tariq.shah

Nah. Really not too concerned about overlap.

Wasn't aware this was already covered in the "Rumblings..." thread, as I don't have the time or inclination to read every single thread on this board before posting something. If you'd like it taken down that's fine. That being said, there's no law against pot-stirring or piling on or Hopkins bashing. It's fun! The internet is big- you can always go somewhere else.

My link

Post it, man!

Just wondering, does anyone know of anybody that has ACTUALLY been sued by DCI over this issue? What I'm getting at is DCI has a shoestring budget as it is-they hardly have the funds to lawyer up and sue every person that posts a Youtube clip. They are a paper tiger. Unless I'm wrong and somebody has been or knows someone that has been in court on account of a clip from a show. Thoughts?

Super happy for you.

SCV's snare tuning is too wet for my blood. Really like the Cadets' snare sound this year. Crisp attack w/o sacrificing a healthy snare sound.

Cadets 2005.

They were 3rd in 2000, I believe.

battery-snare.

Danse Macabre.

You bring up an interesting point: where do we draw the line? If there is indeed some correlation between fewer competitions and higher placement in the long run, I think corps would begin to trend towards having fewer shows, as a matter of logic. This is, generally, my concern and reason for exploring these ideas on dcp. I don't think corps should be punished for working harder, just prevented from exploiting any unfair advantages as relate to their tour schedule.

I'm saying we ought to make every effort to ensure the playing field is as level as possible. Maybe it is a good idea that corps who cannot meet a requirement of, perhaps 20-30 shows not participate. Maybe that's a worthwhile threshold to consider so as not to see corps fold mid-season. Maybe not. The number of shows is less important than ensuring the amount of shows is the same.

No one's "under fire" for anything.

I appreciate the responses so far. The consideration of the budgets of smaller corps is certainly important, and travel costs pose a real challenge to all up-and-coming corps. Not to dismiss those concerns, but I was more interested in examining this issue from the prospective of competitive fairness. In the data posted, it seemed there was a correlation between higher scores and fewer shows throughout the course of the season. I'm not saying there is- in fact I'm posing that question to you. Generally, do corps tend to perform better when they have fewer shows to compete in? It would seem, that at least in regard to top twelve drum corps, they do. Is it the consensus of dcp that this is okay? If not, what is the solution? There have never been, to my knowledge, any requirements for corps to compete in a certain number of shows during a season. But it would be interesting to find out if The Cavaliers, Cadets, BD, etc, have, over a number of years, averaged fewer shows per season, and whether that had a positive impact on their placements over time.

It was mentioned in a previous thread a few months ago that BD participated in fewer shows this year than most other corps. It seems unfair to me that the number of shows a world-class corps competes in during a given season is not regulated. This seems like common sense to me, and I was surprised when I learned that it seems to have never been regulated at all. Does anyone know the reason(s) behind this?

Hey Atucker, here are the things over which I think we disagree: 1. "The fact is, as long as there are fans, these conversations will happen." -Well, no. There are innumerable conversations and rants the public could be having right now but aren't because the system works fine and people don't have beef with it. 2. "The fact that those conversations keep happening is not evidence that there is anything wrong with the judging community, it is instead simply evidence that there are people who are passionate about the activity." -This may be so, but it is evidence that there is a large perception of a problem. And please keep in mind I haven't suggested changing the judging itself, per se (though that might be something that should happen), but how the judging community & DCI relate to the public. The fact that people have been talking about it for years is evidence that someone should at least try to better address it. 3. "There's a reason it's not posted online." -Sure, I'll grant that as well. But judges tapes are not scripture. I think it could provide great insight to the public, and to future fans and participants, if, perhaps, finals tapes were posted after the season ended. This way staff get their cover throughout the season, and when it's all over people can go back and better understand why things happened the way they did. 4. "We don't need to know why Spirit beat Phantom's percussion section. We need, instead, to trust the system that DCI has put in place." -And I think these statements get to the heart of our disagreement. I think many people believe we DO need to know why corps X beats corps Y. And I think it's stupid to "just trust" anything. I don't want to see the judging community burnt at the stake. Just trusting things to work out is foolhardy. I hate to get polemical but see: the Iraq War, the 2008 stock market collapse, CIA drone killings, The Penn State child abuse scandal, even the entire child abuse scandal(s) scourging the entirety of the Catholic Church. I don't want to blow this thing out of proportion and get grandiose, but it is simply bad policy to just trust any one person or system to do the job correctly. And even if we did just trust the judging community, judges come and go. If I grant that we should just trust the judging community, what about when those judges retire? Am I also to believe not only that this year's judging staff can be trusted, but by extension all judges, forever? Look I trust the judges. But many people don't. I don't think it's a problem with the internet disproportionately magnifying the perceived size of the problem either. 5. "The recaps outline the numbers to the micro-detail." -That they do. And they're great. I'm of the opinion that the activity would be better served if there were a way for people to better understand, as specifically as we can fashion, why those scores were given. It may be so that ice dancing judges are less accountable than DCI judges. But every time I've ever watched ice dancing, there've always been a couple broadcasters explaining what's happening, what the judges are looking for, what a good jump and a bad jump is, how a given skater's performance will probably be seen in the eyes of the judging panel. And it totally helps, and actually makes the activity a little more interesting. I appreciated that on the 2003 DVDs, judge commentary was an included option. I thought it was great, not only because I got to hear better audio of the drumline, but I also understood that, for example, the judge was listening to the pit quad lick X was being played that I really loved and thought earned the line a 2nd place rank instead of a 3rd. And who knows? Maybe judges would be into it? No likes going to a job they are constantly vilified for doing.

Well, sure, pure objectivity is an impossibility. That's granted. However, whether a given pitch was actually over the plate or not is a matter of conjecture all the time. Was the pitch a given "strike?" Was SCV's opening drill "clean?" These days we have all sorts of cameras and computer software to demonstrate to the audience watching a given game whether or not a given call was actually "correct" as defined by a given sports system of rules and regulations. It hasn't been until recently that refs had the ability to actually revise bad calls on the field or court. -But I don't even think DCI needs to go that far. This is what i'm getting at. I mean there isn't even an outlet for the audience to know why BD's visual score was the score it was on a given night. Maybe post a tape on dci.org. Maybe not even that. The fact is this isn't going away. And it isn't just because the DCI audience is dopey and doesn't get it. It can be improved.

But they are accountable. They must be, and simply because there exists a lack of recourse in other sports doesn't mean the issue is dismissed. Just this week an Olympic boxing ref's decision was overturned. Baseball umpires hold press conferences. In the NFL & NBA we now have instant replay and challenges to calls on the field. I think these changes came about from a desire in the fan base for those activities for more accountability. Those organizations responded. It is not unreasonable for DCI to follow suit. And to explain further, I understand and agree with the notion that judges or referees deserve a bit of sequestration from the public-at-large. I think it is vital to the sport/activity. I'm not an advocate of collective judging, or turning over the judgement of the quality of a drum corps show solely to fans. I think that'd be disastrous. But there is room to improve. Even if there were simply an outlet for which fans could understand why it was j.j. pippitone, for example, scored Spirit of Atlanta's drumline over phantom's the other day, I think relations between fans and judges would improve dramatically. I understand, obviously, that anyone can read the scoring sheets and the rubric by which judges are guided. But it's also obvious, since we keep having this same discussion on this and other message boards, that it is insufficient. In sum, I think much of the problem is due to the facelessness of the judging community, and a general lack of a grasp of the sense in why judges score the way they do. If even this could be improved, the activity would benefit in a number of ways.

All I want is more objectivity, and more transparency. For instance, I wouldn't mind a slightly increased emphasis on tics, and every now and again I'd like to see judges held accountable in public and be given an opportunity to explain themselves. I think many people would be much happier if this came about.

BD's show is not high art.

English major + 3 invaluable DCI snare line years.

You mean, "I boo bad grammar," right?

Grrr Hipsters!! Let's beat them all up!

I think you need to take a break.