visual now wins, not music

[dciguy1987]

A little more food for thought.

I think a major problem in DCI judging is that the judges are rewarding more musical EXECUTION rather than musical PERFORMANCE.

Again, my $.02.

You can't have performance with out execution, performance is an outcome. There are separate boxes that reward technical (the what) achievement and artistic achievement (the how).

[Bob984]

Haha. I thought the same thing.

I can understand someone saying that about The Cavaliers, but not so much about BD. I think both corps have pretty good hornlines this year, just like Phantom and Crown. At the same time, PR and Crown's visual books are inferior to BD and The Cavaliers.

In my opinion, this decade of dominance by The Cavaliers has proven that a well executed theme is essential to winning/top 3 status. Niagra Falls, Frameworks, Spin Cycle, Machine, and Samurai are all well-integrated themes... from music to visual in every aspect (drill, guard, visuals). I think this year's BD show is a great example of that. Everything in the show is absurd. I may not like it too much, but it is well performed and well designed, IMO.

DCI is marching music's major league. It's not concert hall's major league. Drum corps is about marching and playing... at the same time, not at the same time, whatever. They should be given equal weight.

They are not even given close to equal weight anymore...............

GB

[cowtown]

Visuals will only grow more important at the expense of music – just wait until electronic instruments come and the only ‘musicians’ are in the pits playing Keytars and turn-tables – then you’ll be complaining about the lip-synching scores !!!

So can anyone fully explain Visual and how its judged?

Yeah, I have my version but this question often stumps a lot of people that often 'expertly' talk about Visual, you can do the same with GE.

So I figure if most people can’t define it or explain how its judged, its more of a pageant, political caption, than a real caption

Drum corps died the first time I heard it called pageantry arts, I still puke a little in my mouth when I hear that, and many freaks can’t figure out why it’s not cool and kids don’t want to do it? I’m a music first guy, I broke my ears-in in the days before every ADD kid had their hand on the DVDs

[pags]

(1) Historically, music carried more weight in the scoring than visual for quite a long time......now, the scoring is definitively

visual.....spreads are never called (even if earned) in music captions, only visual....you must win or be a close 2nd in

visual to win a title, period. Conversely, you can be 3rd, 4th, or even 5th in music and win.

I did not include Denver, Stanford, Orlando in my stats, as these shows didn't have all of the major players present,

so they are irrelevant at this point in the season. The bottom line is visual does win, not music.....Devils have not won

the music caption once at these showdowns, nor have Cavaliers. Conversely, Phantom and Crown have both beaten

Devs and Cavs in music, yet have not won even once overall against them.

They ARE relevant because they contained two of the major players you are using as opposites in your opinion. The same judges that did BD's music scores at Stanford and Denver is the same one who scored Phantom at those shows. Therefore, they are relevant. Shows like Murphreesboro and Atlanta simpyl mean that more players are involved in the equation.

However, if you choose to hand-pick which shows are relevant, then of course anyone can come to the conclusion they want.

And again, you fail to address the fact that BD is closely behind Phantom in music in the shows they "lose" yet Phantom is miles behind visually. I seem to recall a number of reviewers stating that "once Phantom gets their visual going, watch out." Yet, Phantom has not changed their visual program to gain ground in those captions; thus, it stands to reason that they gain little ground overall, because there is only so far they can score musically. Essentially, it sounds to me as if fans of Phantom have switched from arguing "once Phantom gets the visual going, watch out" to instead arguing "the scoring system is screwed up" to justify why corps like Phantom and Crown are behind.

(2) There are flaws in the quality of musical arrangements with both BD/Cavs. I may be a "homer", but nothing BD plays

now could stack up at all to some of their musical productions of the past, such as "Channel One Suite", "Ya Gotta Try",

or "The Gangster Chronicles"........play the music only.....and the flaws become much more pronounced.

Conversely, play Phantom or Crown....superb arrangements/orchestrations played with great emotion and phrasing.....

and I am sorry, it's not just by a tenth, even if that is what is being "called"...............

BD does play very well, and there is demand, but the arrangements are lacking in flow and substance compared

to Phantom and Crown.

GB

That is purely your preference as to what the arrangement "should" be. You have yet to produce any kind of confirmed judging criteria to indicate that Blue Devils are being given something they are not earning, and thus that Phantom is playing in a "rigged" game. I feel that Blue Devils, Cavaliers, Phantom, and Crown are equally musical. Crown and Phantom are simply more melodic in their musical approach. I'm not sure what show you are listening to, though, because when I listen to Blue Devils I hear a genius level of flow and substance. No, it's not the entirety of a single piece, but I love the way they layer multiple pieces within a movement and essentially create a new piece. I find myself going back to the source music and asking, "How did they pull THAT out of there?"

That, to me, does not make Phantom's arrangement style superior or inferior; they are just different. Why is it not within a person's mental caapcity to appreciate DIFFERENCES in arranging styles? I love both. I would gladly listen to both shows over and over again (if I could just get a decent APD quality). However, between the two, the show I would WATCH time and time again is Blue Devils.

Edited July 29, 2008 by pags

[jthomas666]

They ARE relevant because they contained two of the major players you are using as opposites in your opinion. The same judges that did BD's music scores at Stanford and Denver is the same one who scored Phantom at those shows. Therefore, they are relevant. Shows like Murphreesboro and Atlanta simpyl mean that more players are involved in the equation.

However, if you choose to hand-pick which shows are relevant, then of course anyone can come to the conclusion they want.

Since the question is based on the results of head to head competition, it only makes sense to look at head to head performances. Same-judges different night is not going to yield the same results.

And again, you fail to address the fact that BD is closely behind Phantom in music in the shows they "lose" yet Phantom is miles behind visually.

I believe the point being made is that the OP feels that the spreads for visuals are exaggerated--which has the net result of making the scoring rubric even more heavily weighted towards visual--thus making it possible for a corp to win with a 4th place brassline, but impossible to win with 4th place visual.

[bobbyk]

They ARE relevant because they contained two of the major players you are using as opposites in your opinion. The same judges that did BD's music scores at Stanford and Denver is the same one who scored Phantom at those shows. Therefore, they are relevant. Shows like Murphreesboro and Atlanta simpyl mean that more players are involved in the equation.

However, if you choose to hand-pick which shows are relevant, then of course anyone can come to the conclusion they want.

And again, you fail to address the fact that BD is closely behind Phantom in music in the shows they "lose" yet Phantom is miles behind visually. I seem to recall a number of reviewers stating that "once Phantom gets their visual going, watch out." Yet, Phantom has not changed their visual program to gain ground in those captions; thus, it stands to reason that they gain little ground overall, because there is only so far they can score musically. Essentially, it sounds to me as if fans of Phantom have switched from arguing "once Phantom gets the visual going, watch out" to instead arguing "the scoring system is screwed up" to justify why corps like Phantom and Crown are behind.

That is purely your preference as to what the arrangement "should" be. You have yet to produce any kind of confirmed judging criteria to indicate that Blue Devils are being given something they are not earning, and thus that Phantom is playing in a "rigged" game. I feel that Blue Devils, Cavaliers, Phantom, and Crown are equally musical. Crown and Phantom are simply more melodic in their musical approach. I'm not sure what show you are listening to, though, because when I listen to Blue Devils I hear a genius level of flow and substance. No, it's not the entirety of a single piece, but I love the way they layer multiple pieces within a movement and essentially create a new piece. I find myself going back to the source music and asking, "How did they pull THAT out of there?"

That, to me, does not make Phantom's arrangement style superior or inferior; they are just different. Why is it not within a person's mental caapcity to appreciate DIFFERENCES in arranging styles? I love both. I would gladly listen to both shows over and over again (if I could just get a decent APD quality). However, between the two, the show I would WATCH time and time again is Blue Devils.

I think there is the problem that many people have. PR is not "miles" behind visually to BD. Yes they are behind, but I don't believe the spreads are consistent from visual captions to music captions. And what I mean by that is that a .1 spread in music is not equal to a .1 spread in visual.

In my personal opinion, a .1 spread in music is equal to a .3-.5 spread in visual. And THAT, my friend, is the argument that many people are making. And in my opnion, it is a completely understandable argument. I don't believe PR is behind by that much visually to BD. And that is what most of the difference in the 1.5 point spread in their overall scores.

[megadrive]

I think there is the problem that many people have. PR is not "miles" behind visually to BD. Yes they are behind, but I don't believe the spreads are consistent from visual captions to music captions. And what I mean by that is that a .1 spread in music is not equal to a .1 spread in visual.

In my personal opinion, a .1 spread in music is equal to a .3-.5 spread in visual. And THAT, my friend, is the argument that many people are making. And in my opnion, it is a completely understandable argument. I don't believe PR is behind by that much visually to BD. And that is what most of the difference in the 1.5 point spread in their overall scores.

Exactly, my friend. Dead on.

[Bob984]

They ARE relevant because they contained two of the major players you are using as opposites in your opinion. The same judges that did BD's music scores at Stanford and Denver is the same one who scored Phantom at those shows. Therefore, they are relevant. Shows like Murphreesboro and Atlanta simpyl mean that more players are involved in the equation.

However, if you choose to hand-pick which shows are relevant, then of course anyone can come to the conclusion they want.

And again, you fail to address the fact that BD is closely behind Phantom in music in the shows they "lose" yet Phantom is miles behind visually. I seem to recall a number of reviewers stating that "once Phantom gets their visual going, watch out." Yet, Phantom has not changed their visual program to gain ground in those captions; thus, it stands to reason that they gain little ground overall, because there is only so far they can score musically. Essentially, it sounds to me as if fans of Phantom have switched from arguing "once Phantom gets the visual going, watch out" to instead arguing "the scoring system is screwed up" to justify why corps like Phantom and Crown are behind.

That is purely your preference as to what the arrangement "should" be. You have yet to produce any kind of confirmed judging criteria to indicate that Blue Devils are being given something they are not earning, and thus that Phantom is playing in a "rigged" game. I feel that Blue Devils, Cavaliers, Phantom, and Crown are equally musical. Crown and Phantom are simply more melodic in their musical approach. I'm not sure what show you are listening to, though, because when I listen to Blue Devils I hear a genius level of flow and substance. No, it's not the entirety of a single piece, but I love the way they layer multiple pieces within a movement and essentially create a new piece. I find myself going back to the source music and asking, "How did they pull THAT out of there?"

That, to me, does not make Phantom's arrangement style superior or inferior; they are just different. Why is it not within a person's mental caapcity to appreciate DIFFERENCES in arranging styles? I love both. I would gladly listen to both shows over and over again (if I could just get a decent APD quality). However, between the two, the show I would WATCH time and time again is Blue Devils.

And your last sentence states it boldy, that you preference is what you WATCH as opposed to music, which is LISTENED to....

First of all, my so called "hand picking" of shows were only the shows where ALL of the top 5 corps were present. There was no bias at all.....I also didn't include Orlando, which was won by Crown.

"there is only so far they can score musically" your reference to Phantom....interesting one....perhaps I could say that about BD/Cavs, as I see limitations on what I feel their programs can score there....

I base my so called musical "preferences" on my musical background, which includes a bachelors in mus. ed and a master's in performance. There ARE arrangements that are superior in quality and substance, and differences in arrangement/compositional excellence. Yes, these differences may be slightly subjective (ie comparing english papers as opposed to math problems). The corps, plain and simple, are not equally musical. "GENIUS" level of musical flow in BD's book?? I couldn't disagree more......Phantom "miles behind" visually? Perhaps a bit behind in performance...no argument....but composition? I believe most will find that perception to be far more subjective than the differences in the musical products. I can break it down musically, but I am not going to write a dissertation that would be beyond your musical comprehension. I'm sorry, but BD/Cavs are not equal musically to Phantom/Crown. There is far greater musical expression, nuance, completeness of musical thought, conveyance of musical emotion and phrasing, dynamic contrast, quality of musical blend.....I could go on.....in Phantom/Crown's musical arrangements. It is not about musical arrangement style, but substance....and the nod, by a margin, goes to Phantom/Crown.

no argument that I DO believe the scoring is screwed up, as I believe the emphasis should be on music, and it isn't, and continues to drift further and further from it.........

GB

[DORCHESTER GUY]

Nothing has changed in at least 50 years. As good as they were, the Troopers in the 60's and early 70's were not in the same league as many corps musically, but their marching overcame it all, coupled with the frenzied crowd reactions, to succesfully influence the judging. The Cavaliers, Kilties, Royal Airs, SAC, Boston, St. Kevins, and later 27, were clearly superior musically, but the spreads were only given in drill.

[mad_scotty]

this is an old argument. a lot of people in here don't remember it, but in the early 90's a lot of corps won championships with very weak hornlines, and strong visual package. in 91 star played well for most of their show, albeit with really edgy crass pr baritones on a bad day type tone, but that much lauded mellophone line basically fell apart for the first minute of the show. it's harder to listen to than the 89 devs frack solo to me, but they marched like no one had before except the 87 cadets, even if they didn't sound like the 87 cadets hornline. the 92 cavaliers hornline was possibly the weakest in the top 12 that year, definitely by far the weakest in the top 6 and still won on the basis of visual. in 93 the two best visual packages were star and cadets, but they were also the weakest hornlines in the top 6. i know it doesn't sound that way on the recordings, but while star was clean you could barely hear them in the stands live that year, and for the cadets it was really an off year in brass. in 94 the blue devils won with one of my all time favorite bd shows, but while the visual package was great i've always thought of that as the worst bd hornline ever to win a championship, and one of the worst ever for them. then the 95 cavaliers, once again by far the weakest hornline in the top 6 (have you heard madison, devs, pr or cadets 95???) but won a championship. actually, i'm not sure if it was visual that put them over, they didn't hit a marching set in the last 90 seconds of that show, so they might be an exception to the strong visual deal, but clearly a hornline that was outclassed by the competition in every way but still won a title.

honestly, i think in recent years the better hornlines have finished higher much more consistently than they did in my marching era. as much as i justifiably bag on the 92 and 95 cavaliers hornlines, who can claim they weren't at least one of the top 2 or 3 in their more recent championship years? last years blue devils, and this years, just really hot hornlines. this year is a slight anomaly not because weak hornlines are at the top, but because there are more good hornlines bunched more closely together than we've seen in a while so other factors are proving to be difference makers. the only real exception i've seen recently is phantom, they have had some really great hornlines, and in the 70's and 80's they would have been no lower than 3rd no matter what else they did with brass execution like they have put out. they have gone through a period like the blue devils did from 87 to 93, arguably the top hornline every year, but overall scores lagging and dropping them down every year. but maybe there will always be one corps who is a sort of an exception to an overall trend.