[Bards] List

[rudin]

How can I agree with someone so much in person, and disagree with
so much that he writes?

Pendaran wrote:

>Personally, I like the idea of the kingdom Eisteddfod being run
>by the laurels for a couple of reasons.

For the last ten years, the majority of judges have been Laurels
almost every time.  Also, the majority of judges have been former
Premier Bards almost every time.  If you want it judged by
Laurels, then you usually get your wish.

If you want it judged by non-performing Laurels, then you don't
get your wish, and I hope you never do.  Certainly I don't judge
costuming; why should the costumers judge bardcraft?

> Judging Forms: I've seen these forms and been
> judged using them and I like them. I like
> the fact that they are fair, standardized,
> take into account aspects such as quality of
> performance, presentation and authenticity of
> the piece as well as feedback from the judge.

They aren't standardized; no esthetic judgment can be.  Instead
they are pseudo-standardized by turning esthetic judgments into
numbers and then adding the numbers.  This is inherently
meaningless unless the valuations have, not merely a well-ordered
relationship, but also a continuous linear relationship, i.e., if
something is labelled 4, and something else is labelled 6, then
you must also know what the difference between 4 and 5 is, and
know that it's exactly the same as the difference between 5 and 6.

Example: 2 beers are twice as good as 1 beer; 2 grapes are twice
as good as one grape; $2,000,000 dollars is twice as good as
$1,000,000.  If adding preferential relationships made sense, then
you'd rather be given 2 beers and 2 grapes and $1,000,000 than be
given 1 beer and 1 grape and $2,000,000.

I'm a trained statistician; I know what I'm talking about.  The
sum of ordered but non-linear statistics is no longer even
ordered.

> I know that Charles and others disagree with me,
> but in general (and certainly in a competition),
> I would rather hear an average performer do a
> period or period style piece than an excellent
> performer do something non-period. There must be
> a balance there but, in my opinion, authenticity
> must be taken into account.

Congratulations!  You win.  Authenticity has always been taken
into account in Kingdom Eisteddfodd.  I've certainly heard filk,
and Broadway songs from Camelot, in Eisteddfodd.  They lost.

Totally non-period pieces should lose -- and do.  Totally dull
pieces should lose -- and do.  The best pieces should be both
period style and highly entertaining.  Such pieces virtually
always win.  When a moderately authentic, highly entertaining
piece is up against a moderately entertaining, highly authentic
piece, that's a judgment call that should be made individually
each time -- and that's what happens.

One thing worth remembering is that when good pieces are judged by
good judges, there is almost never a unanimous choice.  Almost
always, there is disagreement.  Therefore the fact that you
disagree with the final result does not prove that they are
improper, or even that all the judges disagreed with you.

A few years ago, somebody asked a bunch of English professors to
rank the 100 best novels ever written.  They *didn't agree*.
These are highly trained professional judges who have devoted
their lives to the study of these works, not amateurs who have
heard the piece once.  If they can't agree, then there is no
possibility that we will ever agree.  Regardless of the judging
scheme, we will have to learn to live with the fact that we won't
always agree with the winning choice.  (Do you always agree with
the Oscars?)

>Documentation: I realize that this is a
> continuation of the authenticity argument,
> but I think that it needs to be broken out
> if, for no other reason, than for Gulf Wars.

I object to the notion that Premier Bard should change for the
purposes of Gulf War.  It is just as wrong as changing Gulf War
for purposes of our Kingdom Eisteddfodd, and for exactly the same
reasons.

>The Laurels: I think that we need to do something to bring
>performance back into the focus of the laurel circle.
<snip>
> I do also believe that the laurels have been made aware of this
situation and are working to improve it.
...
> Having the laurels run a kingdom Eisteddfod would, I
> think, be a good step.

If the Laurels want to establish a kingdom bardic competition, or
bardic event, of their own, that's perfectly reasonable.  If they
are correct that their ideas for it are better than those of the
bards who run Kingdom Eisteddfodd, then it will grow to become a
greater competition, and a greater honor, and the Laurels will
have built something that they, and the bards, and the kingdom,
can be proud of.  If it becomes that much better than the Kingdom
Eisteddfodd, then the Eisteddfodd will shrink in value, and the
bards will follow the new path.  I would be more than happy to
help in this project, even while I continued to support the
Eisteddfodd.

This would be an honorable approach, and the competitions would be
tested by Ansteorrans in the course of the history of our
kingdom.  It would be good for the bards, good for the Laurels,
good for the kingdom, and good for the Eisteddfodd.  We would all
learn something from it.

But they cannot support the bards by taking something away from
them.  The bards built the Eisteddfodd against strong, long-term
opposition from the Laurels.  They can't have it now.

> Quality: I saved this for last because its going
> to offend the day lights out of some people, but
> here it goes: we need to have better consistency
> in the quality of our kingdom bards

Why?  Our Crowns aren't consistent; our Kingdom Warlords aren't
consistent; our Queen's Champions aren't consistent.  Why in the
world would we expect consistent results out of the *only* kingdom
competition that *isn't* measured by an objective measure?

Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin

________________________________________________________________
Sent via the EV1 webmail system at mail.ev1.net