Leaderboard

Good point. Seems the Blue Devils are quite often "slotted" in 1st or 2nd.

Not unless there are scores

mountain, your molehill is calling Boston 16 did a better job attacking windmills

If you'd like, I can call you and announce the scores that I think the corps should have.

You are just the CUTEST when you play the "I'm gonna catch someone in a contradiction to make myself look smart" game! Also, as Mike pointed out, those "rules for things other than just safety" aren't coming from DCI, but societal norms. If a corps wants to do a Caligula show and march with no pants or underwear, that's their artistic choice. They also know that they will lose a heavy majority of spectators who will not want to see a performance of that sort in public. These designers may be artistic and expressive, but they also know that, first and foremost, THEY HAVE TO PUT BUTTS IN SEATS. You don't need rules limiting artistic design in that matter, because the designers already know not to do that or else they will lose those butts.

Since this is a youth activity, and presented outside in public to people of varying, if you consider it "backpedaling" to be in favor of adhering to general rules of public decency, so be it. There are laws on the books that do not require special rules within DCI, but whatever.

I finally had a chance to read the details of each proposal. My only issue is with the two that, after reading, don't make any sense. "No Scores until July 1st" and "Ordinals Only." Fundamentally, I struggle with solutions for problems that don't exist. Will Pitts doesn't convince me in his document that he is addressing anything that is a problem. Same for Hopkins. Granted, he is a poor writer. So maybe that is the reason I am not seeing it. I think the reason for the confusion coming from their proposals (proper English aside) is that they are dancing around their real concern. Slotting. For whatever reasons, they don't seem comfortable in calling a spade a spade. They would make a better case if they said something like this: "Early season slotting makes overcoming numerical deficits problematic."

Kind of like making the cut to play the weekend at a pro golf tournament!!! LOL

Proposal: Brass amplification limitations Summary: Currently with no limits, corps are free to mic brass musicians as they wish, either individually or as a whole. This proposal calls for a limit on the number of brass musicians who can be amplified at any one time to be set at six. IN FAVOR Alternative: I would be more in favor of 10% rule (with rounding) instead of 6 50 brass = 5 ampd 60 brass = 6 ampd 70 brass = 7 ampd 76 brass = 8 ampd 80 brass = 8 ampd

Proposal: Annual Rules Congress Summary: Changed to a biennial process in recent years, this proposal calls for instructors and judges to come together on a yearly basis to discuss rules changes as part of Drum Corps International’s annual winter business meetings. The proposal specifies that even-numbered years would be open to rules change proposals from the corps, while in odd-numbered years the Rules and System Task Force will be able to submit rules changes to allow for adjustments, amendments and clarifications. IN FAVOR As long as....the odd-numbered years would allow adjustments to ONLY those NEW rule changes made in the previous even year...not to adjust proposals from 2 years prior.

Proposal: No scoring before July 1 PROS: Gives corps more freedom to experiment creatively without the fear of being “slotted” based upon the early scores. Corps can take more chances in "fixing" their program without the fear of loosing to other competitors. CONS: Just gives corps another reason to not have complete shows for early events. Making these events non-competitive MAY hurt ticket sales for early competitions whose price elasticity is already relatively elastic. Leaks were also rampant during the 2016 season when complete scores were not available and thus demonstrating that the public was opposed to this “lack of transparency” with scores. IN FAVOR or OPPOSED: OPPOSED ALTERNATIVE: Recorded commentary and critiques are made readily available to the public in lieu of scores up to July 1st.

Another cool thing to see is 2017 videos are available for download on Marchingmusicdownloads.com now...and they have corps out of the top 12 available, INCLUDING Seattle Cascades who didn't make the CD! Nice, because I liked that show :) Cost is $15 a video though, so if you want all thats available outside the top 12, its gonna be a little expensive.

I don’t like the first four. I’m good with the rest. Jim likes the ordinal proposal. Fine. I’ll let him stay here anyway.

Translation: We are too wimpy to deal with ticking off any of the caption heads so we will just ask DCI for four more members to be added to the total.

From Brad's facebook page. "Well, my first rules proposal is out in the wild, so I thought I would elaborate just a bit more than the small snippet included in the DCI article. My proposal is to increase the maximum membership size of a DCI corps from 150 to 154. This proposal came about after a series of discussions with Russ Gavin over the summer about needing an additional conductor, but not having any available membership positions to do so. The original idea was to make it so conductors do not count towards the 150 limit, but that just opened up a can of worms about what constitutes a conductor. As we put numbers to paper, it came down to the addition of 4 marching members as solving the most common section breakdown pressure points. For the past few years, the Blue Stars have been using the following: 80 brass 37 guard 31 percussion 2 conductors In any given year it might be 30 percussion and 3 conductors or some other small variation, but our goal at the start of the year has been close to that breakdown. But, we would really like to have 80 brass and 40 guard without having to reduce the percussion section. That's just us. Other corps may want to experiment with small vocal choirs, or not have to sacrifice a cymbal section to march 80 brass, or want to have a year with 12 snares, or any number of combinations. And adding 4 was just enough to open up these possibilities. I've already received a couple questions about logistics. Most corps are chartering buses now, and bus capacities are 54-56 people per bus (162-168 seats). This proposal very specifically keeps the total corps number below the common capacity of three buses. The truth is, for most corps these folks are already on tour. They are already traveling and eating. They already have uniforms and equipment. They are already training and practicing with the group. They're called alternates right now. This proposal gives 4 more people the opportunity to get on the field per drum corps without radically altering what we already do. I will be interested in hearing the dialog at the upcoming rules congress and my hope is the proposal will be passed for implementation in 2018."

My initial reactions upon reading.... 2018 rules proposals at-a-glance Proposal: Increase maximum membership to 154 Proposed by: Brad Furlano, Blue Stars Summary: Currently set at 150, this four-member increase is proposed as a way to give corps more flexibility to set the number of performers in each section as they see fit. On the record: “Designers and caption heads [would] no longer have to lobby for the desired numbers for each section. Corps would be able to have 80 brass and 40 guard without having to sacrifice a standard sized percussion section or conductors.” Meh... what's 4 more members and it kinda makes sense on the surface of it.. we were held to 128 for YEARS so it's not as if we haven't had odd numbers before.... Proposal: Extend World Championship Finals to 15 corps Proposed by: Michael Cesario, outgoing DCI Artistic Director Summary: Since Drum Corps International’s founding in 1972, the top-12 scoring corps have advanced to the World Championship Finals. This proposal looks to extend that lineup to the top-15 advancing corps from the DCI World Championship Semifinals. This proposal is designated as a procedural change. As such, it may not be “voted on” by the instructors caucus, but it will still be discussed amongst that group and their feedback will be shared with the directors who will ultimately consider and vote on the proposal. On the record: “To allow recognition of the level of achievement in all corps, especially those currently in the 11-15 positions. To give added status to corps for use in local fundraising and general recruitment.” Everyone is a winner... let's not hurt anyones feelings and give EVERYONE a medal! ABSOLUTE CODSWOLLOP!!!! Hardly anybody in the world wanted Mandarins to make Finals last year more than me and I was GUTTED when they missed out... but that is the nature of the game. Last year will make Mandarins THAT much more hungry this year. Keep it to 12. Proposal: No scoring before July 1 Proposed by: Will Pitts, Phantom Regiment Summary: For all contests before July 1, no scores will be given. Corps will be "adjudicated" with recorded commentary and critiques, but no scores will be assigned or announced. On the record: “There are numerous moments in the summer where designers and teachers are encouraged to make adjustments to the show to create better clarity/definition. If these comments can be made during a no-scoring period, corps are able to make adjustments before their performances have competitive implications.” Garbage... yes scores can be skewwhiff early in the season, but I still think it's important that corps get a number AS WELL as feedback.. It's all good for a judge to suggest changes, but a number gives designers an idea of just how wholesale those changes should be. Proposal: No scores – ordinals only Proposed by: George Hopkins, The Cadets Summary: Instead of scores, this proposal calls for corps to simply be ranked by ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). The order of finish will be determined based on ordinals, with General Effect judges as the exception. The effect judges will still assign scores, however, those scores will only be used for tie-breaking situations. On the record: “This eliminates the ability, more or less, for someone to spread big or someone to make no decisions. All decisions are equal. Now, if someone wants to put someone in fifth in brass … OK … that is a substantial decision and that decision will weigh into the total.” I'll have some of whatever George has had.. this is ridiculous and is a suggestion made by a guy that has teed off just about everyone in the activity who is directing a corps that is most definitely travelling in a Southbound trajectory... Proposal: Annual Rules Congress Proposed by: Kevin Shah, Blue Knights Summary: Changed to a biennial process in recent years, this proposal calls for instructors and judges to come together on a yearly basis to discuss rules changes as part of Drum Corps International’s annual winter business meetings. The proposal specifies that even-numbered years would be open to rules change proposals from the corps, while in odd-numbered years the Rules and System Task Force will be able to submit rules changes to allow for adjustments, amendments and clarifications. On the record: “We should allow our system to evolve at the rate of the activity. If there is a proposal that is passed but needs adjustment, currently we need to wait two years before addressing it.” Agreed... Proposal: Brass amplification limitations Proposed by: Michael Martin, The Cavaliers Summary: Currently with no limits, corps are free to mic brass musicians as they wish, either individually or as a whole. This proposal calls for a limit on the number of brass musicians who can be amplified at any one time to be set at six. On the record: “This rule change would still allow for amplification of soloists and small groups (enough to represent every instrument and two more), but would prohibit groups from being able to amplify entire brass lines, which dilutes one of the great identifiers for each brass section.” Agree 100%. I am not against amplification and done right with innovation this is something I genuinely believe is good for the activity (see Bluecoats Kinetic Noise and Vanguard last year). THAT SAID... we are in danger of overegging the pudding and destroying that pure brass sound that makes us unique. Proposal: Add a “Brass 2” judge at large shows Proposed by: Michael Martin, The Cavaliers Summary: The brass caption is currently judged by a single on-field judge at DCI Tour events. This proposal calls for an additional brass judge to evaluate corps from an “upstairs” press box position at large regional events and the DCI World Championships. On the record: “A single brass judge cannot accurately assess all of the strengths and weaknesses of a brass section in a single performance, particularly overall sonority, balance within the brass section, and ensemble.” Wholeheartedly disagree... I'd go the OPPOSITE direction and take the judges OFF the field altogether... they are a visual distraction and with the speed of modern drum corps, are a danger to not only themselves but the performers as well. The game has shifted so far to GE anyways, that pretty much everything can be judged from the stands anyways... as a midway alternative, I would perhaps have designated places on the front sideline where field level judges could be, but NOT oon the field. The last thing I think we need is another green shirt on the field. Proposal: Percussion adjudication and music analysis Proposed by: Kevin Shah, Blue Knights Summary: This proposal packs two pieces into one. The first: Remove the Field Percussion and Ensemble Percussion judges and replace them with a percussion judge who will evaluate performances on the field. The second: Utilize a Music Analysis 2 judge at large regional events and the DCI World Championships who has a percussion focus. On the record: “After much discussion in the percussion community, there is a growing consensus that these evolutions will lead us to a more desirable system for all. We should, through policy or education, instruct the Percussion Judge to stay safely out of the way of the performers yet position themselves in an advantageous way to experience the percussion performance.” See above... my thoughts on judges are pretty unflexible. Proposal: Update the music analysis adjudication sheet Proposed by: Kevin Shah, Blue Knights Summary: This proposal calls for the Rules and Systems Task Force to update the criteria used by adjudicators to evaluate Music Analysis based on discussion and feedback from the music caucus at the upcoming DCI Rules Congress. On the record: “As trends continue to evolve, we should review the music ensemble sheet for potential updates. Include updated verbiage to account for specific feedback as it relates to electronics/amplification/percussion/brass.” Agreed.. if we are gonna use electronics.. be them amps, keyboards, electric instruments.. whatever... and as they are such an integral part of modern drum corps, they should be judged accordingly... to include balnce and hornline "enhancement" (half the corps may as well have not bothered marching tubas last year) as well.

Sad day, another year without pyrotechnics. I just want my Rammstein show to happen. :(

CT won DCA Class 'A' in 2017 without competing in a DCA show prior to prelims. In fact their highest DCI score was used for seeding in prelims (first corps on). CT provides DCA sheets to the contest director - judges understand the DCA sheets for evaluation. I have to disagree that DCI scores don't help DCA corps. CT embraces the opportunity to compete and perform in both DCI and DCA venues. CT will have four (4) DCI shows and two (2) DCA shows in 2018 prior to prelims. Summer Music Games 6/25, DCI Northern Kentucky 7/14, Legends Drum Corps Invitational 7/29, Soaring Sounds 39 7/30, and two DCA shows, Columbus Ohio and Atlanta Georgia with dates TBD. DCI venues provide CT members with the opportunity to perform with DCI's best World and Open Class corps, many are peers with CT members. In addition, excellent recruiting opportunities, large crowds of enthusiastic fans (very well attended), highest level of adjudication with remarkable feedback , and within reasonable geographic areas to Cincinnati at a minimum incurred cost to the CT organization. It's a win-win and the approach has paid-off in allowing CT to grow in talent and increased membership. IMO a good philosophy by a experienced administration. I'm looking forward to their staff and show announcement, and/or their plans for the up coming 2018 season. I believe we will all be surprised.

I just found out that Storm Drum and Bugle Corps is Indiana's newest drum corps! They plan on performing in soundsport in 2018 and 2019. In 2020, they plan on becoming a DCI Open Class Corps! #thenewstarofindiana Website: http://indianastorm.net Facebook Page: facebook.com/groups/IndianaStormProductions

Scott Atchison is no longer with the Cadets

Or maybe.... just maybe... subjective adjudicated competition naturally lends itself to slotting. In objective sports first in the first week and last in the final week is a distinct possibility; if that occurred in subjective competition either the early season judges or the latter season judges would get fired.

Music City’s executive director Kent Baker discusses the corps’ December audition camp in this highlights video and encourages new prospective members to consider auditioning. You can also find a photo gallery from the camp on the corps’ Facebook page. Even with the winter weather in the region keeping some from attending, there were still over […] View the full article

Best if luck to them; many are trying; thousands have failed; best wishes for their success. That said, this belongs in the World Class section and not the Open Class or another section because?????

Or maybe...just maybe... they stayed in those places because that's where they belonged competitively?

And what a travesty that would be...

his rationale is easy. when you look online the last 2 years for the commentary about the guards scores.......yeah he wants it hidden. here's what he doesnt get. if you're mid pack in several sheets, as they have been, GE isn't really going to save you, because GE will be affected by many of the things in the other captions.

Yeah! Help a sister out!

We’re going to Hamilton 6/25.

It's kind of a combination of both, but moreso of the music arrangers/composers than of the MMs. For sure, something that is well-composed by the designers but not performed well by the MMs can be reflected as such in the MA score, as would something not well-composed but performed well. But in general, the credit mostly belongs to the musical designers. (Off-topic, but this is why I'd prefer if the Analysis captions were sorted into their own category instead of being part of the Music and Visual scores.)

Thanks for this very helpful information. So am I right in my understanding then that this is basically a scoring of the show designers' work, not the MM's performance of that work?

So I know many of the proposals this year hinge on Music Analysis. Just so that we're all clear, here's how Michael Cesario defines the Analysis captions: The Music Analysis and Visual Analysis judges are the classically trained judges, the most scientific in their approach. They analyze how the pieces of the puzzle fit together and they focus on the detailing … how is the music or visual orchestration done, how well is that utilized, what are the developmental phrases, and how is the show composed and constructed. I think a lot of us seem to misinterpret the Music Analysis caption as currently being "how good the overall musical ensemble sounds" rather than "how well the show is constructed from a musical standpoint." Music Analysis is about the compositional elements of the show, not the brass performance (Brass), nor the percussion performance (Percussion), nor the creative content/overall entertainment factor (GE). That being said, the term "Analysis" (as opposed to "Ensemble") has only been used since the 2012 season, so we're all still getting used to this more "scientific" approach rather than a more "sonorous" approach to the musical aspect of DCI. How any changes to Music Analysis will affect a possible second brass judge and/or second MA judge has yet to be seen, but I hope this was enlightening to some of you.

I completely agree with you on every point. Saved me the time it would have taken to type it myself.

I don't get Hop's logic for the ordinals given that nothing would change with the judging system or what information the individual corps would be privy to. It would just be less information for us fans to chew on. Am I missing something?

Slotting being what it is, maybe full panels are more important in the early season. Add double GE judging for a few major shows, particularly San Antonio. Then we could use abbreviated panels for the remainder of the season, including championship week.

I decided to read the details of the ordinal proposal... I DO NOT like this at all...I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this idea...just mark these sheets TOP SECRET...yeah right I believe that one!...haha

Proposal: No scores – ordinals only Summary: Instead of scores, this proposal calls for corps to simply be ranked by ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). The order of finish will be determined based on ordinals, with General Effect judges as the exception. The effect judges will still assign scores, however, those scores will only be used for tie-breaking situations. On the record: “This eliminates the ability, more or less, for someone to spread big or someone to make no decisions. All decisions are equal. Now, if someone wants to put someone in fifth in brass … OK … that is a substantial decision and that decision will weigh into the total.” This proposal makes the least sense to me and honestly leaves me scratching my head. Can someone please explain the logic here as to WHY ordinals would be a favorable way to RANK corps with the absence of scores?

Proposal: Extend World Championship Finals to 15 corps PROS: Gives 3 more performance opportunities to another 450 students. CONS: Breaks with tradition of the current 12 place finalist positions that have existed since 1972. It dilutes the status of being a corps finalist for all the corps. IN FAVOR or OPPOSED: OPPOSED MY ALTERNATE IDEA: ANY corps that scores an 86 or above at SEMI-finals automatically earns a spot in finals. This would not make it pre-determined as to how many corps actually make it in. I think on average a 12th place finalist has averaged around an 84 ( my best guess). An 86 puts the corps in the middle of the upper tier of BOX 4 (70 - 75, 75 - 83, 83 - 89). Alternatively, I would even be in favor of making the 86 the cut-off point and exclude any corps that didn't reach that threshold and is EXCLUDED from finals. For example 2017 would have still had 12 finalists while 2016 would only have 11.

Well... his corps, the Cadets, did play "Anything Goes" in the mid-1970s.

The most important thing on here, obviously, is the ban on full-field amplification. It never should have been allowed in the first place, and its death is the most needed on-field development in the marching arts right now. The additional four members seems like a pretty good idea. If a corps can't afford to feed, transport, and equip an additional four members, then they probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place because it would take next to nothing to cause that corps to fold. Besides, the proposal doesn't require corps to march 154, just like the current rules don't require corps to march 150. I'm in favor of adding a second brass judge- it doesn't really make sense to have twice as many judges for percussion and more than twice as many members for brass- but making this change would only make sense if the additional MA judge was not added. Updating music analysis seems like a fine idea. Then there's the scoring proposals. First of all, if you follow DCI because of the scores and competition and would stop going to shows if they weren't judged, this is the wrong sport for you. Even the members who the scores actually affect only care about them for maybe 10-15 minutes after they come out each night unless it's a regional or something big happened like Boston pulling ahead of Cadets or Colts pulling ahead of Troopers, and that's only for members of the affected corps. This activity is first and foremost about the performance, not the competition. Even members who switch corps do so more because they want to perform harder shows better than because they want to place higher. With that out of the way, let's talk about the proposals. Let's start with the one that actually affects corps placements: Hopkins' ordinal rankings. Trying to read something written by George Hopkins is a distressingly similar experience to reading something written by Donald Trump, but from what I was able to get out of his non-standard formatted word salad with ellipse dressing, he wants total ranking to be based on the average of the caption's rankings, with GE scores used to break ties. The current system uses the sum of caption scores with no tiebreaking system. This would make a caption spread of .001 the same as a spread of 10, and make it much harder for a corps to make up for deficiencies in one caption. It would screw up how seeding for San Antonio works, and I have no idea how they'd get around that. This seems unnecessary. It's not the worst proposal imaginable, all personal thoughts of its author aside, but it doesn't seem good enough to be worth the costs. On a related note, we have the proposal to not release scores until July 1. The full text of this proposal states that corps would still be judged and scored as usual, but the scores would only be given to the corps, and if I read it correctly, corps would only get their own scores and not anyone else's. That seems like a fine idea. In early-season shows where scores are all over the place anyway (in 2016, I marched in a show where we went up by two while everyone else at the show dropped dramatically on one night, a show where most corps had normal gains of around one to one and a half points, but we jumped by nine, and two nights later, after having a parade day, dropping by two while the other Open Class corps stayed around the same and the World Class corps got rained out) and there aren't full judging panels, they mean even less than they normally do. Personally, I feel like it might be best to combine these two- only give placements rather than scores until July 1, and then switch to normal scoring after that. Then there's the biggest change: Increasing the size of finals. It does make some amount of sense with World Class growing and Open Class increasingly being World Class but cheaper, and my corps would be one of the most likely to benefit from the change. However, it does feel like it sort of cheapens the experience. Concerns about the length of the show are unfounded, given that there are plenty of shows with similar, if not significantly larger numbers of corps, like the regionals, but the sense of achievement for members if we make finals because it got bigger will be somewhat diminished. Ultimately, I'm inclined to favor it because giving more people a chance to perform another show and giving the audience the chance to see those shows one more time is a pretty big positive in the end, but I'm not going to be all that disappointed if it doesn't pass. If it does, people will still see it as an achievement to get top 12, just like people see it as an achievement to get top 15 today, or top six, or top three, even when those tiers don't get you into another show, and the initial weirdness it'll have for those of us who march both before and after the change will fade before long.

Is 2005 the year with "Radar Love"? That's a very listenable arrangement.

i do too i havent shaved since 7:30 AM

you've finally figured Mike out eh?

I’m not convinced 15 corps is something I can tolerate. 12 is hard to endure. Cut it to ten and I’ll only miss two corps before I take my seat.

The cut mentioned early is to BDB. There are no cuts to BD on the CD.

154 - who cares, whatever. No scores until July - yeah, THAT'll help drive ticket sales for June shows (you're ok with that, right Cali, since that's most of your drum corps "season" for live shows). 15 in Finals. I'd go the opposite. Go to 10, and drive more fan interest in the Friday night show, where there are still thousands of unsold quality seats. 15 would make for an overly long night, and the audience would be exhausted/bored by the last few appearances. Limits on horn mic'ing. Yes please. Annual Rules Congress? Again, I'd go the opposite. Make it every 3 years. DCI spends enough money on meetings and conferences as is, and no mature sport allows for the rules to be changed on an annual basis, especially when there are potential unforeseen consequences of those changes. Ordinals - isn't that what Pee Wee soccer league looks like?

The 90's Crossmen are always going to get a lot of love, but I want to give a shout out to the early 80's corps like 80 and 81. They were thoroughly entertaining and had one of the best screamers who ever played DCI (Gary Caffrey). Some one recently put a video up of the 81 show on "1980's Drum & Bugle Corps" Facebook page and it brought back memories.

Mandatory full judging panels for ALL DCI shows. Halfazz size early season judging panels with no Percussion judge.. or no Brass Judge... or no Guard judge... or some combination lack thereof, sends a message of... small time. Its just dopey to attempt to properly judge a Drum& Bugle Corps competition with no Brass or Drum judge for these specific captions. DCI never used to allow this either. DCI Corps have a kazillon people on their payroll in staffs now... The Corps now are big, big,... BIG...in every way imaginable these days now too. But in order to penny pinch, they allow the kids who are busting their arse to be judged by SMALLER judging panels now that would never have been permitted in previous DCI eras ? Whoa, I know most seem ok with this, but its just so...... small time..... to penny pinch on the costs of the judging of the competitions, imo. The kids pay a lot of bucks now to participate in these scored competitions. The least DCI and the Show Sponsors and the Corps themselves should do is have the adults in charge match the kids and their families commitment to see to it that DCI halfazz size judging panels become a thing of the past, where someday the next generation will look back and ask..... " what the hell were THEY thinking ? " ( on the ridiculousness of allowing the usage of halfazz size judging panels with no Guard/ Brass/ Drums judges in scored competitions. )

No, but neither does 80. If you want a perfect square, you have to either go to 64 or 81. If you wanted an 8x10, drop guard to 36 and boom, perfect 6x6 square. (again, though, I did pit, so the numbers on the field are generally a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to me.

as I much as I enjoyed C2's championship show, IMO their finals run in 15 was hands down the corps best ever performance.