horn_star

Sorry, but even for the most matched and resonant hornlines in the activity, the concert B's and F#'s alone present enough of a challenge to render this statement a little ridiculous. Listen to ANYONE play simple, melodic intervals at the end of the season. The B and F# don't match the quality of Bb or F, and when harmonic responsibilities are added, the quality change gets worse. And of course, it's not just the horns and tubas, that key doesn't sit well on any drum corps brass instruments. It would be interesting to hear a group play a simple C# minor scale on the last day of the season and see if it sounds anywhere close to the quality and intervalic accuracy of the scale in F or Bb. I've heard the best hornlines in the activity struggle to match much closer keys. Maybe we just have different ideas about what "very, very well" means. Then again, maybe you know something those teachers don't. At least we can agree that Bruckner 8 is fantastic.

If that's true, it's for good reason. Would you really want to listen to a hornline play in D#m & G#m (Bb & F instruments respectively). It's would be difficult for a small ensemble of professional brass musicians to make that key sound resonant on those instruments. Are you really saying that you want to listen to a group of 70+ non-professional brass players play in those keys, some of them on instruments that are just poor imitations of their more legitimate originals (mellophones->concert french horns & contrabasses->tubas)? Playing such a piece in the original key would sound very, very bad. If you give any priority at all to quality and resonance in drum corps, transposition is the only option. IMO

...and the Vanguard these days

Of the handful of BOA finalist bands I have worked with, I can't think of a single one whose school allowance for the fall marching band was greater than a few thousand dollars. All of them have extremely effective booster programs that raise the tens of thousands of dollars it takes to fund their season. These programs aren't spending huge amounts of public education money, they're funded by band parents and members of the local community who choose to support the program. So let's not act as though competitive marching band is siphoning countless public tax dollars. Even in affluent areas, these programs get pennies from the school district. Also, I don't think local focus is appropriate for some programs. Programs that are not competitive, or those who would not be successful in a BOA formatted contest are, for the most part, locally focused already. For those programs who invest substantial time and resources in the marching band, staying local doesn't necessarily provide the best experience for the kids. Students who perform at the highest levels thrive at the opportunity to perform for and compete with others at their level, and often, local contests don't provide that experience, and there is something to be said for performing is such great venues as Lucas Oil Stadium, the Edward Jones Dome, or the Alamodome. At the highest levels, I think that the size and scope of the shows and the venues offer a unique and valuable opportunity for students. So, while I don't always agree with the educational direction that some programs take in the context of BOA, I think on the whole, the organization provides a necessary national framework within which programs can offer a unique and positive experience to their students.

Not to stray from the subject of the discussion, but since the 2003 Cavaliers have been cited as an example many times, a clarification's in order: When the Blue Devils won the Indy show in 2003, The Cavaliers weren't rude or disrespectful, or really even disappointed. They changed out of uniform, packed up their equipment, and waited outside the airlock at the RCA. When the Blue Devils finished their encore, The Cavaliers stood and applauded them as they made their exit. Regardless of how other organizations choose to prioritize their season, The Cavaliers don't place a priority on winning. I could go on listing the bullet points of that philosophy, and most of them sound cliche, but to be sure, the current generation of Cavaliers couldn't care less about the competitive aspect of the season. If there's any disappointment, it arises because some aspect of the performance wasn't the absolute best that it could have been. And any disappointment is small in scale when compared to the value of the education, friendships, and experiences they share throughout a summer. I'm not suggesting that everyone should adopt these values. That's just what works for The Cavaliers. But before anyone infers a similarity between the reactions of one corps and another, it's worth noting that not all organizations prioritize winning in the same way.

Phantom Regiment won visual GE on finals night in 2006 because Mike Anderson was judging. That's all there is to it. Had the finals night visual GE score been in line with what other judges had given them at Quarterfinals and Semifinals, the spread in the overall score would have been substantially larger. Mike Anderson tried to call the show.

The drum majors and guard sergeant choose which color cape they would like to wear. It's entirely a matter of personal preference.

I'm sorry, but I think this comment is absolutely absurd everytime I hear it. The VERY FEW individuals I have known who possess absolute pitch have never experienced this "overwhelming discomfort" that some people claim. Not to mention that, in this country, the highest concentration of people with absolute pitch is in the 30 or so full-time symphony orchestras. I find it hard to believe that someone in the audience for say, Chicago playing Mahler 3, would be overcome with agitation at the slightly changing pitch center of the ensemble when the majority of the people in the orchestra possess the same trait and are doing just fine.

Maybe I should have been more specific... a 0.3 spread in a single caption is a significant (but not necessarily a statistically significant) statement these days. I didn't realize we were writing a grant proposal here. Or maybe, in an activity where instructional staff and judges aren't occupied with the 'strictly empirical meaning' of the word significance, the word takes on a slightly different connotation. You seem to be arguing that the spread is meaningless because it is a statistically insignificant difference, since the variability of measurement (you estimated 0.5) exceeds the spread. Who cares!?!?!?! All octavia9299 and I are saying is that in this activity, three tenths is kind of a big deal. The judges see it that way and the instructional staff sees it that way. The numbers management philosophy that is in place allows these clearly understood spread definitions to serve as a means of communication between judges and staff about where the corps' stand competitively, and that is the most important thing. It's actually quite objective, given the nature of what's being adjudicated: The portion of adjudication that is clearly objective is the back of the sheet, which I quickly summarized in a previous post. The numbers management element occurs simultaneously, not in lieu of it! I don't understand why an awareness of spread and placement during judging is a negative thing. Cite some specific examples...

I don't understand what this has to do with the fact that 0.3 has a specific meaning in the judging community. I'm loosely paraphrasing here, but the judges training material says essentially that a three tenths spread means that the lower corps is 'not competitive' with the higher corps in that caption... on that night. Three tenths is saying you're in a different league... it's a pretty significant statement in the judging community. Now, if you're saying that a spread that small is meaningless over many multiple nights from multiple (or even the same) judges, that's fine. Except that when a judge puts a corps three tenths down, it's a statement that the rest of the judging community notices, and that spread can be difficult to overcome late in the season. The judges are TRAINED to use the point spreads this way. So regardless of variability, on a single given night, one, two, and three tenth spreads have a clear meaning.

Why do the scores have to fit a standard normal distribution?! Given the scale on the back of the sheets, it just doesn't make any sense to do it that way. The five boxes are distributed across the score range from 0-100 as follows: Box 1: 1-29 (Rarely/Poor) Box 2: 30-49 (Infrequently/Fair) Box 3: 50-69 (Sometimes/Good) Box 4: 70-89 (Usually/Excellent) Box 5: 90-100 (Always/Superior) The back of the sheet is very clear (especially after they were changed for the 2007 season). Each criteria is listed and the judges must determine whether, for instance: The individuals demonstrate MUSICIANSHIP within ENVIRONMENTAL and PHYSICAL CHALLENGES rarely, infrequently, sometimes, usually, or always. These descriptors apply to very specific ranges in score for a given caption. That being said, judges rarely, even in the beginning of the season, dip into box 2. Can you tell me where on the sheet it says anything about perfection? Even in box five there is room for different levels of "always" and "superior." It's about achievement, wherein very high scores reflect a performance that is always at an extremely superior level. The word perfect just isn't on the sheet. More about the gaps can be found below... Actually, a gap of 0.2 has a VERY specific meaning. In fact, in a section of the judges training material, this topic is discussed specifically (I think the section is even titled 'numbers management'). Gaps of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 have specific meanings and, contrary to days of old, a 0.3 spread in a single caption is a significant judging statement these days.

Before today, The Cavaliers hadn't placed less than 2nd since June 22, 2001.

That's because Dallas Niermeyer sealed the deal for the Blue team. He had them up 6 tenths over The Cavaliers and his score doesn't get divided by two. I'm a little surprised Albert Lo put the green team up. I'm sure that will change when he judges Phantom and The Cavaliers at the same show. And what about visual performance... it's not completely shocking to put BD up, but by 6 tenths?!?! Oh wait... Nola Jones. Yep, I could have called that one before the show even started. All these corps' will see Dallas Niermeyer and Albert Lo again in the last week. You can be sure of it.

Pretty lackluster programming from the Blue Devils.

Yeah, I also thought that was strange. Staging intent was a little vague throughout. It was often unclear where I was supposed to be focusing. Of course, it's only the second show, and if there's critique tonight there might be some helpful discussion about where to go from here.

You have to hire the very best people you can and then get out of the way so they can do their jobs.

This information is incorrect. The Cavaliers' rehearsal are always open, but recording of any kind is prohibited.

I think a contributing factor is the lack of quality high school music programs in New York. If you take a look at highly successful high school programs across the country, they are almost always located in high income communities. They receive most of their financial support from large, highly organized, band booster associations administered by parents and other volunteers. Few if any get by on what they receive from the school district. Now take a look at high income families in New York and many other areas in the Northeast. They send their kids to private schools because the public school system is quite poor in many areas, particularly in the city. Without kids getting the right level of music education and exposure to competitive marching music in high school, you won't see support for drum corps. How many notable private school music programs can you think of, and how many out of those have a notable marching music program. I can think of maybe three in the whole country and really only one that serves as any kind of example: Marion Catholic High School, Chicago Heights, IL. Just a thought...

Magic tea party? Anyway, that recap is incorrect. Albert Lo was definitely the brass judge for DCI quarterfinals. In fact, none of those judges are correct, Andy Cook didn't even judge the last week. Though dci.org has taken the scores down, the page is still cached on google. You should be able to view it here I'm still wondering who is supposed to be the "cracked up brass judge"...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that the Phantom Regiment did not win the brass trophy because of a cracked up judge??? Let's review: Quarterfinals High Brass Score - Phantom Regiment Brass Judge - Albert Lo In an unexpected switch, Albert Lo, a Phantom Regiment alumni, puts the Regiment up by a tenth(?) after putting The Cavaliers in first all season. Semifinals High Brass Score - The Cavaliers Brass Judge - Steve Calhoun If anyone can be counted on to put The Cavaliers out of a brass trophy, it's Steve Calhoun. But shockingly, he saw fit to put the boys in green up by a tenth. Finals High Brass Score - The Cavaliers Brass Judge - Paul McGarr Relative to his finals week colleagues, Paul McGarr is totally non-controversial. Which is why the .2 lead he gave The Cavaliers in brass is the most reliable placement of the top two hornlines for the entire championship week. So which one is supposed to be the cracked up judge? Surely not Paul McGarr. His judging integrity is light years beyond the other two. Maybe you meant Steve Calhoun, in which case, I can't totally disagree. His judging history is a tinderbox of bias and poor number management. But even if he had done exactly the opposite, The Cavaliers and Phantom Regiment still would have tied for brass. So that leaves Albert Lo, and I'm sure you didn't mean him since he had Regiment up to begin with. Yet, his behavior is equally questionable. He had The Cavaliers up, by no small margin, all season. Then, only days later, the Phantom Regiment alumni puts the home team up. Hmmm... So which one did you mean?

It's all about rewarding achievement. If corps A achieves more in three minutes than corps B does in ten, then yes, corps A will have the higher score.

Nope, just Bb Yamahas. The balance on the recording is a little misleading, which may have contributed to your perception. While the trumpret sounds dominate the recording, the Horn, Baritone, and Tuba colors are much more prevalent live.

While the first two instances are at a whisper, the third (8:03 in the full clip) is much more aggressive. Their point of reference for the louder one is supposed to be the original recording. I'm sure that they'll continue to tap into that emotion as the season goes on.

I totally agree. Listening to this made me feel like I was sitting through a long morning of scholastic A prelims.

I can't really recall any blatant, impactful sort of #4's either. Except of course, during last year's show. The flat-9 had become somewhat prominent throughout (see: last three notes of the opener) and when we were on the bus tweaking the new ending we thought, "We'd better not add that flat-9 before the cut-off, it's getting a little old...I KNOW, throw an augmented fourth in there...yeah, that'll work." And so, shamelessly, it was added to the show. It ended up in the mellophones (also cliche I suppose) and maybe some baritones? In any case, the mellophones had a blast as it was a C-Major chord and their sharp-4 put all twelve of them on a high C#. Use it sparingly...