Adjudication 101: Straight from DCI

[Michael Boo]

Mr. Boo, (or anyone that knows for sure) -

Please reply with answers to the following:

When does a judge turn in his/her score for each corps? Is it:

A. Immediately after each corps performs

B. After a block of corps

C. After the entire show is completed

Is there ever an opportunity for a judge to change his/her score?

Thank you!

PS - I've asked these questions before and have never been able to get a solid answer.

I don't know. I've never had a reason to ask about that.

[Michael Boo]

I find the writing on the DCI website--and the website itself--to often be embarassing

Uh, should I take that personally?

My purpose as a writer for DCI isn't journalism; my purpose as a writer is to promote public relations and marketing.

Along the way, I try to contribute some knowledge and understanding.

[SuncoastCrown]

With respect, they've done the best they can to find judges with exposure in both, but for decades, judges (including GE judges), specialized in one or another. We have some very fine judges (I'll use Nola Jones as an example) who grew up in both the musical and visual world. The judges who have long judged one or the other are receiving training to react to both music and visual...such as how well the visual expresses the music and vice-versa. I expect that as time goes on, the upcoming crop of GE judges will come from both worlds because it will become increasingly difficult to judge the future GE captions with a single emphasis in one's background and training.

In essence, the GE judge is being asked to respond to the effectiveness and emotional presentation much like we as audience members do. Despite having a percussion background, I respond more to brass books and drill, though I appreciate percussion. Unless someone is really focused on a particularly element, they tend to look at the entire show to achieve the most satisfaction.

But I think most would agree that many GE judges, for now, haven't grown up in both the musical and visual world, and so, for now, it's important to have one GE judge with a visual emphasis and background and one judge with a musical emphasis and background. And that way, things can balance themselves out. Judging is an art and a science, but it's always changing, just as the activity is changing. The best judges always run a little bit scared, continually seeking out additional training and understanding of the various elements of the activity so that they don't fall behind. Only a judge convinced they already know everything would be ineffective in the rapidly changing world of drum corps.

For the record, I haven't met any judges I felt believed they already knew it all. I know music judges that are now attending modern dance events and visual judges attending symphonic orchestra concerts because they know they need to step up their understanding of the complete show to remain viable as a judge. The show designers putting together today's shows don't care that a judge might not understand something in the show; they only care that they're giving the members of their corps the best product and experience they can. They're well aware that when they think they've got things figured out, someone with another corps has changed the rules by coming up with something new and innovative.

The only thing about drum corps that isn't changing is our love for it.

Who then, decides the direction in which judging changes and what is acceptable change and what is not?

[Ghost]

Who then, decides the direction in which judging changes and what is acceptable change and what is not?

Michael C. and/or the corps directors?

[jsd]

Who then, decides the direction in which judging changes and what is acceptable change and what is not?

There are elements of it that are constantly changing simply because what we consume as "art" changes from a cultural perspective, and what we define as successful from a creative standpoint changes over time. An example would be this: compare/contrast the movies of the late Seventies with the superhero blockbusters of today: they are two completely different aesthetics. Is one better than the other? This question is where perspective comes into play. Personally, I prefer the pacing, nuance, and storytelling of late Seventies cinema over what is out today, but that doesn't mean I cannot give credit where credit is due. Michael Bay's films do not speak to me aesthetically, but dude is the master of eye candy. If I am judging GE, I may have a preference for a certain treatment and approach towards the activity, but I still have to credit all of the new trends that reflect the aesthetics of today's approach to creativity.

Here's an example from WGI: in the late 90's, if you didn't have a reason to throw a toss (musicality, ensemble effect, using it to put an "exclamation point" at the end of a phrase, etc), you would get crushed from a design standpoint in both equipment and GE, because it was seen as an interruption to the length of phase component (which was lauded at the time; go watch shows by San Jose Raiders/Blue Devis (same design team), the Emerald Marquis, Bishop Kearney, Center Grove...phrase length was WAY longer than anything on the floor today). The same thing was happening in DCI at the time; the old approach of "pick some tunes you like, slap them together, fabricate a title and call it a day" was being replaced by the notion of through line storytelling, in which the designers were attempting to create shows that had a beginning, middle, and end from a storyline standpoint. If you didn't evolve with those design choices, your placement and numbers would become stagnant. Here's an example: BD, after winning in '86 did not finish any higher than third for the next six years (and were consistently in fourth place). Why? The design aesthetics were changing, but as a creative team, they were not. The "old" approach to show design was no longer garnering championship numbers. The result? They figured it out and we got "My Spanish Heart", which took the concept of storytelling from top to bottom to a new level and allowed them to get on the run they have been on ever since, which is the aesthetic that was being supported by the numbers at the time. If you put that show, beat for beat, on the field today, it may garner some success, but there's no way it finishes top 6 because it would look anachronistic when compared to today's show aesthetic.

The best advice I ever received from someone in the higher ups of judging was this: "Trends and tastes may change, but the elements of art and the principles of design do not. You must be knowledgeable of both".

So, GE judges, at all times and at all points in history, must be well versed in the elements of art, principles of design, and what is happening right now as trends in all creative activities. While much of that may be concrete, it is also fluid and reflexive, and this is mirrored on the sheets.

[emc2]

Uh, should I take that personally?

My purpose as a writer for DCI isn't journalism; my purpose as a writer is to promote public relations and marketing.

Along the way, I try to contribute some knowledge and understanding.

Thats all you can do. It's your opinion. Maybe it would be a good idea to go out a meet some of the corps and their directors. example: Anna from Boston a great person and has done a great job promoting public relations and marketing this year both inside and outside DCI. IMO just saying. Thanks mike for all you do over the years.

[George Dixon]

Here's the reality, and it has zero to do with the writer...

The thought process / philosophical approach behind the judging process is obtuse at best and unintelligible at worse. There's a lot of cotton candy and fluff in these "expections"

What we end up with is group think and a very indoor design philosophy, it's just the way tastes and trends are being driven these days.

Slip and sliding on ramps is given more credit than difficult horn and percussion moments while backing into blind sets, because of effect

It's been this way for a while imo and trending more that way

In the 90s and 00s many of us saw "demand" and "simultaneous demand in particular" become less and less rewarded in the aggregate score. Design and effect become more and more. Guard started bleeding over into other captions

Content scores don't mean what they used to, achievement is a different beast now, GE is muddled into two "holistic" approaches so the visual vs. music balance is disproportionate

You also can't give feedback to DCI because they "gave" to the activity via their participation 24/7 (somewhat like liberal politicians) so input becomes devalued. We simply do not comprehend and we don't "have skin in the game". Even the value of "legacy fans" has been questioned and devalued

The positives here are we have much more diversity in terms of the types of programming, a little more creativity and corps at different skill and talent levels being able to design their way out of their built in deficits to some extent. Corps are no longer trying to run and gun and ram notes and techniques for 11 minutes straight. That aspect is a very good thing

Edited July 28, 2016 by George Dixon

[BRASSO]

Bottom line : Corps with strong adult created Show Designs are doing well, those with subpar show designs by contrast, not so well. Scores and placements are no longer primarily performer driven any longer, no matter what anybody might try and tell us otherwise. Its primarily adult driven. The staffs are the current " stars " of DCI, as most know their names ( Anna, the keyboardist of Boston this season, the exception to this rule ).

Does anybody here believe, for example, that the Cadets marchers are less talented musicians than the Bluecoats ? Do the Cadets marchers work less smart, less hard at practice than the Bluecoats MM's ? I don't think so.

How about Madison, Troopers, Boston... do they currently have less experienced, less talented Musicians than Academy ? How about we line up the snare line of Academy, and compare their drumline with any of these 3 Corps in drumming abilities, in demand, etc... in other words.... performer performance. Academy is currently topping these 3 Corps for a simple reason: The adult created Show Design is liked " intellectually, aesthetically, emotionally ", by the judges, where " Effect " is skewed more on the sheets these days now than " performer execution ". Lets face it, judges can't really determine which performers are executing " better " any more, as the instrumentation disparity useage among the Corps, makes such a determination mostly impossible. Corps using french horns have a distinctly different sound that units that use more trombones in the show. So comparing apples to oranges in " performer performance execution " takes place. Thats more guesswork than anything else, so judges in the execution captions are deferring to the" Effect " judges in such an impossible situation. This is why a Corps like Cadets is taken right out of any title contention this year pretty much back in June. Rewrites can only do so much, as its like trying to put lipstick on a pig.. its cosmetic alone. The Show Design can't be saved, no matter how hard the MM's work. Academy is blessed this year. They have a fun show, whose theme is easy to understand. There is not much demand in the show for the performers to execute compared to their peers. But this is no longer all that neccessary any more if the adults gave the Corps a simple show to execute, and one that audiences and judges like. Same with Bluecoats. They have well constructed Show Design that is not as demanding as a couple of others in their mix as well, but the show is fabulous, and so the judges are awarding it as such. Cadets won brass last season ( thats performer driven ) and did not medal. SCV has won Percussion ( also a caption that is performer driven ) but did not medal. This would be unlikely in years past. Corps that have a strong adult created show design are where its at now on the judging sheets. Things change. And this is but one of those changes,... like it or not.

Edited July 28, 2016 by BRASSO

[SuncoastCrown]

There are elements of it that are constantly changing simply because what we consume as "art" changes from a cultural perspective, and what we define as successful from a creative standpoint changes over time. An example would be this: compare/contrast the movies of the late Seventies with the superhero blockbusters of today: they are two completely different aesthetics. Is one better than the other? This question is where perspective comes into play. Personally, I prefer the pacing, nuance, and storytelling of late Seventies cinema over what is out today, but that doesn't mean I cannot give credit where credit is due. Michael Bay's films do not speak to me aesthetically, but dude is the master of eye candy. If I am judging GE, I may have a preference for a certain treatment and approach towards the activity, but I still have to credit all of the new trends that reflect the aesthetics of today's approach to creativity.

Here's an example from WGI: in the late 90's, if you didn't have a reason to throw a toss (musicality, ensemble effect, using it to put an "exclamation point" at the end of a phrase, etc), you would get crushed from a design standpoint in both equipment and GE, because it was seen as an interruption to the length of phase component (which was lauded at the time; go watch shows by San Jose Raiders/Blue Devis (same design team), the Emerald Marquis, Bishop Kearney, Center Grove...phrase length was WAY longer than anything on the floor today). The same thing was happening in DCI at the time; the old approach of "pick some tunes you like, slap them together, fabricate a title and call it a day" was being replaced by the notion of through line storytelling, in which the designers were attempting to create shows that had a beginning, middle, and end from a storyline standpoint. If you didn't evolve with those design choices, your placement and numbers would become stagnant. Here's an example: BD, after winning in '86 did not finish any higher than third for the next six years (and were consistently in fourth place). Why? The design aesthetics were changing, but as a creative team, they were not. The "old" approach to show design was no longer garnering championship numbers. The result? They figured it out and we got "My Spanish Heart", which took the concept of storytelling from top to bottom to a new level and allowed them to get on the run they have been on ever since, which is the aesthetic that was being supported by the numbers at the time. If you put that show, beat for beat, on the field today, it may garner some success, but there's no way it finishes top 6 because it would look anachronistic when compared to today's show aesthetic.

The best advice I ever received from someone in the higher ups of judging was this: "Trends and tastes may change, but the elements of art and the principles of design do not. You must be knowledgeable of both".

So, GE judges, at all times and at all points in history, must be well versed in the elements of art, principles of design, and what is happening right now as trends in all creative activities. While much of that may be concrete, it is also fluid and reflexive, and this is mirrored on the sheets.

Interesting explanation. If I understand you correctly, I believe that the judges' scoring is more subjective analysis based on the opinions and preferences of the judge than it is concrete objective direction driven by policy makers at DCI. Obviously, there is some of both, but I wonder how much of each is at play in judging. Using your BD example, I wonder if BD might not have scored lower because there was a type of evaluation from the judges being exercised that was not reflected in the written objective guidelines. It sounds to me like there is some guesswork involved by the drum corps in understanding what the judges want. As successful an organization as BD is, I would think that they would have been quicker at adapting if the changes were actually stated policies of evaluation.

[emc2]

Michael C. and/or the corps directors?

Good question. Mike B can you answer this. I would think that the directors, staff from each of the corps would have to understand and be involved with the changes to judging rules/ sheets etc. How dose Michael C manage the changes with the corps / staff in judging changes. I think there were changes to judging this year. IMO looks like GE is has more to do with placement changes and slotting this year.