Last week in his Notebook, the Editor bemoaned the dearth of pipe bands entered for the Grade 1 British Championship (Ingliston, May 30).
There are only nine, playing in this order: 1 SLOT 2 Police Federation 3 FMM 4 Shotts 5 Boghall 6 Fife Police 7 Inveraray 8 Scottish Power 9 Ravara.
Given this low number in the grade, he once more urged a cap on numbers and also voiced surprise at the non-promotion of Glasgow Skye Association Pipe Band after they won the Grade 2 title at the World Championships last year.
Piping Press will always give a platform for differing views and a few are carried below. Please let us have any other comments. There may be questions surrounding other grades that need to be aired too. Reply in the Comments section below or to editor@pipingpress.com.
Ian Forbes: It’s a very sad situation with only nine Grade 1 bands competing in the British Championships. A cap on the number of pipers/drummers will certainly help to improve the situation, but it could take several years for the effects of this change to filter through to an increase in the number of Grade 1 bands.
At last year’s Worlds, there was a total of 21 Grade 2 bands competing, with the top three or four playing to a very high standard. The RSPBA should consider whether it wants to retain Grade 1 as a small ‘super league’ or to have a more balanced situation between Grades 1 and 2.
Ron Bailie: I totally disagree with your premise on Grade 1. This grade is the pinnacle of our hobby and the bands there should represent that. Your proposals will produce quantity in Grade 1 but we will be back to the situation of having a two-tier grade with those at the bottom simply making up the numbers.
A few years later, hey presto, those bands disappear. A band should be upgraded to Grade 1 when they fulfil two criteria. Firstly the Association’s Music Board need to feel they are ready for the promotion. Secondly, and more importantly, the band leadership need to feel they are ready, and that includes having the numbers to succeed in the higher grade.
Allan Sutherland: Regarding the bands and grades, surely it’s up to the RSPBA to inform bands what grade they play in? In Grade 2 bands don’t seem to move out of the grade – or is it the players who don’t want to play in Grade 1?
If so, this must stifle the pyramid system a bit. It seems to be the same in other grades as well – same bands keep on winning. For me it must fall on the RSPBA to sort this out and to tell us what is happening. This clarity may help all grades.
Neil: A few good points raised here but I still cant fathom the RSPBA’s decision not to upgrade Glasgow Skye at the end of last season. From reports, the reason they are not competing this year is because of this which is madness from those that decided they weren’t ready for Grade 1.
I do understand that in the past, bands that have been upgraded to grade 1 and have failed to push on have resulted in the band going off the road. But then again, should the RSPBA be more reactive to monitoring how these newly-promoted bands progress when promoted?
For example, if a band fails to move off the bottom two spots consistently over two years then they are moved back to Grade 2? It’s a sad situation whereby we have bands in Grade 1 disbanding because they don’t have the numbers in their ranks, AND now we have a situation whereby bands might disband because the RSPBA can’t see their potential and ambition to progress to the top grade.
Forgive me I do not mean to disagree with people more knowledgeable and experienced than I but I feel it must be raised. If we cap numbers in bands would players go play for other bands? I would not. Set up new bands? Play lower in the grade? I would not. Or would they/could they give up playing altogether? A numbers cap could result in younger up-and-coming players failing to reach the pinnacle of pipe bands simply because the bands at the top are full. No space in top bands for new talent leaves the only way to get into top bands the removal of existing player’s. The first to go, older players? Still capable but forced to retire early. What will young players have to aim for if they knew their dreams of a top band are potentially 20+ years away after they leave school? Is that fair? Would they decide not to keep playing as they go through university? When life gets tougher? When they are working and do not have enough time? If you were capable of playing for a grade 1 band in the top 3 would you be happy playing for one that came last place? Would young players (any players) be happy to down grade themselves into other ‘new’ bands undoubtedly lower in the grade? Capping numbers does not solve the gap in the top grade it just makes people unhappy and more likely to quit. I will admit something needs to be done and I am not saying a cap should be ruled out because I do not though everything but I do know what I and others would feel if such a thing were to happen. We need to think hard before doing anything drastic that could potentially lose us players and ruin children’s dreams.
Just to put my tuppence worth in on this band cap proposal, I whole-heartedly disagree with it.
I must take particular exception to the statement in one of your recent Editor’s Notebook posts where you wrote:
“If the big bands are limited on how many they can take on board it stands to reason that there will be a filter-down benefit for those lower in the grade.”
I don’t believe forcing the very top bands to shed a handful of their least active players will have any meaningful positive impact at all. In fact, it may have the opposite effect. There’s no guarantee those players will move to lower-grade bands; many may simply stop competing altogether. That hardly helps participation levels and could worsen the very problem the cap is supposed to solve. It’s also unrealistic to assume that redistributing a small number of players would alter competitive outcomes. The best players and strongest leadership will still gravitate toward the best bands, and those bands will continue to win. The likely outcome is not greater parity, but a reduction in overall sound quality and spectacle for audiences.
This reduction of numbers line of thinking seems to be driven largely by the recent folding of a couple of Grade 1 bands, with a proposed numbers cap presented as a solution. I’m surprised that someone of your standing would subscribe to that view. Bands have always come and gone. Why, then, is a cap considered necessary now, when it wasn’t in previous eras when pipe corps could exceed the numbers we see today? Success at the top level has never simply been about numbers. If band attrition is now seen as an existential issue, surely the priority should be identifying and addressing the root causes, rather than restricting the strongest performers. Why introduce a cap now when it has never previously been required? There is also a risk of further stratifying the grade, making top bands even more exclusive rather than more accessible. If some bands fold, that is not new—it is part of the natural cycle. Progress and standards are driven by competition, not artificial constraints.
In reality, corps size is already self-regulating. If there is currently no cap, why are top bands not fielding 30+ pipers? Not because they couldn’t, but because the modern competitive “sweet spot” sits around 20–26 players: large enough for richness and power, but small enough to maintain clarity and ensemble precision. Trends over time suggest that top bands have naturally restricted numbers as the emphasis has shifted toward musical accuracy rather than sheer volume.
The issue may simply be one of perspective. With relatively few Grade 1 bands, losing two in quick succession feels significant. But is the answer really to restrict those that remain? Would it not be more productive to grow the Grade 1 pool instead?
If the argument is that there aren’t enough players, will removing a handful from existing top bands make any meaningful difference? Or are there broader factors at play—such as reduced participation in youth programs, the after-effects of COVID, or a general dip in engagement? Encouragingly, recent school championships suggest that participation may already be recovering, which could naturally rebalance numbers over time.
There are also practical questions. Would a cap apply to registered players or only those taking the field? How would bands manage absences due to illness or availability? Would this apply only to Grade 1, and if so, how would promoted Grade 2 bands be expected to adapt? Would players who were part of the journey to G1 be told “thanks for the help but we’re letting you go now because we can only have X amount of players”? These uncertainties highlight the risk of unintended consequences.
Ultimately, bands folding is not a new phenomenon, and restricting the top tier is unlikely to address the underlying causes. If anything, it risks diminishing performance standards and the overall experience for audiences, without delivering any clear benefit to the wider pipe band community.
Numbers alone do not determine success—and limiting them won’t fix deeper structural issues.