Schnitzel

Mr. Collins, you sure spend a lot of time telling us all the voluminous content of your knowledge and experience. It's almost like you have a constant need to be impressive. I'm sure a year with a G Soprano with "The Volunteers" and a few years marching Jim Idol's circle drills ("CJ's"?) in an orange-and-white overlay has qualified you for pageantry greatness. Maybe you were even a legendary "Black Shirt." It's not so much your conservative preferences that are so unattractive, it's the way you seem to dismiss anyone (or their ideas) who doesn't share your zealotry. Philistines! Although I'm certain you'll insist I'm incorrect in all this, I'm just curious as to your experiences that got you to this point. Is there something going on in GreenEville I've missed lately?

I don't want this to be adversarial, and if you choose not to believe me, that's on you. But: costuming, props, guard equipment, etc. are all a significant part of a corps' assessment. Ask anyone in a corps or a staff member. There are reasons for the individual occurrences that have been suggested earlier. I'll give one example, and then you're on your own. The 2017 Cadets were forced to make several design changes over the season (both music & visual) to react to judge criticism/questions about how/why costumes were changed by different sections of the Corps. There has to be high production value in technique, musical and programming motivation, and logic in understanding/accessibility. Why would they even change costumes once, let alone twice, if it didn't matter in the scoring? Thousands of dollars and hundreds of man-hours went into that one aspect of the show. Ask any Cadets staff member - it's not like uniforms haven't been a hugely contested issue in Cadet-Land the past few years . . . it's not the only thing, but it certainly IS important. Don't believe me? That's okay.

I can assure you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what a corps wears has everything to do with their assessments, particularly in visual captions and General Effect. One of the more interesting developments in the equation is that the more form-fitting garments are actually designed to allow for not only freedom of movement, but also the ability of judges to evaluate body articulation, position, and clarity of movement technique - exactly as in competitive dance/movement.

Just a word of support for this discussion - some captivating insights, mutual consideration, and reasoned discussion. Thanks!

Congratulations for what has to be the most arrogant statement I've ever read on DCP. What in the Wide World of East Tennessee has qualified you for such wanton self-regard? Cathy Leach teach you that?

While being thrilled by the performance of the 50th Anniversary Santa Clara Vanguard Alumni Corps just now, I couldn't help but notice how emotional the members of the Vanguard Cadets and Vanguard World Corps were on the sidelines. Screaming, crying, emotionally & physically willing that memorable performance into being. A lasting and substantive memory right in front of them. As per usual, "the kids" can teach us so much, when we pay attention. They obviously know and love the traditions of their beloved corps, and they see what they themselves are doing as a continuation of the SCV tradition - they're loving what they do independently of bias for what happened in the past. I could certainly be wrong, but my guess is that if there was such a great desire for retro-corps (in most any form), people would already be doing it. Within or without the DCI framework. DCA is now a very legitimate option for high school and college students who don't have the free-time and or $$ for DCI, and they do quite well. They also seem to willingly support their Alumni Corps. Ours is a niche activity that combines a volatile mix of teens/young adults with several decades of people who are emotionally attached to their own experiences and tastes. Every generation of DCI has "ruined it" for the previous one - maybe the newest trends will evolve into something you like better, maybe not. But it WILL evolve.

Really looking forward to your visit!

Given the success of Music City Mystique this winter, with their back-staged, then actively moving pit, we may see more alternative positioning next Summer.

This begs a slightly different question: might there be brass instructors (as opposed to designers or "creative staff") that are actually annoyed or even offended by the distorted, processed sounds that result after they labor so diligently to create pure, characteristic ones by their players? Actually, I already know the answer to this, but you won't hear any of that in public during the season. There has been more push-back between teachers and designers about some innovations in the past few seasons than you might think.

Perhaps inspired by the legend of a certain full-French Horn Section (in black) a year-or-so ago that was said to utilize a digital recording of a professional symphony's performance . . . THAT was okay?

It's kind of ironic, IMO, that when the allowances for A&E were passed in DCI, most of us were more concerned about the "E" than the "A." Now, due to the imagination of a few talented and motivated tech-heads, we are nearing a point where some parameters of sound reinforcement may be in need of review. One of the primary reasons for this is crossing the threshold of a reasonable ability for adjudicators to assess the achievement of the actual performers. Once it becomes possible to actually "fake" a level of performance achievement (rather than enhance) through technology, the foundational basis of competition is invalidated. At times, it is now impossible to discriminate sound sources during performances: live, sampled, synthetic, recorded, etc.. Again, a foundational problem for assessment.

I would certainly think the Effect judges could be influenced by show titles. In fact, titles set expectations and context for what subsequently happens in the show. Some are literal narratives, some representational, many abstract, and some cases no discernable relationship exists. A program can definitely be interesting/effective without a stated organizational premise, but typically, a good title gives the spectator some level of insight (real or imagined) into the logic of "why" a corps does what it does. There have been design teams that follow some concrete idea/framework in all aspects of design, and conversely, there have been titles chosen (or changed) after-the-fact. Likely everything in-between, as well. Being that one of the bigger issues in the medium is lack of clarity/motivation/unity of design elements, anything that brings associative meaning to a production is helpful to both the enjoyment and assessment of a performance.

Okay - I defer to your superior intellect and experience.

Actually, that's pretty dead-on.

My guess is that, at this point, the amplification techniques (or result of them) are being "accepted" by judges, more than anything else. Since one of the most unique aspects of the 2016 Champions' presentation was previously unexplored sound reinforcements (particularly sound sourcing and ambience), there is likely a philosophy of nurturing in assessments as staffs deal with the various technical issues involved. This phenomenon certainly has historical precedent. It is not to suggest that comparative judgments are not being made, however. It should come as a shock to no one that groups are entering this newer aspect of design at various levels of understanding, both technically and artistically. There certainly is a lot of discussion about the ramifications of sound reinforcement, as well as the use of synthetic sounds, both musical and otherwise. As per normal, the paying customers tend to be more reactionary than adjudicators - likely for good reason. For the most part (but not exclusively) audiences are more product oriented than judges, who are more likely to be focused on process (but not exclusively). Again, there's a relative logic to this. It's nothing less than ironic that the use of synthetic sounds was the focus of discussions leading to the approval of "electronics," and now post-implementation, it's the sound reinforcement aspect that's the more problematic. As suggested earlier in this thread, this discussion will most likely continue long past the 2017 season.

To be blunt: no. Judges must report any and all affiliations (primary and secondary) in all the major organizations (DCI, DCA, BOA, USBands, WGI, etc.). In the small world of marching arts, competitors are very aware of potential conflicts of interest, and it would be difficult to circumvent private and public scrutiny.

This is quite an interesting discussion. A couple of sub-topics need clarification, IMO: Judging DCI, DCA, etc. is not a professional career. The actual pay is very low (much lower than WGI or BOA, etc.), and the "average" judge does about 4 shows per season. Most judges actually report a financial loss for their tax exposure from drum corps judging. If you do it enough, the frequent-flyer miles are pretty good, however. That's about it. There is some formal communication during the competitive season among adjudicators and administrators, but not much. Judges are most always professionally engaged in some sort of "day job" outside the marching activity - in fact, most use vacation time to judge shows. So the idea of this collective roster of full-time judges ready for deployment is not one based in reality. No musical scores, drill charts, etc. are ever submitted to adjudicators before, during, or after the season. It has been discussed over the years, but to this point has not been attempted. As stated earlier, the charts would change daily, if not hourly. I know it probably disappoints some, but the idea that there is any fiduciary link between a judges' scoring patterns and ANY direct or indirect relationships in the pageantry community is fallacious and insulting to all involved. To a person, judges are first-and-foremost advocate/fans of these youth activities whose professional lives are focused elsewhere. Of all the hired labor in drum corps (administration, design, instruction, consulting, etc.), adjudication is easily the least financially profitable. In fact, considered from purely an economic standpoint, the pay and non-existent benefits are quite sub-standard in light of the education, training, experience, and diverse skill-set required to perform at such a high level. These are special people.

The truth is that the quality of design has everything to do with the GE score, especially the "top box" of the GE sheet ("Repertoire Effect"). As much as a lot of us would like to discern a way to negate the "staff members at a bar" part of the equation, it's just not possible. Unless, of course, you require all the groups to perform the exact same materials - likely not, right? Some feel that there are de facto "compulsories" in play as it is. As to the rise of the content score (actually Repertoire Effect) during the season, that's because there is a direct relationship between the quality of performance and the effectiveness of the writing - in both directions. I use the "Peeling the Onion" illustration: high-quality composition (musical or visual) is like peeling an onion, in that the higher levels of performance expose more levels/possibilities for achievement. If there's enough depth, then the growth potential is near-infinite. Most any performing artist spends a lot of time "chasing" the ultimate performance of substantive material. Perfection isn't even a concept - if anything, it limits the imagination. In theory, the elimination of error is just the means to an end. As to "inconsistency" of scores: performances and performance dynamics (venues, weather, etc.) are inconsistent. I'm told that the reason Dr. Allison's scores (and rankings) for the 2013 Cadets changed, as documented earlier, was that the stadium conditions at the outdoor stadium in Massillon, Ohio were much different than indoors at Lucas Oil Stadium, as well as different performances from all the groups. Sometimes, God Forbid, scores can even drop!

If you're good enough, yes.

Last time. Don't care whether you believe or not. Gave you a specific example. Mics never went off. Happens a lot in band and corps. You choose what you want to believe. I owe you nothing, kitten.

No.

One more for your entertainment: many/most corps vocal soloists now have digital backup samples, in case they're not feeling it at a show - Mini Vanilli lives!!! That competitively ethical? (And, if you're paying attention, you HAVE been fooled by it before.)

Finally, something on which we can agree - ask some of them if they can be "fooled" by miking trends . . .

Figure this out on your own. Just think about what you're asking, and who would be in a position to know these things . . . it does say "wireless miking 26 players the whole show ," right? There are MANY others, but you have to do your own factfinding. No offense, but I have no need to prove anything to you - think about it.

How about the BOA Grand Nationals Champion in 2013 wireless miking 26 players the whole show - that specific enough for you? Find your own evidence. I have mine.