• Other

On a critique sheet filled with words like “Powerful” , “Masterful” , “Dynamic” written by the judge, I find it odd that 2 points were taken off under style of delivery.
While the judge did write “little reading” from the piece, I question this because in the rules there is nothing specific stated on “how much” reading. The judge also wrote, this should be read, but not performed. With interpretation, you can still perform the emotion – and yes, this piece has a lot of heavy emotion. I will defend my student’s presentation and say it was easily a 25. She and I even discussed making sure she was looking at the manuscript as she performed during her practices leading up to State…because we do belong to both WFCA and WISDAA and I wanted to make sure she was NOT “memorized” as allowed by WFCA. She even insisted that she was looking at her binder. I did bring this to the attention of the committee while at State, but unfortunately was told nothing could be done. This did bother me all weekend though and I thought I would try again. My student did stay completely within the rules and I ask that you please reconsider this score. I’m normally not a coach that appeals, but this one isn’t sitting right with me. Thank you for going over this again.

“This should be read more than performed.” Is the phrase that is really bothering me. Yet the judge does indicate that my student was reading…but again, I go back to, it’s not in the rules how much reading – it’s not like there is a percentage established. And why 2 points?

I know that the committee talked about this one already during the festival. The category is prose “reading” and we were not in the room to determine how much was performed vs. read. Obviously, the adjudicator thought that the piece was performed and not ready enough from the script. I just don’t like interpreting what the adjudicator was seeing at the time. Also, the adjudicator has a right to take off one or two points.

The committee reviewed this during the festival; following post-festival reflection, the committee sustains the category has “reading” in the title, and the adjudicator is within their right to appraise the style of how the performance is interpreted (“read” versus “performed” or “acted”). The committee does not believe its role is to second-guess what an adjudicator saw in a given round.