Return the power to the performers (?)

[mfrontz]

More and more I see people on DCP saying things like 'The adults have more to do with the outcome than the kids' or 'the design is what is being judged' or 'let's put the emphasis on performance rather than design' or some such. The implication is that this has somehow gotten worse over the years.

Didn't the great instructors of the past have just as much to do with show outcome as today? Can we imagine the success of Spirit without Ott? Garfield without Zingali, Prime and Aungst? BD without Downey and Float? And so on and so on.

It seems to me that we should want better design because it gives the performers more opportunity to succeed. I doubt what we want is to have a situation where 150 kids are shown a football field littered with instruments and equipment and are told, 'Okay, it is up to you.' I also don't think we want all the corps marching the same show so that we judge performance alone.

So has there been a change over the years? Do designers do too much designing? What is to be done to give performers more of a hand in the outcome? Or is this all because BD won yet again?

[BRASSO]

' I also don't think we want all the corps marching the same show so that we judge performance alone.

I think most DCP'ers will agree with this. Ican't think of a year when All the Corps marched the same show ( going back to the 60's). So no, I would not be in favor of this sirt of change either. Near as I can tell, nobody is advocating that the Corps march the same shows either. So thats good, imo.

[31rabbit]

it reflects a shift from a centralized goal of Showcasing Elite Talent Combined with Power into more Employing Available Talent within Exceptional Design.
It does not mean that Displaying Member Talent has gone wayside, but that contending corps prioritize Advancing Thematically via Talent rather than simply Showcasing (or showing off).

the competitive element that has been removed from the member's agency is Show Design. Not that it a corps' destiny was ever entirely in the hands of the members, but it could be argued that execution formerly controlled a greater degree of the outcome than it does currently. When there were fewer variations conceptually to a show (see: pre-2000), talent and ethos could carry the day if the concept and design were acceptably good. Now, with such a high ceiling to design, no amount of talent/skill/determination by the members can 'rescue' a show with only average design. General Effect represents 40% of the score, and a show's GE potential is largely established over a drawing-board by the design staff long before auditions. While a corps can improve thematically and GE-wise during the season, like other captions it becomes increasingly difficult to gain ground competitively at the higher levels of contention.

[mfrontz]

I think most DCP'ers will agree with this. Ican't think of a year when All the Corps marched the same show ( going back to the 60's). So no, I would not be in favor of this sirt of change either. Near as I can tell, nobody is advocating that the Corps march the same shows either. So thats good, imo.

Agreed. I think that I was using a bit of hyperbole.

[mfrontz]

I would be interested to know when a talented group rescued an average design. Not being snarky, just would like an example. I would hold pending evidence that in every era the shows that won competitively were also the best designed for their time.

[MelloMatt]

I would be interested to know when a talented group rescued an average design. Not being snarky, just would like an example. I would hold pending evidence that in every era the shows that won competitively were also the best designed for their time.

Personally, I felt that Crown was this way for most of this season. Up until a few weeks before finals, I felt that their design was not at the level of any of the other top 6 corps, but they performed the h*** out of the show (pun completely intended). It certainly improved going down the stretch, but still.

[Schnitzel]

As I see it, the biggest problem is the inability to separate design from a demonstration of performer skills. The members are assessed on what the design asks them to do, and how well they do it. It may be that we're at the point now where some of the demands on the performers not only don't enhance the spectator's experience, it may actually diminish it!

This progression has been seen in other subjective performance-based competitive activities, particularly in music and drama - the two closest media to corps. More-is-more is relatively easy to assess, but at some point just isn't effective. So many folks, whether they identify it or not, are suffering "information fatigue" in pageantry - too much "stuff" to be digested in one sitting - sometimes in several.

The next step would be trusting judges to exercise more subjective judgements about the appropriateness or "taste" of what is included and credited in a program - at some point more-is-more just doesn't service performers or audience well.

Have you noticed that some WC corps feel free to stand and play more often of late? Maybe even a bit less density in percussion writing? That might be due to the over-complication of some of the products leading to this point . . .

[MGCpimpOtimp]

General Effect represents 40% of the score, and a show's GE potential is largely established over a drawing-board by the design staff long before auditions. While a corps can improve thematically and GE-wise during the season, like other captions it becomes increasingly difficult to gain ground competitively at the higher levels of contention.

40% of the score is still less than half the score. You can take pride in winning drums/horns or any other caption performance award, but if you want to win, you have to have the best overall product.

There are a lot of non judged things that have just as huge an effect on placement as the design staff. How well your admin runs the corps, feeds them, good rehearsal space, adequate sleep, riable transportation.

[BoyWonder1911]

I think you're overlooking one important thing.

Sure, the performance is for the marchers, but the program doesn't belong to the marchers only. It's as much a competition between the organizations themselves as it is a competition between the marchers.

When a corps wins the Founder's Trophy, the entire organization wins it, not just those who marched.

When a movie wins an award, it isn't just those who acted in the movie who gets to partake in the award, it's everyone who was involved in producing it.

So yes, show design IS judged, albeit in an indirect way. A received score reflects not only the marchers, but those who designed it, those who hired the designers, the board, the director, the volunteers, etc. It's a group effort.

This is the way it is, and the way it should be, but most people assume the activity is just for those who are performing on the field. They are just a part of the organization.

If the staff decides a marcher/performer doesn't fit the criteria to join, they look for another candidate. If a prospective marcher/performer decides a corps doesn't have what it takes to provide the right experience for him/her, they look elsewhere for a corps that does meet their criteria.

Sure, the performers are the ones who pay, and it's the staff who normally gets paid, but that's just supply and demand at work.

A win for BD, or Crown, or Cadets, etc., is just as much a win for the organization as a whole as it is for those who perform the show.

Having scores that reflect only performance and not design is backward thinking. There should be a good balance, and right now I think there is a pretty good balance.

[31rabbit]

if called to answer about talent trumping design, the first that comes to mind in terms of a championship is 1988.

and possibly 1992, but I may just like that airplane show inordinately much.

I think PR in the 90's was a corps High on Power and low on concept, and they had a great amount of success with mostly meat & potatoes type shows.

It's also my opinion that Niagra Falls was design inferior (not design inferior on the grand scheme, but comparatively) to the 2000 Cadets show, but that it tied them for top honors on the strength and speed of the members and a show which allowed them show it off.