MPA Committee Report

Transcription

NORTH CAROLINA BANDMASTERS ASSOCIATION
Concert Band MPA Committee Minutes
Monday-Tuesday, June 15-16- Separk Music, Winston Salem
! The meeting was called to order by Rodney K. Workman, President-Elect and MPA Committee Chair at
12:00PM, Monday June 15th and adjourned at 3:30PM on Tuesday June, 16th.
! Members Attending (Those absent are italicized and underlined)
Rodney Workman, President-Elect/Chair
Alice Aldredge, President
Brent Harris, High School Delegate
Matt Edwards, Central District HS
Michael Krier, Central District MS
Chris Elbing, Eastern District HS
Tina Robinette, Eastern District MS
Andrew Jimeson, Northwest District HS
Justin McCrary, Northwest District MS
(Monday)
• Terry Reid, Northwest District MS
(Tuesday)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brent Harris, South Central District HS
Drew Carter, South Central District MS
Mike Ward, Southeast District HS
Jaimie Breame, Southeast District MS
Sean Smith, Western District HS
Greg Love, Western District MS
Guest- WC Lanning
Guest- Ruth Peterson
Guest- Adam Joiner
Sight Reading Judge Script- There have been many issues in sight reading across the state this
year and many previous years that deal with judges saying and doing things in Sight Reading
that is not in adherence to our procedures and bylaws. This has been especially prevelant in “out
of state” adjudicators. Examples of issues from this year were that some bands in one district
were not allowed to play a warm-up scale before the Sight Reading performance. In another
district the judge had bands use the prep time to find the music in the folder rather than having it
pulled before hand. There have been questions about when the timpanist gets to tune. There are
many other small issues of this nature that keep happening across the state in the Sight Reading
portion of MPA. The committee feels that having a “Sight Reading Script” would elminate a lot of
these issues, get everyone on the same page and allow all bands to get the same information
presented in the same way. It would also allow directors to practice the exact procedure with
students beforehand. Matt Edwards volunteered at the Honors Band meeting to put this on paper
using the Central District’s procedures as a model. He presented a completed “script” at the
summer meeting and it was approved by the committee. It was agreed this should be added to
the Adjudicator’s Manual and would NOT be a bylaw change. See the attached script:
Timeline for approval
• Districts give input- Fall 2015
• MPA Committee takes input and makes adjustments. If input from the districts is
positive the committee recommend to the board for approval on Saturday, November 7th.
If it is not positive it will be tabled until the Honors Band Committee meeting.
!
“Standards for Ratings” / Stage Adjudication and Sight Reading Rubric - Buried within the
MPA Adjudicator Manual is a document entitled “Standards for Ratings.” The instruction is as
follows: “A copy of these standards should be with each judge during the adjudication.” This has
not been happening. An additional concern is that adjudicators are not using the back of the sheet
(the rubric) because it is literally on the back of the sheet and is not visable as you are writing on
the sheet. After discussion the committee agreed that adjucators should be following the
procedure we have laid out in the manual and that these documents should be “with each judge
during adjudication”. We will be providing each district with a placemat of these documents that
should be used during adjudication. These documents should be given to members in Fall
Meetings as a reminder as most people are not aware they even exist. Please review the
NCBA Concert Band MPA Committee • Summer Meeting Minutes • June 15-16, 2016 • Page 1 of 6
“Standards for Ratings” for both Sight Reading and Stage performance and be reminded that this
is not a new document. It has been around for years but has not been widely circulated or shared.
It is the MPA Committee’s desire to make sure members and adjudicators alike are aware of the
existance of these standards and use them in their preparation for and evaluation of MPA
performances.
!
MPA Triplicate Form Adjudication Sheets will no longer be used- The committee decided to
no longer use triplicate forms for MPA sheets because they are not being used for their original
intent and it is a big expense that can be cut. Completed judging sheets can either be scanned in
PDF, copied or not reproduced at all at the end of each event. This will be decided by the MPA
Event Chairs and the State MPA Chair at the meeting they will have in November. It was agreed
that chairs should be keeping the final ratings of each judge in a spreadsheet that will be turned
into the State MPA Chair if we are no longer going to be sending the triplicate to the MPA Chair.
It’s important to remember that we’ve only been using triplicates for a few years and we have not
used or examined them once since we decided to start sending them in.
•
The MPA Committee will list additions, deletions and moves on the MPA List- In an effort to
help directors notice changes to the list, it was agreed that we need to list pieces that are moved
or removed from the list in some way. Discussion was had about whether to create a separate list
each year of the pieces removed, added or moved. Using strikethrough on the existing MPA list
was discussed in reference to pieces that are removed. Discussion was had about the fact you
have to go look at the list to see a strikethrough and the fact people aren’t checking the list to start
with is the problem. It was agreed in the end to make indications on the current list
(strikethough) and to create a separate sheet that lists all of the changes for a particular year and
to post it on the site. This is currently up to date on the state website.
o New Pieces will be listed in red for one year
o Pieces that are moved or removed will be on the current list with strikethrough. For
example: Give Us This Day by David Maslanka was moved from MW to VI and is
listed as a new piece on the VI list and listed as Give Us This Day by David Maslanka
(removed 2015) on the Masterwork list.
o A list of all additions and deletions or moves will be listed on the site for a year after
changed are made.
•
Splits- Listing splits in programs and schedules versus report form. Discussion was had on
how most districts are still listing “III/IV”, “V/VI” in programs, schedules, etc. despite the fact
that the committee recommended not to do this 2 years ago. One district even placed bands in
playing a “split” at a separate time in the schedule. Some programs list each piece the band is
playing and what grade level it is, some programs just list bands and grade level they are
entering, etc. etc. It was decided that districts should and can list bands in their programs and
schedules however they like as long as the rating report to the state is uniform. We’re not going
to micromanage programs and schedules in that way. However, members should be reminded
that if you enter MPA in Grade I, II, III, IV, V, VI and MW that is the level you are in. Bands do
not enter in III/IV and if you are a Grade III Band that happens to play a Grade IV you are still
going to be reported to the state at a Grade III Band.
o Reminder of bylaw: C. Each band must prepare a march of the director’s choice and two (2)
compositions from the Official North Carolina Bandmasters Association Music List. One
composition must be from the classification as registered, the other composition may be from the
same classification or from the next higher classification.
•
MPA Attendance for 9th Grade Bands- A concern was brought to the committee for discussion
that some 9th grade bands in the state are attending MS MPAs and that this should not happen
per our bylaws. The committee discussed that this was not something that should be
micromanaged and that MPA Events are different in each district. The bylaws do not refer to MS
or HS MPA as separate divided events- but refer to them generically as MPA events. There are
districts that have MPA combined with MS/HS and some that do variations on that and some
that are totally separate. 3 districts are totally separate and 3 districts are combined or do
varations on a combined MPA. The committee reccomends that this should be left to the districts
to decide and the bylaw that was written that refers to 9th Grade Band / Junior High’s is
antiquated and needs to be removed. If districts that separate their MPA between Middle School
and High School want to have specific rules concerning this they need to create this for their
district and not try to legislate it for the entire state. Proposal to the board for a change:
REMOVE: “3A. Ninth Grade Bands should go to the festival where the Ninth Grade
Band is housed. (If the Ninth Grade is housed at a middle school then the band should go
to the middle school festival of their district.” – Committee suggest removing ALL of the
bylaw.
REMOVE 4A. Senior High and Junior High Bands will register in their designated
districts. (remove the senior and junior high school language)
This rule was written at a time when Middle Schools (6-8) and Junior High’s (7-9) existed at the
same time. As of 2014 no Junior High School’s are left in the state of NC. This rule was intended
for a problem that no longer exist and should not be used to prohibit the Western, Northwest and
Southeastern district from having combined/ hybrid MPA events. Furthermore, MPA events are
not referred to at MS MPA or HS MPA in our bylaws except in this one location and in all other
places it is simply referred to at District MPA.
Timeline
• Present at Fall Meetings for feedback
• Make Revisions as needed in MPA Meeting on November 7th , 2015
• Present to state board for approval November 7th, 2015
• Vote in General Meeting on November 8th, 2015
•
MPA Adjudicators have been evaluating bands which they have previously done a clinic in
the same semester. The Jazz Section and Marching Committee have created rules prohibiting
this and the MPA Committee was asked to examine the issue. After discussion the committee
created the following statement to be added to the judge manual:
!
MPA judges are prohibited from guest conducting, rehearsing, and evaluating
a group in the same semester that they will judge at their MPA event. Please
contact your MPA event chair if you are aware of any conflicts.
MPA event chairs should be aware of this and make the adjudicators they hire aware of this rule.
•
Reporting Full Ratings to MPA Chair, Committee, Membership- Discussion was had that we
have not previously been having the ratings from each state judge or sight reading be reported to
the State MPA Chair and that the information is not collected or published. Some districts collect
this and send it out to the membership and some do not. It was discussed and decided that this
should be kept at the district level and reported to the state MPA Chair beginning in 2016. The
committee also agreed that it should be reported on the state website along with the final ratings
but that it should not be done this year or in haste. The committee felt that we should get input
from members before doing this and approval from the state board.
•
Approved Judge List / List of who has judged- There has been individual discussion for years
for the need of a state judging list or a list of who judges each MPA each year. The committee felt
like that an approved judge list, training, etc. was probably too much at this time and may not be
something that would automatically lead to better judges. There was discussion that we may end
up with a list of judges who had gone through the training rather than a list of the most qualified
judges if we went down that path. Instead, sponsoring a future training at convention on how to
prepare and evaluate Concert Bands for MPA Performance might be more useful. In addition,
rather than having an approved list the committee felt listing the people who judge each year as
well as the ratings they give on the state site may give MPA event chairs additional resources for
seeing who is being selected in each district. Calling other MPA Event Chairs before hiring
someone who has judged is probably the best informal evaluation that can happen before
selection.
•
A suggestion was made by WC Lanning that the committee move “Rhythm” back into
“Technique” on MPA Sheet and use the extra caption to take “Interpretation” out of “Music
Effect” and give it its own category again. This effectively weights Musicality/Musicianship
over Technique and takes us back to the original MENC “Contest” sheet that was used for many
years prior to the last revision. After much discussion the committee reccomends the following
captions for the MPA Sheet
Old MENC Sheet
Tone
Intonation
Balance
Technique
Music Effect
Interpretation
Other Factors
2012 Revision
Tone Quality
Intonation
Technique
Rhythm
Balance
Musicianship
General Factors
2015 Proposal
Tone Quality
Intonation
Balance
Precision
Musicianship
Interpreation
General Factors
The committee also revised the rubric and Matt Edwards agreed to put all of these revisions into
the files and organize a draft for approval. THANKS TO MATT for his work on this! See the
attached sheets.
Timeline for approval
o Districts give input- Fall 2015
o MPA Committee takes input and makes adjustments. If input from the
districts is positive the committee will refine a reccomendation to send to the
board on Saturday, November 7th for approval. If it is not positive it will be
tabled until the summer 2016 meeting.
o This is NOT a bylaw change. Changes to the MPA Sheet in the past and
changes to the marching band sheets have not always been approved by the
state board but the committee feels a change like this should be approved by
not only the MPA Committee but by each district through the vote of their
district chair.
•
March Issue- We had an issue come up in regards to bands not performing marches. How do
we define a march? Do we need a list of marches? Do we need to reiterate that the march is
judged? After discussion the committee felt no list was needed. It was agreed that if there is a
question the President-Elect/ State MPA Chair will decide and disqualify when these issues arise
as set forth in our bylaws. The committee feels that the membership should be infomred that if
you don’t play a march you will be disqualified, and that no further action is needed if we stick to
enforicing that rule. Mr. Workman would like to reiterate to districts that Marches are required to
be played in our bylaws and that there will be no exceptions. Reminder of bylaws:
o
o
o
•
6C. Each band must prepare a march of the director’s choice and two (2) compositions from the
Official North Carolina Bandmasters Association Music List.
9. DISQUALIFICATION A. Violation of any of the above rules constitutes an automatic
disqualification.
2E. The State Concert Band MPA Chairperson will be the President-Elect of the North Carolina
Bandmasters Association. His responsibility shall be to direct and assist the District Concert Band
MPA Chairperson and will have the authority to govern all concert band MPA activity in the
state.
Copied Scores / Publisher Letter Issues. Should bands be allowed to call the publisher for a
letter with permission to use copied scores if they arrive with no original scores? This was
done in at least 2 districts this year and it has been questioned.
Bylaw Reminder:
o “All bands are required to furnish three conductor’s scores of each composition prepared for
concert band MPA and present them to the concert band MPA chairperson upon arrival. Only
published scores will be permitted unless permission is obtained from the publisher. All scores
presented to the chairperson must be numbered by measure.”
o
I. If a director submits a letter and uses copied scores then the director has a binding contract with
the music dealer. A letter stating such will be sent to the principal and director.
After discussion the committee feels that as long as we are maintaining the integrity of copyright
laws that directors should be allowed to call and get a letter if they show up without scores. The
band should not play or be evaluated until this is received, however. We cannot monitor or
distinguish between those who just leave a letter or scores at home the morning of the event and
those who wait until the last minute or are just irresponsible. We must adhere to copyright laws
strictly in light of the fact that certain states are being monitored and that we are likely next. The
bylaws concerning this are vague but do allow for a letter to be used and there is no desire to
change that at this time.
• Deadling for Out of District Request- A Deadline for requesting to go out of district was proposed
during the State Board Meeting. Discussion was had in the MPA Committee meeting and
between the board and the MPA Committee Feb. 1 is the recommended deadline.
•
Suggested Bylaw Change:
A. Senior High and Junior High Bands will register in their designated districts.
B. Exception to Rule 4-A: Bands may cross district lines upon receiving written release from their
district concert mpa chairperson and written permission from the district concert band mpa
chairperson where they wish to enter. Written release must be obtained by February 1st. If
problems occur, the director should contact the state concert band MPA chairperson, who shall
intervene and make a final decision.
Timeline
•
Solo/Ensemble MPA Sheet Revision- It was discovered this Spring that almost all districts are
using Solo and Ensemble MPA Sheets that are different. Brent Harris, Ruth Peterson and Adam
Joiner were invited to form a sub committee on Tuesday and revise the sheets to make them
cosmetically look like our existing Concert Band MPA Sheets and to standardize what is already
being used across the state. Their sheets are submitted for review by districts this fall and are
attached. Please review and give feedback to your MPA Committee Representitive.
Timeline
• Present at Fall Meetings for Feedback
• Present to state board for vote November 7th, 2015
•
Solo/Ensemble Bylaw Revisions- See attached Proposal from the Solo/Ensemble Sub Committee
Timeline
•
Scheduling of MPA Performances- There have been issues with the scheduling of bands in a
district and it has been requested by individual members that we discuss current scheduling
practices across the state. The specific issue is that some bands are scheduled strictly by “grade
level” and that specific scheduling needs such as morning or afternoon are not possible if you
play a certain grade level of music. (Example: A grade 1 band is always restricted to a a very
early morning time regardless of their location or distance from the event and Grade IV MS band
is always restricted to an evening performance.) Discussion was had and each district reported
on their scheduling practices. The consensus was that districts mostly schedule their MPA event
based on the needs and request of bands. Most districts are sticking to keeping similar grade
levels of bands grouped together but are allowing it to restart or change after breaks or lunch.
Central District MS didn’t really seem to use the Grade Level as a factor in scheduling at all as a
result of difficult busing and scheduling they perform in whatever place is best for the bands. The
MPA Committee has no specific recommendation for scheduling and the membership felt like
having scheduling rules was absolutely not necessary as each district has its own sets of issues
and needs. However, the committee noted that there is no rule on scheduling of bands that
would limit you to scheduling them a certain way and that discussion on this needs to happen at
the district level to solve these issues. It is encouraged that district MPA Event Chairs use
common sense and stay student focused in their scheduling practices. This will be discussed
further in the November meeting with MPA Event Chairs.
! Fall Meeting Date
The committee has set Saturday, November 7, 2015 from 1-5PM as our Fall meeting date at NCMEA
Convention.
Meeting Adjourned at 3:30PM
Rodney K. Workman, MPA Committee Chair
NCBA MPA - Sight-Reading Judge Script
Approved by the MPA Committee June 15, 2015
1)
2)
3)
These directions are designed to serve three goals:
To provide a consistent experience for all participating directors and students.
To avoid the appearance of familiarity or bias towards a particular school, director or students.
To maintain the schedule of the event.
Before starting this script, have a list in your hands of the required instruments for percussion
and part assignments for winds (clarinet 1 and 2, trumpet 1 and 2, etc.). The percussion list should also
include the starting pitches for each drum for each grade level. Remember that the band will sightread one UIL grade level below their stage grade level. For example, if the band played grade 4 on
stage, they should sight-read UIL grade 3.
As students enter, remain seated or standing at your table. Avoid verbal interaction with
students in the sight-reading group at this time. A pleasant smile is appropriate and would likely be
welcomed by nervous students and directors. You may give a polite “Good
morning/afternoon/evening” to the participating director as he or she enters and approaches the
podium. It is appropriate at this time to answer direct questions from the director regarding sightreading rules. Otherwise avoid conversation with the director.
Once students are settled and folders have been placed on stands by the host staff, go to the
podium. Say the following:
“Good morning/afternoon/evening, my name is ___________________ and I’ll be your sight-reading
judge. Please put your personal folders under your seat. Only the sight-reading folder should be on
your music stand. Be sure that you have a folder that corresponds with your part assignment, such as
1st trumpet or 2nd trumpet. In this piece of music, the parts are organized as follows…”
< Review instruments with multiple parts, such as clarinet 1 and clarinet 2, from the
score or listing provided by the site host. In the event the director has not assigned
parts prior to this point, allow time for the director to organize parts. >
Percussion, you will need the following instruments: ______________________ (read from list provided by
site host). The timpanist should tune the drums to _________________ (read from list provided by site host).
Timpanist, you may go ahead and tune your drums to those pitches. Do you have everything you
need?”
< Pause for percussion to respond >
“Does anyone need an additional folder or music stand?”
< Pause to direct host staff to address problems >
“Today I’ll be adjudicating your ability to read a piece of music after a brief review session.
Please open your folder and find the piece of music called _______________________ . Take it out of the
folder, then close your folder. Check that you have the correct part. After you’ve done that, turn the
music face-down. Does anyone have an incorrect part or could not find the piece in their folder?”
< Scan the room for raised hands. Pause to address problems as needed >
“Please open your folder, put the piece in front of the other pieces, then close your folder.”
< Pause while they follow the instruction >
“You will have a total of ____________ minutes to preview your piece. During this time, you may not
play your instrument. You may clap rhythms, sing parts, count out loud or finger your instruments.
Percussion may touch keyboard percussion with their fingers, but not with mallets. Other
percussionists may tap rhythms with sticks on your leg, but you must not hit instruments with any
kind of implement. You may also ask your director or your fellow students questions. Your director
may ask you to play a brief warm-up scale at the conclusion of the preparation period at his or her
discretion. Your director may call out rehearsal letters or number and verbal cues like “more trumpets”
or “tubas watch” but he or she may not sing parts or rhythms while you are playing. Are there any
questions?”
< Pause… >
“Please open your folder and pull out _________________ (title of piece). Your time begins now.”
< Go to your seat and begin timing and adjudication. Proceed once the performance is
completed and you have finished your commentary… >
“Thank you for your performance. Please put your part back in the sight-reading folder.”
< Allow time for group to follow instructions >
“Leave the sight-reading folder on the stand. Be sure to gather your folders, mutes or other equipment.
Congratulations on your performance today. You should exit the room to your left / right. Have a
good morning/afternoon/evening.”
< Return to table to finish recorded commentary / written comments and caption / final
ratings >
Revision history:
Draft: June 2015 - Matt Edwards, Melody Causby
Standards for Stage Ratings of MPA Performances
A copy of these standards should be with each judge during the adjudication.
Superior: "I" The rating is comparable to the grade of “A”. This rating reflects an outstanding performance for the
event and experience level of participants being evaluated. The performance of all selections demonstrates that the
group is able to meet all of the technical demands of the music with a thorough awareness of the composer’s intent.
Bands that receive this rating should perform beyond the basic performance of notes and rhythms, and into the area
of artistic expression. While the adjudicator may find some minor points to critique and may make suggestions for
improvement, his comments sheet would show a majority of A’s. for the various captions and his remarks would be
generally complimentary for outstanding work.
Excellent: "II" The rating is comparable to the grade of “B”. This rating reflects a high level of performance for the
event and experience level of participants being evaluated. The performance demonstrates that the group is able to
meet nearly all of the technical demands of the music and may reflect a broad awareness of the composer’s intent.
Bands that receive this rating perform frequently, but not consistently, with the same technical proficiency as a band
that received a rating of "Superior", but they lack the finesse and style associated with artistic expression. The
performance shows the result of sound fundamental training, but lacks the polish and finesse to qualify for a rating of
superior. The adjudicator may find consistent areas to critique, but these areas do not significantly distract from the
overall quality of the performance. His/her caption ratings would consist of mostly B’s while his/her remarks would
be indicative of a quality performance.
Average: "III" The rating is comparable to the grade of “C”. This rating reflects a mediocre level of performance
for the event and experience level of participants being evaluated. The performance demonstrates that the group is
able to meet some of the technical demands of the music, but reflects an absence of awareness for the composer’s
intent. The performance reflects consistent limitations in fundamental training and lacks the polish and finesse to
qualify for a rating of excellent. The adjudicator will find consistent areas to critique and these areas will significantly
distract from the overall quality of the performance. His/her comments sheet would consist of mostly C’s.
Below Average: "IV" The rating is comparable to the grade of “D”. This rating reflects a level of performance
that is consistently weak and filled with technical errors and intonation problems. The performance reflects
inconsistent and limited demonstration of music performance fundamentals. The adjudicator will find many areas to
critique that significantly distract from the overall quality of the performance. His/her comments sheet would consist
of mostly D’s. These may reflect handicaps in the way of instrumentation or lack of rehearsal time. This classification
represents a performance which is generally weak and uncertain. Comments should be encouraging and contain
helpful suggestions for improvement. The adjudicator might suggest such things as a more favorable schedule to
allow more regular rehearsals, more effective individual practice and/or ensemble rehearsals, or more careful
screening of players. The adjudicator might even make specific recommendations for ensemble or individual studies
and exercises which would contribute to the development of the individual players.
Poor: "V" The rating is comparable to the grade of “F”. The performance is unacceptable both technically and
musically. It demonstrates a lack of technical proficiency and musical understanding. Careless and bad playing habits
are prevalent, providing significant and ongoing evidence of poor preparation and training. The group and director
should concentrate on fundamentals and/or perform less difficult music. This rating indicates a performance which
reveals much room for improvement. The director should check his methods, instrumentation, etc. with those of more
successful organizations. This rating is rarely used by even the most critical adjudicators. In some cases the teaching
methods of the director may be in question. If there are any commendable features in the performance they may be
singled out. Perhaps there is one outstanding player in the group. He could be held up as a model. Sometimes only
the stage deportment and appearance can be commented on favorably but even this may be some comfort. Remarks
should be honest, but never sarcastic. They should point out the basic weaknesses and make suggestions for
improvement, and above all, urge the participants and director to work toward qualifying for a higher rating next
year.
Note: Adjudicators should make every effort to employ all the rating categories when appropriate. The ratings
should be interpreted literally by the titles: Superior, Excellent, Average, Below Average, and Poor. Success is not
measured only by a superior rating. The other ratings have credibility and should be used in a positive and
constructive way
Standards for MPA Sight-Reading Ratings
A copy of these standards should be with each judge during the adjudication.
The sight reading adjudicator should justify his/her rating through written and/or recorded comments. The adjudicator should
take great care to assure that the comments on the adjudication form and on the audio recording are consistent with the overall
and caption ratings for that particular band and should call attention to fundamental characteristics of the group. The presence or
lack of good tone quality, intonation, rhythmic precision, blend and balance, offer a basis for making brief suggestions for
improvement of the group. The sight reading adjudicator should keep in mind and take into consideration that their evaluation is
on a “first reading” and may not reflect the finesse and musical expressiveness associated with a stage performance.
Superior: "I" The rating is comparable to the grade of “A”. This rating reflects a high level of performance for the event and
experience level of participants being evaluated. The performance demonstrates that the group is able to meet all or nearly all of
the technical demands of the music and may reflect a broad awareness of the composer’s intent. Bands that receive this rating
perform frequently, if not consistently, with technical proficiency, but they may lack some finesse and style associated with
artistic expression. The performance shows the result of sound fundamental training, but may lack some of the polish and finesse.
The adjudicator may find some areas to critique, but these areas do not significantly distract from the overall quality of the
performance. His/her caption ratings would consist of mostly A’s while his/her remarks would be indicative of a quality
performance.
Excellent: "II" The rating is comparable to the grade of “B”. This rating reflects a high level of performance for the event and
experience level of participants being evaluated. The performance demonstrates that the group is able to meet most of the
technical demands of the music and may at times reflect a broad awareness of the composer’s intent. The performance reflects
few, if any, limitations in fundamental issues but may lack the polish and finesse to qualify for a rating of superior. The
adjudicator may occasionally find areas to critique; these areas may distract from the overall quality of the performance. His/her
caption ratings would consist of mostly B’s while his/her remarks would be indicative of a quality performance. 15
Average: "III" The rating is comparable to the grade of “C”. This rating reflects a mediocre level of performance for the
event and experience level of participants being evaluated. The performance demonstrates that the group is able to meet some of
the technical demands of the music, but reflects an absence of awareness for the composer’s intent. The performance reflects
consistent limitations in fundamental training and lacks the polish and finesse to qualify for a rating of excellent. The adjudicator
will find consistent areas to critique and these areas will significantly distract from the overall quality of the performance. His/her
comments sheet would consist of mostly C’s. Below
Average: "IV" The rating is comparable to the grade of “D”. This rating reflects a level of performance that is consistently
weak and filled with technical errors and intonation problems. The performance very rarely reflects performance fundamentals.
The adjudicator will find many areas to critique that significantly distract from the overall quality of the performance. This
classification represents a performance that is generally weak and uncertain. Comments should be encouraging and contain
helpful suggestions for improvement. His/her comments sheet would consist of mostly D’s.
Poor: "V" The rating is comparable to the grade of “F”. The performance is unacceptable both technically and musically. It
demonstrates a lack of technical proficiency and musical understanding. Careless and bad playing habits are prevalent, providing
significant and ongoing evidence of poor preparation and training. This rating indicates a performance that reveals much room
for improvement. Remarks should be honest, but never sarcastic. They should point out the basic weaknesses and make
suggestions for improvement, and above all, urge the participants and director to work toward qualifying for a higher rating next
year. His/her comments sheet would consist of mostly F’s.
Note: Adjudicators should make every effort to employ all the rating categories when appropriate. The ratings should be
interpreted literally by the titles: Superior, Excellent, Average, Below Average, and Poor. Success is not measured only by a
superior rating. The other ratings have credibility and should be used in a positive and constructive way.
ADDITIONS TO THE 2015-2015 MPA LIST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
IV
IV
Battle Command
Chant and Celebration
Chisholm
Dragonfire
Earth Shock
Full Circle
Knightly Procession
Woodwork Factory, The
Alpine Advernture
Banks of Delaware, The
Bravado Tango
Celtic Air and March
Coldwater Crossing
Eyes of the Dragon
Fanfare on a Theme of Imagination
In Dulci Jubilo
Jefferson Forrest Sketches
Legends
Ride of Percival, The
Shockwave
Showdown At High Point
Stonehenge
Terminal Velocity
Variants on a Australian Song
April
Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing
Crossroads
Eternal Optimist
Four Short Festive Dances
Hebrew Medley
Mission: Apollo
Phasing Thunder
Quasar
Selections from "The Capriol Suite"
Thrive
American Sketches
Americana Folk Suite
Owens, William
FJH
Feldstein and O'Reilly
Alfred
Owens, William
FJH
Lavender, Paul
Hal Leonard
Rogers, Mekel
FJH
Rogers, Mekel
FJH
Wilds, Jack
FJH
Rogers, Mekel
FJH
Oare, Michael
Hal Leonard
O'Neil, Stuart
TRN
Wilds, Jack
FJH
Sweeney, Michael
Hal Leonard
Sweeney, Michael
Hal Leonard
Weller, Travis
FJH
Balmages, Brian
FJH
Zdechlik, John
Kjos
Oare, Michael
Hal Leonard
Weirich, David
Grand Mesa
Von Epps, Brandon
Grand Mesa
Nitsch, Jason K.
FJH
Wilds, Jack
Grand Mesa
Story, Michael
Belwin
Grant, Tyler
FJH
Alberty, Craig
RBC
Perrine, Aaron
C. Alan
Standridge, Randall
Grand Mesa
Oare, Michael
Hal Leonard
Huckeby, Ed
Barnhouse
Eveland, Dennis
TRN
Bobrowitz, David
Grand Mesa
Grant, Tyler
FJH
Balmages, Brian
FJH
Owens, William
FJH
Warlock, Peter arr. Longfield
Hal Leonard
O'Loughlin, Sean
Carl Fischer
La Plante, Pierre
Daehn
Kopetz, Barry
Hal Leonard
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
M
Battle of the Champions, The
Blackwater
Joy Revisited
Sicilienne
Songs of the Plains
Suite of Old French Songs
Within These Castle Walls
Aberystwyth Variants
Amor De Mi Alma (You rre the Love of my Soul)
Appalachian Legacy
Appalachian Spring, Excerpts From
Artic Fire
Cowboy Symphony, A
Crown Diamonds Finale, The
Elements (Petite Symphony)
Jupiter from "The Planets"
Out of the Blue
Pulse
Rain and Snow on the Cedar Cliffs
Rumor Mill
After a Gentle Rain
Canticle of the Creatures
Chorale Prelude on a German Folk Tune Op. 61
Gaian Visions
On This Bright Morning
Only Light
Pale Blue on Deep
Spanish Dance, Op. 97
Symphonic Synthesis
Symphony on Themes of John Philip Sousa Mvt. 3
Variations on a Russian Hymn
First Symphony
Haskett, Adam
TRN
Fergal, Carroll
Mecenas
Ticheli, Frank
Manhattan Beach
Faure, Gabriel arr. Clark Carl Fischer
La Plante, Pierre
Daehn
La Plante, Pierre
Daehn
Balmages, Brian
FJH
(May omit Mvt. 2 or 3)
Harbinson, William
Carl Fischer
Stroope, Z. Randall
TRN
Robert Sheldon
Barnhouse
Copeland / Longfield
Boosey & Hawkes
Buckley, Robert
Hal Leonard
LaPlante, Pierre
Daehn
Auber, Daniel
Daehn
Balmages, Brian
FJH
Holst / Curnow
Hal Leonard
Scott, Steven
Grand Mesa
Standridge, Randall
FJH
Kiefer, Ed
Carl Fischer
Whitacre, Diane
TRN
Iannaccone, Anthony
Shawnee Press
Curnow, James
Hal Leonard - Curnow
James Barnes
Southern Music
Ticheli, Frank
Manhattan Beach
Maslanka, David
Maslanka Press
Perrine, Aaron
Longitude 91 (aaronperrine.com)
Perrine, Aaron
Longitude 91 (aaronperrine.com)
Shostakovich/arr. CurnowHal Leonard
Canfield, David
TRN
Hearshen, Ira
Ludwig Music
Conner, Mark
Grand Mesa
Barner, Samuel / Duker G. Schirmer
CHANGES TO THE 2015-2016 MPA LIST
VI Give Us This Day
V Canticle of the Creatures
Maslanka
Curnow, James
Carl Fischer
Play all. / Moved to VI from M in 2015
Hal Leonard - Curnow May omit 2 Movements but must play Mvt. 1 and 6
North Carolina Bandmasters Association
Final Rating
Music Performance Adjudication
Concert Band - Stage Form
Name of Ensemble ______________________________________________ School _________________________________________
City ____________________________________________________________ Director _______________________________________
Date
Time
No. of
Members
District
Performance Grade
Adjudication Scale By Rating: I = Superior II = Excellent III = Average IV = Below Average V = Poor
Repertoire: Title (check box to left to indicate march)
Composer / Arranger
Grade
______________________________________________________
________________________________________
______
______________________________________________________
________________________________________
______
______________________________________________________
________________________________________
______
Grade each caption using A, B, C, D or F in its respective box. Reference sub-caption terms along with rubric and key words from the back of the
sheet. Comments should be constructive. It is acceptable to use + / – in the individual captions.
Tone Quality:
Characteristic
Clarity
Consistency
Control
Resonance
Match within section
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Intonation:
Initial pitch
Chords
Individual
Melodic line
Makes adjustments
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Precision:
Note accuracy
Articulation
Attacks
Releases
Subdivision
Pulse
Technique
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Balance:
Blend
Ensemble
Melodic
Section
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Musicianship: Adherence to printed directions not addressed by previous captions
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interpretation: Choices of tempo, style, dynamic range and contrast, melodic contour to produce the composer’s intent
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
General Factors: Choice of appropriate literature
Instrumentation
Etiquette
Appearance
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Music Performance Adjudication
Concert Band - Stage Rubric
Achievement Level
Grade
Performers consistently
A
Performers frequently
B
Performers occasionally
C
Performers rarely
D
Performers almost never
F
Use the Achievement Level for each group of Indicators to assist in determining a
grade for each Caption. Ensembles may earn a grade in a given Category without all
indicators having the same Achievement Level.
You may use + and – marks within each category.
Key Words may be used to provide additional information and should reflect
achievement within the category.
Refer to Appendix A of the Adjudicator’s Manual to total your Caption Grades to the
appropriate Final Rating on the front of this sheet.
Do not use + or – marks with the Final Rating
CAPTION
INDICATORS
• Produce dark, characteristic tone quality on all instruments
Tone Quality
• Produce resonant, controlled tone in all ranges, registers and dynamics
• Produce clear, consistent tone throughout duration of each note
• Match tone color player to player within each section
• Produce uniform pitch center throughout the ensemble
Intonation
• Demonstrate careful attention to tuning and pitch processes
• Understand chordal and harmonic structures
• Adjust perceived pitch issues
• Demonstrate percussion tuning to match the ensemble
Precision
•
•
•
•
•
•
Perform correct pitches
Demonstrate an understanding of styles of articulation
Start and stop together, within sections and across the ensemble
Demonstrate control of pulse
Subdivide evenly and accurately
Demonstrate range, articulation and finger/stick technique appropriate to
composer's intent
• Produce correct balance in all sections of the music
Balance
• Demonstrate balance between inner and outer voices
• Demonstrate the melodic line as the prevalent voice
• Understand the supportive relationship between the wind and percussion
sections
• Change dynamics where printed
Musicianship
• Produce dynamic contrast
• Produce printed tempo changes
• Use appropriate mutes and percussion implements
• Demonstrate an understanding of musical style
Interpretation
• Shape phrases using dynamics, articulation and direction
• Demonstrate the music's expressive features
• Use rubato where appropriate
General Factors
• Provide evidence that the selected literature is appropriate for the ensemble.
• Present appropriate instrumentation for the literature
• Demonstrate appropriate appearance and etiquette
KEY WORDS ( + / – )
Air flow
Embouchure
Equipment
Stick technique
Listening for pitch
Adjusting pitch issues
Unisons
Melodic pitch
Finger precision
Legato, staccato, accent,
marcato
Key
Note values
Vertical alignment
Release
Environment
Placement
Musical role - Melody,
countermelody, harmony,
ostinato, accompaniment
Dynamic range
Printed directions
Ritardando, allargando,
accelerando, più mosso
Mallet choice
Note shape
Inflection
Pacing
Quality of literature
Instrumentation
Attire
Behavior
Proposed Bylaw Changes for Solo & Ensemble MPA
Please see the proposed changes in highlight, bold and underline:
2A, 3C, 3D, 3E, and the highlighted sentence in Section 4 and the addition of section 7.
Solo & Ensemble MPA
1. ELIGIBILITY
A. Band directors having participants in the Solo and Ensemble MPA must be current members of NCMEA and their own
district.
B. Students must be regularly enrolled in a scheduled concert band class, which receives one unit of credit and attend
school within the district boundaries of which the director is a member.
C. Participating ensembles must be from a single administrative unit.
D. The band director that appears on the class roster at a school as the teacher must be a member of NCMEA and
register all students to participate in all state sanctioned events.
2. REGISTRATION
A. Registration fees are determined by each district.
B. Registration blanks must be completed and mailed to the Solo & Ensemble Chairperson, with the appropriate fees, by
the stated deadline - i.e. 30 days prior to event.
C. No soloist or ensemble may perform at more than one Solo & Ensemble MPA in a given year.
3. REGULATIONS
It is the responsibility of the teacher to see that the following regulations are enforced:
A. Schools are not limited in number of participants entering a particular event.
B. No student may enter in both junior high/middle school and senior high levels.
C. Soloists and ensembles may perform for ratings and comments or comments only. Each participant or group will
be
assigned a rating of Superior, Excellent, Average, Below Average if performing for ratings.
D. Soloists and ensembles must perform on recognized band instruments.
E. Students without an original score for a judge will be disqualified.
4. PERFORMANCE
Soloists and ensembles may select any composition and perform on recognized band instruments, including percussion.
They must provide their own accompanist, if needed. Recorded or computer generated accompaniments may be used but
each entrant must provide his/her own playback equipment if not provided by the district. Use of music is permitted
but there is no required list of repertoire. Each entrant must furnish an original score for the judge with all cuts indicated
and the measures numbered. Accompaniments are strongly encouraged but not required.
5. TIME:
Each performance is to be limited to six (6) minutes.
6. FEES:
A. Registrations fees: Each District will determine the fees for their Solo and Ensemble MPA.
B. There will be no refund of fees paid.
7. GUIDELINES FOR ADJUDICATOR HONORARIUMS:
A. Honorariums should be the same rate in each district with mileage included.
!"#$%&'()*+),-.%(&/01"0$%-2$+.&
J-2$.H&
&
!"#$%%!&'()#*%)!+,-#!.!/)-01((2,'!
8+&.+2&"#(&KLM&$.&*$.-7&)-2$.H&
3-,(&444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&&&&&5%6++74444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&
8-2(&
52"0(.29#:&;)-0(&<(=(79#:&
3+>&+*&!(,?()#&
@.#2)",(.2-2$+.&
3451420$62,'!"0$%)!.!78!9$62':;!<="1>)-2,-!!<<!=!&?0)%%)'6!!<<<!=!3@)-$:)!!<A!=!7)%,B!3@)-$:)!!A!=!/,,-!
5(7(%2$+.9#:A&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&B+,C+#()9#:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
3451420$6,-!B2%%!:-$4)!>-2'02>$%!26)#(!3C!7C!DC!EC!,-!+!2'!6F)!-)(>)062@)!*,?)(G!D,##)'6(!#1(6!4)$%!B26F!
H1'4$#)'6$%!>-2'02>%)(!$'4!(F,1%4!*)!0,'(6-1062@)G!<6!2(!$00)>6$*%)!6,!1()!IJK!2'!6F)!2'42@241$%!0$>62,'(G!
L)66)-!!
M-$4)&
N,')!O1$%268!;!9%6-)-%2()$#2$%&#+".0D&%7-)$2ED&%+.#$#2(.%ED&%+.2)+7D&7$F(.(##&+*&G"-7$2$(#D&)(#+.-.%(:&
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!
/-)02(2,';!9-)2$%"7-2$+.D&-22-%F#D&*-%$7$2ED&.+2(&-%%")-%ED&)(7(-#(#D&2(%6.$G"(:&
&
9F86F#!;!9-%%")-%ED&,(2()D&C)(%$#$+.D&#2(-0$.(##D&2(,C+:&
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP&
&
7$%$'0)!;!9?7(.0D&(.#(,?7(D&,(7+0$%D&#(%2$+.:&
&
Q1(202$'(F2>!;!9-)2$#2)ED&0E.-,$%#D&(.()HED&(IC)(##$+.D&$.2()C)(2-2$+.D&C6)-#$.HD&#2E7(D&0E.-,$%&%+.2)-#2:&
M)')-$%!+$06,-(!;!9-22$2"0(D&%6+$%(&+*&-CC)+C)$-2(&7$2()-2")(D&%+.*$0(.%(D&0$#%$C7$.(D&$.#2)",(.2-2$+.D&C+#2")(D&#2-H(&
-CC(-)-.%(:&
!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&"2:'$61-)!,H!3451420$6,-;!PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!
Music Performance Adjudication Rubric
SOLO & SMALL ENSEMBLE!
!"#$%&%'%()*+%&%,**
*
*
1%.23.'%.4*!"#$%$&'#&()** *
*
1%.23.'%.4**+',-'#&()** *
-./0%*
***5*!*
***5*6*
Use the “Achievement Level” for each “Indicator” section to assist in
determining a
grade for each “Category”. Ensembles may earn a grade in a given “Category”
without
all indicators having the same “Achievement Level”.
***5*7*
*
***5*8*
1%.23.'%.4*2(3"$&45'6'+**
****5*9*
Your final overall rating should reflect the grades assigned to each “Category”.
No + or - signs may be used for the final rating.
*
1%.23.'%.4*.//0$%"#0(()***
*
1%.23.'%.4*10+'()**
*
&
&
&
!"#$%&'()*+),-.%(&/01"0$%-2$+.&
J-2$.H&
&
!"#$%%!&'()#*%)!+,-#!.!/0'1!2'(3-4#)'3(!
8+&.+2&"#(&KLM&$.&*$.-7&)-2$.H&
3-,(&444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&&&&&5%6++74444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&
8-2(&
52"0(.29#:&;)-0(&<(=(79#:&
3+>&+*&!(,?()#&
@.#2)",(.2-2$+.&
5164107$30,'!"7$%)!.!89!:$30';<!2="4>)-0,-!!22!=!&?7)%%)'3!!222!=!5@)-$;)!!2A!=!8)%,B!5@)-$;)!!A!=!C,,-!
5(7(%2$+.9#:A&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&B+,C+#()9#:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
5164107$3,-!B0%%!;-$1)!>-0'70>$%!03)#(!5D!8D!ED!FD!,-!+!0'!3G)!-)(>)730@)!*,?)(H!E,##)'3(!#4(3!1)$%!B03G!
I4'1$#)'3$%!>-0'70>%)(!$'1!(G,4%1!*)!7,'(3-4730@)H!23!0(!$77)>3$*%)!3,!4()!JKL!0'!3G)!0'10@014$%!7$>30,'(H!
M)33)-!!
N-$1)&
O,')!P4$%039!<!9%6-)-%2()$#2$%&#+".0D&%7-)$2ED&%+.#$#2(.%ED&%+.2)+7D&7$F(.(##&+*&G"-7$2$(#&D&)(#+.-.%(:&
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ!
2'3,'$30,'<!9-01"#2,(.2#&-)(&,-0(D&%6+)0#D&$.$2$-7&C$2%6D&$.0$=$0"-7D&,(7+0$%&7$.(:&
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ&
C-)70(0,'<!9-)2$%"7-2$+.D&-22-%F#D&*-%$7$2ED&.+2(&-%%")-%ED&)(7(-#(#D&2(%6.$G"(:&
&
:G93G#!<!9-%%")-%ED&,(2()D&C)(%$#$+.D&#2(-0$.(##D&2(,C+:&
&
8$%$'7)!<!9?7(.0D&(.#(,?7(D&,(7+0$%D&#(%2$+.:&
&
&
R4(070$'(G0>!<!9-)2$#2)ED&0E.-,$%#D&(.()HED&(IC)(##$+.D&$.2()C)(2-2$+.D&C6)-#$.HD&#2E7(D&0E.-,$%&%+.2)-#2:&
N)')-$%!+$73,-(!<!9-22$2"0(D&%6+$%(&+*&-CC)+C)$-2(&7$2()-2")(D&%+.*$0(.%(D&0$#%$C7$.(D&$.#2)",(.2-2$+.D&C+#2")(D&#2-H(&
-CC(-)-.%(:&
!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&"0;'$34-)!,I!5164107$3,-!QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ!
&
!"#$%&%'%()*+%&%,**
*
*
1%.23.'%.4*!"#$%$&'#&()** *
*
1%.23.'%.4**+',-'#&()** *
-./0%*
***5*!*
***5*6*
determining a
without
***5*7*
*
***5*8*
1%.23.'%.4*2(3"$&45'6'+**
****5*9*
*
1%.23.'%.4*.//0$%"#0(()***
*
1%.23.'%.4*10+'()**
*
&
&
&
!"#$%&'()*+),-.%(&/01"0$%-2$+.&
I-2$.G&
&
!"#$#!%#&'!(!)*&+,--.#/!
8+&.+2&"#(&JDK&$.&*$.-7&)-2$.G&
3-,(&444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&&&&5%6++7&4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&
8-2(&
52"0(.29#:&;)-0(&<(=(7&9#:&
>.#2)",(.2&
012,1.+34.#/!"+3$*!(!56!734./89!:;",<*&.#&!!::!;!=>+*$$*/4!!:::!;!0?*&38*!!:@!;!5*$#A!0?*&38*!!@!;!)##&!
5(7(%2$+.9#:?&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&@+,A+#()9#:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
012,1.+34#&!A.$$!8&31*!<&./+.<3$!.4*'-!0B!5B!CB!DB!#&!%!./!4E*!&*-<*+4.?*!F#>*-G!C#''*/4-!',-4!1*3$!A.4E!
H,/13'*/43$!<&./+.<$*-!3/1!-E#,$1!F*!+#/-4&,+4.?*G!:4!.-!3++*<43F$*!4#!,-*!IJK!./!4E*!./1.?.1,3$!+3<4.#/-G!
L*44*&!!
M&31*&
N#/*!O,3$.46J:/4#/34.#/9!9%6-)-%2()$#2$%&#+".0B&%7-)$2CB&%+.#$#2(.%CB&%+.2)+7B&)(#+.-.%(:D9A$2%6B&-01"#2,(.2#&-)(&
,-0(:&
)#-.4.#/J)&*+.-.#/9!9E+0CB&6-.0B&$.#2)",(.2:D9-)2$%"7-2$+.B&-22-%F#B&*-%$7$2CB&.+2(&-%%")-%CB&)(7(-#(#B&)"0$,(.2#:&
&
7E64E'9!9-%%")-%CB&,(2()B&A)(%$#$+.B&#2(-0$.(##B&2(,A+:&
&
Q,-.+.3/-E.<9!90C.-,$%#B&(.()GCB&(HA)(##$+.B&$.2()A)(2-2$+.B&A6)-#$.GB&#2C7(B&0C.-,$%&%+.2)-#2:&
M*/*&3$!%3+4#&-9!9-22$2"0(B&%6+$%(&+*&-AA)+A)$-2(&7$2()-2")(B&%+.*$0(.%(B&0$#%$A7$.(B&$.#2)",(.2-2$+.B&A+#2")(B&#2-G(&
-AA(-)-.%(:&
!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&".8/34,&*!#H!012,1.+34#&!PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!
!"#$%&%'%()*+%&%,**
*
*
1%.23.'%.4*!"#$%$&'#&()** *
*
1%.23.'%.4**+',-'#&()** *
-./0%*
***5*!*
***5*6*
determining a
without
***5*7*
*
***5*8*
1%.23.'%.4*2(3"$&45'6'+**
****5*9*
*
1%.23.'%.4*.//0$%"#0(()***
*
1%.23.'%.4*10+'()**
*
&
!"#$%&'()*+),-.%(&/01"0$%-2$+.&
H-2$.F&
&
!"#$#!%#&'!(!)*+,!-+./&0'1+/.!
8+&.+2&"#(&IJK&$.&*$.-7&)-2$.F&
3-,(&444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&5%6++7&4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&
8-2(&
52"0(.29#:&;)-0(&<(=(79#:&
>.#2)",(.2&
!2,30,*45/*#+!"45$1!(!67!85/*+9:!-;"0<1&*#&!!--!;!=>41$$1+/!!---!;!2?1&591!!-@!;!61$#A!2?1&591!!@!;!B##&!
5(7(%2$+.9#:?&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&@+,A+#()9#:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
2,30,*45/#&!A*$$!9&5,1!<&*+4*<5$!*/1'.!2C!6C!DC!EC!#&!%!*+!/F1!&1.<14/*?1!G#>1.H!D#''1+/.!'0./!,15$!A*/F!
I0+,5'1+/5$!<&*+4*<$1.!5+,!.F#0$,!G1!4#+./&04/*?1H!-/!*.!5441</5G$1!/#!0.1!JKL!*+!/F1!*+,*?*,05$!45</*#+.H!
M1//1&!!
N&5,1&
O#+1!P05$*/7:!9%6-)-%2()$#2$%&#+".0B&%7-)$2CB&%+.#$#2(.%CB&%+.2)+7B&)(#+.-.%(:&
-+/#+5/*#+:!9-01"#2,(.2#&-)(&,-0(B&$.$2$-7&A$2%6B&,(7+0$%&7$.(:&
B&14*.*#+:!9-)2$%"7-2$+.B&-22-%D#B&*-%$7$2CB&.+2(&-%%")-%CB&)(7(-#(#B&2(%6.$E"(:&
&
8F7/F':!9-%%")-%CB&,(2()B&A)(%$#$+.B&#2(-0$.(##B&2(,A+:&
&
R0.*4*5+.F*<:!90C.-,$%#B&(.()FCB&(GA)(##$+.B&$.2()A)(2-2$+.B&A6)-#$.FB&#2C7(B&0C.-,$%&%+.2)-#2:&
R0.*4!=II14/:!9-)2$#2)CB&*7"(.%C:&
N1+1&5$!%54/#&.:!9-22$2"0(B&%6+$%(&+*&-AA)+A)$-2(&7$2()-2")(B&%+.*$0(.%(B&0$#%$A7$.(B&A+#2")(B&#2-F(&-AA(-)-.%(:&
!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&"*9+5/0&1!#I!2,30,*45/#&!QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ!
&
!"#$%&%'%()*+%&%,**
*
*
1%.23.'%.4*!"#$%$&'#&()** *
*
1%.23.'%.4**+',-'#&()** *
-./0%*
***5*!*
***5*6*
determining a
without
***5*7*
*
***5*8*
1%.23.'%.4*2(3"$&45'6'+**
****5*9*
*
1%.23.'%.4*.//0$%"#0(()***
*
1%.23.'%.4*10+'()**
*
&
&
&

MPA Committee Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Gasket sheet Gambit AF-400

MPA Prospectus

Jimcor Agencies - Montvale, NJ - I

2013: Issue 1 - Maritime Patrol Association

MPA 4 - Red Tape 1

Sikaflex®-292i FOR LONG LASTING BONDS

Guiding Principles and Benefits - Panda

kombajn KTW200.cdr

Agilia product datasheet

outreach - Marriott School