Jeff Ream

2018 Rules proposals

Recommended Posts

The two I really don't like is no scoring before July 1st. The other one proposed by GH is no scores at all. Only ranking 1st to last and so on. Ordinals only with the exception of GE?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the no scoring prior to 1 July, i dont pay attention to scores until full panels are seated. I also like the 154, as well. The 15 at finals seems to make for a longer show and we are already there until almost 1AM at finals. Starting finals at 6PM instead of 7PM (for competing corps) is not my cup of tea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by FaustianMachine
  • Like 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1: I'm OK with this. It's a very small increase, so it wouldn't bother me at all if this passed.

#2: No... IMO, this is problematic from both a competitive (corps would automatically be making Finals for the first time the first year it goes into effect) and a logistical (how the heck would 15 corps fit on the field at retreat?) standpoint.

#3 and #4: No and no. There's a reason why the hidden recaps failed in 2016.

#5: I don't care either way, there seems to be a lot of change every season regardless.

#6 and #7: YES and YES. #6 was without a doubt one of the biggest problems of the 2017 season, and #7 would make it way easier to judge the brass from up high (i.e. projecting the sound & preventing excessive synth goo). Thank you Michael Martin, I hope both of these get passed!

#8: Didn't this get proposed in 2016 as well? I recall I didn't really like it then, but then again things have changed a bit. Right now I don't care, I can see the arguments for and against.

#9: YES. FINALLY electronics and amping can be acknowledged in a score not named GE.

TL;DR I'm pulling for #6, #7 and #9, don't care about #1, #5 and #8, and am pretty much against #2, #3, and #4.

(EDIT: I elevated the status of #8 from "do not want" to "don't care.")

Edited by Cadevilina Crown
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking them down into "Agree," "Agree, but Can See the Logic for No," "Disagree but Can See the Logic for Yes," and "Ummm...wat?":

Agree:

5) Annual Rules Congress (Kevin Shah, BK) -- YES PLEASE. It would save us the minor tremor of terror all of us had when Hop noted that because corps have purchased things already amplification wouldn't be able to be addressed before the 2020 Congress.

6) Brass Amplification (Michael Martin, Cavies) -- Also a YES PLEASE. I'd extend it to 12 at a time, personally, but VERY YES on this, though I'm not sure how you'd enforce it, unless T&P was given a monitor for the sound system.

8) Percussion adjudication and Music Analysis (Kevin Shah, BK) -- Getting field sampling of percussion is important. We've had that debate. Moving the drum judge back on the field and splitting music analysis into two captions (one brass, one percussion) at regionals/championships would handle the "are we addressing drums correctly" question. I'd similarly be ok with splitting visual analysis into two people, one more marching/maneuvering-focused, one more guard focused.

9) Update the Music Analysis Sheet (Kevin Shah, BK) -- Agreed, especially with the things that he specifically mentions (electronics)

Agree, But See the Logic for No

7) Brass 2 (Michael Martin, Cavies) -- Field-level brass adjudication doesn't sufficiently monitor the ensemble. I could see the argument for addressing this as part of redoing the Music Analysis caption, though.

Disagree, But See the Logic for Yes

3) No scoring before July (Pitts) -- yes to all the things you said in your reasoning, but that's always been true, and it's not like early season scores have ever mattered that much. That said, I could agree with possibly using the system mentioned in proposal (5) before July 1st, as a compromise here.

4) Ordinals only, no scores (Hopkins) -- I see the reasoning for wanting to balance relative judge weights out, if for no other reason than (as I believe I've discussed in the past) visual judges are more inclined to give higher scores than music judges (see: the number of max scores given in visual achievement captions vs the number given in music achievement captions). That said, some times one group really is just that much better than another and that should be reflected accordingly. Having done four years of high school marching band under ordinal rules (Texas UIL), it kinda sucks. That said, could be applicable before July 1.

Ummm...wat

1) Expand to 154 (Furlano) -- yo, just march 76 brass and it'll be fine. Or knock out some synth players if you really need 80/40.

2) Expand Finals to 15 (Cesario) -- start with where you'd put them on the field for retreat. Then go on to how long Finals would take. And 13-15 already get the perk of being in the movie theater; that seems like a big enough bump.

 

Edited by ftwdrummer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ftwdrummer said:

Breaking them down into "Agree," "Agree, but Can See the Logic for No," "Disagree but Can See the Logic for Yes," and "Ummm...wat?":

Agree:

5) Annual Rules Congress (Kevin Shah, BK) -- YES PLEASE. It would save us the minor tremor of terror all of us had when Hop noted that because corps have purchased things already amplification wouldn't be able to be addressed before the 2020 Congress.

6) Brass Amplification (Michael Martin, Cavies) -- Also a YES PLEASE. I'd extend it to 12 at a time, personally, but VERY YES on this, though I'm not sure how you'd enforce it, unless T&P was given a monitor for the sound system.

8) Percussion adjudication and Music Analysis (Kevin Shah, BK) -- Getting field sampling of percussion is important. We've had that debate. Moving the drum judge back on the field and splitting music analysis into two captions (one brass, one percussion) at regionals/championships would handle the "are we addressing drums correctly" question. I'd similarly be ok with splitting visual analysis into two people, one more marching/maneuvering-focused, one more guard focused.

9) Update the Music Analysis Sheet (Kevin Shah, BK) -- Agreed, especially with the things that he specifically mentions (electronics)

Agree, But See the Logic for No

7) Brass 2 (Michael Martin, Cavies) -- Field-level brass adjudication doesn't sufficiently monitor the ensemble. I could see the argument for addressing this as part of redoing the Music Analysis caption, though.

Disagree, But See the Logic for Yes

3) No scoring before July (Pitts) -- yes to all the things you said in your reasoning, but that's always been true, and it's not like early season scores have ever mattered that much. That said, I could agree with possibly using the system mentioned in proposal (5) before July 1st, as a compromise here.

5) Ordinals only, no scores (Hopkins) -- I see the reasoning for wanting to balance relative judge weights out, if for no other reason than (as I believe I've discussed in the past) visual judges are more inclined to give higher scores than music judges (see: the number of max scores given in visual achievement captions vs the number given in music achievement captions). That said, some times one group really is just that much better than another and that should be reflected accordingly. Having done four years of high school marching band under ordinal rules (Texas UIL), it kinda sucks. That said, could be applicable before July 1.

Ummm...wat

1) Expand to 154 (Furlano) -- yo, just march 76 brass and it'll be fine. Or knock out some synth players if you really need 80/40.

2) Expand Finals to 15 (Cesario) -- start with where you'd put them on the field for retreat. Then go on to how long Finals would take. And 13-15 already get the perk of being in the movie theater; that seems like a big enough bump.

 

Does 76 people make perfect square?

Other option - don't have to sacrifice brass members to have a choir and then hear people say they need more horns. 

Edited by BlueStainGlass
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BlueStainGlass said:

Does 76 people make perfect square?

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.

 

Edited by ftwdrummer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ftwdrummer said:

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.

 

Using 76 you can only make like a 4 x 19 and a 2 x 38. Not good number to use and I also edited another situation that could help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.