Nex
-
Posts
301 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Nex
-
-
I'm not quite sure who Mr. Thomas is (unless you mean Jordan, the tenor tech from last season?) . . . but there were apparently some behind-the-scenes disagreements on the business end of things in addition to Andre's move to SCV that caused Andre to either choose to or be asked to not have any position at all with the corps this season whatsoever. Todd Russell will also (sadly) not be returning, not his decision. Andrew Solomonson is not returning, and Jason Younts (who was on visual staff last year) is the new visual caption head. As far as I'm aware, percussion staff isn't changing much, but that's all I know for now.
-
Awesome . . . there's a photo me in our show's final set. The last moment on the field in performance.
-
Fair enough. I don't want the criticism to fall unfairly, but unlike most discussions here, you bring some validation. While I don't really see your scores as too much of an oddity, Revo's scores are statistically drastic. I particularly like the 15+ point jump in 5 days... that's... well, extreme. Compared to a relatively similar schedule, it looks even more silly. So please allow me to pose a question, and postulate a personally-held thought.
First, my point is that I don't believe the differences and the wide swings would have been significantly different had D1 sheets been used for you this year; I think you'd have just seen the swing with smaller digits. That kind of inconsistency deserves some recap study. But my question to you is based around your thoughts in the matter -- the show for Memphis you pointed out, you were alone on July 9 -- do you believe these swings would have been avoided if you had been on the same sheets?
I'd honestly have to say they would be avoided. After all, when the scores change like that (especially going between Open and World shows), the judges have different things they see for the rest of the night. It could be a conscious or unconscious thing, but generally when you head into a World Class show, you expect one thing. Seeing an Open corps in that venue often won't match up with what you see (or expect to see) for the rest of the night. The comments on tapes and sheets are still just as valid, and often follow what you get from show to show, but the scores jump randomly. Because of that, I think using the same sheets just brings everything to a more level playing field. No longer do you have to worry about different criteria on different sheets, even though your mind is always going to compare what you see, regardless of division.
I've heard some people argue (though I haven't completely decided on this myself) that the judges are just doing what everyone says they do anyway. Score low at the beginning of the night. Yeah, it's a different division, but how many fans really know what the different scoring systems are like or mean. As long as the Open corps are scored a little low, it leaves room for the lower-tier World corps to make the same or higher score without fans being confused by the division difference. Had our score not changed from the 7th to the 9th, an undiscerning (or simply un-knowing) fan might have thought that we'd 3 or 4-pointed Southwind, which simply wasn't true. If this is the case . . . which like I said, I haven't completely made up my own mind on, then the same sheets would absolutely fix the problem.
To me it just seems that the whole KISS acronym makes perfect sense. Why does the Open champion have to score in the '90s? What does having two different systems really accomplish? The Open finalists all know that their scores are completely different from (and judged more leniently than) the World scores. So why keep up the charade of the high numbers. Everyone in my corps, and many of the corps we competed with simply felt that the lenient scoring was meaningless. It truly did make the numbers worthless to us. "Yay, we broke 90!" or "Finally, we made Box 5!" doesn't mean anything when you know that your 90 would really be closer to a 77, and your Box 5 is really only Box 4 in World. World sheets would take away this pointlessness, and if an Open corps did break Box 5, it would be a real achievement. It would also make Box 4 more meaningful to the Open kids. I guess it just makes more sense to use one set of sheets from the view of a member . . . maybe not to the fans, but that's not going to be my deal for another year yet. So, I guess I'll worry about it when I have to :P
-
It's not about adding a percentage. The back of the sheet, the criteria themselves, are what's key. And the reason you're not getting the response you want is because you're accusing the entire judging community of ineptitude and collusion. Just like in the "random draw" thread, I'm not going to allow a debate on the scale of stupidity you think judges possess. Your entire argument is based around the assumption that judges aren't capable of using the Open Class sheets, yet the only differences are minor changes in adjectives and scale.
Besides, your statement is a desire for consistency in scores, but you have provided no statistical evidence that the scores you're talking about don't belong where they do. On the other hand, it's quite common to see the conversation every June about how the "West Coast" corps are outscoring the rest of the country, and that there's some big disparity. The reality is that those scores are more accurate than anyone credits, particularly because of the amount of time those corps have been training, moving in around January. It's actually no surprise at all that those corps are better, but the point is that scoring in relative isolation does occur, and people are generally more upset by the uncertainty it provides than the actual score itself.
In other words, you're more concerned that you don't have context. Fear of the unknown is a common trait in us all. And it's also much more likely your cause for concern, rather than your stated belief of judges calling one another to get scores "right" and not knowing how to do their jobs. <**>
I'm referring to first-hand experience with judges scoring randomly for Open corps.
http://www.corpsreps.com/scores.cfm?view=c...mp;yearqry=2007
I know you're going to pull the "Well, you performed, you're always going to have your own opinion of what your scores should have been." However, there are some cases where it's just completely ridiculous. The first two scores above 70 were at Open-only shows. While the first may well have been warranted, we were not 3 points better the next night. Likewise, we did not get worse at all when we went back to World shows two days later, let alone fall close to 6 points.
http://www.corpsreps.com/scores.cfm?view=c...orpstype=Junior
Then there's Revolution. In four days (one of which being July 4th), they did get better, but they did not in any way get 12 points better . . . especially since they had at least a partial free day in Chicago (I'm pretty sure . . . we saw their empty buses driving through the city as we headed to Due to eat lunch). Also, you'll notice that after the 76 at the Chippewa show, 11 days later they fell some 5 points. No corps gets 5 points worse when they have time like that to rehearse. Their scores then fell for the next few days before jumping up again 11 pts once they entered Open-only shows.
Corps have bad shows (notice Memphis' Port Huron score . . . that score was actually too high, it was an awful show for us), and scores can reflect that, but scores that fluctuate seemingly at random are ridiculous. You jumped at me for questioning the judges, but they're only human, and they really don't show any consistency at all. Scores go down when corps get better . . . the scores don't stagnate, they get worse. That's just not right, and it's fairly glaring to me that there's a problem with the system. But as long as you're going to sit there and tell me that I should blindly trust the judges, and assume that I'm lying (or that I'm just too stupid to pay attention to my surroundings) about three months of my life, I'm not entirely sure that it matters what I show you.
And you're right, the differences in adjectives would lead one to believe that it shouldn't be a problem . . . yet somehow there is a difference in scoring trends between the classes. Open scores are much more subject to fluctuation when the performances don't fluctuate that much. Plus, I never said the judges were stupid; please don't put words in my mouth. I said they need more training on the Open sheets, or the sheets need to change. There's a difference. Also, as far as calling each other, I didn't say they call each other to get the scores right. I said they are people, and we shouldn't think that they isolate themselves from the rest of the judging community. Why wouldn't, or shouldn't, they discuss their trade with their co-workers? What I'm saying is that it's illogical to think the judges abstain from all forms of discussion about their trade.
-
To your two main points:
1] You're saying that there is no incentive. If I need to clarify, it is that there is more incentive to be clear and clean than dirty and complex. If you write a very demanding passage in World, the judges will give more leeway for the attempt, generally because it's not too bad. If you write a very demanding passage for Open, the judge will more likely say that it's written over the capability of the ensemble, and should be scaled accordingly. In other words, in World, if you write something too hard, and the kids don't perform it, too bad. In Open, it's shame on the staff for misjudging demand.
It's not that there is no complexity; obviously. It's that there is more incentive to write appropriately at that level. The end result is that the focus upon ensemble appropriateness provides a better experience for those ensembles. Period.
2] Your point is that the scores only apply to who is at a show on a given night. That doesn't change anyhow. But if you're looking for the fact that the Open scores are therefore relevant to World corps, you're forgetting that when all the Open corps do get together, the World corps won't be there anyhow. That renders your reference unavailable anyhow, and removes any relevance to the relationship.
Except that for your first rebuttal, the judges respond the same way to those World corps out of the Top 12 (and in some cases to the lower half of the Top 12) . . . at least that's what I've heard from friends in those organizations.
As for two, like I said, it's all nice in theory that the current system means nothing when you compare scores from different shows, but judges aren't immune from cell phones and discussing their trade. The World scores are comparable for the most part. Open scores are not, because the judges aren't in accord on how to judge from those sheets. The scores should have some comparison built in, otherwise it would be a completely inaccurate system. And it's not that the scores are relevant to World Class that I'm looking for . . . that's just a side-effect. For all I care, use the same sheets and scoring, and assess a undisclosed percentage to be added to the Open scores to keep people from comparing if you want. And when the Open corps come together, they'll still be on the same sheets as each other, so you've still got competition.
Like I said, and no one has yet addressed: it's about how the judges use the sheets. Currently, there is no accord among the judges on judging from Open sheets. Sure, you could spend more time and money teaching the judges to use the Open sheets better, but that's not cost effective. Give them all the same sheets, and you actually save time and money . . . if you just desperately need the difference in scores to make the world a better place (e.g. both World and Open champs to be in the 90s), then throw in the cost of a calculator to add a percentage to the Open scores. With or without the calculator, it's cheaper and just makes more sense :P
-
You bring up a very good point, but I believe your point is trumped by the idea that corps in the Open division should not be incented towards complexity. The converse is true; World division corps need an incentive to try difficult things - exactly why the tick system disappeared.
If anything, your argument is against having just one Open corps at a World show. Well, the reality is that with regional touring schedules, it's either that, or fewer opportunities to perform. That's not good. Besides, isn't everyone more excited by having to figure things out at finals? Aren't we bombarded with "please don't slot corps" arguments? You seem to be arguing for slotting...
I'm going to have to disagree with you on the first part. The idea that Open Class corps should not be incented toward complexity makes no sense to me. "Hey, we want you to be competitive within your division . . . but if you're good, keep it simple anyway." Does that really make sense? The same sheets aren't an incentive for difficulty, that's the incentive of the judging style we use in general.
And while a side-note to my point is that there should be more than one Open corps at a World show, that's not the argument. Even when there are two Open corps at a show, under the current sheets, those scores will absolutely only apply to those two corps. Instead of the current similarity, but possible differences in the scores from different World shows, it's complete scoring chaos across the board. That's not good. I'll tell you that as far as my corps was concerned, we didn't "worry" about the numbers, but we thought and compared them (with whatever pointless other scores there were. No, we didn't enjoy waiting 'til Finals week. It may make it more exciting for the fans, but when you are on the field working every day, trying to best not only yourself, but everyone you're in competition with, it helps when you know what you're actually in competition with. With useless scores, it's a constant not knowing. It's not at all slotting . . . that seems like it was a bit of a straw man.
Plus, like I said, it will make things easier on the judges and you won't get accusations of them not knowing how to use the sheets . . . or mistakes of some captions being scored on the wrong sheets.
-
Sure wish someone from the "seperate sheets" side would bother to respond to my last post concerning this in the topic . . . .
-
Well then does teaching at Crown for 5 years make you feel better?
-
He is still currently running things (both as director and caption head as far as I'm aware) until someone is found.
-
Andre will be doing the music programming/arranging with Memphis, but he's pursuing a doctorate on the West Coast (making much else with Memphis hard to pull off).
-
It's very simple: If an Open/Div II/Div III corps wants to be scored on the same sheets as the World/Div I corps, all they have to do is come up with the extra $400K-$1,500K for their budget, pass the DCI evaulation, and then they can compete directly with these other corps.
Otherwise, quit your bi+ching!
In that case, perhaps the judges at primarily Div I shows should be taught to use the Open Class sheets better. For me it isn't so much wanting competition between the two (which is one of TWO reasons for the same sheets, there is another). A single set of sheets will mean no longer having huge scoring differences between attendance at a (primarily) World Class show and an Open Class show. Last year when a Div II/III corps went from a Div I show to a Div II/III show, you could expect several points of jumping. This seemingly random placement across the board (before the Div II/IIIs began to come together toward of the end of the season) pretty much makes any scoring system at all useless until you're all in direct competition.
Yes, you'll never truly be able to compare scores from different competitions, but when the judges aren't all on the same page for the Open Class sheets (as in the past), it makes all scores that aren't in direct competition absolutely worthless (instead of just hard to compare). Make the sheets the same so that the scores actually mean something before Finals Week instead of just being an arbitrary number.
-
4th: Tie - Crown & Phantom
6th: Tie - SCV & Bluecoats
That's all preference though . . . they were all too close to decide from the venue of the stands.
-
Plus, our show had ONE major chord in it. People are more comfortable with major harmonies, instead of minor ones.
Only one in the whole show? As long as your show was based on a western scale system, it had to have more than one major chord unless you had accidentals in nearly every measure. Unless you mean a sustained chord? And minor harmonies are just as prevalent in both classical and popular music as major. Saying people are more comfortable with major harmonies doesn't really have much of a base. Plus, there are plenty of people that prefer minor (me for instance) over major. That doesn't mean I like Bluecoats' show better. It was an amazing show, but I think someone mentioned it best with the comment about Crown just having "it." Nothing about major versus minor, or even mood. People love dark shows (PR '96 anyone?). It's all about "it" . . . and accessibility.
-
From what I've managed to gather in toto on Michael Klesch's arranging:
Cadets: 1985 - 1992 (Brass Staff 1984)
Crossmen: 1994 - 1995, 1997 - 1999
Phantom Regiment: 2000 - 2002
Carolina Crown: 2003 - Present
I think he's also done some work with the Colts, but I don't know when. I also have no clue about '93 and '96.
-
It's true that we were scheduled to go on in exhibition. They called it off after div II/III finals ended though. We never got a reason (the corps members . . . perhaps the directors did). It definitely killed the buzz of winning a championship a little though.
Already did Sr. Boo :) We were looking forward to the exhibition quite a bit before the rug was pulled out from under us.
-
Tom, stop making assumptions. You have no clue what you're talking about. I marched Div III this summer.
We chartered buses. We did a heavier tour than some Div I corps. We had the same 4-ish weeks of everydays that most Div Is have. We paid $1500 for fees. We worked just as hard, and honestly put on a better product than some of the Quarterfinalists. Heck, our book for both brass and percussion had more difficulty than some of the Div Is I saw several times over the course of the season.
We did this for the love of what we were doing and for the people that bothered to come to a show in the past ten years before passing judgment. The audience is made of more than parents and volunteers (though that doesn't mean it's a big audience by any means). We rode chartered buses. We ate good food every day . . . well, for drum corps anyway. Your arguments are those of someone who has made his assumptions and takes them as facts.
As for the directors, there are some out there who are trying to make changes for the better. The only problem is that DCI still must be made to care, and the other directors have to be brought on board. We're trying to affect a change, it's just going to take time. Do some research before you start throwing stuff out there next time.
-
I can't get over how many people refer to the parking lot having a better show. However, if you assume that the lot is a better show and don't give the II/IIIs a chance, it doesn't matter how amazing the II/III show is. You're going to stick to your "I'm getting a better show, and I'm not going to think of changing" regardless of whether it's true.
-
Well, I've heard staffers and members from CC '03 comment that that was "the worst hornline that ever made Finals" (only half-jokingly). To go from that to the AMAZING sound they had this year . . . or even where they were in '04 in comparison is just mind boggling. That staff should be insured, not fired.
-
Jim Prime, Jr.
Michael Klesch
Wayne Downey
Jim Ott
(And from personal bias) Andre Feagin
-
It's true that we were scheduled to go on in exhibition. They called it off after div II/III finals ended though. We never got a reason (the corps members . . . perhaps the directors did). It definitely killed the buzz of winning a championship a little though.
-
Sorry if this offends folks, but I don't have any guilt for not attending II/III events.
It's not that I think that they're less hard working, inherently less entertaining, or any less deserving of respect, but you're kidding yourself if you think it's a "false assumption" that they're not at the same performance level. In general, there's a different level of commitment, experience, design, and skill between the divisions.
Skill, I can see that (mostly in the lower tiers). Experience, no, you're wrong. Design . . . depends on the corps. Level of commitment . . . did you really think that through? Div II/III I would venture to say are more dedicated to the activity. They go out there and work just as hard to perform for less than a tenth of the Div I Finals crowd. They end up getting crappy performance times, getting screwed over for the big boys, and they still give it their all. There's a different level of commitment alright . . . just not the way you put it.
-
I hope to join a corps staff as either a visual/marching tech or front ensemble tech.
Liz, give it up. Honestly.
-
PORT HURON.... that field made me feel fat and out of shape.
Worst field evah! <**>
-
I don't know, though some (wealthy) corps replace brass instruments frequently because they want service reliability, and figure after a full season, the horns are beat to heck and why tempt fate? Like buying a new car when the warranty's up.
But though I love the dark sound of Kings, if I was Crown, I would not mess with success by changing brass brands. They are getting the best brass sound of anybody out there. They're not getting scoring credit for it, but the audience sure appreciates it. Maybe there's your answer.
You do know they were on Yamaha this year, right?
Mempho 2008
in DCI Open Class Corps Discussions
Posted
Ah, I understand. Tommy's actually his first name, that's why he goes by his middle now . . . he didn't like that it sounded like he was still a kid :P