Anthony V

Not sure if bait or just shooting from the hip... 🤔 This area was on the edge of 5 or 6 advancers last season, not 5 or 4 advancers. Sending only four would require a major drop in 1s at region. Area F is losing Granbury and Aledo, but gaining Cedar Hill, Eagle Mountain, and Mansfield Legacy, all of whom made 1s at region this past season. That's a net gain, not a loss. So, there's the resulting Grapevine/Birdville/etc. math.

I can't recall them doing that, but then again I wasn't looking for that information. The only big change I remember happening was when they added 4A rather than having 3A be the largest classification. I'm pretty sure that happened in 2009.

Reverse uno rage-bait subtext? Dizzying. But truly, the chances of Birdville not even making finals next year are slim. Something major would have to change between then and now.

Wakeland might move up to 6A, depending on where the cutoff is drawn. That will probably be a determining factor for the top 3. Lebanon Trail, Argyle, and Lone Star are obvious candidates for the podium. Other than that, once cutoffs are determined, then we'll have a better picture of what finals could look like. I think the usual suspects who aren't moving up to 6A are, as best as anyone can tell, possible finalists. If I had to wildly guess at possible top-halfers next year, it would be something from the pool of Lebanon Trail, Lonestar, Argyle, Burleson Centennial, Richland, Friendswood, Poteet, Hendrickson, Roma. The other task that would remain to be done is to determine how/whether realignment changes the number of state advancers for each area, and then pull the projected state advancers from each area. Next year's list of prelims lineup could look quite different from this year's. For instance, we may see a lot of area B or area F bands who didn't make it to state. But then some of them could, simply in virtue of that, be poised to jump into state finals. (So if you see someone making a projection based on this year's prelims lineup, chances are it's pretty slapdash.) As I'm thinking about possible lineups, I do have to say... although many of the bands moving up to 6A are powerhouses, the ceiling may or may not be as high, but that guarantees almost nothing to possible finalists. The only bands that get anything like a free pass are the ones that wouldn't otherwise be battling for a medal. In that sense, I do not think the 5A finals pool will be that much less crowded. For every 5A moving up, there's a whole lot of bands to take their place, some of them possibly coming from non-advancing area finalists...

This is the Hays band's first finals appearance since 2020! Welcome back, and thanks for treating us with your performance.

I have to say, I'm really pleased with the talent that area F sent to state this year, and I'm especially pleased with the talent they sent to finals. Aledo, Richland, and BC are firing on all cylinders.

Yes, that's why I put "if they were a state advancer and 5A in the given year." Leander's finals appearances are included in the metrics where I put "(in any classification)." But thanks for pointing that out. 🙂 Maybe I had too many moving parts in the way I framed things.

Alright, here’s some fun numbers, firstly on our finalists and then on conference 5A state championships since 6A was added in 2014. Let’s start with state advancement numbers, which are how many times the program has previously advanced from area to the state marching contest (in any classification). Lebanon Trail - 3 Burleson Centennial - 4 Lone Star & Rouse - 5 McCallum - 6 Hays, Richland, & Wakeland - 9 Aledo – 10 Argyle - 12 Cedar Park - 13 Leander – 15 All of today’s finalist programs have also made it to state finals before. Here’s their finals appearances (in any classification): Lebanon Trail - 2 Lone Star & McCallum - 3 Burleson Centennial & Hays - 4 Rouse & Richland - 5 Aledo – 8 Wakeland - 9 Cedar Park & Leander - 11 Argyle – 12 Finally, three of our finalists today have won UIL state at some classification: Richland - 1 Cedar Park - 8 Argyle – 8 Next, some stats on UIL 5A state marching contest. -There is one band in finals today which was a finalist and bronze medalist in the very first 5A state finals in 1980 – McCallum. -FYI: From 1980 to 2014, 5A was the largest classification. -Moreover, until 2023, state contest was not held for all classifications; thus, 5A state contest typically took place every other year. Although the sixfold conference system had its inception in 2014, the first 5A state contest in that system did not occur until 2015. Here’s the layout of six 5A state contests that have occurred from 2015-present. Today is the seventh 5A state contest in this system. I also list the names of today’s finalists if they were a state advancer and 5A in the given year: 2015 – Cedar Park (1st), Leander (3rd), Wakeland (5th), Aledo (10th) 2017 – Cedar Park (1st), Wakeland (4th), Richland (6th), Aledo (8th), Rouse (9th), Lone Star (12th), McCallum (23rd) 2019 - Cedar Park (1st), Wakeland (3rd), Rouse (4th), Burleson Centennial (5th), Lebanon Trail (8th), Aledo (9th), McCallum (14th) 2021 – Cedar Park (1st), Rouse (2nd), Leander (3rd), Wakeland (4th), McCallum (6th), Aledo (7th), Lebanon Trail (15th), Lone Star (16th), Burleson Centennial (17th) 2023 – Cedar Park (1st), Rouse (2nd), Wakeland (3rd), Leander (5th), Burleson Centennial (6th), Lone Star (7th), Richland (9th), Lebanon Trail (12th), Aledo (13th) 2024 – Cedar Park (1st), Rouse (2nd), Leander (3rd), Wakeland (4th), Aledo (5th), Lone Star (6th), Argyle (7th), Burleson Centennial (9th), Richland (15th), Hays (18th). Some highlights: Since 2015… -Cedar Park is the undefeated 5A champion. -Wakeland is the only program besides Cedar Park present at all six 5A finals. -Aledo has advanced to state every 5A year. -When advancing to 5A state, Leander has never missed the top half of finals.

Might put together some stats like that here in a few.

Speaking from a more theoretical perspective, here... It may be frustrating, but there's actually a pretty deep-seated ambiguity in how the rubrics are to be applied in particular evaluations. It's true there's an element of subjectivity, if by that we mean judges are fallible and limited. But the very criteria themselves and the way the judges wield utilize them are ambiguous in ways which are usually glossed over when the results do not seem anomalous. How to match a performance element to a number or placement is massively "underdetermined." (It's just as true in music as it is in the sciences.) For instance, how much distinct performance elements of the same kind (this good crescendo, that iffy decrescendo) should be weighed against each other is not amenable to precise calculation. At some level of precision, it's an educated vibe check, and for the most part that's good enough. It's when we get the seemingly anomalous results that we begin asking questions, although the ambiguity was there all along. The range of legitimate interpretation in this activity is probably much wider than almost anyone would like to admit. And it's multiplied by the fact that there's different adjudication systems, too. That said, it's not wrong to think that the range should be narrowed in at various junctures -- in fact that kind of discussion is a sign of a community's healthy awareness of shared norms -- but it's also wrong to assume that the missing precision which can trigger anomalous scores is a precision which was in principle available to the judges, or even the chief judge. For instance, it's not impossible that good judging reveals the limits of current judging practices in novel situations (e.g., Hebron at GN 2015), limits which only afterwards reasonably fall into focus so as to be remedied (top half/bottom half). And it's also another matter as to when there's enough of an anomaly that there's a paradigm shift in adjudication expectations. I imagine that, most frequently, designers and educators just change what they're doing and avoid the issue if they can, rather than insist that a particular style be judged/interpreted differently. Or they go to different contests which understand better what they're trying to do. Perhaps for that reason, notwithstanding the nice boxes and terms on the adjudication sheets, differences in judging seem to change more over time rather more like language drift than constitutional amendments (although either can happen). I'm just a band fan, so I really can't speak to the concrete details one would hear on the judging tapes for tonight. But I thought to point out how wide the range of legitimate interpretation really is.

I was looking at this as well and was floored at how competitive McCallum is, pound-for-pound. Here's the performer numbers of our finalists that I cobbled together from the UIL program booklet: 144-McCallum 158-Argyle 160-Burleson Centennial & Richland 190-Wakeland 196-Hays 220-Lone Star 230-Rouse 241-Aledo 248-Leander 250-Lebanon Trail 296-Cedar Park

Thanks so much @WanderingTraveler and @Tubalord11. I deeply appreciate these updates!!

Amazing. Thanks!! I second TWHSParent's comment about making the donate option more conspicuous. And maybe a little reference to the server/website quality? I feel like if people are assured at-a-glance that it will go towards server/website efficiency -- and especially if they've tried to be online during the quasi-unusable hours -- they might be more inclined to donate. Just a half-baked thought. Thanks for all the work you've done this season, Clarinot!

Will anyone be there in person? Also, does anyone plan on commenting on bands? If so, from live performances or from the stream? I'll almost certainly be out of pocket for prelims. (Mondays are my exhaustingly long travel/teach/grade day... 😱) I might be able to comment on finals for Tuesday via livestream if no one else is doing it in some capacity. But hopefully someone is because to me almost everything on livestream/video sounds like trash, and/or otherwise compressed beyond recognition, and/or obnoxiously picking up random pockets of sound from who knows where in the acoustic space -- the point here being not that I'm ungrateful for the streaming services 😅 but that I'll be characteristically unreliable for interpreting what's actually going on. I agree with others that this year is going to be crazy. I really think this year is going to be a high point for 5A. The pool of bands even in the top 16-20 or so is stupid good.

@Clarinot (and maybe @Xenon?) I don't remember it being this bad in previous years. Is there anything we could brainstorm for this? In some threads (I think it was 5A state), people have made mention of being willing to pay a small membership fee if it would help resolve the slowness. Is anything like that reasonably possible?

It feels easier to me to predict 11-20 right now. I count about 10 provisional locks, just to start somewhere (in prelims performance order): Wakeland, Leander, Aledo, Lone Star, Burleson Centennial, Friendswood, Rouse, Argyle, Lebanon Trail, Cedar Park. I do think that other bands could beat these locks (i.e., locks in 11th or 12th place in prelims or finals), but I would just be surprised to see the locks out of finals. That leaves 2 spots open for finals (11th and 12th spot), and I have no idea how to choose some bands over others right now. Here's my 11-20 list, in prelims performance order: Hendrickson, Midlothian, Roma, Lakeview Centennial, Lake Belton, Anderson, Poteet, Glenn, Richland, North Mesquite, McCallum. I don't know that my intuitions are informed enough to say who is more likely to be a finalist or nearer to being a finalist than others.

Recovered from the void!! Colleyville Heritage. Welcome to finals! This show has cleaned up a lot. There is still some inconsistency of execution in my humble, non-professional opinion. In some moments, this band sounds like they really deserve to be top 4. That's clearly what the judges heard in prelims. But it's offset by some other moments. As to this performance, continuity of design elements is clearer this go-round in finals. I think I needed a second watch to appreciate the achievement level. Visual execution is about the same as prelims to me. Energy is a little more reserved than in prelims, but the precision and accuracy purchased makes all the different for where this show is right now. It could stay in the top 5, but I can't gainsay that. Great performance overall. I'm glad to say I was wrong about being wishy-washy about considering you possible top-5 material. You are.

Midlothian. For me, this is such a fun show. The performers really enjoy performing it. Great energy on the opening bit, as always. Tempo stability felt a little off in the first part. That translated a little bit into lack of confident playing/precise cutoffs. And we need full note value on these long chords before the stabs at the end of that first part. I wish we had a little more dynamic contrast here in part 2. The other bands in the presumptive top 4 are doing it really, really well. Some feet timing issues (ensemble consistency) when we’re moving slow, too. It’s starting to get cooler out here, so I wonder if that’s also contributing to some of these tuning issues here towards the end. But don’t get me wrong, this is definitely a strong show. These are just points of detail which I feel could affect competitivity within the top 5. ... Alright, we’re still having that server capacity issue with Txbands again, so I can’t guarantee I’ll get these last two reviews up before finals awards. But let me say this was a great contest. It was really a pleasure to be here and to watch finals! OFFICIAL RESULTS 10. Fossil Ridge 9. Chisholm Trail 8. Birdville 7. Azle 6. Grapevine 5. Colleyville Heritage. Advance. 4. Richland. (Broken tie.) Advance. 3. Midlothian. (Broken tie.) Advance. 2. Burleson Centennial. Advance. 1. Aledo. Advance.

Aledo. Great job with form control here at the beginning. You're even using it as you flutter step (or "fly") out to your set. Great articulation from the brass here in your feature in the opener, right before the aircraft flies out to the 45-ish. We're pretty controlled sounding here in the ballad. I feel like this performance is a bit more reserved than prelims, purchasing a little extra precision and accuracy. Good clean marching throughout. I'm thinking it's the strongest at this contest. A little bit of volume loss at the last chord right before the last few counts, I guess when everyone took a final breath. But flaws are pretty minimal. Great job. This is the band to beat tonight. I don't think that was an invincible performance -- there's an outside chance BC, Richland, or Midlothian (who we have yet to see) take the crown. But it was the front running performance for me in prelims, and might be so far tonight.

Burleson Centennial. Great job with the opening fanfare, brass. Any blemishes were almost undetectable. (I had to cup my hands over my ears to hear any.) And again great with the articulation feature. A little bit of tempo pulling and tugging here with the Shostakovich 10. Not enough for a tear, just to feel awkward if you're listening for it. Fantastic brass contribution after that. WW articulation is also very pointed and stylized in that movement. Speaking of WWs, here in the ballad we're doing a good job with achieving enough projection that I can hear the sonority from your good intonation rather than merely hearing "not particularly out of tune." Wonderful control of dynamics from the percussion. I'm not a percussion guy, so I don't have the chops to appreciate that, but I know there are people on here who do. Great solidity and consistency in the closer from the winds. Also, this half-time tempo marching near the end is pretty clean. We're doing a good job with the uniform timing of our feet, reaching mid-stride at the same time. Great work, overall.

Richland. Solid work here in the opener and first movement. We're pretty crisp with our body work. Overall, pretty good with our ensemble sound matching. I think there's was a slight trombone cutoff error in the movement before the ballad, but it was very slight. Great job brass in the ballad. There's a lot of "silence" and fading in/out woven into the arrangement/music design. The performers respect it and have such a mastery over the dynamics leading into and from these moments. Very well crafted. Okay, and the props. Cool props. Props to the props guy. 😉 Overall, the energy was there tonight.

Azle. Controlled, blended ensemble sound. Good uniformity of articulation and style on the Shostakovich. It’s easy for it to sound dull, but you managed to avoid that. Good job on the brass articulation feature here. We’re doing a pretty good job with intervals on these non-solid forms. Good use of peripheral awareness. Great, great blending and balance on the ballad hit, relative to prelims. It’s clear to me that we’ve been focusing strongly over the past few years on that skill. The exposed forms early in the closer -- great job with interval spacing, once again. One of the cleanest moments at this contest. Maybe I wish the Stravinsky Firebird melody was a bit more shaped in terms of articulation style, but overall a strong push to the end.

Fossil Ridge. Okay, I guess everyone is bringing their A-game tonight. Great energetic opening segment from this group. Good job brass on your articulation feature here in the first part after the opener. Seems improved over prelims. Energy is also more consistent. Good use of articulation style here at the ballad hit. Solid execution of the closer overall. A little less polished than the rest of the show, but overall presents as a single package.

Chisholm Trail. Here we go CT! This show has come so far since BOA Waco. Okay, this is more dialed-in than prelims. A lot cleaner. Beautiful duet here with flugel and mello. A touch of intonation problems that we had in middle voices in prelims is back. But we recover by the end of the ballad. Good for you. Feet are a little slow sometimes as I look around here in the closer drill. Now we're wrapping up our performance. Much improved over prelims!! Great job.

Birdville. Hopefully no lightning this time! Let's get down to symphonic metamorphosis. Good use of dynamic contrast range here in the opener. Great job bari solo. Now the brass is mimicking with the double-tonguing. The tempo communication issues from prelims are mostly fixed. Solid sound. It's a little edgier than I remember from prelims, but we're not sacrificing tone quality for it too much. Great job to our soloists here in the ballad. Some of the body movement visuals are a little less clean than Grapevine. On the other hand, Birdville's drill is definitely more intricate than Grapevine's. But okay, great job in that little segment during and after the clarinet solo in the closer. That's the best you've looked and sounded all day. Good push to the end. And no lightning strikes!