Fred Windish Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) From just the 'lowly spectator' view, the old tick/clipboard action was fascinating to watch and discuss. To a point, it helped to better involve the 'experts' in the audience than the present system. Often heard: "Man, he was really NAILING their drumline!" "Look at the Brass Judge just standing there for the last couple minutes. WOW!" "Geez, how can you NOT get them on that?" "Aw, come on! Even I can see those lousy intervals." "What I watched from the judges says Cabs will win this." Of course, this was all un-scientific. Many times, the hornline that appeared to get hammered won their caption ! Edited July 30, 2014 by Fred Windish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donincardona Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 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 well let's go there. if eric perrilou was judging and sky's snare lie is not playing in unison and has phasing with in the lineor a sanare is out of sync for a second or just misses that's a tick.if it persists for 10 beats it's another tick. now it's sky. he had ties with them so sky didn't get ticked. on comes the cabs and he shreds them for every little thing. that's the simple criteria and the simple courruption and favoritism. this was a hypothetical event but it's how it went. and look no further that 1972 DCA. the worst most corrupt judging in my career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajlisko Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) >> well let's go there. if eric perrilou was judging and sky's snare lie is not playing in unison and has phasing with in the lineor a sanare is out of sync for a second or just misses that's a tick.if it persists for 10 beats it's another tick. now it's sky. he had ties with them so sky didn't get ticked. on comes the cabs and he shreds them for every little thing. that's the simple criteria and the simple courruption and favoritism. this was a hypothetical event but it's how it went. and look no further that 1972 DCA. the worst most corrupt judging in my career. << Don, I think I know what you're trying to do here with your reference to "hypothetical", but using Eric as an example was just plain wrong ... the fact is that Eric judged very few DCA shows after he left Sky in 1970 ... and he never had us high and I doubt he would "shred" the Cabs ... Eric was tough, but as honest a judge as the day was long ... his main contribution was the addition of Percussion Analysis to the drum sheets in 1971 ... he mainly judged GSC shows and I&E's, rarely in the limelight ... So ... please clarify for all the example you gave and really verify that the point you were making with Eric was hypothetical ... I would appreciate that ... Andy Edited July 30, 2014 by ajlisko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donincardona Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 >> well let's go there. if eric perrilou was judging and sky's snare lie is not playing in unison and has phasing with in the lineor a sanare is out of sync for a second or just misses that's a tick.if it persists for 10 beats it's another tick. now it's sky. he had ties with them so sky didn't get ticked. on comes the cabs and he shreds them for every little thing. that's the simple criteria and the simple courruption and favoritism. this was a hypothetical event but it's how it went. and look no further that 1972 DCA. the worst most corrupt judging in my career. << Don, I think I know what you're trying to do here with your reference to "hypothetical", but using Eric as an example was just plain wrong ... the fact is that Eric judged very few DCA shows after he left Sky in 1970 ... and he never had us high and I doubt he would "shred" the Cabs ... Eric was tough, but as honest a judge as the day was long ... his main contribution was the addition of Percussion Analysis to the drum sheets in 1971 ... he mainly judged GSC shows and I&E's, rarely in the limelight ... So ... please clarify for all the example you gave and really verify that the point you were making with Eric was hypothetical ... I would appreciate that ... Andy ok andy. i knew that would rankle you're feathers. i should have used fictional judges. my intent was not to say eric ever did that. it is what a lot of them did back them. eric , when he judged , was fair. but many were not. so please excuse me using him as a reference. does that help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajlisko Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 >>does that help?<< Yes .. it does ... but only if you believe it ... the fact of the matter is that when you and I marched, Eric, Parks, Luedee, Flowers, Goodhart, Shelmar, Thompson and other top flight "instructors" did NOT judge DCA ... and did NOT judge their competition as implied ... the "corruption and favoritism" came from ex-marching members who made their way into judging with a chip on their shoulder ... we in NY, as you in Rochester, dealt with many individuals who had to "prove their point" and "make their mark" when judging a show ... it was NEVER a healthy situation ... but one that permeated throughout the circuit ... So ... thank you ... for it does help ... Eric is no longer with us ... and clarifying your statement is appreciated ... Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donincardona Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 >>does that help?<< Yes .. it does ... but only if you believe it ... the fact of the matter is that when you and I marched, Eric, Parks, Luedee, Flowers, Goodhart, Shelmar, Thompson and other top flight "instructors" did NOT judge DCA ... and did NOT judge their competition as implied ... the "corruption and favoritism" came from ex-marching members who made their way into judging with a chip on their shoulder ... we in NY, as you in Rochester, dealt with many individuals who had to "prove their point" and "make their mark" when judging a show ... it was NEVER a healthy situation ... but one that permeated throughout the circuit ... So ... thank you ... for it does help ... Eric is no longer with us ... and clarifying your statement is appreciated ... Andy no problem andy. like i said i should have used a fictional name. BTW i knew eric and i liked him a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Quickly, back to the minimum score issue. The minimum number can be whatever the circuit or organization wants it to be. Again, I have no idea what the DCA minimum score is now. A guess? Somewhere between 48-52 points. Why was this done? I can't tell you in DCA or DCI's case. In scholastic circuits, it was done partly to keep numbers in line with the traditional grading system to make it easier for the students to know how good or not they were. ("We scored an 88, kids. That's like a solid 'B' for tonight's effort.....") I can guess, but again, I don't know. For things like this, I wish I could have talked to people like Mickey and Dick Pronti when I had the chances to about it. And yeah, I miss both of them as well. My guess is that they wanted to get rid of those numbers below 50 for a couple of reasons. 1: Let's face it. People still talk about some of those really low scores, swallow, and cringe about them 30 or more years later. ("Oh, man. Fran, you remember the Barely Normal VFW Lion Cadets from Fritters, Alabama at that show in Belchville when they got the 22? Jeez, that was really, really horrible.... Yeah it was, especially when the soloist swallowed his mouthpiece and he sounded better playing through the leadpipe...") You're trying to sell DCA or DCI as a really great product, expand the brand, people see scores like that, and it doesn't look good. Those who know the way the game was played understand it, those who do not don't. 2: We can get into a legitimate battle and debate about the concerns people have for self-esteem nowadays, and I truthfully don't want to here. But this kind of stuff could really undermine a program. "We scored a 13.6! We (STINK!)" How do you recruit and build? How do you retain people? Yes, Westshore did after that 37 point show. It could be done. Larry Hershman and Chuck Saia deserve a lot of credit for making success happen from that. But think of how many corps didn't dig out of the hole and now we sit over a beer and reminisce and wish they were still involved in DCA. There aren't enough corps around anymore for anyone to shrug and not care when someone fails because there are still hundreds more out there. If getting a 62 looks better instead of a 22, as long as the corps are ranked properly, and the staff of the corps and its members understand they have a lot of work to do from that 62 point score, I'm fine with it myself. 3: This is an issue that's been around for decades, actually. IIRC, around the 1977-79 period, the perfect score in DCA contests was 105 points. I was told BITD DCA wanted to get numbers higher even then to generate interest and excitement. I'm pretty sure on this, folks. I believe the Allentown PBS broadcast even broke down the numbers onscreen at one point and showed a 105 point total. Then the perfect score was set back at 100, and numbers dropped back into the 88-90 point range for top corps for awhile. This leads back to Joe's original post. I need to take care of stuff before work. I felt I had to set up a lot of things that happened in the past to really explain some of the scoring mechanics in play, and I'll hit on that next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donincardona Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Quickly, back to the minimum score issue. The minimum number can be whatever the circuit or organization wants it to be. Again, I have no idea what the DCA minimum score is now. A guess? Somewhere between 48-52 points. Why was this done? I can't tell you in DCA or DCI's case. In scholastic circuits, it was done partly to keep numbers in line with the traditional grading system to make it easier for the students to know how good or not they were. ("We scored an 88, kids. That's like a solid 'B' for tonight's effort.....") I can guess, but again, I don't know. For things like this, I wish I could have talked to people like Mickey and Dick Pronti when I had the chances to about it. And yeah, I miss both of them as well. My guess is that they wanted to get rid of those numbers below 50 for a couple of reasons. 1: Let's face it. People still talk about some of those really low scores, swallow, and cringe about them 30 or more years later. ("Oh, man. Fran, you remember the Barely Normal VFW Lion Cadets from Fritters, Alabama at that show in Belchville when they got the 22? Jeez, that was really, really horrible.... Yeah it was, especially when the soloist swallowed his mouthpiece and he sounded better playing through the leadpipe...") You're trying to sell DCA or DCI as a really great product, expand the brand, people see scores like that, and it doesn't look good. Those who know the way the game was played understand it, those who do not don't. 2: We can get into a legitimate battle and debate about the concerns people have for self-esteem nowadays, and I truthfully don't want to here. But this kind of stuff could really undermine a program. "We scored a 13.6! We (STINK!)" How do you recruit and build? How do you retain people? Yes, Westshore did after that 37 point show. It could be done. Larry Hershman and Chuck Saia deserve a lot of credit for making success happen from that. But think of how many corps didn't dig out of the hole and now we sit over a beer and reminisce and wish they were still involved in DCA. There aren't enough corps around anymore for anyone to shrug and not care when someone fails because there are still hundreds more out there. If getting a 62 looks better instead of a 22, as long as the corps are ranked properly, and the staff of the corps and its members understand they have a lot of work to do from that 62 point score, I'm fine with it myself. 3: This is an issue that's been around for decades, actually. IIRC, around the 1977-79 period, the perfect score in DCA contests was 105 points. I was told BITD DCA wanted to get numbers higher even then to generate interest and excitement. I'm pretty sure on this, folks. I believe the Allentown PBS broadcast even broke down the numbers onscreen at one point and showed a 105 point total. Then the perfect score was set back at 100, and numbers dropped back into the 88-90 point range for top corps for awhile. This leads back to Joe's original post. I need to take care of stuff before work. I felt I had to set up a lot of things that happened in the past to really explain some of the scoring mechanics in play, and I'll hit on that next. you ar correct about the 105 perfect score. came about in 1970. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Thank goodness, Don, I know to many who don't know, it sounds absolutely crazy-go-nuts when it's mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donincardona Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Thank goodness, Don, I know to many who don't know, it sounds absolutely crazy-go-nuts when it's mentioned. it's funny how we do a DCA show and get an 88 , then do a legion show and get an 83. then we would count out the extra 5 to see where we matched up in DCA. it was crazy stupid. like we were fooling ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.