jasgre2000

Maybe DCI should require corps to certify that their members are eligible to march before they start a tour. To be eligible, you would have to have paid your dues or had your dues reduced or waived by the corps. It seems like that would give the corps more leverage to require dues by a certain deadline, and would prevent those who haven't paid their dues from being picked up by other corps. If a member isn't certified as eligible before the season, they cannot transfer to another corps, even if they do pay dues to the transferee corps mid-season. If a member owes a corps money, the corps could file a notice with DCI that would prevent a certification of eligibility until the dues are paid. This seems like an easy solution that would benefit everyone, and wouldn't take that much more work. It would simply mean adding a list of eligible players into a database. If a corps certifies a member as eligible when they haven't paid their dues, then only the corps is to blame, and the corps waives their right to use the DCI eligibility system to seek payment from the member in the future. I really don't think there are many reasons to waive fees for members. As others have said, if parents can't afford it, there are plenty of ways for members to earn their own fees. My parents never paid for anything like this when I was growing up. I always paid my own way for anything I participated in. I realize some parents want to pay for their children, and I have not problem with that ... but for those that don't have parents that can pay the fee (because they are too poor), there are plenty of ways for the members to earn the money themselves.

I would move the Ohio corps to the east, for the sake of balance. But you could take those regions, have them do a regional tour, and then send the top 4 or 5 from each region to Indiana.

That has to be true. If it weren't true, a corps could move up just by doing a bunch of cheap tricks (like upside down tenors ... love the Cavies, but that was nothing but a gimmick) poorly.

To be honest ... after looking at the judging sheet ... I don't see how judges can be anything BUT subjective. I don't know that there is an objective, measurable element on the entire sheet. It is all open to interpretation.

I do agree with that. They are one of the two corps that I feel have shows that completely engage me from start to finish.

But isn't a show more effective if it is clean than if it isn't? We shouldn't be rewarding gimmickry, should we?

Oops ... double post.

So again ... what exactly is audience engagement. Is it getting the loudest cheers? If I were to describe engagement in coarse lay men's terms, I would describe it as keeping my attention from beginning to end without boring me. I have to admit that while I do quite enjoy much of Surf's show, there are still some dead spots where I was not engaged. It is very hard to keep an audience engaged for every minute of a show. In fact, there are only a couple shows this year that do it for me throughout. Most shows have some spots where I lose interest. That is the way I understand "audience engagement". Maybe I am wrong. I very well could be.

Note how the judges sheet defined audience engagement: "To what extent does the realization of repertoire, and conceptual vision, engage the audience through compelling impact, contour, shape, pace, development, etc. over time?" That doesn't sound like the same thing as "Who is playing the most familiar music the loudest?" or "Whose show is the most entertaining?" Jersey Surf's show is quite entertaining, but I'm not sure there is a lot of "contour, shape, pace, development, etc."

To be honest, I would rather just have the members of the audience rank their favorite corps, and then incorporate an average of the rankings into the final score, than have the judges trying to judge how an audience is reacting to a show. Talk about subjective. Are the judges supposed to read audience member's minds? And does the make-up of the audience mean scores vary depending on whether a show is in California or Allentown? And is a screaming audience the only type of positive reaction we are looking for in drum corps? BD's show this year is in my top 5 favorite shows this year. I find myself completely enthralled with their show from beginning to end. And yet ... I never felt compelled to jump out of my seat and cheer loudly (probably because the show ends quietly). Am I not engaged because I am not standing on my seat by the end? That just seems like a silly way to judge drum corps to me.

So what is audience engagement supposed to measure? How loud the claps are?

I think I understood exactly what you said. In a perfect world, where the judging was overhauled (as you want), where would do you think Jersey Surf should have finished this year? And the new sheet changes have nothing to do with "audience engagement." If you want to know what the changes were really about, listen to this discussion about it (from an actual judge): http://www.marchingroundtable.com/2012/07/19/episode-109-roundtable-unplugged-making-dci-accessible/

He said there needs to be major judging overhauls because Surf wasn't scoring as high. I am just wondering where he thinks they should be.

Unfortunately, I don't think they have any chance of medalling this year. I will be rooting for them to win the title, but realize that I will be rooting in vain.

Where do you think Jersey Surf should be placing this year? Should they win the DCI title? I love Surf's show, but it is nowhere close to as clean or as well performed as anyone else in the Top 12. There is a lot more to drum corps than music selection.

Calling a strike is not subjective. There are clear rules as to what is a strike and what is a ball. Now a person's perception of what is a strike or ball may vary from person to person, but the rules are quite clear.

It's not a flaw in the judging community. It is a flaw in human nature (if it is a flaw at all). There have been studies done on the phenomenon

Could just do it randomly.

That isn't a bad idea. Maybe not wait until Indy, but wait until regionals? Or maybe just do scores at the big regional shows, and then have the weekly shows be exhibition shows.

It's not just an issue with drum corps ... it is an issue in any subjectively judged competition. It is why people were upset that Jordan Weiber didn't perform last in gymnastics at the Olympics. The person/group that performs last is more likely to score higher than a group that scores first. It is a proven fact. Part of it is "score management" by the judges, but it is also because those that perform earlier get compared to what a perfect corps should look like, while those that perform later get compared to the corps that went before them (and therefore look better, in comparison).

Isn't visual performance the thing that distinguishes drum corps from other performing arts? If all you care about is music, go watch a band.

That would be great. I don't agree with the assumption that this show is praising or imitating Dada. Parts of it certainly are, but Satie isn't Dada and the jazz piece they play at the end certainly isn't. There is way too much in this show to be written off (as some have) as just a bunch of nonsense Dada.

If you replace them every five years, how are they ever going to build up the skills to be excellent judges?

But the DCI judges are the cream of the crop. Like I said ... judging isn't easy. It is a skill that is developed over time after a lot of practice. Some judges are better than others. You can't just go pick random marching band judges and expect the judging to be the same quality.

Where are the new judges going to come from? The problem with that idea is that, while you will have judges with a fresh perspective on things, it is going to be hard to find enough judges that have the expertise that the current judging corps has. The quality of judging would probably go down quite a bit. Judging isn't easy. Its not like you can just hire a guy off the street.