BDCorno

Well, it isn't constant entertainment for everyone...I just duck in here from time to time.

Come on, it's DCP. You should know better.

Yep.

OK, I'll just finish out my comments by relating a judges training story from a seminar with Mike Rubino years ago: All the brass judges we had at the seminar were shown about a half dozen shows, and the shows reflected everything from the finest groups of the day to beginner-level. We were to listen to the brass performances and give a rank/score to each one. At the conclusion, we made a big chart on the blackboard and filled in our scores. It was quickly apparent that there is a clear phenomenon in play...the better the group, the less variance in score, the less disagreement in terms of rank and rate. At the top, errors pop right out at you off of a spotless table of performance. The beginning level groups had a multiplicity of issues, from intonation to tone quality to accuracy, many times layered one upon the other. Of course, the better the group, the more consistent the performance. Lesson learned here? There is less disagreement at the top (aka "slotting" to the conspiracy theorist), while the lesser groups have to endure big swings in score and sometimes rank, due to their many shortcomings. It's not as easy now, as the quality of performers has risen at the top tier to ridiculous levels. A single clipped note, late release or other minor defect not detectable from the stands might make the difference between a caption win and a loss. It's an interesting dynamic...just thought I'd relate this as a useful dynamic to consider.

Well, we're now reduced to "could bes" and "might happens". These things could be and might happen, but you'd hope not. That's where it's up to the judges training program, the judges they pick to judge, and how they are assigned to carry the day and eliminate (or at least minimize) any potential for a problem.

No, you tried to justify your personal view/feelings by portraying a larger "moves people" statement in the first sentence. Nice try.

I believe we have that in general...I'm just not sure where you think this is not the case.

No, I really didn't. If you replaced "people" with "me", it would have reflected that.

Sure, to an extent. A corps that simply marches around in the "old fashioned way", making formations and such, has a built-in limitation to it. Designs that factor in characterizations, advanced movement concepts, communication of mood, for example, put more of the onus on the performer. It's always incumbent on the performer to perform whatever is asked of them with enough clarity and quality to communicate the design intent/quality...that's why the content scores can fluctuate with a good or bad performance. I'm not going to credit a horn line playing a killer bebop line, if the trumpets frack and gack their way through it....nor would a guard get full credit for content if three rifles dropped a difficult behind-the-back toss. While we are on that subject, and back to the SCV/BD color guard debate, SCV simply outperformed BD in the first two rounds, and were scored accordingly. BD had a better rep and content, but they didn't perform it. The scores in those rounds were no surprise. They did a near-perfect job at finals, and it didn't surprise me that they won the caption like they did, and with the spread. I'll touch on the brass debate, as it's a real "apples and oranges" situation between BD and Crown, as it has been for years now. From my perspective, I think BD should have won horns at finals, but Crown the Ott, all biases aside. Both lines are of impeccable quality, but take different approaches in terms of overall sound, book and what they attempt. My only criticism of Crown is that they don't take chances in terms of range. High notes in the trumpets? Not happening, not gonna happen. Put them in a contest in sectional or full ensemble runs/brass line tricky stuff, there is nobody better. I love how Matt encourages the old-time volume that I love with drum corps. BD has more of a meaty sound, and they "go there" with the high trumpet work. Half a click behind Crown on the technical stuff at times and not quite as consistent there, but a riskier book from a range perspective. I know that BD brass staff eschews the pedantic, "drill the part over and over until it's clean" approach that Crown takes (though I sort of agree with the latter when it comes to cleaning tech passages), but that's the way they deal with it. It's truly a crap shoot (not literally lol) trying to judge and seperate those two lines. BUT...the job of the judge is to RANK and RATE. Could biases and preferences make a difference in a decision there? Sure. I hope you don't think I fail to acknowledge that fact. In a tie, a decision must me made. How you arrive at it may or may not be bias/preference related. I'm sure it's different with every judge...all you can do is train them up and trust that the training meshes with the experience and restraint of the judge to get a fair decision.

OK, we have finally arrived at a diagnosis for your condition. This particular "art" moved YOU so profoundly that you are willing to ignore or throw out the objective criteria that you seek and demand allegiance to by the judges. Interesting. What was it about this show that leads you to throw out all technical and design-based criticism? You love Crown? Liked their uniforms? Do you do crazy over a group in green? Was something they played your all-time favorite piece of music? When you watch a show, do you focus in on the music, brass line, percussion, color guard only? Was it because they were in second and you simply wanted them to win? Much of this is what any judge has to deal with (though I'd certainly hope that they didn't have visceral feelings this strong) before being able to do their job. Everyone has biases, preferences and a myriad of reasons for them. You state that 2009 Crown moved "PEOPLE" in a way that their imperfections are dismissed. Don't speak for others, as there are many different motivations and reasons why people might have liked the show. Facts are that the color guard and visual shows were very good but not top drawer. Overriding that, simply because you lost your sh-t over it isn't the right thing. Sorry.

Yes. You hit on what I'm trying to get across...there is no way to eliminate the subjective from the judging system. Objective criteria are a somewhat clunky way of describing aspects of something artistic, "beautiful", or with a high degree of complexity/thought inherent in design. The simple presence of the objective criteria is no assurance of a competitive, successful program. Your average guy might sit down with a sketch artist and describe your ideal woman in terms of looks, and after giving all the particulars, I doubt what you end up with will be what you'd expect. Being able to detect depth/quality of design, training/quality of movement and musical from the performers, and whether the program has clear intent that is successfully communicated/structured, are all aspects that can't be described by objective criteria. I know it's maddening for those that can't see past the objective criteria, which causes endless discussion and complaints. While I don't care for the fact that DCI sort of hides the sheets, making them public will simply feed more of the criticism and nattering over descriptive elements that are less important than an overall perspective. It's sort of a no-win spot for DCI. Hey, I'm sure you can see from my moniker where I'm from, and I will rightly criticize my compatriots of similar background when they go off a cliff at times over a JK or MR giving them (or a competitor) a score that they don't like. I'm a bit more pragmatic about it, and I'm not going to indulge conspiracy theories unless really blatant...which is rare. Politics in DCI judging? Yeah, there is a bit, but it's not really related to what's on the field. Do judges have biases? Sure, everyone does, and a good judge overrides/deals with their biases in the evaluation and training processes. I will say that there are some judges that are better able to appreciate depth of design and quality than others. I surely hope that the training leads them all to a higher place where they can deal with that issue...that's about all you can ask.

That's pretty much the lay of the land (@socalcontra and I judged together for a few years). Like most anything else, a heaping helping of internal politics to deal with, if you want to get/stay in the good graces of those doing the assignments. Not too different from many jobs/careers.

That is correct, sir! Not that I really follow this kind of thing, but there are judges who give style points...to the rider AND the bull. If the bull sucks, the rider might get a re-ride. Bull riding judging

Fart, you're making my head hurt. I've judged both dog shows and drum corps, so try and follow along here. Dog breeds do have "manuals" (breed standards) that physically describe the structure of a dog. However, it also talks about temperament, carriage, attitude in the ring and interaction with other dogs, and most importantly, TYPE. This isn't really a whole lot different than the process that you would go through in judging drum corps (or band, or horses, or cats)...The written standards (sheets, criteria, whatever it might be called in what you're judging) are only adequate in that they give you a general and technical idea of what is desirable. Sadly, this is where many people stop...and it's where the "SCV marched and played for 56 seconds at 208 bpm, and BD only marched and played for 44 seconds at 192...how are they still winning" mentality comes from. Judging experience, background and training should yield an evaluator with the ability to look beyond the written standard/sheets/criteria. Most any yokel can say '"well, they checked all the boxes" and still put up the wrong dog/corps/horse/cat. It's the ability to detect, appreciate, and reward QUALITY of design and achievement. Clearly, some of the design quality, depth and less obvious demands that top corps are employing these days goes right over the head of many spectators/fans, as well as the individual performance quality/training in some instances. THAT is where I think you're missing the boat in understanding what's going on here. As I think I've pointed out, a .4 difference in spread isn't an overly significant or out of line scoring variance show to show, even among similarly proficient units with similar content. Corps #1 is up by .2 on Friday, say with a 98/98 to corps #2's 97/97. Next night, corps #2 does a lights out show and go 98/98 to corps #1 who does a flat performance and a 97/97. Judges have to RANK first of all, and .1 is a typical margin. If they decide that there is a more decisive advantage in one subcaption, there is your .5. DON"T FORGET that unless it's GE, the score is halved in the final total, so your .4 or .6 variance is effectively only .2 or .3. It happens. Corps have good and bad nights, judges may or may not have the ability to detect and reward the depth or quality of design or performance (due to background and/or training), or the timing of major flaws impacted the effectiveness of the program (analysis captions). It's hardly simplistic. I find it interesting that you seem to allege preference or bias, yet you clamor for complete consistency of scoring. The complexity of a modern drum corps show, and trying to get 150 to perform as one, does not lend itself to total consistency, though the better groups are usually more consistent night to night than less competent groups. Asking for consistency in scoring night to night, performance be ######, is the ultimate bias and preference. Do you see where this is a contradiction? As a breeder, exhibitor and judge of dogs; and as a musician, teacher and judge of drum corps, winter guards and bands; I subscribe to the proposition that judges need to start and end their evaluation process with type/quality as the main consideration. Are the technical requirements/standards important? Certainly, but not in a vacuum, and definitely not as overriding factors that cancel out or ignore type/quality as the aim of the process. I've seen dogs that "check all the boxes" when you look at their structure in a static position. However, on the move, the movement doesn't validate the structure for a variety of reasons. Conditioning, attitude, poor handling, and other factors can turn a diamond of a canine specimen into a lump of coal. Same with corps. OK, they march and play a lot, do some cool drill moves, high notes, neat drum solo, color guard has nice impact points...but if the show isn't structured well, performers don't have the quality of movement or musicianship (though marching and playing things technically clean), then the check boxes don't validate the quality/type that you're looking for. It's the box 4/box 5 conundrum, and as with dog judges, DCI judges can fall into the pedantic approach, rather than to appreciate intrinsic performance quality as the overriding aim of the process. Can't say I saw any evidence of that during DCI week, at least among the top half of the finals lineup. Seem pretty obvious that you did, but I think it's more a matter of perspective than some type of conspiracy or bias. Oh, and by the way, bull riding is more than staying on for the appointed time. You do realize that the quality of the ride is scored too? Gee whillikers.

Stop. Please.

Yeah 2013 wasn't the best...2016 was very good but not great. When I speak of 2015 and 2017, I'm talking about maxing the show at the final show.

Thanks for the clarity...didn't quite know where you were going with it. A bit of a stretch to compare drum corps to sports, especially pro sports. No discernible financial component to the equation, and with the money flowing from the participant to the group (not from gate at shows), it's certainly quite the opposite. Hard to really come up with a comparable activity. Relative quality of management, overall staff continuity/quality, and financial stability drops off quickly after the few successful groups, so it's no accident that BD, SCV, Bloo, Crown and Cadets manage to restock pretty effectively. Cadets are standing on the precipice right now too, after two relatively unsuccessful years and major staff upheaval. Will see how that goes. I think you're right...unless BD suddenly "steps in it" in terms of leadership, or some unforeseen catastrophe strikes, they're well set. The only cure for the overall system is to develop ten or so really well run, strong corps that can spawn instructors and leaders to an expanding base. That number is far too small, though there are a couple of groups on the rise but still a few years off. I don't really have too many worries about the kids, but the lack of really good leadership and organizations activity wide is still scary.

I thought 2011 was cheesy for me...music was great but not what I'd pick for a show. 2015 was different. Trotting out Clara probably seemed cheesy to many (yellow frock didn't help), but it made sense with the theme. Wouldn't go as far as to call the show cheesy, but it was getting there. Boy, did they do a show on finals night though...sucked the air right out of the Oil Can.

"Working the DCI system"...seems you're the king of the backhanded compliment today. :) It is undeniable that they develop as much, if not more home-grown talent than anyone else you find in the top echelon of drum corps. So I'm not sure if you're shooting down your own assertion. BD has the most effective internal feeder group, producing as many (or more) performers (of very high quality) than almost anyone else, but they have an advantage "working the DCI system". I guess if having a well run, efficient organization that dedicates itself to developing its own talent is "working the system", then more groups should get on board. It does allow them to be more selective in who they do take on, but they earned that...it wasn't "working the system". Any other group that wants to cheat the natural order of drum corps simply needs to develop a "B" groups and spend a couple of years developing top talent for their own. Then they'll get the same insidious advantage. LOL! You know who's done that? Vanguard. And you know who the top two groups were this year? You guessed it.

I've been a dinosaur. I was on the field for BD title #1 and a couple or three others... I miss G bugles, don't care for some of the newer aspects of the activity all that much, but that's progress for ya.

OK, we get it...you hate the electronics. Funny, you sound like a person that marched in 1977, not 1997. Didn't know we had dinosaurs that marched so recently.

Horn line: 20 members that marched BDB --> BDA; 2 that marched BDC --> BDB --> BDA Percussion: 8 members that marched BDB --> BDA; 1 that marched BDC --> BDB --> BDA Color guard: 6 members that marched BDB --> BDA; 3 that marched BDC --> BDB --> BDA (including an 11 year member that aged out) Drum majors: 1 that marched BDB --> BDA 41 members, including 6 all the way from C Corps. Pretty impressive feeder system. Proud to have been part of such a great organization as both marching member and instructor. SCV has built a pretty nice feeder system too...bodes well for both groups moving forward.

BD were on fire at finals in Pasadena. Was a great finals....would be nice if DCI would throw the West Coast a bone again in....2042?

Yeah, they had some deceptively difficult moves (the rotation into the echelon as the form built from the outside in was bomb) and handled them well. The Jerry Seawright voiceovers were really meaningful to BD alumni, probably not so much for the average fan that don't know who that was. Brought tears to my eyes every time though. What a great man and a visionary. Rihanna samples...hated them at first but they grew on me. Still one of the great BD programs of all time.

Killer instinct for sure. Staff does a great job of preparing and resting the corps for the final week. Two out of three years now, the corps has maxed out on finals night. 2016 wasn't a slouch either.