[Bards] Question on performance judging forms

[Kathy Elliott]

I favor the school that documentation is meant to educate your judges about
your performance/art.  I usually do a one page "Documentation in Brief,"
which is really meant for the judges who already know about Old French
Chansons (or 14th century Border Ballads, or Viking folk tales, or
whatever).  This is where I prove to the educated judge that I've done my
research, and I know what I'm talking about.  Then, I follow it up with a
couple of pages of documentation that could be used to teach the uneducated
judge why my performance is in a period style (or why it's not in certain
areas), and my references.  (Always have enough copies for ALL of the
judges, plus some extras.)
 
Most judges will only read one page (if that) during a competition.  But
many competitions allow you to turn in documentation ahead of time.  And,
judges can always look at my paperwork during a break.  I think a judge
should be able to read and understand ALL of your documentation.  (I always
run mine past my husband, who knows almost nothing about music history.  If
he can understand it, I figure I'm in pretty good shape.)
 
As far as telling if it's good scholarship, judges really don't have a way
to tell if they are presented with faulty information, unless they are
already familiar with the topic.  Research papers are submitted several
weeks before competitions.  Documentation is submitted a few minutes before
a performance.  Hopefully, between all of the judges, someone will know
something about the style.  If all of someone's references are web-based,
I'd probably see some red flags.
 
Kat

-----Original Message-----
 (snip)
 
And how much documentation is a judge supposed to be able to read,
understand, and be able to tell if it's even good scholarship. BEcause there
is a LOT of bad scholarship out there -- what are the standards of that?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/bards-ansteorra.org/attachments/20060511/67aa0fba/attachment-0002.htm>