Will visual determine the winner?

[Bob984]

Will the visual caption determine the winner at DCI? Should it?

As a music person, I happened to notice something alarming in the scores.....this actually happened last year as well, but is much more obvious this year. For whatever reason, visual judges tend to call larger spreads, even among the very top corps. As a result, a corps with high visual marks many times now ends up defeating a corps who outscores them in music but loses to them in visual, as the music spreads the other way are not as wide. And my point is???? My point is a question mark.......I am a bit alarmed that Cavaliers were only 5th place in the musical captions at Murfreesboro, and yet due to their winning visual marks only were out of first by less than two tenths and thus nearly won the show. Visual now has 50 percent of the score (it used to be 65 percent music to 35 percent visual). However, if visual scores are always going to have high spreads and the other caption margins are lower, that means that visual will most likely determine the winner. Frankly, as a sport that promotes music and music education, I do not think that it would reflect well on the activity if the 5th place musical product is crowned champion. Last year, there was a sudden spike in Cavs visual numbers at finals to extreme levels, which guaranteed their narrow victory.

I will not pretend to be an expert regarding the visual captions. However, it does seem to me that some of the margins may be a bit wide........to me, the "what" (what you are doing...and how well it fits the music...the coordination aspect) is very important, as is the "how" (how well it is being performed). I think that if some of the judges considered the "what" part a bit more, the visual margins would be slimmer.

If the trend continues, perhaps the music judging community needs to consider being a bit more "harsh" on some of the musical products that have issues, and opening up spreads, even among the top corps, and especially opening up margins in musical effect, where a corps can be rewarded for having a musical product that is totally effective throughout and with substantial margins over products that are only partially successful from a musical effect standpoint.....I think the ME caption is perhaps the one where there are the most problems (although, kudos to several judges this year who have stepped up to the plate and called some spreads there, and also realize that ME and VE are not the same thing). There are still judges who will give a corps a high music effect number simply if the music is executed very well, yet the musical book has not communicated with the audience and there are arrangement problems, or places in the show that simply are not very effective.....in short, have just made it another performance caption. An example of a problem is this year......Carolina Crown has a musical program which is more effective than several corps who are not only finishing higher, but mysteriously beating them in musical effect as well.

I do not have a problem if you have 2 (or even 3) corps who are very close in all captions and the visual winner takes the show. However, I do have a problem if a corps who is 4th or lower musically manages to win on extremely high visual scores, as now the "balance of power" is shifted too far toward the visual end. Hopefully, visual margins will narrow, and the corps with the strongest "balance of power" between music, visual, and effect will win the championship. However, at this point, there is a strong possibility that visual scores may catapult a corps into the winner's circle with music numbers that are not among the top 3, and that is a big concern...........

GB

[jpaul]

For whatever reason, visual judges tend to call larger spreads, even among the very top corps. As a result, a corps with high visual marks many times now ends up defeating a corps who outscores them in music but loses to them in visual, as the music spreads the other way are not as wide. And my point is???? My point is a question mark.......I am a bit alarmed that Cavaliers were only 5th place in the musical captions at Murfreesboro, and yet due to their winning visual marks only were out of first by less than two tenths and thus nearly won the show.

Visual now has 50 percent of the score (it used to be 65 percent music to 35 percent visual). However, if visual scores are always going to have high spreads and the other caption margins are lower, that means that visual will most likely determine the winner.

From last night's recap, the spreads from 1st - 5th were GE Vis: .8, GE Mus: .6, Vis Perf: .7, Vis Ens: .9, CG: .7, Brass:

.6, Mus Ens: .7, Perc1: .7, Perc2: .65.

Visual spreads: .8, .7, .9, .7

Music spreads: .6, .6, .7, .7

The visual spreads are slightly larger than music, but when you consider a difference of 2 tenths spread over 5 corps it doesn't seem quite as drastic as you make it sound.

Frankly, as a sport that promotes music and music education, I do not think that it would reflect well on the activity if the 5th place musical product is crowned champion.

Can't the activity also promote the visual arts? Why do you assume that one is more important than the other? My understanding of the way the scoring system was developed is that it is to give balanced weight to ALL aspects of a corps performance.

Last year, there was a sudden spike in Cavs visual numbers at finals to extreme levels, which guaranteed their narrow victory.

At last year's finals the Cavaliers won GE Music, Brass and Music Ensemble. They were 3rd in GE Visual and won Visual Performance by .1. Even with the .4 spread in Vis Ens, this doesn't support your argument.

If the trend continues, perhaps the music judging community needs to consider being a bit more "harsh" on some of the musical products that have issues, and opening up spreads, even among the top corps,

I would never recommend this approach. The spreads that a judge creates are intended to be an accurate reflection of the differences between units. If you try to inflate spreads artificially to create some desired outcome, you're really playing with fire.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk about this, but I have have a concern that your personal point of view may be driving this more than a flaw in the system. You note that you are a music person, and that's fine. I, by nature, am a visual person. I will always prefer a group with a stronger visual program, almost regardless of what or how they play. For some reason, most judges also fall into those 2 categories. You never find a judge that crosses over between the music and visual sides. That's why there are experts on both sides, judges in their area of expertise. Again, the scoring system was designed to create balance, and if everyone does their job, the right corps wins.

It's possible that corps play more similarly than they look. I haven't seen/heard most of the Div 1 corps yet this year, so I don't know. I'm always a little skeptical when people start blaming the judges for getting it wrong. Maybe they're right, and you're just seeing/hearing it from a different perspective.

There is no place in the scoring system that guarantees that the winner needs to be "in the top 3" in any caption. All groups have strengths and weaknesses, and different judges will perceive things differently from one night to the next. The winning score is the sum total of all 8/9 judges opinions, based on the numerical values that are built into the system. No scoring system ever used has been perfect, and the scoring process is, by it's nature subjective. That's why we have forums where people can argue about what should have happened and who should have won. My advice is take it for what it's worth, agree or disagree with the scores, and enjoy the show.

Edited July 14, 2007 by jpaul

[fourouttheforty]

Yeah, but likewise, I don't think a champion should have the 5th best feet either.

[jwillis35]

Ok, I will make a couple of points:

1. The activity is called drum and bugle corps. Drums and Bugles are musical instruments, and therefore I DO feel that more importance and weight should go to those who play well. I simply feel it is a musical activity first and foremost. But that's just me. I do love the visual and color, and acting and all that other good stuff, but I do feel the judging sheets need to give more credit towards performance, especially in music captions. However, that is an issue for a different day and argument.

2. One of the reasons the Cavaliers have been so good recently is because of their incredible brass performances, their amazing percussion sections, and their overall music ensemble artistry. People actually had more of an issue with them back in 1992 and 1995 when they fielded 4th-place horn lines, and frankly I would have had the 95 line in 6th or 7th. To me, they were not deserving of the title on both years because of that, but again, that's just me. But you can't question how good their music captions have been since 2000.

3. As we look at this year, what you see is a situation similar to 1990 where you have 7 great contenders and 7 amazing horn lines and percussion sections (to go along with those amazing shows). While the Cavaliers brass has not placed as high this year, I would first look at the field. I have seen Cavaliers 2 times and I am telling you they have a great horn line. Are they clean yet? No. Are they perfect? No, but boy are they good. This is not a weak hornline, they are simply competing against a lot of other really good horn lines. And time will tell whether they can make a move or not. Crown hasn't won brass either, and nobody is denying that they are an awesome line. But right now I would say Bluecoats, BD and Cadets are the corps to beat in that caption. But you know Phantom will be making their push.

JW

[Bob984]

From last night's recap, the spreads from 1st - 5th were GE Vis: .8, GE Mus: .6, Vis Perf: .7, Vis Ens: .9, CG: .7, Brass:

.6, Mus Ens: .7, Perc1: .7, Perc2: .65.

Visual spreads: .8, .7, .9, .7

Music spreads: .6, .6, .7, .7

The visual spreads are slightly larger than music, but when you consider a difference of 2 tenths spread over 5 corps it doesn't seem quite as drastic as you make it sound.

Response....all I am saying is that due to very high visual marks, a corps that was 5th in the musical scoring last night nearly won the show....some may be alright with that....however, many, including me, are not..........

Can't the activity also promote the visual arts? Why do you assume that one is more important than the other? My understanding of the way the scoring system was developed is that it is to give balanced weight to ALL aspects of a corps performance.

Response....historically, like it or not, for a very long time the scoring emphasis was on music (65% - 35%) , and in fact, the standard was a 9 judge panel with 6 music and 3 visual judges.........strong pushing by the visual community created the 4/4 and 50/50 and also the guard caption....this change and 50/50 scoring has only been in place since 2000.....yes, the corps voted it in, but many musical people in the drum corps community did not agree with the change.... I like a great visual program just like anyone.......however, for me, and many, the total success of a championship level show is contingent on not a good, but a GREAT musical program.................

At last year's finals the Cavaliers won GE Music, Brass and Music Ensemble. They were 3rd in GE Visual and won Visual Performance by .1. Even with the .4 spread in Vis Ens, this doesn't support your argument.

Response....check the 3 major caption totals.....overall effect was a tie....overall music went to Phantom....visual went to Cavs by .55......game, set, and match, as the total spread was .35..................also, check out the inconsistencies in numbers in brass and music effect during finals week last year and things get even wackier.....and I can tell you that the performances were fairly consistent, as I was there.........

I would never recommend this approach. The spreads that a judge creates are intended to be an accurate reflection of the differences between units. If you try to inflate spreads artificially to create some desired outcome, you're really playing with fire.

It's not an "approach".....what I am saying is I do believe there are some spreads there (in the music captions) now, but some judges are afraid to "pull the trigger"..........however, some are already saying "enough", and calling a spade a spade, especially in the music effect caption, which is long overdue.....it is NOT just another performance caption, as some are still judging it to be...........

I'm really not trying to be a jerk about this, but I have have a concern that your personal point of view may be driving this more than a flaw in the system. You note that you are a music person, and that's fine. I, by nature, am a visual person. I will always prefer a group with a stronger visual program, almost regardless of what or how they play.

Response.....to each his own, and all have a right to there opinion and what makes a show work for them....

For some reason, most judges also fall into those 2 categories. You never find a judge that crosses over between the music and visual sides.

Response....not really true.....I have seen many a music judge suddenly "go with" the corps with the visual numbers, influenced by the visual judging community, and reward visual effect on the music effect sheet, or simply judge effect as another execution caption....yes, coordination is an effect, but that's not all that there is.......

That's why there are experts on both sides, judges in their area of expertise. Again, the scoring system was designed to create balance, and if everyone does their job, the right corps wins.

Response: I am with you on this one....however, if someone slams down "home-run" numbers for the win in their caption and spreads it, and nobody else does, you could have scenario where a corps who was lower than 3rd in all of the other captions still manages to win the show.....that is not balanced.....

It's possible that corps play more similarly than they look. I haven't seen/heard most of the Div 1 corps yet this year, so I don't know. I'm always a little skeptical when people start blaming the judges for getting it wrong. Maybe they're right, and you're just seeing/hearing it from a different perspective.

Response.....the top 7 corps (I have seen them all), all play well, and I could see much jumping around in the performance placements at any given show.......I think the judging has been fairly good in the performance captions.....the only exception perhaps being Crown, who I believe has a significantly "better than being scored" brass line and music program, and I am not alone in that perception....

There is no place in the scoring system that guarantees that the winner needs to be "in the top 3" in any caption. All groups have strengths and weaknesses, and different judges will perceive things differently from one night to the next. The winning score is the sum total of all 8/9 judges opinions, based on the numerical values that are built into the system. No scoring system ever used has been perfect, and the scoring process is, by it's nature subjective. That's why we have forums where people can argue about what should have happened and who should have won. My advice is take it for what it's worth, agree or disagree with the scores, and enjoy the show.

Response......I have to disagree here....I do believe that a musical program that is not judged in the top 3 overall should not win a championship (I would have to check, but I think nobody ever has....but that is threatened this year)regardless of the strength of the visual program (I am including Music Effect......ie if someone was 4th in performance but 1st or 2nd in effect, that is still ok....) This is also the reason that I was against the guard getting it's own caption, which encouraged the possibility of a corps that was terrific but the guard was average could lose the title to a corps that is inferior in every other caption but wins due to a hot guard....it's not WGI, but a corps show.......if you feel the guard/visual are as or more important than the musical product, that's fine, but many, including me, do not.

I have enjoyed the shows this year....I think the battles to win and battles to make finals may be terrific.........my personal opinion is that some improvement is needed in musical adjudication which could make results more accurate (and I have a Master's in Music Performance and over 30 years in this activity, so I don't say that without some knowledge.....and many heavy-duty music people, including several hall-of-famers, agree....) I look forward to Pasadena!!

GB

[Russellrks]

Back when I taught I always felt that visual should have carried more weight simply because the whole corps was doing it.

This was my argument for more pay, seeing as how I was responsible for writing for and teaching the whole corps vs. 50% of the corps (hornline) or 25% (drums and guard) but it never worked. :P

[NeutralNovice]

Ordinals should be used maybe? I don't know if I am right on what ordinals mean but I think if you make the rank of each caption equal points, then the corps with the least amount of points should win.

IE:

Corps A: 1+1+2+5+1+3+2+1=17pts

Corps B: 2+2+1+2+2+1+1+2=13pts

Corps C: 3+3+3+1+3+2+3+3=22pts

Corps B Wins.

Would that be a better idea? I mean the only thing that I see as a conflict in the "ordinal" system is that everything is weighted equally and right now the system, at least from what I know, weighs GE more than the others.

[jpaul]

Response....all I am saying is that due to very high visual marks, a corps that was 5th in the musical scoring last night nearly won the show....some may be alright with that....however, many, including me, are not..........

Another way to look at it is that the corps who had the 5th place musical program came in third. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. I thnk we disagree on what "very high visual marks" means.

Response....historically, like it or not, for a very long time the scoring emphasis was on music (65% - 35%) , and in fact, the standard was a 9 judge panel with 6 music and 3 visual judges.........strong pushing by the visual community created the 4/4 and 50/50 and also the guard caption....this change and 50/50 scoring has only been in place since 2000.....yes, the corps voted it in, but many musical people in the drum corps community did not agree with the change.... I like a great visual program just like anyone.......however, for me, and many, the total success of a championship level show is contingent on not a good, but a GREAT musical program.................

Apparently, there were enough people who felt that it needed to change to make it happen. The fact that it worked one way for 30 or 40 years doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Someday another group with new idea will lobby for another change.

Are any of your "many other Hall of Fame" friends visual people?

Response....check the 3 major caption totals.....overall effect was a tie....overall music went to Phantom....visual went to Cavs by .55......game, set, and match, as the total spread was .35..................

A little deeper analysis shows that the tie in GE was the result of Cavies winning music and Phantom winning visual (with Cavies in 3rd). Cavies lost the overall music caption, but 2 of the 4 judges had them 1st. It's not quite the runaway train that you suggest.

It's not an "approach".....what I am saying is I do believe there are some spreads there (in the music captions) now, but some judges are afraid to "pull the trigger"..........however, some are already saying "enough", and calling a spade a spade, especially in the music effect caption, which is long overdue.....it is NOT just another performance caption, as some are still judging it to be...........

How do you know the motivations of the music judges? Or are you making assumptions? If judges are not applying the system correctly, that's a training issue for DCI to address. I don't disagree with your assertions here, as I have no knowledge of the situation, nor do I care to research it.

For some reason, most judges also fall into those 2 categories. You never find a judge that crosses over between the music and visual sides.

Response....not really true.....I have seen many a music judge suddenly "go with" the corps with the visual numbers, influenced by the visual judging community, and reward visual effect on the music effect sheet, or simply judge effect as another execution caption....yes, coordination is an effect, but that's not all that there is.......

I wasn't very clear in my wording. Of course judges are influenced by everything they see and hear. My point is that a music judge will never judge visual performance, and a visual judge will not judge brass. Each judge has an area of expertise, and by balancing the panel you should end up with a good evaluation of the entire product.

It seems reasonable that there is more tendency for crossover in the efffect captions because coordination is so integral to the caption. If it's true that music judges are abandoning their captions, that's different issue. I don't know why that would happen.

Response: I am with you on this one....however, if someone slams down "home-run" numbers for the win in their caption and spreads it, and nobody else does, you could have scenario where a corps who was lower than 3rd in all of the other captions still manages to win the show.....that is not balanced.....

What if it was the percussion score that was a "home run"? Is that OK because they're musicians?

If a corps is significantly better than it's competitors in one caption, why shouldn't there be an appropriate spread? During a contest no judge knows (or should know) what the other judges are doing with their numbers. How would the Vis Performance judge know that the group they put in 1st is going to place 3rd or 4th in some other caption?

Response.....the top 7 corps (I have seen them all), all play well, and I could see much jumping around in the performance placements at any given show.......I think the judging has been fairly good in the performance captions.....the only exception perhaps being Crown, who I believe has a significantly "better than being scored" brass line and music program, and I am not alone in that perception....

OK.

Response......I have to disagree here....I do believe that a musical program that is not judged in the top 3 overall should not win a championship (I would have to check, but I think nobody ever has....but that is threatened this year)regardless of the strength of the visual program (I am including Music Effect......ie if someone was 4th in performance but 1st or 2nd in effect, that is still ok....)

That's an opinion (to which you're entitiled). But, as I said, there is nothing built into the scoring system that prevents it.

This is also the reason that I was against the guard getting it's own caption, which encouraged the possibility of a corps that was terrific but the guard was average could lose the title to a corps that is inferior in every other caption but wins due to a hot guard....it's not WGI, but a corps show.......if you feel the guard/visual are as or more important than the musical product, that's fine, but many, including me, do not.

Why do you think that the 30+ kids in the guard, who devote the same time/effort/money/skill/etc., don't deserve the same scoring consideration as the rest of the corps. Both the brass and percussion sections receive input from a judge qualified in their specific skill set and a numerical valuation of their achievement. Why doesn't the guard deserve the same. Apparently, you feel they're LESS important than the rest. I don't agree with that.

Edited July 16, 2007 by jpaul