Review of Bhangra Down Under (BDU) 2015

Hello to our fellow bhangra community. As most readers may know, BASS recently performed at Bhangra Down Under (BDU) 2015. Consequently, this post is a review of the competition as we feel it is the responsibility of teams to provide feedback from a team perspective, and we are hopeful this feedback will assist the Australian bhangra scene to grow. First and foremost, we would like to stress that this review is by no means a challenge to the final placings of BDU 2015. We believe all teams had expended tremendous effort and time in preparing for the competition, hence we do not take anything away from other teams that performed. The purpose of this review is to provide feedback on the competition in order to assist the Australian bhangra scene to grow, and we feel it is the responsibility of the teams to provide this feedback. Overall, we believe BDU 2015 was not a performer orientated competition, with a multitude of areas requiring attention as discussed below. Leading up to competition: Each team was required to pay a registration fee of 300 dollars to participate at the competition and no team was refunded this amount. This fee was not required at previous Australian competitions such as Nachda Punjab 2012 and even BDU 2013, where interstate teams were subsidised to help with things such as travel expenses and accommodation. As the Australian bhangra scene is still growing, a fee may deter newer less established teams from participating and expanding the scene down under. Further, we were not informed as to what purpose the 300 dollars were utilised. Additional attractions such as Malkit Singh, although adding to the audience experience, should be secondary considerations when organising a bhangra competition and teams’ needs should be addressed first. Such aspects made it seem as if the competition was not performer or bhangra orientated. Regarding the logistics of our performance, we had asked members of the committee about the rigging which we were told was available for the competition. Although we had asked up to a month beforehand, and on multiple occasions, each request was met with the same response, that we would be told soon. However, we never received any of this requested information. Prior to the competition there were two judges meetings, both in which we were introduced to two judges, Rami Hay and Ashish Sharma. Although there was no mention of a third judge during the meetings or in the competition regulations, we were nevertheless introduced to a third judge, Dr Rasna, during the judge’s feedback following the competition. Mixer night: The mixer venue this year was nice and classy. It was also spacious, a big step up from last year which was a bit cramped. However, the quality of food was poor with many of our performers having to purchase food following the mixer. Competition Day: Our first experience of the competition venue was the extremely cramped change rooms which were also poorly ventilated. Further, the organisation of the change rooms themselves was inadequate. Although two teams were initially allocated per room, we were told to accommodate a third team in a room which was already shoulder-to-shoulder. We raised this issue with the organisers, however it took more than 30 minutes until they were reallocated. In regards to food, we were promised food on the day of the competition. However, we were not informed as to when and where the food had been delivered, and consequently had to purchase our own food. Stage: Although the stage was a good size, it had a dip at the front which created an uneven surface and indicated poor venue selection. The stage area as a whole was slanted i.e. not a flat area. In terms of lighting, although there was a variety of available lighting, the majority of our provided lighting cues were not executed. Liaison: Our first impression of our liaison, was quite frankly rude and pushy. On competition day, our liaison impolitely demanded our mix on USB. This was despite the fact that the mix had already been given to the committee via email prior to the competition, as requested by the competition regulations. During our tech time rehearsal and continuing into the performance, our liaison had taken the responsibility of handling our lighting cues, the majority of which were not executed. This was despite the fact that we had handed a lighting sheet one week prior to the competition. Nevertheless, our most critical lighting cue was executed perfectly so in this regard the liaison did well in executing our specific instruction. As the technical rehearsals were running behind schedule, we were also pushed to finish our rehearsal earlier than the 20 minutes allotted to each team. We felt this was unfair, along with the fact that the 20 minutes were not being timed with an appropriate timer/stopwatch. Leading up to the performance, we requested our liaison’s assistance backstage, however we were told it would be the final time she would help us. We felt she did not fulfill her role as a team liaison, failing to prioritise our team’s needs. Further, she expressed she would arrive backstage to retrieve us, one performance prior to ours, however she failed to appear. Leading up to our performance: Whilst we were in our side-stage huddle preparing for our performance, Melbourne Bhangra Regiment’s (MBR’s) performance was interrupted due to technical difficulties. As MBR remained on stage and began setting up again, we were under the impression that they would re-attempt their performance straight away, the curtains were closed by this stage and as such the judges could not see what was taking place on stage . However, soon after this, we heard the MC announce our team unexpectedly, and were spontaneously requested by the organisers to perform. In response, we requested a further 2 minutes from Tanveer Bedi (main organiser), who was side stage at that time, before the judges would begin timing our 2 minute set up time. Tanveer Bedi agreed to this. When we did step on stage to set up, the curtain was still closed - as the curtain was a fair way into the stage area we did not have the front of the stage to set up. We requested the curtains to be lifted which took another half a minute approximately. It was only after the curtain was lifted that we had the front of the stage available to set up. All these delays added up and in the end we were penalised with a 5 point deduction for exceeding the 2 minute set up time. The organisers failed to communicate the above series of events to the judges before they announced the final result. Judging: The most notable aspects of the judging was the inconsistency between the judges' opinions, and how the judges did not present their feedback to teams collectively. This contrasted our experience at WBBC where we received very clear and collective feedback from the judging panel. Subsequent to receiving our feedback at WBBC, we attempted to implement all the judges’ suggestions in order to improve our set. However, the feedback at BDU was very limited and did not give a legitimate indication of how the judgment was reached, nor how we could improve. Following the announcement of placings, we were able to obtain judges’ feedback in an informal setting on stage. Rami Hay was the only judge to provide us with the original marking criteria on the night, whilst the other two judges denied us the criteria, although we had verbally requested it. In particular, Ashish Sharma did not allow us to read his original marking criteria, although we requested so, with his reasoning being that we would not be able to read his handwriting. As a result, Ashish informed us that he would type it up and send it later with additional feedback (which we are yet to receive). The competition regulations also specified that the judges’ score sheets and feedback would be provided within five working days of the competition via email, however it has been over eight working days and we are yet to receive them. This again contrasted our experience at WBBC, where we were provided with all the original criteria from judges' promptly following the competition. Although a formal feedback session following the day of the competition was specified in the regulations, no such session took place. The judges’ feedback, as noted above, was not consistent across the three judges. Rami Hay expressed she had nothing negative to say about our performance, aside from five point deductions each for time and chaadre. She also indicated having no knowledge of our request for two extra minutes before our set up. Dr Rasna (mystery judge) similarly described our performance as being flawless apart from the above deductions. However, the feedback we received from Ashish Sharma was in complete contrast to the first two judges. He informed us that we had excessive nakhra, and In particular, that our heads were moving too much. We were thus advised that we keep our heads still "unless you're SGPD and can do it well". Adding to these comments, Ashish said our performance was too fast and that he prefered slower segments, along with the fact that the number of songs we chose were too many. He informed us we should have continued individual songs for longer, 40-50 seconds to be precise. Finally, he emphasised that judging is subjective and although the audience enjoyed some gimmicks such as our raybans, he personally did not like them. We felt this comment defied the purpose of a marking criteria, as judges should mark objectively according to the rubric and not their personal opinion. Post-competition: Following the competition, it took some interstate teams over two hours to come across taxis to transport them to their respective accommodations. On the contrary, we witnessed some committee members being picked by organised transport, without any attention being given to the surrounding performers. This was an issue for performers not only because of the time spent waiting, but also because of the rowdy crowd around the area at that time of night. Summary: Again we stress that we have posted this review as we feel it is our responsibility to provide feedback from a team perspective. We hope this feedback assists the Australian bhangra scene to grow in an environment where teams are prioritised and judges feedback is consistent and helpful to teams. Finally, and as indicated by the aforementioned points, we do not believe BDU acts in the best interest of the performers, rather taking advantage of the growing Australian bhangra scene. If the committee does not implement some drastic changes, such as those listed below, we will not be returning to compete at BDU 2016. Some recommendations include: • Teams provided with a transparent record of where registration/other fees will be utilised. • Transparency regarding who and exactly how many judges will be judging, outlined in the competition regulations. • Prompt and complete responses to team queries regarding aspects relevant to the competition, such as available rigging. • Better organisation of food for performers at the mixer and on competition day (if specified that food will be provided). • Choice of venue which is better suited for a bhangra competition, with more spacious change rooms and a suitable stage. • Ensuring liaisons have the main priority of assisting the teams. • Clear and direct communication between backstage organisers and the judges, with judges continuously updated regarding any incidents. • Teams provided with collective and collaborative feedback from the judges to improve transparency, including the original marking criteria promptly following the competition • The organisers MUST follow the rules outlined in the competition regulations e.g. providing marking criteria within the specified period and having a formal feedback session. • Judges MUST mark objectively according to the criteria, not subjective opinion.

Read on the Web >>>>