The rules for Scottish Fiddling Revival sanctioned competitions were last revised at a board meeting at the Virginia Scottish Games in 1996.

There has been increasing interest in reevaluating the rules with a view to making the competitions more of an audience friendly event while improving the fairness of the judging.

The board would like to hear from anyone interested in any aspect of the topic, especially from judges, stewards, competition organizers and competitors.

Please take a moment to let us know if you have any comments about the ideas presented below. Send your comments to Jan Tappan at 1938 Rose Villa St.Pasadena, CA 91107 (626)793-3716 or email: fiddlers@earthlink.net.

We will summarize your comments and present them to the board. We will also write a follow-up report for the newsletter.

The issue that competition organizers would most like us to address is that fiddle competitions take more time per competitor (both for the performance and for the judging) than audiences are willing to watch. We're often boring the very audience we are trying to get to support Scottish fiddling.

In addition, questions have been raised about tune selection. Should a fiddler who plays a difficult, multiple variation tune as well as someone who plays a simpler, shorter tune equally well be scored higher because the tune with variations was more difficult? Or lower because the tune with variations took triple the time of the simpler tune? Or should the question be irrelevant? I've heard from many people weighing in with opinions on this issue, and so far, no two people have said the same thing.

Here are some other ideas which have been presented for consideration:

- Introduce a time limit, both for each competitor and for the judge. Competitors might be limited to 5 minutes actual playing time, with the judge/s being required to finish writing comments within 2 minutes after the performance finishes. The judge's final ranking must be made within 10 minutes after the competition ends, with the exception of the Nationals where the required 3 judges would have 30 minutes. the time limits mentioned here are purely arbitrary and meant to stimulate discussion. Please feel free to propose alternate limits or no limits and tell us why you think your proposal would be fairer/faster/more helpful or encouraging to competitors and how it would increase audience interest.

Here's one comment about this proposal: “Judge’s must understand the need for making their comments accurate, but succinct. To delay for other than uniform periods between the slow tune and the balance of the set changes the rhythm of the competition for some of the competitors, to the advantage of others. It is nice to get

full analysis, but it need not be so detailed as to compromise fairness.”

- In the absence of a time limit, require each tune be played a maximum number of bars: for example a slow air might be played a maximum of 64 bars (or twice through a 32 bar tune), a 32 bar march played twice or a 64 bar march played once, a 16 bar strathspey played twice, and a 32 bar reel played twice.

- Institute a tune list from which competitors would be required to play. The list could remain the same for a number of years, or it could change every year. It would have a large variety of tunes and keys in all categories and the challenge to the competitor would be to create an interesting set from the required tunes. The list might be different for the National competition than for local competitions. Alternatively, FIRE might adopt one, two or three sets which competitors would be required to play at the National competition. Competitors would be judged on playing and interpreting the same tunes.

- Judges currently use the numerical scoring system as a guide (as outlined in the current rules). They are not required to give first place to the highest scoring competitor, nor are they required to use a numerical scoring system at all. A numerical system is helpful, however, when trying to narrow down the top choices when more than one judge is evaluating a large number of performers. Particularly when there is more than one judge, the numerical system is often seen as arbitrary. It is useful as an aid to the judges' memory of the competitors playing at the time the competitor played, not as an absolute and final judgement of the quality of a particular competitor's playing relative to other competitors. Other people see the numerical scoring system as the most accurate reflection of a judge's impression of a performer at the time of the performance. They feel that competitor’s ranking should be based on numerical standing alone (or on average numerical standing when more than one judge is involved). Should competitors be ranked solely on the score (or average score) given by the judges?

- Our rules state that any Scottish fiddle style is acceptable in FIRE sanctioned competitions, however, some competitors mix styles within a set. Some judges have preferences for certain styles and might score a competitor playing in the Shetland style or Cape Breton style lower than a person playing in Northeast style. How can we address this issue? Do we need to assure that competitors are aware that consistency of style is desirable? Is there some way to reinforce the idea that all styles are equal under the rules? Or should we endorse a particular style?

I'm sure many of you have opinions on these ideas, and perhaps on other ways the rules could be improved. This is your chance to let the board know how you feel. We plan to revise the rules at some time in the future, so please let us have your ideas and concerns.

Thank you.

Back to Competition Rules