What about difficulty?

[Schnitzel]

In the last few years there has been a shift of emphasis from assessing raw demand to examining content. This word parsing simply means that difficulty-for-difficulty's sake should likely not be rewarded, as there is a real potential for distracting or obfuscating the designed intent of both the musical and visual programs. The idea is to avoid shows with too much diverse and contradicting information in them. In simplest terms, the content emphasis has moved from "The What" to "The Why."

The idea is to insure that whatever demands/difficulties/responsibilities exist in a written program are motivated by the integrity and clarity of the total product, rather than just being "loaded" to get higher demand consideration.

Most would recognize the results of this philosophical shift as "more entertaining" accessible shows over the recent past. The conundrum is how much can you "cram" into a show and still have it be accessible to a general audience. This is also where the discussion of whither field judges begins to be an issue. Particularly in terms of demand/content. Some "stuff" is there almost exclusively for the judge on the ground that never gets noticed by an audience, no matter how sophisticated.

This revised philosophy also implies that judges exercise more subjective "taste" in their analysis. What devices are appropriate and which are not? This can easily have the effect of making scores more "inconsistent," depending on the experiences and values of the judge. There's always a tension between the objective and the subjective in any system.

[Fran Haring]

Semi- related to the topic....

I remember back in the day.... circa 1970 or '71 or so... when a 5-point content analysis subcaption was added to the brass sheets for junior corps, pre-DCI.

There even was an album made called "5.0"... featuring the two corps (Madison Scouts and Argonne Rebels) whose horn lines had achieved perfect scores in that subcaption in 1971.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Fran Haring

[camel lips]

No one is going to give you a strait answer on this.

I was told by a chief judge once you are given credit for what your performing and how your performing it, how freaking vuage is that? It's like a weatherman saying it's going to be fair to partly sunny with a chance for a afternoon shower.

generally speaking on today's sheets I think reward is given for demand!

Edited August 29, 2015 by camel lips

[BigW]

In the last few years there has been a shift of emphasis from assessing raw demand to examining content. This word parsing simply means that difficulty-for-difficulty's sake should likely not be rewarded, as there is a real potential for distracting or obfuscating the designed intent of both the musical and visual programs. The idea is to avoid shows with too much diverse and contradicting information in them. In simplest terms, the content emphasis has moved from "The What" to "The Why."

The idea is to insure that whatever demands/difficulties/responsibilities exist in a written program are motivated by the integrity and clarity of the total product, rather than just being "loaded" to get higher demand consideration.

Most would recognize the results of this philosophical shift as "more entertaining" accessible shows over the recent past. The conundrum is how much can you "cram" into a show and still have it be accessible to a general audience. This is also where the discussion of whither field judges begins to be an issue. Particularly in terms of demand/content. Some "stuff" is there almost exclusively for the judge on the ground that never gets noticed by an audience, no matter how sophisticated.

This revised philosophy also implies that judges exercise more subjective "taste" in their analysis. What devices are appropriate and which are not? This can easily have the effect of making scores more "inconsistent," depending on the experiences and values of the judge. There's always a tension between the objective and the subjective in any system.

The "Why" is more an effect issue. If what you're doing makes no sense except to try and meet some perceived compulsory exercise rather than actually make sense to the design aesthetic- yeah... you do deserved to be crucified for it in Effect.

Let me say this: If one is judging, say... Brass and you comment that yes, that phrase is challenging for the performer and also well played, but it makes no logical sense within the show design, you will get called out for judging out of caption by that team's staff pretty hardcore, you will catch severe *Bleep* for it, and rightly so. That's someone else's task to evaluate, rank and rate, unless DCI and/or DCA have consciously allowed more inter-captional bleed-over. In DCA's case, I would tend to doubt that.

[Jeff Ream]

No one is going to give you a strait answer on this.

I was told by a chief judge once you are given credit for what your performing and how your performing it, how freaking vuage is that? It's like a weatherman saying it's going to be fair to partly sunny with a chance for a afternoon shower.

generally speaking on today's sheets I think reward is given for demand!

if you are playing whole notes cleanly, and the next corps is playing 16th notes cleanly, who wins?

16th notes cleanly because the judge rewarded them for what they played and how they played it. it's not that hard of a concept to grasp. A judges job is to be sure they link the "what" to the "how". So if they tell you how you are doing what and theres issues, then both boxes arent super high scores. if they tell you how you are doing what is ###### good, you get high scores in both boxes.

[BigW]

There is a linked relationship between both. We can take a look at Jeff's example. Whole notes clean- not a lot of what (look... for this instance I'm not assuming it's some Major 9 chord with the 5th in the bass in an extreme range or tempo with complicated drill, etc...), so how much 'how' can you truthfully give it? They're not demonstrating a lot of achievement in playing that unison middle of the staff whole note while standing there. Likely the bottom box goes above top here. There are guidelines usually set by every circuit as to how much what and how can skew apart from one another so you don't get out of control ridiculous results. Yes, in that way it is somewhat complexity driven- but not totally.

If the complexity isn't understandable and you can't clearly demonstrate all that wonderful stuff written in the chart because it's all a big mess or no one's following all those accent and dynamic markings written in that wonderful score- you're getting bupkis. You're demonstrating a lot of noise.

It's not that hard to fathom. This is why Corps send reps to the pre-season clinics and report back to their staffs how the system in place is being implemented....

[Fred Windish]

I'm gaining a better understanding of the theory of drum corps judging, and hope others are, too!

Looking back on the recent DCI discussion, I remember discontent over the matter of playing while moving. Without going back to check, a comparison was made between Blue Devils and Cadets. One poster even put a stopwatch on each finalist show and ranked the corps who 'stood' the most. Most respondents considered this an advantage in brass execution compared to another corps that moves around more while also playing their instrument. I certainly believe this to be true. Do any of you?

Judging from the responses here, not to worry. There IS an equalizer built into the caption, it's just not a formal notation, but rather left inside the mind of the adjudicator.

In the case of DCI, some claimed the Cadets cost themself a championship by doing too much. The inference being, next year the Cadets should consider 'watering' things down to be more successful. Doesn't seem like the proper message, does it?

[BigW]

There are times where doing less can be more. With one team I worked with in the scholastic field we did just that and got really nice compliments about how we did a more complex show after we actually simplified. Part of it was readability and accessibility. part of it was dumb luck.

[Fran Haring]

There are times where doing less can be more. With one team I worked with in the scholastic field we did just that and got really nice compliments about how we did a more complex show after we actually simplified. Part of it was readability and accessibility. part of it was dumb luck.

Does this fall into "If I can't see it or hear it, it's not happening" category?

Over the years, It seems to me that some corps have done "difficulty for difficulty's sake" and wonder why they're not getting credit. There's an example of that which comes to mind, from a corps in the early 1990s, that I won't get into here, for various reasons. LOL.

Other corps make sure that when they do something difficult that the judges, and the audience, can see it or hear it. When a corps moves fast and/or pulls off a physically challenging visual, it's featured; when a corps plays an insanely tough brass or percussion passage, it's featured. That, to me, is good show design.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Fran Haring

[Schnitzel]

Let me say this: If one is judging, say... Brass and you comment that yes, that phrase is challenging for the performer and also well played, but it makes no logical sense within the show design, you will get called out for judging out of caption by that team's staff pretty hardcore, you will catch severe *Bleep* for it, and rightly so. That's someone else's task to evaluate, rank and rate, unless DCI and/or DCA have consciously allowed more inter-captional bleed-over. In DCA's case, I would tend to doubt that.

Happens all the time, actually - it's about musicianship and the ability to perform meaningful information. There is a decided overlap in performance and effect. Hoe do you play appropriate meaningful phrases when all you're playing is a technical etude devoid of expressive substance?

And, PS: DCA more than any other league stresses "Communication and Entertainment" in EVERY caption. Even field.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Schnitzel