Drums Across Kansas - El Dorado, KS - July 17

[Cappybara]

1 minute ago, MikeRapp said:

Why would they? Esoteric shows don't score well now in GE anyway.

I guess BD 2010 and 2012 didn't happen. I guess BK's rise in placement didn't happen

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[MikeRapp]

1 minute ago, Cappybara said:

I guess BD 2010 and 2012 didn't happen. I guess BK's rise in placement didn't happen

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Gus's it depends on what we consider esoteric. And, what other shows are out there at the same time. To me, esoteric is Blue Knights.

[Cappybara]

Just now, MikeRapp said:

Gus's it depends on what we consider esoteric. And, what other shows are out there at the same time. To me, esoteric is Blue Knights.

Esoteric: intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.

[cfirwin3]

Late to the party...

This recap is considerably more competitive than the last one.

It is hardly an issue, with these numbers, if the crowd favored the first or second place group.

[Cappybara]

4 hours ago, pudding said:

I think that everyone has a fundamental misunderstanding of what General Effect actually is in terms of what is even capable of being judged. Personal enjoyment is not an objective measure (obviously), and so it can't be (and in an ideal world isn't) part of the GE judging criteria.

General Effect, to me at least (though it seems generalizable enough), is simply a measure of how well the show designers communicate a holistic concept or idea through their show design (repertoire) and how well the performers convey that idea through their live performance and presentation of the designed material that the designers give them (performance). In other words, if the field is a plate, the designers are the chef that designs the dish, the performers are the cooks that create the dish, the judges are the restaurant reviewers, and the audience are all of the other patrons of the restaurant. A dish that receives rave reviews by critics may be disliked by the general public, and vice versa; a chef may simply design a poor dish, or the cooks may prepare an excellent dish poorly. Different restaurants may be fan favorites with lines out the door, but receive mediocre reviews, while others may consistently receive Michelin stars but lack widespread "commoner" appeal. What we see on the scoring sheet is the review in the newspaper, and the chatter in the stands is the word-of-mouth on the street; they are both important, but not necessarily linked.

To complete the analogy and bring it back to the discussion, in order to understand what's happening on the sheets, you're going to need to think like a food critic instead of as an everyday restaurant-goer; thinking like a judge is different from thinking like an audience member. Judges need to consider designers' intent, performers' communication of that intent, cohesion of design, and evaluation of errors. Audiences just need to be entertained.

I think this is a really great explanation of GE. I wish I could save comments so that I can come back to this next time a conversation about GE comes up

[CrownBariDad]

9 hours ago, Cadevilina Crown said:

In other news, BK has broken 80.

In other news, 3 unknown Corps opened the show last night.  I guess they were SoundSport or DCA or something as nobody seems to care (if this thread is any indication).  /sarc

[Cadevilina Crown]

1 minute ago, CrownBariDad said:

In other news, 3 unknown Corps opened the show last night.  I guess they were SoundSport or DCA or something as nobody seems to care (if this thread is any indication).  /sarc

DrumManTx would care, but we never heard from him at all yesterday. He'll be at the show in Broken Arrow tonight, so maybe we'll hear some things from him then.

[CrownBariDad]

14 minutes ago, Cadevilina Crown said:

DrumManTx would care, but we never heard from him at all yesterday. He'll be at the show in Broken Arrow tonight, so maybe we'll hear some things from him then.

True.  But Broken Arrow is a TOC show -- not quite the same. 

[rpbobcat]

4 hours ago, pudding said:

I think that everyone has a fundamental misunderstanding of what General Effect actually is in terms of what is even capable of being judged. Personal enjoyment is not an objective measure (obviously), and so it can't be (and in an ideal world isn't) part of the GE judging criteria.

General Effect, to me at least (though it seems generalizable enough), is simply a measure of how well the show designers communicate a holistic concept or idea through their show design (repertoire) and how well the performers convey that idea through their live performance and presentation of the designed material that the designers give them (performance). In other words, if the field is a plate, the designers are the chef that designs the dish, the performers are the cooks that create the dish, the judges are the restaurant reviewers, and the audience are all of the other patrons of the restaurant. A dish that receives rave reviews by critics may be disliked by the general public, and vice versa; a chef may simply design a poor dish, or the cooks may prepare an excellent dish poorly. Different restaurants may be fan favorites with lines out the door, but receive mediocre reviews, while others may consistently receive Michelin stars but lack widespread "commoner" appeal. What we see on the scoring sheet is the review in the newspaper, and the chatter in the stands is the word-of-mouth on the street; they are both important, but not necessarily linked.

To complete the analogy and bring it back to the discussion, in order to understand what's happening on the sheets, you're going to need to think like a food critic instead of as an everyday restaurant-goer; thinking like a judge is different from thinking like an audience member. Judges need to consider designers' intent, performers' communication of that intent, cohesion of design, and evaluation of errors. Audiences just need to be entertained.

To me,your food critic analogy points out exactly why GE judging cannot be truly objective.

Say I'm a food critic.

I hate liver.

I come to your restaurant.

That's what you serve.

I don't care how great your presentation is,or how creative you are,I still hate liver.

Same with judges.

They're human.

They all have preferences.

That has to effect how they view a show's GE.

[cfirwin3]

I think that a large chunk of GE adjudication has to do more with the coherence of the delivery of the message than the coherence of (or agreement with) the message itself.  It's like providing a critique on... a research paper written about... "the implications for consumer actions related the merger of The Buckenharfen Company and the Corporation of Jotfanpelarks with respect to their differing best practices in the manufacture of Groks".

You don't necessarily have to know what a Grok is or who/what a Buckenharfen or a Jotfanpelark is... or who buys their Groks, in order to assess the general coherence of the research document.

It's like knowing that an algebraic formula makes sense in its logic without having the precise identities of or even a concern for the variables.

A program can have a level of intended coherence without being impactful.  This is important in assessment... Now I don't think this is the most important or even the biggest part of it... But it's big enough and fair enough to matter in the scoring.

But as I have said so many times before... I think that the fans at large are generally on board with the winning show as being deserving AND enjoyable enough to win.

Edited July 18, 2017 by cfirwin3