Victimisation, or an Over Abundance of Pettiness?

By ORVILLE WRIGHT

Exodus—as an organisation and a steelband is reputed to be one of the best in Trinidad and Tobago.  In my interview with Pelham Goddard for the T&T Review a little less than three years ago, he spoke about the fact that more people than the section leaders in his steelband read music. My experience would suggest that not many bands have that profile among its members. As is culturally permissible, I am going to concur with the assessment of Exodus’ profile and run the risk of alienating some steelbands who also would take pride in the fact that they are as well organised as Exodus.  Nonetheless, it is a risk worth taking. 
For years Exodus has been placed on a pinnacle of excellence, a fact due in large part to the leadership of Ainsworth Mohammed and Pelham Goddard. The band has won four Panorama titles, two World Steelband (“Pan Is Beautiful”) titles, and has successfully toured the world, bringing recognition to the national instrument and the St. Augustine/Tunapuna area—a part of Trinidad I am particularly proud of having spent a great deal of my adolescent years in Tunapuna, not too far from Exodus’ pan theater.  When I left Trinidad to study abroad in 1970, it was better known as a panyard.  Indeed, there are bands that have won more Panorama titles than Exodus, but in my view, there are additional factors and statistics that make Exodus stand out as a well-run organisation.
This year, the band’s ego would have been severely bruised when, for the first time in 20 years, it failed to make the cut for the finals of the Super Bowl of steelband competitions.  It’s only natural for a certain level of disappointment to set in when something like this happens. Every individual who has a vested interest in Exodus—leaders, arrangers, fans, supporters, pan pushers—everyone has to be asking questions, but should the band’s arranger have responded to the results of the semis in the manner he did in the Sunday Mirror of February 7, 2009? Does this set a good example for the young players whom Pelham boasts of being musically literate? 
Does it send a message to the players who obviously look up to Pelham as a leader, that if you enter a competition and the result is not in sync with your expectations, you should blame the executive of the parent organization for the band’s shortcomings?  Should the bands that came 2nd, 3rd, or 4th in previous World Steelband Competitions and the four Panorama titles behind Exodus’ first place claim that they were victimised by the then Executive of Pan Trinbago?
Without fail, Panorama 2010 had its share of controversy, and as was the case last year, Exodus was at the core of the controversy.  I know Pan Trinbago wanted to address the issue of adjudication for this year’s competition. However, the band fell short because there was not enough time to deal with what has become a thorn in the side of the executives of Pan Trinbago, arrangers, pannists and pan aficionados.
I am a firm believer that if there is a process in place—adjudication of a competition—one has to abide by the results of the process.  In my view, the executives of Pan Trinbago should not be blamed for Exodus’ exclusion- even if it did not  sit well with Pelham.
In as interview published in the Sunday Mirror of February 7, 2010, the arranger of the four-time Panorama champs explained why he thought his band had been excluded. There are charges of victimisation and petty politics and a claim that Exodus was excluded because the band’s management had not supported Keith Diaz’ bid to become president of Pan Trinbago.”
According to Pelham: “Exodus was younger than all the bands in the (large) competition; we moved up too quickly in the world; we have a new style; we removed the canopy; our panyard is a theatre and our music is not the same every year; we played at the Fifth Summit of the Americas; we got called for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting; people have problems with that.”
The article went on to say, “The weekend defeat for Exodus is being considered by its members and supporters as further humiliation following last year’s final fiasco when Pan Trinbago officials reportedly found the band to be in breach on the rule governing the number of pannists large conventional orchestras were allowed to perform with before the music adjudicators.  The matter is now before the court.”
I clearly remember a lull of about forty minutes on the night of Panorama Finals in 2009, when it was reported that Exodus had more than the specified number of players on stage.  As is with everything else, there were varying accounts of what happened with Exodus’ count on that night as there were persons charged with the responsibility for tallying the number of players on stage.  What has been borne out though is that Exodus had more players on stage, and I was surprised that the band—given its status and reputation—had got caught up in what was perceived by some as an attempt to cheat.  Readers might recall that I had interviewed three arrangers in my series in the T&T Review, one of whom had spoken in great detail what had happened on that night with Exodus.   But is there a correlation between last year’s count on stage—among others—and this year’s semis?

It is difficult to believe that the President of Pan Trinbago would go out of his way to tell the judges to penalise Exodus for last year’s unfortunate scenario.  The attitudes and behavior of players of the national instrument have evolved tremendously over the past forty years, and I refuse to believe that a newly-elected president would jeopardise his status by getting involved in the very pettiness that Pelham spoke about early in the Mirror’s article.  This is, however, not the only accusation leveled at the executive of Pan Trinbago—or more directly—Keith Diaz. 
 There was one section in the Mirror’s article that made reference to the judges:
“I don’t know if the judges are capable.  You can’t take judges out of the University of the West Indies and put them to judge.  I know two of the judges.  They have no Panorama judging experience.” 
Now, I am one hundred percent behind Pelham with regard to certain aspects of his statement, but if an argument has to be made regarding exclusion, it should be on the basis of the scores within a framework of respect for the judging process. Such respect, however, cannot be legislated; it must be earned on the basis of the competency of the judges and the integrity of the process.
I have said before that when results were announced at the conclusion of the World Steelband Festival/Competition, the negative chatter about the results was much less than what follows Panorama- a fact I attributed to the quality and competency of the Steelband Festival adjudicators.
In the Mirror interview, Pelham is reported as having “questioned why Diaz was promoting his Desperadoes affiliation rather that his work as president of Pan Trinbago and vision for the steelband movement on his weekly radio program, and why he (Diaz) played iron with Desperadoes on stage during Sunday’s competition.”
If this statement did indeed come from Pelham, he would have been justified in doing so.  There are far too many instances of Pan Trinbago executives being perceived of having a conflict of interest in dealing with Panorama competitions.  The mere fact of Pan Trinbago executives assigning judges for various levels of the competition is cause for concern.  Even if these assignments are done with the best of intentions, there remains a perception about the process—and this is one thing Diaz needs to change.  In every conversation with an arranger, the issue of the judges and their selection comes up comes up. 
In my view,  arrangers and pannists should have a lot more say regarding the assignment of judges while  a process should be introduced for the selection of adjudicators.  I presented the president with criteria for adjudicators and he was very receptive to the idea, promising to have a symposium some time after Carnival.
Woodrow Wilson once said, “If you want to make enemies, try to change something” and the executives of Pan Trinbago—unfortunate as it may be—need to make some enemies if indeed they have to make Panorama a more viable competition.  If the approach and methodology are such that they are carefully thought out and executed, the enemy list does not have to be large.  Arrangers—including Pelham Goddard and all stakeholders associated with the National Instrument—have to be included in the process.  This is an excellent opportunity for President Diaz to put a stamp and leave a legacy on Panorama—for the better.