HIGHER, Faster, Stronger

[JoeDz]

The name of the Reading Bucs 2013 show was "HIGHER, faster, stronger." That name also represents everything that has happened in all athletic and talent-oriented arenas lately..... from high school track & field, thru Olympic gymnastics and figure skating, through the modern-era Bucs/Blue Devils levels of performance.

In high school track events, we have tape measures and stop watches that do the perfect job of comparing performances. But what about those competitions that rely on "JUDGING?" It's time for scoring to be re-calibrated to allow for the differences in performance. Gymnasts have become so proficient and their routines so all-inclusive that the difference between a 9.9 and a 10 is how you land; land clean, get a 10; bounce and you get a 9.9. In short, judging returns to the tic system where a flaw causes a 99 in Brass Performer Excellence. This throws out everything else that 2 brass ensembles did and focuses wrongly on faults.

Is it time to slide the scale for the boxes so that the range for the top box is much wider, allowing judges to go deeper in assigning point differences? Do we have to have a winning score of 99+? Does the 99 have to come at finals? Part of the improvement in scores from Wildwood to Rochester is simply THE CALENDAR. We know where a corps should score by a certain date.

Judges would have far more freedom to accurately assign a score that discriminates based solely on content and performance. Are the Blue Devils/Cadets/Bluecoats/Crown/Vanguard and Bucs/Cabs/MBI/Fusion/CV ranges of scores not more worthy of close scrutiny and results that change from week to week based on PERFORMANCE? Shounld Cadets 2 drums, Hurcs CG, Bucs/Cabs Brass, Empire GE not be worthy of a healthier gap back to 2nd best???

When I read reviews by Big W, Holland, and Adcock, they get it spot on..... but they have more tools......WORDS....... than the judges. Let's give our judges the same range in evaluation that these three men enjoy.... we might have the difference between 1st and 2nd an 88.05 and an 87.95....... but I think it will be less take-away and more earned..... we're drifting back to unwritten tics.

Just my opinion.....

Joe Dz

[VOReason]

Or we could just have a clap show.

[Jeff Ream]

I'm confused. So higher scores are an issue? Content and performance are awarded, and the sheets have criteria for each one that allow the judges to assign numbers. Some times sub box ties happen.

But high scores in the 80's...if I read you right that sound like a return to ticks. Well guess what? the tick system was more subjective than what today is because there were NEVER defined criteria for what a tick is and isn't. Now the sheets have criteria that must be met to earn those top numbers, not just a tally of slash marks made by someone who may decide every sounds dirty

[C.Holland]

Though I agree that a tic system was a way better method to compare/contrast all of these performances, I mean considering more often than not we are not comparing apples to oranges, but instead apples to SPORKS (I love that utensil). I don't think they have a desire to go back to that with the amount of (for lack of a better term) weird stuff on the field to judge. (also... what constituted a tic?)

This isn't like gymnastics or figure skating where there are only so many ways to artistically skin a (insert animal or PETA friendly option instead), this is a dozen different ideas at once, with very little perameters existing on each component to box you in and keep you on track. In gymanstics and even floor competitions, there are parameters and ways to adjudicate each movement and component. While DCi/DCA is sort of there, I do not believe they have it as polished as they lead us all to believe. That is the blessing and the curse of this activity. I agree, that there's needs to be a better way to compare what the performers do, because that is what should be celebrated as opposed to what is designed, but its awful darn hard to compare tics of stuff you've sometimes no idea if it was supposed to be that way.

It sort of relates to my argument about should the sound console be operated by a member of the corps, not an intern, hired gun, or professional. My thought is that yes, it should be someone that is a paying member of the corps there to mix a top level group and be responsible for that part of the ensemble (and get the same great musical education) just the same as a trumpet, tubamaphone, snare-o-rimba, or balletguard member is responsible for being part of the picture or voicing. There's just no regulation on which to regulate (for lack of better term) this and therefore compare/contrast this component seriously yet until they do.

Edited July 29, 2014 by C.Holland

[donincardona]

I'm confused. So higher scores are an issue? Content and performance are awarded, and the sheets have criteria for each one that allow the judges to assign numbers. Some times sub box ties happen.

But high scores in the 80's...if I read you right that sound like a return to ticks. Well guess what? the tick system was more subjective than what today is because there were NEVER defined criteria for what a tick is and isn't. Now the sheets have criteria that must be met to earn those top numbers, not just a tally of slash marks made by someone who may decide every sounds dirty

when i marched there was a defined criteria jeff. but there was so much corruption and favoritism it didn't seem like there was a criteria. like you said many times one mans tic was not a tic for another man. just being real here.

[Fran Haring]

But high scores in the 80's...if I read you right that sound like a return to ticks. Well guess what? the tick system was more subjective than what today is because there were NEVER defined criteria for what a tick is and isn't.

Absolutely agree.

One judge's tick was another judge's "that's good."

Sometimes... it sure seemed that the definition of a "tick" was dependent on which uniform a given corps was wearing. If you get my drift. LOL.

[BigW]

Hmm, a lot of different ideas and directions and I have only a few minutes before my lunch break ends. Just some things for people to munch on for now, I'll try and really *think* while I sort stuff tonight. I appreciate Joe and everyone else making me *think*. My job doesn't require much of it.

Jim Prime Sr. talked to me about the whole tick system- I guess that means many years ago now. (I really miss Jim, very, very much...) It may not be as much anyone out to get anyone or hose over a corps as much as what he discussed:

The trick to the tick system was more who could find the spot on the sheet aligned with the type of error discovered and write the proper hieroglyphic code onto the sheet fast enough and move on. It was more a game, really. A judge was too blasted busy trying to find the spot on the sheet and mark it right while trying not to get clobbered while trying to listen to what was happening and evaluate. While said judge has his or her head in the clipboard and trying to mark the tick and not get clocked by someone, lord knows what flew by musically they may have missed- or, they couldn' t mark stuff fast enough to keep up!

Now, later on, some associations tried to eliminate the sheet and the hieroglyphics and went straight to tape and a little clicker device. You'd say what the error was from what section click the clicker and move on. Much easier, and also really easy to burn bad groups. Click, click, clickety-click. count how many times you clicked the clicker, subtract, voila! You have some number for a score! Again, more a game and not necessarily reflective of certain realities on the field. Did the judge follow some poor bum around most of the show to make their job easier (hence the term "tick-magnet!) so on and so forth....?

Also, the weight of error wasn't really fair, either.

Say, I'm playing some screamin' high D 2 ledger lines off the staff (treble clef...) and I blip it or go flat. 1 tick. Not easy to get that D lined up and hit it. Tough note.

Now say... (Ream, no laughing!!!!) I totally hang a release at the end of the concert number (In practice, yeah, No record of me doing this in a performance mind you... ) where I PHWATTT! the living heck out of it, I cringe, the world knows I laid a serious freakin' egg. Easy note, Drum major clearly cuts off, and I just... blow the sucker. 1 tick.

Which is the more egregious error? But, both have the same weight....

I have to run, I'll continue after Night shift! Think about this stuff while I sling boxes for a few hours while amped on espresso.

[Gary Matczak]

Excellent dialog, and many great points made on this thread from many perspectives, and most are quite valid,............to me, the major issue in scoring today is that there is a general scenario that if you compete, and complete your show without penalties, it is virtually impossible to score less than a 50,............so basically all corps compete on a 50 point scale not 100,............so every set of scores seem compressed in that regard,......other than that it is all relative,............

[Jeff Ream]

when i marched there was a defined criteria jeff. but there was so much corruption and favoritism it didn't seem like there was a criteria. like you said many times one mans tic was not a tic for another man. just being real here.

odd. I've talked to many from that era that judged, and they say there was never a defined criteria for what was or wasn't a tick. Many have even posted it here.

now i will agree on corruption and favoritism

[BigW]

I'll get to Gary's point and explain that later.

Back to where I was....

Weight of error was the same. Nowadays, it's a given that some errors are more forgivable than others.

I'll try and go over some of the other serious flaws with the system. Jeff and John when he comes back all bronzed up from the Caribbean can help with omissions, additions, and corrections. I feel like I need a power point now.

One thing is the overwhelming negatives. You're looking for error, never what the heck is happening that's right. A lot happens that's good. Instead, the gist is this:

"Wrong, wrong, wrong some more, you really (stink)!!!!!!" I'll get to this later as well....

They tried to institute a "Zero-tick" at the end of the tick era where the judge would note that something was done well and clean, but it added more hieroglyphics to the sheets, and really... well, it was a very empty pat on the back for a competitor. Did you get anything for it? Nope. Except for the warm fuzzy.

Did musicality in any positive way come into play with ticks? No. Except on the GE sheet and MA. I'll get more to MA later.

Another real issue with the tick system was the notorious and rather infamous "zero-out", where a group was so bad they managed to tick enough to score a 0.0 in execution.

There was a problem with zero-out, and I'll tell a story involving Jim Sr. at a small Eastern PA circuit contest involving corps like the Belvederes and other NEPA units early-season where every, yes... every horn line got zeroed out. Jimmer tells the staff of one corps they were the best brass section of the afternoon, the response was "But... we all got zeros!"... Jim shrugs, smiles, and says, "Well, you were the best of the worst, I guess."

Using today's system, Jim could have ***ranked*** and rated (well, the ratings would all have been pretty ugly... ) every competitor that afternoon. Would he have preferred to have done that for the competitors? You bet he would have, had he had the proper tools given him to do so. It's my firm belief that things like this was why Jim was more than ready to ditch the ticks, and led the charge to do so. The tickless system does allow the judge to rank everyone regardless of how awful they are. It is a competition, after all.

So, eventually, DCA moves to the tickless system (incidentally... behind DCI and most Scholastic organizations by a few years ...), and I also believe it's no coincidence that when they did move to it, Bush ran wild. Why?

There's a lot to the stew. Ticks generated conservatism. Corps weren't really rewarded a lot for musicality or daring to do anything really different, they were rewarded more for avoiding error. In theory, the MA and PA judges were supposed to 'make up' for the loss in execution a corps would get playing a tougher book, but, we all know that wasn't really happening. You'd have been thought a kook if you thought you could make it up. You needed to be AS clean AND have a tougher book to make headway. MA was also a real "hot seat". A lot of judges were terrified of it. It required (requires, actually since it's in there in a different format now) some serious knowledge beyond knowing what a gacked note or a bad attack was to do your job well. Also, you were taking on the arranger directly. This became personal for many of these cats. Every arranger believed they wrote the best and toughest book, how dare anyone ever tell them otherwise! It was one thing to count ticks, they could blame that on the puddin'heads in the horn and drum lines. MA and PA became the place to be for the serious freaks and geeks.

At first, they kept MA separated, then, somehow, and I don't know the entire answer, they pretty much combined execution/performance with the Analysis. I do believe it was partly to save money by getting rid of a judge or two.

Certain things began to happen at that point. Think about this for a bit. Now, the judge has to be thinking about several things simultaneously while listening to the performance. Not only basic errors- the easy-peasy 'tick' stuff- Now- they have to be evaluating the quality of the performance from all aspects, when there is an error, just how serious or not it is in context of the program, AND figure out how challenging the book is to perform. A whooole lot of mental juggling. Oh, and offer some suggestions on how to rectify the problems you've uncovered.

So- while you're trying to figure out what's wrong, you're listening for what's right- and how tough it is to play the stuff. Some people really struggled with the transition to this. Some say that some folks are still struggling with it. It takes several years to really become comfortable with it. Fortunately for DCA, they can draw from people who have honed their skills from several scholastic-based circuits or even from DCI in at least one instance and they aren't learning on the job.

Gary's comment appears to feather with some of Joe's first post.

There's a reason we don't see scores like 23's and 44's any more. There are minimum scores in place. The theoretical "Dear Lord, What was just inflicted upon the audience just now/I couldn't understand one note/ the drill was all bumper people/total abject disaster!!!!!?" number isn't a zero like it used to be. It's dependent on the circuit and I have utterly no clue what the DCA minimum score is on the back of their sheets now.

It's 545 AM, and I do need my sleep. I'll get back to this and other issues later after some rest. Jeff et al, please feel free to add or correct. This is serious level stuff, I can't hit all of it in one easy shot.

Edited July 30, 2014 by BigW