Liahona Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 30 minutes ago, Liahona said: As a fan I'd like to see full panels from the very beginning of the season. BUT are full panels really needed beyond indicating to us fans any possible section weaknesses? I would think that early on show construction elements would be more important. 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 2 hours ago, Liahona said: 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. Kind of like making the cut to play the weekend at a pro golf tournament!!! LOL 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, MikeD said: Outside of safety issues, you are correct. Outside of safety issuses no rules on holding back show designs within DCI; that is what you maintain. Interesting. So that means instead of Spartacus or Core of Teptation, shows designed about Caligula and Deep Throat (with no rules of design limitations) and presenting them on the field in the name of artistic design freedom is acceptable to you in DCI. Or, are you going to backpedal and say you actually are for rules that limit artistic designs? Edited December 14, 2017 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 2 hours ago, mjoakes said: FWIW, I noticed in audience shots during the Madison and Crossmen shows (2017 Blu-rays) that there were empty seats in prime seating areas behind the DMs. 5 or 6 seats next to me in the 238 section were also unused for the first few shows of finals night. Been that way for years. The leadership of the corps which became the natorious G7 have pounded out the marketing promotion, "Come see the show before the show in the lot and follow us into the stadium." The visual records of the stands indicates that, along with other factors, the promotion of just the top corps deserving audiences has had an impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesman Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Cainan said: 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. I completely agree with you on every point. Saved me the time it would have taken to type it myself. Edited December 14, 2017 by bluesman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePlanets Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 (edited) 154 members- I am for it. 15 at finals-I see the reason for this and I choose to go to semifinals over finals for the reason of seeing more great shows. The 12 at finals rule is deep seeded in DCI tradition and probably wouldn't be a popular change- Also it's not uncommon for an open class corps to crack the top 15 so would we see the open class winner compete at finals instead of perform an exhibition? I think the worst idea is ordinals. From a judging perspective there can be a big gap between 2 corps while other groups of corps are tied or closely clustered... therefore gaps are a big deal. The music analysis sheet definitely needs to be updated. That is the one that needs to pass. Brass amplification- I am on the fence about this one and I don't know where the line should be. Kinetic Noise was a show that was very tastefully put together and innovative but I found almost all of the amplification in 2017 unnecessary and some of it distracting... I really think this goes back to updating the music analysis sheets. I don't think being picky about the number of brass players amplified is totally necessary when DCI is a world with mic'd vocal ensembles, voice overs, featured vocal soloists, and violins. Brass #2 judge. I am with the poster that suggested an upfront and high up brass judge. An extra judge on the field isn't completely necessary but there was a big difference in my experience front and center vs up high last season as a spectator. No scoring before July 1- How about ordinals before July 1? Edited December 14, 2017 by ThePlanets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Liahona said: 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? It could be an effective way to justify " Slotting " if you don't have to justify the placements by actually scoring the Corps in competition, then releasing those scores to the public, ie the fans, the Corps. Thats certainly one plausable possibility, (albeit a decidedly cynical one,) for such a wacky proposal, anyway. I'm sure there are less cynical possibilities for this proposal too. i just can't think of any rational ones at the moment.. Its hard for me to come up with a cogent and intelligent answer for you Liahona, when the proposal itself does not seem all that intelligent to me... lol Edited December 14, 2017 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.