Jump to content

UIL Legislative Council Meeting Music Results


Recommended Posts

So apparently the UIL Legislative Council met today and there were a few interesting decisions regarding music. The following items passed today, but must be approved by the Commissioner of Education before they are official.

 

 

 

a. A proposal to increase the number of judges from five to seven at state marching band
contests
b. A proposal to establish a pilot utilizing amended rules for the sight-reading evaluation
instruction period
c. A proposal to limit the number of wind instruments that can be amplified at a marching
band contest
d. A proposal to hold the area marching band contest annually
e. A proposal to require all marching bands certified to advance to the area contest receive a
division 1 rating at the region contest
f. A proposal to create an advisory committee for marching band competition
g. A proposal to create a state contest pilot for military style marching bands
h. A proposal to create a state contest pilot for instrumental chamber ensembles

 

Obviously, the biggest surprises to me is the move to hold area contests every year regardless of classification/conference (state is still alternating years) and the state military marching band contest pilot. 

 

Also worth noting that a proposal to "to change the state solo and ensemble contest to area contests" did not pass today.

 

You can read all 30 pages worth of results here if you wish: https://www.uiltexas.org/files/media/2019Oct_LC_Results.pdf

 

Thoughts on these changes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a. Not sure if I like this one.  It seems like the UIL wants to move towards a judging rubric more closely aligned with BOA, which I am against.  I think there is great value in the UIL path being almost solely focused on execution and fundamentals.  This allows for a more level competitive playing field across more schools.

b. This is a very good proposal that will make the sight reading evaluation more closely align with how music is actually taught.

c. Seems reasonable.

d. Long overdue.  Without Area competition, UIL Regional contest in non-state years is basically irrelevant as a "competition".  The UIL SHOULD be the pre-eminent competition venue for marching bands in Texas.

e. Also seems reasonable

f. Probably a good thing, as long as the committee is not stacked with proponents of only one style/focus of marching bands.

g. Also long overdue.  Military style bands basically have no chance to compete at a high level because the style isn't valued as highly.  This becomes even more important with the ramifications of proposal A

h. I like this idea a lot, and wish it also included soloists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking that the seven judges referenced in a) would still judge the same fundamentals, right? There wouldn't be any judges over new captions like GE, just 3 marching and 4 music judges or something like that. If that is the case, I really like that proposal. We all discussed how important that is in an ordinal system last year after a single bad placement was shown could have a huge impact on placement (Round Rock for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D and G combine to paint a picture of an organization bristling against change. If they enact the annual Area contests and place them on the same weekend as BOA-S.A., that would just be sad and pathetic.

Region is always two weeks before SA and Area is always the week before, at least as far back as I can remember. I think I kind of like this idea of an annual Area contest even on non state years. Otherwise there’s little point to having the Regionals. The only downside is bands like Leander suffer at UIL on non state years because we like our electronics and sound effects, and extra long shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Region is always two weeks before SA and Area is always the week before, at least as far back as I can remember. I think I kind of like this idea of an annual Area contest even on non state years. Otherwise there’s little point to having the Regionals. The only downside is bands like Leander suffer at UIL on non state years because we like our electronics and sound effects, and extra long shows.

It is not difficult to imagine that the UIL would put Area contests on different weekends for State vs non-State classifications in order to spread the judging duties out. At least that could be the cover story. The real motivation would be to make bands choose between Area and San Antonio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not difficult to imagine that the UIL would put Area contests on different weekends for State vs non-State classifications in order to spread the judging duties out. At least that could be the cover story. The real motivation would be to make bands choose between Area and San Antonio.

I hope that doesn’t happen. I can’t see the upside to it for anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the idea of every year area, and I love BOA SA. I really hope UIL finds a way to work it out scheduling wise, and not have ALL area contests on the same weekend, but also not make it conflict with BOA SA. It could be possible to let areas pick their own dates too, 2A-4A areas could then pick to use the BOA SA weekend since I highly doubt a single school in the state of those classes will have a complaint with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A - this would help eliminate having to use the "bad judge rule" right?  Seems like this would keep from having to use the rule is there were more judges?

D - I hope previous comments about UIL creating a conflict with BOA are wrong.  Otherwise we will see more CTJ moves to skip state (2016) and I would not blame anyone for doing it!!

E - Wait...What??  I thought you had to get a 1 to advance?  Are there bands currently advancing from Region to Area with a 2 or 3?

G - About time!!  I was in a military style band in High School and even though we got 1's every year, there was no Area or State for us.  We were "1" and done!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A - this would help eliminate having to use the "bad judge rule" right? Seems like this would keep from having to use the rule is there were more judges?

D - I hope previous comments about UIL creating a conflict with BOA are wrong. Otherwise we will see more CTJ moves to skip state (2016) and I would not blame anyone for doing it!!

E - Wait...What?? I thought you had to get a 1 to advance? Are there bands currently advancing from Region to Area with a 2 or 3?

G - About time!! I was in a military style band in High School and even though we got 1's every year, there was no Area or State for us. We were "1" and done!!

 

 

 

 

I interpreted E) as in order to advance to Area, bands HAVE to get a division 1 rating from every judge. But I could be very well wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am thinking that the seven judges referenced in a) would still judge the same fundamentals, right? There wouldn't be any judges over new captions like GE, just 3 marching and 4 music judges or something like that. If that is the case, I really like that proposal. We all discussed how important that is in an ordinal system last year after a single bad placement was shown could have a huge impact on placement (Round Rock for example).

The judges panel will now be four music judges, two marching judges, and one "content/design" judge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A - this would help eliminate having to use the "bad judge rule" right? Seems like this would keep from having to use the rule is there were more judges?

D - I hope previous comments about UIL creating a conflict with BOA are wrong. Otherwise we will see more CTJ moves to skip state (2016) and I would not blame anyone for doing it!!

E - Wait...What?? I thought you had to get a 1 to advance? Are there bands currently advancing from Region to Area with a 2 or 3?

G - About time!! I was in a military style band in High School and even though we got 1's every year, there was no Area or State for us. We were "1" and done!!

E eliminates the rule that if 1 or 0 bands in a region get a 1, then the judges would pick two bands to advance to Area.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I interpreted E) as in order to advance to Area, bands HAVE to get a division 1 rating from every judge. But I could be very well wrong

That’s not a sound idea, one rogue judge could ruin it for anybody. There’s a rule that a minimum of 2 bands in a region have to make area. So if 0-1 bands get a 1, the next highest ratings go to Area, if there’s a tie for ratings, the judges break it.

 

Personally I don’t like removing the 2 to area rule, I know it’s a relic from the days when going to Area was just about finishing top 2 in the region, but it’s a good failsafe if too many bands don’t get 1s in an area. In 2005, 1A Area C (Today’s 2A), had exactly 3 bands attended area, only 1 of those bands had even received a 1 at region. I know it’s unlikely for that to happen again as more bands are getting 1s than ever, but if it did, it would be an oddly hilarious but definitely ridiculous situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Area contests generally happen on the weekend before the San Antonio Super Regional. As long as this doesn't change (or more specifically as long as they don't conflict) I don't see too much issue with it;  barring maybe less BOA in mid October. (bands traveling out of state for the St. Louis/ Indy Super, but those are a handful) 

 

I think both BOA and UIL can and should exist equally in TX. You have a lot of programs nowadays that do shows very different then a "UIL" show would do, and that diversity makes the activity in the state far more interesting then if everyone was judged only by UIL values.

 

Neither style is better then the other, and that means neither contest should force a band to leave a contest they planned to go to just attend theirs. 

That's just my thoughts on it as a former marcher. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Area contests generally happen on the weekend before the San Antonio Super Regional. As long as this doesn't change (or more specifically as long as they don't conflict) I don't see too much issue with it;  barring maybe less BOA in mid October. (bands traveling out of state for the St. Louis/ Indy Super, but those are a handful) 

 

I think both BOA and UIL can and should exist equally in TX. You have a lot of programs nowadays that do shows very different then a "UIL" show would do, and that diversity makes the activity in the state far more interesting then if everyone was judged only by UIL values.

 

Neither style is better then the other, and that means neither contest should force a band to leave a contest they planned to go to just attend theirs. 

That's just my thoughts on it as a former marcher. 

 

Actually, this area contest would likely be the same weekend as BOA San Antonio for most areas. If this rule were enacted for this current season for example, this upcoming weekend would be 1a/3a/5a Area (the "state year" classes) and 2a/4a/6a area would be the weekend of BOA SA. This will actually be a huge conflict with the current weekend of BOA San Antonio. 

 

BTW - this change to host area every year was voted yes by every region except 3 - one of them being region 32 (Leander ISD and Westlake). Not sure which other regions but if I had to guess, it would be the region with Lewisville ISD in Dallas and the region with NEISD in San Antonio. Outside of these 3 Large power schools districts, participation in BOA is pretty inconsistent district to district. 

 

 

The subset of bands in Texas that participate in the BOA super regional is actually pretty small. There are 1,247 schools in Texas, and almost all compete in UIL activities. On the flip side only 84 bands are signed up for the BOA super regional, and they aren't even all from Texas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn’t surprise me to see Region 32 voting against this. They have great success in UIL but recently have preferred BOA events, their district seems supportive of their marching programs. Isn’t Lake Travis also in this region?

 

Still curious about the regions that voted yes with slightly more participation. They must’ve had enough supporters for it there and overpowered the BOA bands.

 

I also agree that Lewisville’s region most likely voted against this. NEISD’s region is a likely suspect for voting no.

 

There’s also the chance regions and districts we see as BOA heavy voted in favor of this voluntarily. The directors might see this as another contest another chance to get judged without the added factor of not going to San Antonio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case, then it WILL impact enrollment at BOA-SA.  Schools not in state year classifications will opt for the shorter travel and less expensive alternative that is also tied to UIL, which brings with it a certain amount of pressure to participate. But I think most of the BOA-competitive schools will opt to compete at San Antonio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...