Fred Windish Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Let's squeeze in a little more modern drum corps education. I need it! Many years ago, as a marcher, I recall a new caption introduced. Believe it was called Content Analysis. Remember, I'm not a musician. I think this was added to give special credit to brass lines who made an attempt to play more complex and challenging arrangements. This hasn't been a separate column for quite some time. So what happened? Was it determined to be foolish, or maybe blended into another caption? Does seem to have been a worthy effort, in that simple stuff should be easier to do better. Therefore, in today's game, how is credit for content applied? Is a heavier challenge (whatever that is) given a little more patience in scoring? More tolerance if the result is not quite perfect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 in today's world, you get credit if it's done well. you don't get love just for trying. another great explanation: anyone can write a hard show. Why should you get credit for trying and not doing it well? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 It's also important to remember that hard ≠good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I forget who it's attributed to but some one of note in the activity said that if you composed a musical book entirely to meet the top box difficulty criteria, you'd end up with something no one would want to listen to at all . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 OK BITD what was the caption/subcaption that meant "How hard your music is, and how well you play it". Thought it was CA but "How Well" was thrown in there too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) In the early days, it was Music Analysis/MA, usually 10 points. There was PA for percussion, worth 8 (?), Jim. And back in that era, MA was solely about what was was able to be read as tough to do- not as much how well it was done, though there was still a correlation. Edited August 28, 2015 by BigW 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I forget who it's attributed to but some one of note in the activity said that if you composed a musical book entirely to meet the top box difficulty criteria, you'd end up with something no one would want to listen to at all . This is, speaking very approximately, how I felt about Cadets' (DCI) show until about Atlanta this year. Clearly a very difficult show, clearly remarkably clean relative to the difficulty (all season long), but for many weeks, not very musical. And then just when they finally started to sell the show, they totally changed their visual look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 Consideration of this issue was found in the many 2015 DCI Forum discussions up through Championships. I do believe, as in some Olympic sports, Degree of Difficulty should enter into the evaluation. BigW seems to suggest it does when he mentions 'top box difficulty criteria.' My memory of that old Content Analysis score is shady. I do remember it being controversial. It went away for some reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 It evolved into MA/PA, EA, so on. Eventually, it was decided judges should simultaneously evaluate what and how. Saved some judge's fees. Some folks are better at it than others. One has to have a very split personality more or less to simultaneously evaluate quality and also figure out how tough this is to actually do. But yes, the issue of "Anyone can do a tough chart badly!" has been around for 30+ years and is still a very cautionary issue for corps staffs. Another phrase seen on sheets, "What is achieved and not merely attempted..." is also essential. Sometimes one may know there's something in that score or likely is in there that the musicians aren't doing at all in the performance. Can you credit difficulty based on assumptions? No, no, and... no. Now, if they do it, and not well, you can at least give some credit for it because, at least they've done it well enough that it can be discerned. That explains the wide gaps on recaps between the top and bottom boxes in some cases. The potential is recognized but the team just isn't performing up to the discerned potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 As for Olympic Degree of Difficulty... IIRC there are some required elements in there of x dives of x degrees, you just can't do 3.0 degree of Difficulty for your entire set of Dives. Also well, there is a risk vs. reward too... You blow that 3.0 difficulty dive and end up with a 6 and I do a Swan Dive near perfectly, I beat yah 9.8 to 6. 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.