marksil1

Have to agree with this observation. They would have been better off just using "is nearest to" a section instead of the silly triangle. But why not just listen to the tape while you watch a show? You'll hear exactly who the judge is sampling. It's a good idea in theory -- analyzing where the judge is physically located is solid data. But clearly the designer of this research has very little understanding of what a perc judge actually *does*. The perceived problem with just being “nearest” to a section is that the sonic environment changes too frequently for “nearest” to be a useful guideline. As noted in my post above, I have listened to these shows, watched these shows and listened to the field percussion recordings for nearly all these shows. I can tell you that many times it is easy to observe that there is a significant amount of playing that the field percussion judges cannot comment on because of environmental demands in evading performers, because of transition times, because segments of the battery are on opposite sides of the playing area, because there are passages in the front ensemble that cannot be viewed due to geographic constraints. If you are familiar with the shows you can easily discern this when you listen to the field percussion recordings. It isn’t that the judges are bad and do not know where to be—far from it. DCI has great people doing field percussion. It is that there is too much going on for them to physically be able sample everything at once and/or consistently from unit to unit. We could do it in the old days because the battery marched up and down the 50 and there was little, if anything grounded up front that you had to account for. That is most certainly not the case these days. And regarding whether “clearly the designer of this research has very little understanding of what a perc judge actually *does*”, I will refer you to my other post concerning the survey designer’s experience judging DCI. And for the sake of clarity, I am not the designer. I was one of the observers watching the shows and making notations as to positioning. I also listened to the field percussions recordings as part of a different study effort. Let me know if there are any other questions about how the survey was constructed or conducted.

I was one of the people conducting this research and doing the actual observatiions, so let me see if I can illuminate a few of the shadows: The potentially refuting issue here is the simple and physical act of that request. Presumably experienced musicians watching two browsers, one of the show and the other of the survey table, clicking buttons, navigating the table up and down, up and down, click. 120 times troughout a "live broadcast" that can't be stopped. Is it purely coincidental that the first choice on the survey was "IT" (in transit) time? These were recording from the Fan Network high cam. They were not “live” performances. One could start and stop as much as needed to get an accurate read of the field percussion judge’s location relative to the sound focus. Whether “transit time” was a coincidence or not I cannot address. What I can say is that at the start of every show I observed the field percussion judge was not staged with the battery, he was on the sideline and as the gun went off he began to transition to the location of the battery. The purpose of this study was simply to see where the field percussion judge was relative to the perceived sound focus at any particular point in time. For example, if the battery was playing a feature we tried to see where the field percussion judge was physically located during its duration. If the front ensemble was featured (e.g. during the ballad) was the field percussion judge back or trapped with the battery, transitioning or in the sound focus for the front ensemble? So participants were "encouraged" to watch "a minute of the show" and then pause to note judge positions every 5 seconds. Sounds like a reasonable suggestion, but I sure can't figure out how to do that without missing some observation time with each pause. (Nothing is noted about watching the rebroadcast and taking notation.) This possibly explains why it was necessary to gather so many opinions of an unrefutable [sic] observation? Were they all watching on their own time, in uncontrolled conditions where a fraction of a second for a moving judge could be measured in feet, not inches? In this case, the difference is crucial, and here's why... I do not understand the point of this unless the assumption is that the recording could not be paused at five-second intervals. That is an incorrect assumption if it is at the heart of this. The reason for so many observers is that there were a ton of performances to view. Twelve minutes times X performances can get to be a real time commitment. It also increased the number of observations to get a better sample size, i.e. observing ten performances as opposed one hundred performances gives a better representation of movement and positioning trends. The observers were asked to identify the judge in relation to "...a hypothetical spot formed at the apex of an equilateral triangle created with the performing segment as the base" between the line being judged and the press box. Survey creators did not identify how to measure if the line is angled across the lateral of the field. Survey creators did not control for when the line is split in two, nor when they are stacked, nor when the line is crunched up tight back to back or shoulder-to-shoulder. A ten-snare line puts the "G-Spot" exactly where? Is that point of "maximum sonic clarity" moved closer to the line if there only five players? Who defined "maximum sonic clarity" and based on what? While there are assumptions that must be made in virtually any sort of undertaking like this, the criteria for what constituted the sound focus and how observations were to be notated was formulated by a judge with about 40 years of finals, semi-finals and quarter-finals DCI, DCA and WGI judging experience (in addition to be a nationally and internationally recognized marching arts judge and assessments systems author). With this amount of experience determining what a reasonable definition for the “sound focus” for being on the field was a pretty simple task. There can surely be other defining characteristics but this was an appropriate one for this study. Having been in both the judges box at Lucas Oil and in the seating above and below that section I can tell you for that venue sound quality changes an amazing amount (usually for the worse) just by being a few rows higher or lower. So there were assumptions made about where the best hypothetical point of observation was for the field percussion judge but it was not completely arbitrary. According to the presumptions of the study, the maximum sonic impression is observed at a point exactly the same distance from the line as is the physical length of the line, presumably centered on the line, and anything away from that spot is classified as "In Transit" time. For God's sake, need I even go on? This is ludicrous. To call this "science" is like saying "Welcome to Howdy-Doody Time!". I'll stop here and leave you kind folks with a thought: Anyone who thinks a drum judge, or even a "drum guy", needs to be located at this survey's "G-Spot" in order to get a good read of the line doesn't understand drums, drumming, or drummers. My son and I can judge a battery line from across the parking lot at finals to determine the quality of line we want to go watch. We can even identify with good accuracy a line by name (ours is just a game, not "scientific"). The whole concept of "maximum sonic clarity" is silly. Then you and your son should certainly continue to watch lines you like in parking lots. However, when it comes to putting numbers down and ranking/rating units, there is a bit more to it than who you happen to think plays well. A adequate drum judge can be running across the field to catch the snares while finishing a comment to the pit, while presently, in this microsecond listening to the splits going on in the bass line and watching the crazy sticking of the tenors. As he approaches the snares he's still listening to the gliss from the pit and complimenting the tenors and basses. To suggest that the drum judge isn't giving the kids "a good read" unless he's standing in that Sweet G-Spot does a terrible disservice to the work of the drum guys who can also judge. I would be interested to know what experience you have had on a field that gives you a frame of reference to make this statement. I will note a couple things in addition. I judged field percussion in the marching band and drum corps worlds for several years and I could not begin to multi-task in the manner you say an “adequate drum judge” can. Maybe that makes me inadequate. I can also tell you that I actually listened to the field percussion recordings (at a later date) for all the performances I observed during the study (as well as more than hundred DCI field percussion recordings from 2009 forwards as part of a different study) and I can tell you that none of the obviously outstanding field percussion judges I listened to who did DCI quarters, semis or finals since 2009 came anywhere close to making comments in the fashion you allude to. Does this mean that are inadequate as well? You describe what amounts to an information overload that no recording I have ever listened to even comes close to demonstrating. So I will repeat my question, what background experience do you draw on to make this assertion? No statistical survey of anything from percussion to presidential candidates can be perfect. They all have assumptions that must be made. Let me know if you have other questions about methodology used in this survey.

DCI has put up attendance figures. Quarters and semis slightly down from last year, finals up. The net appears to be about the same overall as last year.

I am all for a Christmas show. There is a ton of good music available that is holiday music. I will be happy to see what they do with it.

I remember the Ventures very well. I note that their experiment wasn't really adopted by anyone else and, sadly, I also note the Ventures (and so many others) are not around any longer. Does that mean their grounded battery idea was unsuccessful? I don't know. And I hope you are correct but there are several of he really competitive HS programs that have completely eliminated battery percussion in favor of a drum kit and keyboards. As I said previously, I think that was a program design decision rather than a numbers/economic decision, but the precedent is there. But your point is interesting in the context of this discussion. If the front ensemble is too big now--where are they going to put a grounded battery? Backstage? Timing would make that a challenge. have all the percussion on the side, end zone to end zone? Timing there as well. Would they have to cut say nine snares to five due to real estate constraints? Would they just change to six or seven drum kits and get rid of true marching drums completely? The activity has gone off in directions I'd have never imagined that first time I sat in the rain watching the Seattle Imperials in the rain at Midwest in 1975. That is why I am fearful. I hope it never comes to pass but most of them have ditched marching cymbals. What's next?

Mike's "jest" would actually be my greatest fear. For a long time I have been resisting the huge front ensemble/amplification/synth direction DCI was going in because it wasn't the drum corps that I grew up with (Whitewater '75 was my first show). I stopped watching DCI about 1986 when the real emphasis seemed to shift to drill velocities/"over-writing" in the front ensemble/emphasis on design at the expense of execution and accesssibility. Every four or five years I would borrow a DVD just to see what had been going on and I was always saddened to see that the shows were still going even farther in my perceived direction. This year a friend who has been a DCI judged since the early 80s and has judged Finals many, many times invited me to watch Crown do a day long rehearsal/clinic for high school kids. TO prepare to enjoy that opportunity I began "cramming" the last couple years' worth of shows to learn what DCI in the 2010s was about. While I personally prefer the old sounds and particularly the old charts that sustain a musical piece long enough for you to identify and enjoy the whole tune (i.e. La Suerte BD '80 versus La Suerte BD '10), over the course of this Summer I have really come to embrace the current shows. While I still probably like the old stuff for the reasons just mentioned, the new instrumentation, show designs and the abilities of current players have really caught me. Are the front ensembles ridiculously large? Sure, but man do they employ them in intriguing ways. I will use Nick Starr and CC as an example. From a traditional standpoint, Rach Star ain't a drum corps show. But I absolutely loved it. Measured within the constraints of what is currently available and acceptable musically this show used all the modern tools to great effect. Plus, it gives more kids the opportunity to participate. Most corps today have lost marching cymbals so you lose four or five spots to gain twice that many front ensemble participants. If educational opportunity for the players is the reasons for the activity then the expanded front ensemble allows for that. So what about the downside of the additional cost to buy, maintain and transport all that stuff? That is certainly a consideration, but in the overall scheme of things I bet you'd find that touring costs such as food and fuel (as noted above) far outweigh the costs associatied with the large number of pit insturments. (And the truck to haul that also hauls all the guard toys, the field props, etc.). And that is what concerns me. At some point will economics begin to eliminate instrumentation? I know that Tarpon Springs High School (one of the perennial BOA big names) does not use battery percussion at all. I believe this is a design choice rather than an economic decision, but it sets a precedent that a show can be produced and be relatively successful without marching a single battery drummer. That would be my fear with future drum corps. As it gets more expensive to field a corps I would hate it if they started replacing instruments because the could be reproduced more of less electronically. That is what worries me. Let's put all the percussion on six electronic keyboards and use all the extra bodies for more . . . color guard!

I have asked him and hopefully that material will be in a presentable form soon. It would be very interesting to see how the numbers come out.

I am getting back into DCI after being away from seeing anything for about ten years. I have been catching up by watching the old shows. Having seen nearly all of them twice through now, and like others have said, if you have the right A/V equipment to take advantage of the Blu-ray format (i.e. large, widescreen 1080P TV, good Blu-ray player, correct receiver/speaker setup) it is very, very much worth it. The difference between Blu-ray and DVD is like the difference between DVD and VHS--it is another whole level of fidelity beyond the previous format. And if you have the money to invest in a good A/V setup, you are probably not going to choke at the cost difference for the Blu-ray versions of the shows. Mark

Very true John. I was not sure what to expect but I thought the podcast was very informative. He seemed to be geniune and appeared to be truly interested in the activity. I thought his answers to the questions posed by the listeners were substantive and candid. Good job to all at the MRT and to Mr. Acheson.