - Weekend Yoder - Weekend
Originality A&N - Weekend Yoder - Weekend
Presence A&N - Beginner Yoder - Weekend (could lead on advanced as he engaged the crowd, but it was pretty basic engagement)
Nic played great traditional blues harp, but there was zero X-Factor or special about the duo performance. I've seen those guys in other clips you've posted and they impressed the hell out of me. This was way too casual and laid back.
If I were doing a thing like this, which I have, I would aim for the top of the rubric in every category...not the middle. The clip of Nic with his buddy singing at the jam was way better. The stuff he did with the young band was way way better. All the fronting Al has done at the jams has been more entertaining and impressive.
My opinion, from observing blues competitions, including the IBC, is that the judging is all over the place and appears, many times, to have nothing to do with talent. At the local level, I think politics play heavily in the decision making process.
Last year, at the IBC, I was shocked to learn that one of the judges in the preliminary events was someone I know. I won't mention names, but if this person knows anything about the blues, I can flap my wings and fly. At the IBC, I've seen acts that were off the charts good get knocked out in the preliminary rounds in favour of acts that downright sucked.
After last year at the IBC, I came to the conclusion that musicians are the "Target Market". The goal is to get them to Beale Street and keep them drinking and spending money on hotels and meals as long as possible.
Personally, I think the IBC is totally bogus as far as picking a lasting and true winner most of the time. Honestly, most of the crowd and a good number of the judges really don't understand what they're hearing. I think the only saving grace to the thing for the acts that go is the networking that I understand can happen.
Truly, in the situation above, there is no accounting for taste. Yikes! I wouldn't let that guy honk on bobo on my stage, Rick.
Which is not to say that he's not a nice person. :^) Trying to be positive these days. ---------- http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/pages/Bourbon-Bleach/161722307208585
I too agree 100% that overall, Al and Nic have more going from them. However, viewing them in this vaccum, we have to stick to what is being presented. In reality, too, we are not even seeing Yoder's performance from that day.
I know what Al and Nic are capable of, however, in this isolated video, the difference between the two isn't as far as we think, and going to the scale and expectations, and the nature of this beast, I am not shocked.
Again, I would pay to see two of the three guys perform based off what I've seen, but had them been the sole video on which to judge, I can see why they didn't win.
The clips of Nic with a full band would easily be ranked as Advanced and Festival headliner. This was a pretty basic sit and play blues sorta thing. He played masterful harp and Al was rock solid on guitar, but neither act, based off these clips, had a shot at placing at the IBC. ---------- Custom Harmonicas Optimized Harmonicas
Going back to your question. If your thinking is the wrong duo got picked, it isn't the judges fault. Al and Nic had access to the rubric and scoring, and should take responsibility for not scoring higher.
If you really want real input, we should watch their full sets from that specific day in CO. Anything else is too easily skewed and manipulated.
The thing that has to be remembered with a competition is that the result is a point in time. It is much like a playoff game or an Olympic medal routine. The winner is not necessarily the best ever, just the best that day. When you follow a performer or an athlete for a log time you tend to see more in their performance. Both Al and Nic are top notch harmonica players. Both can also play guitar and sing making them each a triple threat. While I know that, it does not come through in the video shown here.
There is a difference between a judging / competition and a selection committee. A competition takes the winner, even it’s a fluke (I’m not saying Jack’s win was a fluke). A selection committee looks at the overall performance record and then considers the likelihood of success for a given competition based on the current talent and potential improvement with specific coaching.
Both processes have their advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately judges and selection committee members often confuse their mission and as a result you get mixed results. This happens in professional organizations and is very common in social level organization where there is little training or specifics guidelines.
Any contest that involves judging will ever be perfect in everyone’s eyes. The best that can be done is to decide up front the judging / selection parameters and explain them to everyone involved. Only then can you properly critique the judges after the event. It is usually obvious if a judge makes a decision on a great performance or if they make a more biased decision.
Al and Nic have competed in the IBC in Memphis. I’ve watched them both front shows and bring down the house. I’ve also seen them open as a duo for Rick Estrin and I watched Al and his band open for BB King. I know what they can do when truly on. Unfortunately, I don’t know much about Jack Yoder. As such I can’t say what else the judges saw in Yoder’s performance. Were the judges asked to pick the best performance of the night or select the performer they thought had the best chance of succeeding at the IBC Memphis competition. Both are subjective but, have very different criteria.
Last Edited by on Jan 31, 2013 3:05 PM
My friend's band attended a 'battle of the bands'. The promoter skipped out (the crowd wasn't large enough to cover the prize cost!), but the scoring metric was just who the crowd clapped loudest for. There were 2 or 3 bands that were very good, including my friends. It could have come down to any of them. It was clear (before the promoter skipped out) that it was going to go to a high school band doing Nirvana covers, because they had brought the most people (mostly their parents).
(Don't get me wrong, I love Nirvana, and I even love a good Nirvana cover, but these guys were the worst band I've ever heard. The promoter might have just run off so he didn't have to hear any more of them, and if that is the case, I don't blame him. Out of key and tempo with each other, not even in key or tempo by themselves. They should have called themselves the Hindenburgs. Oh the humanity.
I think the critical thing is to find judges that have a clue about blues. The one IBC local thing I went to left me scratching my head as to where and why they got judges with such limited blues backgrounds. But on the other hand I sure wouldn't want to be a judge.
Rick, listen to the music you know who's better. Most blues fan don't no shit. That's why most most blues bands play the same songs over and over again. How many actually buy CDs and no more then bb king and srv really.most local ibc judges know who are going to win before the show starts.@ harpninja being the expert that you claim how would you rate yourself on the judging scale?
Last Edited by on Jan 31, 2013 5:02 PM
There has to be an objective reality, and I think we can agree that Adam has given us that: He said Al and Nic are "better." I agree. They make better music.
Now... can we devise a scoring method that helps judges arrive at that objective reality?
This discussion has gotten kind of silly because we got distracted about which act more closely adhered to the test, not which act was musically better. Yes, I know some people will differ, but most people who watch those two videos will agree that Al and Nic make better music.
The local blues societies are not bound to use the Blues Foundation's scoring rules when they run their own qualifying IBCs. I'd like to develop a better system and find better judges.
Do any of you have any ideas about how to do that? I am looking for suggestions. You guys are the right people to ask. Is the Blues Foundation's system workable as long as I find unbiased judges who have some knowledge of the blues?
No,I am not trying to arrive at a pre-determined outcome. What I am trying to do is find a better way, and to avoid tedious discussions about rubrics and test scales. If a scoring regime can somehow promote a musically inferior act over a better one it is junk. Perhaps the stage presence metric could be used to break a tie, but to vault someone over an act the clearly makes better music is just wrong.
Al and Nick's vocal was a little buried. In the beginning he (which one is which?) got off of the mic a little. If I heard someone else playing their songs, I'm not sure I'd recognize the song they played. I would recognize that I'd heard the other guys song before though. (Whether that's a good or bad thing...)
Still, they sounded tight. The other guy was all over the place. The rhythm to his piece that is really strange. It's almost an assault on your expectations of what the rhythm should be, but not in a good way, like syncopation. At an open mic, he's the guy you go to the bathroom on. (Er, I mean, while he's playing, you use the opportunity to go use the restroom, actually going to the bathroom on him would be a little too harsh.)
As for the judges, I suggest you don't let them drink until after the voting. Maybe you could promise that when you put the videos up after the show that the judges will be introduced on screen. Nothing like being publicly linked to the vote for all eternity to make you concentrate on doing a good job.
edited for clarity.
---------- Nate Facebook Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
Last Edited by on Feb 01, 2013 12:54 PM
I have not made to to Memphis but have competed locally and, in doing so, put in hours of research over multiple competitions including having chatted online with several long time IBC judges.
"Teaching to the test"
It is dumb NOT to teach to the test if the test is meant to measure ability and knowledge or the desired goal. Take a standardized test in school. If the objective of school is to meet a set of standards because the standards represent the skills need to succeed, and the standard were created to reflect what was needed to be successful, then teaching to the test means you are teaching to the standards - which is the objective to begin with.
In otherwords, if you are give a rubric outline expectations and standards to be successful and then you choose NOT to follow those standards, then you shouldn't do well.
In order to be fair with the rubric, it would be necessary to make sure judges had worked before time to ensure they have common expectations of what the scale score represents.
In education, you'd refer to exemplars written to illustrate each score of the rubric. You would then practice using the rubric and discussing how people scored it. IF the system is working, you'd expect very little deviation in scores.
To equate this to a local IBC contest, the band I was in was the winner on 3/4 of the score cards, yet we placed 2nd. That means the person who didn't score us at the top had a very statistically significant low score for us. THAT is when people get bitter about these things.
The problem with the IBC rubric is how ridiculous the first and most heavily weighted score is described. It is as vague as possible and the total OPPOSITE of what we'd want from a rubric. Therefore, from the start, the scoring is extremely flawed in that your "gut" can make the call.
It would take one person believing that delta blues is "more" blues than Chicago and A&N could lose a ton of points. One person could look at their dress and score them low on blues, etc.
The BIGGEST mistake our local judging unit has made, although that has changed after much discussion, is scoring teams in isolation from each other and then NOT sharing the actual scores with contestants.
However, they were able to give feedback based on their opinions. I cannot think of one successful model of evaluation that says inserting non-evidence based opinion and claims is a smart way to go about doing anything.
Successful rubrics and models of evaluation are EVIDENCE based and aligned to a standard. They are meant to take as much opinion out as possible.
People are saying that A&N are making better music, but if you can't point to evidence of that relative to the rubric, then either the rubric is awful or you've failed to assess what is being asked of you.
To put it another way. Let's say you like A&N better because Nic has better harp tone. Where would that an advantage? The technical score? What evidence do you have that that is the case?
Believe me, I OBSESSED over the IBC game. When looking at other bands that were competition before and during, nothing that happened the three times I was involved was of any surprise. The winners were never the best bands, but the best acts based off of IBC criteria. I can honestly say that where my bands faltered was the fault of members not listening to the rules.
The worst thing a local society can do is deviate from the IBC scoring and norms. If the expectation is to compete at the IBC, then you should send the band best for those rules. ---------- Custom Harmonicas Optimized Harmonicas
I have a lot of typos above, and I am not fixing them. I am stone cold sober, but am out of characters and don't want to spend 10min trying to make it all fit, lol. ---------- Custom Harmonicas Optimized Harmonicas
Rick, you're asking excellent questions. My graduate work dealt with rigorously balancing quantitative and qualitative criteria. My summary: it ain't easy. That's why it's RARELY done well. To make it harder let's judge art, aka the IBC. I see it as a marketing opportunity foremost. That's okay, for what it's worth, but I say it's a mistake to give credence to it's ability to judge music. I agree with the majority of what Mike said so ditto He did note: "IF the system is working you'd expect very little devience in the score". - on my phone so I'll finish..
OK, here is a different perspective. First, Jack Yoder used to live in New Orleans, and a couple of years ago I competed with Jack Yoder in the Solo/Duo competition here in New Orleans. I took the place of his normal partner, because the partner's full band decided to compete, and you could not do both. We came in second to Big Daddy O, who is a long time professional solo artist here in New Orleans, and a real nice, classy guy. He was a personal friend of one of the judges, but despite that, he deserved to win. After his first acapella song, which he is known for, I told Jack that we just lost the contest. It would not have mattered if he blew up all the rest of the set or not.
Yes Jack plays a little harp. Jack also has some metal allergy, so he was playing Piedmont Blues Harps. I substituted some Special 20 reedplates for some of his Piedmont Plates for him. Jack is a very talented guitar player, and songwriter. I do not know why he chose to do that type of song at the competition, but it is not a true reflection of Jack Yoder. I know why Rick posted it here, because it is a Blue Harp Forum. After the big Gulf Oil spill here a couple of year ago, Jack wrote a song called Hole in the Ocean, a minor tune that can make a grown man cry. His stage presence is great as is his guitar playing.
A few years ago, Grady Champion won the whole thing, and everybody was complaining that he harp playing not good. A couple of months later, he came looking for me at a Jam session and introduced himself. It seems that he was a friend of a friend. I introduced him to the crowd, and he performed. It was true, he was not a great harmonica player, but adequate, and also his singing was OK, but not great, but his stage prescence, and his interaction with the audience was second to none. I think he is a big star today.
I think its the old saying that it is not how good you are, but how entertaining. After all, the name of the game is entertaining your audience. ----------
You never know what is in the mind of the judge....also, when they hear you has a bearing on your final score...first up there is no one to compare to...last up and the judges ears' may be fatigued.
If it is important to win, a little research on the judges may give you an edge if you are willing to taper your performance to what you find out they like. ---------- The Iceman
Nick is a better player no doubt. He is young, however, and needs more experience in showmanship and presence. I think he will likely improve in these areas as he matures as a player. Greatness is not just in technical proficiency and tone, especially in live performances. He has those skills. He should work on presentation and presence. Not a cliche but let his personality come through so non-harp players can connect. The other guy had more presence and the judges may have subconsiously found his performance more interesting.
Last Edited by on Feb 01, 2013 10:38 AM
The year we took 2nd, the band who won played horribly. The frontperson was intoxicated, and IMO, they would have been the 4th place band.
The music was boring, the timing was horrible, and the arrangements were sloppy. It was a total weekender performance. We took 2nd and the now nationally touring Sena Erhardt took 2nd. Root City took 3rd and is perhaps the most successful Twin Cities blues-based band next to Lamont Cranston.
The previous year, a young blues-rock act had won (we didn't compete) who had a lot of momentum in the region. The next year's winner was livid and proceeded to publicly attack the society, bands, and everyone involved...a real drunken spree. He bullied his way into winning one year, got shot out in the first round, and I've heard nothing about him in the last three years.
The last couple of bands from here have been GREAT, though! Crankshaft advanced...he actually won both the local solo and band. ---------- Custom Harmonicas Optimized Harmonicas
I am almost positive that is the first MN act to advance. I would strongly argue that it isn't the best band from a technical standpoint to head out there, BUT the most complete package. ---------- Custom Harmonicas Optimized Harmonicas
You could divide some of the categories into the painfully obvious-
Did the act stay in key? (Obviously, some songs change keys and that's different, and there are times you deliberately flatten stuff for effect, but if the audience is left wondering if it was deliberate or not you've got a problem.) Yoder 6/10, Al & Nic 10/10
Did the act stay on beat? (Again, syncopation is fine, and I heard a great descriptive term, 'Folk Time' which describes deliberately slowing or speeding something up for effect. That's fine too, but it's pretty obvious when someone just is off.
Yoder 6/10, Al & Nic 10/10
Did the parts work together? Do the vocals, the lyrics, the guitar, harp, percussion all work together? Levels?
Yoder 8/10, Al & Nic 8/10
Originality. Did they steal basic boring riffs or did they bring something new to it. If they did steal basic boring riffs, was it appropriate? Sometimes a song isn't about being new. If it was derivative, did it serve the purpose? (For instance, if the song's theme was 'old timey' old timey riffs might be appropriate.) If it was creative, did it work?
Yoder 7/10, Al & Nic 7/10
Since you are talking about original tunes mostly, are the lyrics any good? Is it a blues theme? Do the lyrics speak to you? (I would have clobbered Yodder scoring on lyrics. It's one thing to revisit a blues theme, it's another to write a cliche.) But I'd have to be tough on the other guys, because I don't really remember what they sang about.
Yoder 5/10, Al & Nic 5/10
Is there something catchy about the performance? I'd give Yodder points there. You could break that down farther into 'Is there a musical or lyrical hook?' and 'How did they work the crowd?'
Yoder 8/10, Al & Nic 8/10
Mastery. Do you get the feeling from watching each song that they are playing it the way they want to or are they struggling with the basics?
Yoder 3/10, Al & Nic 9/10
Energy. Do they create energy? On a fast song people should be moving to the rhythm. In a slow song people should be hanging on every word.
Yoder 8/10, Al & Nic 5/10
Form. Do you think if you sat down with Wikipedia you could identify this as some sort of blues? (It doesn't matter if it's your favorite form, just that someone, somewhere would call it blues.)
Yoder 10/10, Al & Nic 10/10
Did you enjoy listening.
Yoder 4/10, Al & Nic 9/10
Just based on this one performance, with the idea that this is a competition for people who deserve to be on the stage.
Yoder 67/100 (D+), Al & Nic 81/100 (B-)
(This is pre-grade inflation letter grades, where a C is average, and a D passes the class for credit, but is a sign you need to do better in other areas.)
Personally, when I try to combine harp and singing live without a band behind me, I'd probably fall in the D range myself. With just my harp, I'd like to thing I could sneak into the C range. With my old band, on a good night, singing, I'd like to think I could get a high C, better if someone else was singing.
Of course, in each category, you'd have to have a baseline or guideline. How many points off for each infraction. Does a zero score for key mean they were in a different key on every bar, always off from note to note by a little bit, or just bad enough that it was painful to listen to? You'd need to write up a rubric for each category for assigning points. One of the hard things in a situation like this is you don't know the level of the room going in. If the first three acts are terrible, there is a tendency to score the forth act really highly if they are okay, which doesn't leave room for the really great acts that follow. In the age of YouTube, maybe you could give the judges and example of each category to compare to.
I saw Grady Champion up close and personal at the IBC the year he won. I was in the house on Friday evening when he won the semi-final; he came down offstage and, with a radio mic, walked right by me, blowing. His playing was mediocre. I hate to say that, but it's true. His singing was good to very good. Nothing like Cheryl Renee, who moved me to tears, but definitely good stuff. And his performance was truly excellent. He is a real showman. He has a stage presence, an ease, a rapport, an intensity, that makes up for his harp playing. The harp is just flavoring in his overall thing.
So I agree with Harvey's assessment. And for all I know, he may have gotten better on harp. He wasn't bad then, just not great. I was seriously considering him for HCH, and he would have given us a great show, but there's no comparison between his playing and, for example, Mitch Kashmar. Kashmar is a fantastic singer, too. Still, I'm glad he's out there--and he most definitely deserves the success that he's gained. He's a contemporary bluesman who has been at it for longer than most people realize. He earned his big break.
Mike, you seem to think the test (the scoring system) is more important than the music. It's not. When a test can be manipulated to declare that Jack Yoder's performance is a "better" musical presentation than Al and Nic's then the test is perverse and should be scrapped.
I can understand your point of view: you are a creator of tests, so they become the end rather than the means to a creative end.
There has GOT to be a better way. Several blues societies I am aware of change the IBC rules. And musicians can read... They will not be hamstrung because their local blues society had different scoring parameters. They can click to the Blues Foundation website and see exactly what the expectations are in Memphis.
The answer might be better judges, and better prepared judges. The hosting blues society could have seminars with judges to make sure they understand the goals of the event and the scoring system. The Colorado Blues Society has been a rat's nest of judges with blatant conflicts of interest and judges who were just plain ignorant of the blues genre. I know that recruiting judges is not easy, especially if you have multiple IBC rounds and venues like here in Denver, but judges still need to be vetted and educated.
One of the members of the board of The Mile High Blues Society is the Judges Chair for the National Federation of State Poetry Societies. We will be counting on her to create a policy for recruitment, screening, and education of judges. I think that will go a long way toward making the results more defensible.
I have a different perspective. I did the IBC band competition once, in 2007, and against my better judgement. I say that for a few reasons. Number one, I was not then and am not now a true blues artist... my music falls much more in the jamband and jazz categories... it is very eclectic and, while blues-influenced, simply is not straight-up blues as people at the IBC would expect. My evaluations reflected this... high marks for talent, songwriting etc., but absolutely awful ratings for blues content. As they should have been.
There's a bigger reason I wish I had not done it, though... I think music competitions are hogwash. I get why they are fun audience events and I can't say I didn't have a good time or see a lot of good music (and some that was not so great, either, but on balance the talent level was pretty high). But the idea that music is a competition goes against why I got into it the first place. Yes, the business part of music is competitive... no way around it. But these competitions cross the line where business becomes more important than music... hence all the skewed criteria.
Also, I concur with Adam on Grady, whom I consider a friend. I don't think he himself would try to argue that he is an elite harmonica player. He's got a thing going that works well, often very well. He is a good singer and showman, and he connects with his audience. The music is real to him. And -- very important -- he always has a killer band. Ironically, he's playing tonight at the venue where I played last night. He's also playing there tomorrow night. He's doing something right, obviously.
