Guess Who?

[ajlisko]

Sir Shortness ... I just watched "Under The Rainbow" ... you were SUPERB!!! ... and exposed yourself in dramatic fashion ... we are all grateful for your insights and contributions ...

:-)

[Jeff Ream]

" "exposure to error" was a key phrase..."

This was a radical concept when it was introduced, and it required some paradigm shifting to take hold. That process took years and is still controversial at times though it's now the standard way of evaluating all competitive groups, from drum quartets to Olympic gymnasts. The "how" and "what" are both considered.

To this day, the best advice I ever got about this concept came from the legendary music judge and educator, Dr. Bernard Baggs.

In a training for new judges, I had asked how to balance these elements fairly. In that Solomon-like and fatherly tone of his he replied, "Frank, keep in mind that anyone can play difficult music badly. There's not much merit in that."

but there's the issue....even if badly, people want the 95 in demand, even if it's 65 in performance.

[donincardona]

but there's the issue....even if badly, people want the 95 in demand, even if it's 65 in performance.

that's why it's all screwed up. it always was. and i never got it myself. one set of judges said one thing and another said something else. if ya changed your show for a couple judges some others didn't like it. went through that merry go round a lot.

[Jimbalaya]

since you axed my friendly curmudgeon brother....there was this vending stand under the bleachers distributing a fine malted beverage known as Genesee Cream Ale.....the aforementioned miscreants used our non-competitive status to, ahhhhhh, sample the wares.....as time marched on, we approached the vendor for a refill and, lo and behold, we were informed that we had consumed his supply of the nectar of champions. By now the culprits were deep in philosophical realms attempting to opine the why of what we do and how to explain in concise form a definition of "performance"......after belching many times and passing the water that we had previously consumed, we boiled it down to a simple expository 'do good; don't suck' and that is the genesis of the aforementioned First Law........as for how I got into corps you might say that I was born into it, but that is history for another time.

Guido

[rayfallon]

"...those two HOF'ers still had sweet gas in the tank at the end of the show."

Well, maybe Steve had some petrol, but I was usually on fumes by then. But all of us here who ever marched finals in a major show know the adrenelin was pumping so hard it didn't matter if you were half dead. You just kept going.

It's no different for today's performers, I'm certain, and they'll be telling their stories 40 years from now.

It's interesting, too, that '68 was the closest the Brigadiers and Sunrisers ever got to the DCA title in the decade of the '60s, though they both scored a few later on. No one would have complained if either of them had won in '68, either. There was a good deal of parity in DCA in those days, moreso than now, though that will probably change over time.

I missed a lot of it being in the service, but it seems that there was a lot of parity from about '67 - 72.

After that a lot of corps seemed to unwind faster than the Nixon Presidency (pretty fast)

[Jeff Ream]

that's why it's all screwed up. it always was. and i never got it myself. one set of judges said one thing and another said something else. if ya changed your show for a couple judges some others didn't like it. went through that merry go round a lot.

it's not even that. Why should I as a judge, give you a 9 outof 10 in book, when you're playing so ###### poorly you get a 6 in performance??

[ironlips]

'do good; don't suck'

The First Law of Performance is a brilliant one, for it encaptulates the entire essence of the system at the time:

do good = the content = the "what" = the book = a build-up caption

don't suck = the execution thereof = the "how" = the tick (of old)

Truly, this was the insight of giants of the genre, fueled by malt and hops, of course.

Yet, we should not blame the judge for the outcome. He/she is usually the last to know what's actually going on. In fact, that's exactly what led to the disappearance of that arbitrary tick. A judge would simply be seeking errors at the wrong places and times (side 1 clean, side 2 disasterous at the same moment, for instance), and have no idea about the placement of the units in the caption in question, hence, not really making any "judgement".

The judge didn't even see a recap unless shown one by an instructor. "Where did I have you?" was a frequent critique question and , "I thought I had you higher." an often-heard statement.

And consider the gene pool. As John Sasso once famously said, "Those who can, play. Those who can't play, teach. Those who can't teach, judge,... and everybody else writes for Drum Corps News".

And "difficulty" is a red herring. I once had a philosophical discussion with Dennis DeLucia, that icon of drum instruction, regarding that concept. He pointed out the credit to be given for the ability of a drum section to attempt densely written material.

I posed a scenario: two lines of equal ability, where one plays sixteenth notes at 200 bpm for 10 minutes, wheras the other plays every seventh sixteenth note. "Who has the tougher book?", I asked.

He just laughed.

[ajlisko]

>>And consider the gene pool. As John Sasso once famously said, "Those who can, play. Those who can't play, teach. Those who can't teach, judge,... and everybody else writes for Drum Corps News".<<

... and of course, Pepe's concise and accurate pov: "Der's two types of judges ... dose dat can hurt ya ... and dose dat can harm ya ..."

:-)

[donincardona]

'do good; don't suck'

The First Law of Performance is a brilliant one, for it encaptulates the entire essence of the system at the time:

do good = the content = the "what" = the book = a build-up caption

don't suck = the execution thereof = the "how" = the tick (of old)

Truly, this was the insight of giants of the genre, fueled by malt and hops, of course.

Yet, we should not blame the judge for the outcome. He/she is usually the last to know what's actually going on. In fact, that's exactly what led to the disappearance of that arbitrary tick. A judge would simply be seeking errors at the wrong places and times (side 1 clean, side 2 disasterous at the same moment, for instance), and have no idea about the placement of the units in the caption in question, hence, not really making any "judgement".

The judge didn't even see a recap unless shown one by an instructor. "Where did I have you?" was a frequent critique question and , "I thought I had you higher." an often-heard statement.

And consider the gene pool. As John Sasso once famously said, "Those who can, play. Those who can't play, teach. Those who can't teach, judge,... and everybody else writes for Drum Corps News".

And "difficulty" is a red herring. I once had a philosophical discussion with Dennis DeLucia, that icon of drum instruction, regarding that concept. He pointed out the credit to be given for the ability of a drum section to attempt densely written material.

I posed a scenario: two lines of equal ability, where one plays sixteenth notes at 200 bpm for 10 minutes, wheras the other plays every seventh sixteenth note. "Who has the tougher book?", I asked.

He just laughed.

and ray luedee had the cleanest lines of the day but he used and open style. less notes and got content. clean yeas. but doing less.

[gsksun4]

and ray luedee had the cleanest lines of the day but he used and open style. less notes and got content. clean yeas. but doing less.

I'll fortify the shed in case any Florida Hurcs read this. :)