Jump to content

GUARDLING

Members
  • Posts

    10,209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Posts posted by GUARDLING

  1. 1 hour ago, ContraFart said:

    Just because no system is perfect, does not mean we get to ignore the issues with the system we have. It needs to be constantly questioned by those inside and outside the judging community. 

    Wasn't going to get back in this conversation but :

    You're right and it is. With that said, when corps feel anything doesn't fit their mission, judging or anything else corps will make the change. Exactly why DCI was formed to begin with.

  2. 10 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

    I think where we diverge is the concept of competition. Single moments change the outcome of sporting and competitive events all the time, and you are telling me in the world of pageantry, it should not. 

    If all we did was comments for individual rating, I would agree with you 100%, 

    Yes and no, I am saying single moments do not determine and outcome and yet "IF" all things are even they could .

     

  3. 43 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

    What exactly am I dug in on? I have pointed out 3 things about how the numbers are determined which I think are the main flaws of the sye clearly upset and dug in on the " fall " from WGIstem and the only thing the people keep pointing to is the fallibility of the judges. You may think I am fixated on the perfect score, but I'm really not. I just see that as the perfect example of how the actual number is meaningless in this activity. 

    you are clearly dug in on and upset over the WGI fall but refuse to take into consideration that when a judge comes up with a number it isnt 1 thing that determines that AND the fact we are only working with a certain amount of numbers. If you think numbers don't mean anything thats ok, you are entitled but those of us who do or understand how determination  can be made are also entitled. Agree to disagree I guess and move forward. I guess until the next example comes up....and it will..lol

    Maybe to some degree you are right, numbers arent the end all but getting the right group in the right place does which is how the numbers are used. That make more sense?

    • Like 1
  4. 5 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

    No, you do not judge an entire product by one moment. I agree, however when you give a 20 visual score to a group where someone falls down, it would appear to any reasonable person that the fall was not factored into the score. You can tell me over and over again that everything else was so good that they scored more than a 20, but I see that as the fundamental problem with the system, especially when another group who executed just as well, did not get that 20 score. 

    I think we are coming at this from 2 different perspectives. You are seeing adjudication as a teaching tool. A way to comment on the show to allow for the most growth. I am coming at this from the competition perspective, where the scores are as a precise as possible measurement to the competitive outcome, and I am failing to see how the system achieves that. 

    I cant explain it any better, others have also tried. Its something you are dug in on and won't accept it. So time to move on I think. I am not devaluing your opinion but many have offered their opinions on why and it is your choice to accept or not . As far as the numbers, the 20 could be 50 and still have those same issues. You also said the other group executed as well, well that would be your opinion, obviously the judge felt different.

    • Like 2
  5. 35 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

    I’m going to push back on that. As a musician and a visual judge, I definitely consider the simultaneous responsibility of visual contribution with what is being heard musically. From both a perspective of difficulty in multitasking and in visual musicality when I am judging ensemble. 

    This is factually correct and has been for decades

  6. 1 hour ago, ContraFart said:

    The visual judge does not take into account the brass playing. That's why we have captions and none of what I have been saying has been about the GE score (which is it's own monster) 

    To answer your question, if a group does anything amazing, it makes them a better group.

    100% incorrect.....again you look at 1 things verses the entire package. You don't just judge by one moment. 

  7. 59 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

    Come on, wouldn't common sense dictate that the top score would be as close to perfect as can be? Now you just prove my point that the number means NOTHING. 

    Yes bur you are focused on 1 thing NOT an entire picture. It's not how judging works, nor should it be. Clearly you want to prove some point but to me it doesn't make sense . When judging you take everything into consideration not one thing bad or even good. Lets flip this, if a group has an amazing moment, does it make then the better group? Maybe yes maybe no. 

  8. 50 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

    I do not think judges act in bad faith. However I do think that we need to decide if this is a competitive activity or not, especially in the world class ranks. I think there can be different approaches between more scholastic based groups and world class competitive groups. 

    When you look at the results of the current judging system, especially in DCI, I think we have to ask if the outcomes match the competition. I think in same cases yes and in some cases no. I believe the talent and execution of the top 3 or 4 groups are practically the same, but when the outcome is one group winning 50% of the championships in the past 15 years and I agree with less than half of them, tyoure back to believing that a 20 means perfect...it doesn'then I begin to question how we get to that outcome. What am I missing? Am I valuing the correct things when I put my personal input on the quality of a show? How am I so far off after 30 years performing, teaching and following the marching arts? Then I see RCC get a 20 in visual even after a Bass Drummer falls down, and I lose all faith the concept of judging. I have become black pilled on the whole concept. 

    Youre back to believing that a 20 means perfect..it doesn't and never has....and were back...lolYou have to look at the entire production and whoever is #2 what did #1 have even with a major flaw puts them above. Now when you get to that one can disagree with who was better ( as people do ) forever. ( and do also ..lol )

     

  9. 5 hours ago, ContraFart said:

    My wish is to not make this conversation circular, however the reason I think it can get that way is I am not necessarily commenting on why things are the way they are, but more why I think a layman who never heard of drum corps would think that current reality is absurd. 

    The very fact that a major event such as a fall can happen and that can have no impact on the final visual score is absurd. I see where is can have little impact on placement, but I am talking particularly about the visual score. Would a gymnast falling off a balance beam or a figure skater falling on a triple axle not have their technical score affected by the fall? The only retort I hear is that a judge cannot be everywhere at once, but to that I say that there should be more judges. 

    But think of the layman who is seeing this system for the first time. group A and group B are almost equal. Group A has a fall and Group B does not, but Group A has the "maximum" visual score, how do you explain that? You can say "well the maximum score does not mean perfect blah blah blah", but people are going to relate a 20 in a caption as perfect, whether it is or not. 

    I think the following reasons are why I have pretty much given up on the judging system:

    1. Numbers do not have the same value from year to year, or even show to show. Is BD 2014 the best show of all time or it is a result of bad numbers management? Would a show that got a 97.3 get that same score with the same performance any other year? No, and reason why is because it depends on the other groups. 

    2. Ordinals are forced. A judge cannot tie any group, even if they are giving different comp and achievement scores. At that point the numbers have less meaning because its not about the value, but its about the spread. 

    3. Major events can be ignored. "The recovery is more important than the fall". If this were not a competitive activity, I would agree, but sometimes crap happens. Is it really about the performance of that night, if the unexpected is ignored? 

    Apparently I am in a minority here, but this is why I think the way I do. 

    I can understand totally how you feel the way you do. Even decades of teaching and judging I have questions. For me it is a constant and never-ending learning process. Just a thought though, the comparison to the world of gymnastics or even may other judged comparisons, that's 1 person to gain back momentum with drum corps there are 164 others to  rise above even an obvious error. Multiple captions can also do it including the show as a total can do it .

    All I can do is explain from my point of view. Is it a flawed system, yes, the best we can do as a judge is judge from a standpoint of providing solid commentary to actually help a group and as a teacher LISTEN to those offering ways to make your product better.

    But I actually do understand how you feel the way you do and I'm probably not explaining my view good enough.

    • Thanks 1
  10. 5 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

    If the numbers actually meant something, then you wouldn't be forced to have ordinals. It is completely unfeasible that 2 groups achieve at the exactly the same rate on a given night? 

    What I will say because sometimes debates like this can go in circles and go nowhere page after page is that at the top level, mid level and even lower level corps can be so close in almost all areas. That can mean an extremely high level or even have some of the same issues at a lower level.

    Thanks as always for the conversation. I actually do enjoy it 😊

  11. 20 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

    Two things:

    1.  Judging accountability is provided by scores, recaps, written sheets, recorded commentary, in-person communication in critique, and whatever procedures a circuit has for assignment and/or removal of judges.  Every one of those methods of accountability has been employed with both the teardown (tick) and buildup systems of subjective judging.  Any remaining frustrations with the imperfection of accountability (yours or mine) are an unavoidable consequence of the subjective nature of judging.

    It is incorrect to say there was "no" accountability under the tick system.

    2.  Consistency in contest results is a product of both judging and the performances of the corps.  And in the days of the tick system, no corps moved in by Memorial Day to do drum corps 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 11 straight weeks.  There were also more corps back then, making for a more crowded field of competitors.  So a corps really could win by 2 points one night and be in 4th the next night (or afternoon).  You say "often" it had nothing to do with the corps.  I say more often it did.  When performers discuss the relative ups and downs of their results in the 1970s, the clear majority point to performance differences that are reflected in the resulting scores/placements.

    Problem is, this overarching desire for judging "consistency" breeds slotting.  Corps are certainly more consistent today than in past centuries, but not perfectly so.  When a judge is confronted with a relative inconsistency in performance on a given night, they are strongly incentivized against calling it out in their results, or even believing their own eyes/ears.

    HMMMM i dont think i was ever told or encouraged to do anything except be accountable. With that said BITD it mostly had to do with the dumb saying of " I saw it as I called it, end of story " no accountability and very much as subjective as today , if not more. Were corps less consistent ? Yeah probably, to the point of some of the crazy things one night to the next? I don't think so..Again my observation and experience and opinion. I do remember way more than 2 point difference some times..lol

    I would also agree when you have human judging there will always be the happy , the unhappy , the skeptical, the conspiracy"s and of course at times even the dishonest. I guess it always has come with the territory 

    I would agree corps are so consistent today and hard to separate,  not just at the top but the middle groups and even lower groups

    I do agree with #1 always been far from " Perfect"....see what  i did there?...lol....thanks for the conversation. Always nice to talk, debate with one who may have had a different experience or at least saw it different BITD or did I just assume...lol...If I did...sorry 

  12. 7 hours ago, ContraFart said:

    No, they don't, by your definition, the numbers are nothing but an arbitrary value to separate the ordinals. 

    I've judged and taught under both.....they do. 

    I'll use them as I always have as a tool as well as commentary .( when teaching ) Always proved useful over the years

    But of course you are always entitled to your own opinion😁

    • Like 1
  13. 45 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

    I would suggest that if maximum score possible (perfect) is given to a Corps with an obvious execution error (falling down) just because they were better than the next Corps behind, then maybe the previous scores given were too high.  Numbers management is important.  

    the fall although obvious may not equal deficits in other areas of competitors. It's never black or white. Again, even a so-called perfect score never means perfect. Do we actually believe any corps no matter who is a 99 plus? hmmmmmmmm

  14. 😁

    1 hour ago, ContraFart said:

    I don't want a tick system, but I also don't want a system where you can get the maximum visual even if you fall down. 

    All maxing out means is better than those ever so close behind. Maxing out now or ever never meant flawless...this again?....lol😁.....JK

  15. 1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

    It has always been and still is based on ‘the whim of the judge’(s).  

    Yes , youre right, it can be...parameters isn't always a bad thing though,,,then again one has to follow them , so it's back to maybe a whim within guidelines..lol.....no real answer maybe especially when human judging is involved😊

  16. 1 hour ago, DudleytheWest said:

    That is a huge problem The politics and groupthink. There is way too much consistency in judging from night to night and way too little variance in scores and placements. 

    Although BITD the tic system was also subjective and a mess there was no consistency. Some loved the excitement BUT there also was no accountability , A corps could win by 2 points one night and be in 4th the next. Often it had nothing to do with the corps but the whim of a judge. Corps themselves choose the way they are judged or how they sheets are interpreted. Consistency can be a way a corps know what to do next or what to work on. Without some sort of " consistency " corps can be out there lost, especially lower placing corps who maybe need the most help or guidance. Can it go to the extreme, which might be what you are saying..YES, I would agree it could.

    Now I am by no means saying things can not flip around a bit BUT being a part of both systems all I can say is " Careful what you ask for"...lol

  17. 1 hour ago, OldSnareDrummer said:

    You'll have no trouble whatsoever finding other dinos. We'll even show you the secret handshake. 

    All the best in your recovery, 

    So True...lol...BUT you can find dinos of all ages . I know 20 somethings that are Dinos and 70 year olds far from being a Dino. Dino membership doesn't discriminate...lol

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
  18. 13 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

    1.  Indianapolis is farther from home than Winston-Salem for the three NE corps who went there (which was actually in 2005, not 2006).

    2.  The two NE corps who went to Madison in 1999 are no longer with us.

    3.  DCA can move off of Labor Day weekend whenever/wherever they want, if it is affecting recruiting.  Technically, they did move off Labor Day weekend in 2021.

    I am generally in favor of DCI and DCA increasing cooperation and joint events.  However, the idea posited in this thread is not a good one.  Ask open-class what kind of marketing, logistics and audience you can expect when you are at best the fourth-favorite event of the week.

    Funny, I just had this conversation with someone today. We all agreed with this part of this and your example of OC

  19. 40 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

    Many of the alum I'm still close to worked jobs to pay for drum corps fees instead of going to college or the military. They had no familial financial support, worked more bingos than were required by a lot, and had tour jobs like loading busses or painting fields.

    They were the best of us. And the rest of us with more means were lucky we got to spend a summer with them. The whole corps and org was better for including them.

    I hate that money is now keeping people out more. My partner wanted to march BITD but couldn't afford it. He would've gone to Bluecoats if only because they were the sole corps holding Texas auditions then.

    He ended up with a BA in music ed and advanced degree in sonic arts. I also saved money (and my health) by not marching my final two years and eventually earned an advanced degree in dance which allows me to teach the subject (and others) in higher education.

    I would have loved not having to choose one over the other.

    One has to respect a young person who makes a choice and follows through with it, one way or another. I have seen way to many times corps and winter programs with many feeling because of their talent that they are entitled to march , summer or winter. I have seen programs go down in flames because of this. Now the program is also at fault because of many reasons also including searching for those bodies and some good hearted programs who want to help and often get burned in the long run.

    Personally , and JMO I have wanted those who were also great talents turn down a contract because they decided something else was more important OR they knew they could never financially support their desire. Now did I like it? No! but have to respect a young person who realizes maybe they can't do everything and hard choices have to be made. Life lessons Also huge respect for those ( like you said )who found ways to WORK for what they wanted🙂

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  20. 1 hour ago, Sutasaurus said:

    It’s been this way for at least the last 15 years.

    Even more! I have a relative that spent over 3 grand for their 6 year olds dance classes, a bumble bee costume , dancing  bee recital...lol ( used once )  some sparkle thing ( another costume , also once used ) Then their son for summer camp last year, lets just say it rivals drum corps.

    • Like 3
  21. 3 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

    Are you telling me that a 20 means nothing? It has no significance? I dont have to use the word perfect to make my point. When you make a huge mistake such as a very noticeable fall, that is not maximum achievement or effectiveness.

    Why is that so hard to understand? 

    completely understand🙂

×
×
  • Create New...