The "Dirty Drill" debate

[salad315]

I think you have to go back further than late 90's early 2000's.

There was already the lack of cleaning showing up by then.

Look, for some perspective, if those who marched in much earlier years are honest, they'll tell you that today's Corps are playing much harder material, and are asked to do more visually and physically in the show. And the overall visual patterns created today are much more numerous and complex than in earlier decades. Bottom line, todays marchers are asked to do a LOT more in their show.

On the other hand, some of the earlier decades Corps marching fundamentals ( albeit with less demand required ) tended to be stronger. There is a lot of " dirt " visible in shows today. Just the way the trumpets are not uniformly positioned with the hands ( as simply one example ) while marching, would get a Corps eaten alive under the " tic " system...... and as a poster correctly said above.... there are marchers who may not know their spacing or cover down is way off. If you see such abnomalities in the first week of competition in June, and then see the SAME flaw with that marcher in the same spot in the show come August, it's clear somebody on the staff is either missing it, or not emphasing the need to correct the error.

I dont know...the corps i marched in was ridiculously precise about where your hands went on the instrument...in every possible carraige. We, as a line, were asked to move our thumb once about a half an inch, from in between the valve casings to on the first valve casing...and it was a huge deal.

[dbc03]

ironically enough, the cadets are the one major corps who probably march better individual style now than they did back in my day, the 90's jurassic era. in my day, if you were having a bad day in basics or visual a staff member would get on you, but iff you were having just a horrible day they would lean in and real low say, "dude, you look like a cadet". i think the two biggest differences in corps after 2000 from the same corps in the 90's are the cadets improved individual marching mechanics and the cavaliers improved individual and full hornline playing mechanics.

Maybe if you had looked like a Cadet more often you would have actually beaten them in field visual

[mad_scotty]

Maybe if you had looked like a Cadet more often you would have actually beaten them in field visual

yeah, but if you try to play jazz and do the dance of the bouncing chicken (aka the bobble head strut for the youngsters) you would sound like....DOH!!! never mind

in all seriousness, they always hit their spots, they just looked funny doing it. bounce bounce bounce....lol

[Tez]

To me this is all kind of a grey area. Yes, some things are not as clean visually as they were in the 70s/80s, but I think they are pretty close. It's not like the corps today are a total mess... I would gladly give up a tad bit of cleanliness to get the visual velocity we have now. I find myself much more entertained with seeing a corps march 4 to 5 really cleanly than 8 to 5 extremely cleanly. Isn't that what the bottom line is.

In a related issue, isn't this kind of opposite of what has happened to some horn books over the years? It seems some of the top books from yesteryear (BD 82, 86, Cadets 85, Star 90 etc..) may not have been as clean and in tune as today's, but may have been more difficult. I don't know, maybe not, but it seems that way to a certain extent.

[supersop]

Todays drills are taught very differently than past years with the focus on point to point positioning rather than quality of the transitions from set to set and the quality of the set once it hit. Many comments in this thread hit on elements of the "why". Shorter season, long distance membership, no winter weekly rehearsals and on and on.

I was recently at a show where before the show I got to watch an afternoons rehearsal. I saw errors repeated during rehearsal that carried on to the performance that night. Even with going over a particular section of the show about 10 times, I didn't see what I thought was a ridiculously obvious error get corrected or mentioned by the staff. Then it occurred to me that another factor in the dirty drills is that staffs today don't know how to clean. They've never been cleaned and now, consequently, they don't know how to clean.

The tics system was good in its time because tics exposed individual problems to the individuals and were a direct measurement of INDIVIDUAL technique and responsibility within a form. There was a clear understanding of the marching member of an error he or she made, exactly where they made it and what the effect of their error was on the transitional form and the resultant form. We all knew exactly whaere a problem was and knoew how to get rid of it. Now, I would be willing to bet that the kid I saw way out of an arc form or the kids way out of a cover down had no idea they were out of the form. They have never been shown what "right" is. But they feel pretty good about being pretty good.

So in a nutshell the corps are taught differently, perform with a different focus, they travel differently. For the older crowd wondering why shows aren't clean...did you do 30 or more shows in 6 weeks, traveling 10,000 miles across around and up and down the country. I am amazed at the writing. Did you older folks even think drill that is done today with the form movement, velocities, complexity of music (and the quality with which it is performed). I do lilke what I see today. Cavies always astound me with their overall movement and flow of their show. IMO it is usually the most thought out drill year after year. I love good drill programming. I love even more good drill performed well or dare I say it.....executed well. Execution is not a bad thing. It is part of our roots isn't it?

Pretty sure I did 39 shows both years i was in the top 12, and pretty sure I did close to, if not that many, my first 3 years. I'm pretty sure the travel was about 15,000 miles just like every other corps back then. HOWEVER, THe biggest difference in travel is distance between shows. I don't remember doing a busride longer than 3 or 4 hours unless it was on the way to Allentown/PHilly or heading west from Allentown/Philly. These days ..... every day is 6-8 hours on the road. Rubbish!

I also concur that the staffs don't have a focus on cleaning as they used to, except for a few select corps that have had the same staff's for (ever?) a very long time.

[mellofan]

If the overall quality of the marching and performance isn't as important in today's shows, why are people saying that SCV would be scoring higher if they could/would clean their feet? They have the most difficult drill this season, so why aren't they scoring higher? Is it because someone--a judge or group of judges--doesn't like their show design (or drill writer or music arranger or has another beef against the corps).

This totally subjective judging system is scary. As long as the most important criteria for judging is the overall design and not the performance of the members of the corps, slotting will always be an issue. The best "loved" show will always win regardless of how well the corps performs on any given night. That bothers me. Then the kids aren't winning that all important ring, it is the show designers who should be awarded the "prize". What the kids did really isn't the key issue at hand.

When we sacrifice skill quality for a "creative" or "cute" or "artsy-fartsy" show, aren't we losing the basic essence and identity of drum corps? The precision is what attracted many of us to the activity.

What about a compromise. Of the 100 points awarded in a show, half can be for overall show design and half for quality of performance (tick system style). This way the show designers have to create a physically possible show for the corps to perform. Thus the show design must be something that could be cleaned during the season. That would also force people to think through the total package so as to not force major changes in the last month of the season. There is no way that a corps' members can clean a show if it is constantly being changed on them. Also, the corps members would be held accountable for their individual performances. The only way to score higher than a 50 would be to actually march well.

Does this take into account those creative instances when someone is supposed to do something creative that makes them look out of place or wrong? It can. Think about some of those authors you read. Do you ever catch them making grammatical errors in their stories? Most authors use that incorrect writing for style, but it doesn't sound like a mistake. It will be up to the instructors to teach their members how to "break" the precision of the show and not make it look like a mistake.

I am old, and I like old school because it is what I was taught and what I watched growing up. You youngsters like the new theatrical shows because it's what you know. Why not reward both aspects?

[ShortAndFast]

What about a compromise. Of the 100 points awarded in a show, half can be for overall show design and half for quality of performance (tick system style). This way the show designers have to create a physically possible show for the corps to perform. Thus the show design must be something that could be cleaned during the season. That would also force people to think through the total package so as to not force major changes in the last month of the season. There is no way that a corps' members can clean a show if it is constantly being changed on them. Also, the corps members would be held accountable for their individual performances. The only way to score higher than a 50 would be to actually march well.

Congratulations, you've almost perfectly described the scoring system we have today and the way that a successful corps must balance design with the ability to clean. Performance is judged against a set criteria, rather than by ticks, but every single caption divides its scoring 50% for repertoire (the "what") and 50% for performance (the "how").

[mellofan]

How is this the scoring system we have today? I have yet to see the specific criteria for the performance part of the show. Exactly what are the judges looking at when judging the M&M (for you youngsters that's marching & maneuvering not candy) portion of the score? Uniformity of the steps? Uniformity of horn angles? Smooth movements and horn lifts? This is one of the things that bothers me. What is the big secret? Are some corps put on "double secret probation" in an effort to give other corps an advantage?

The subjective aspect of the judging lends itself to questioning the quality of DCI's judges. What may bother us old-timers is the lack of specific known criteria. We knew how much of the show we had to move. We knew what they were looking for during the show. Our instructors could pinpoint specific things we as individuals had to do to raise the corps' score. This is more than putting in a theatrical move for the hornline or a prop for the guard.

[ShortAndFast]

Exactly what are the judges looking at when judging the M&M (for you youngsters that's marching & maneuvering not candy) portion of the score? Uniformity of the steps? Uniformity of horn angles? Smooth movements and horn lifts?

...

We knew how much of the show we had to move. We knew what they were looking for during the show. Our instructors could pinpoint specific things we as individuals had to do to raise the corps' score.

So if you moved smoothly and lifted your horn just like your instructor told you, and then the M&M judge spent that portion of the show on the other side of the field watching the guard tick like a bunch of watches, how did that improve your score?

How is this the scoring system we have today? I have yet to see the specific criteria for the performance part of the show. Exactly what are the judges looking at when judging the M&M (for you youngsters that's marching & maneuvering not candy) portion of the score?

...

The subjective aspect of the judging lends itself to questioning the quality of DCI's judges. What may bother us old-timers is the lack of specific known criteria. This is more than putting in a theatrical move for the hornline or a prop for the guard.

I've done several posts this summer with the language from the sheets. There's no secret. You can write to DCI and ask for a copy.

GE Visual and Music

Percussion

Judging of performance was also subjective in the days of the tick system. What's changed is to give design more weight - the "what" is 50% of each caption, just as you suggested - and to give the effect captions a larger percentage of the total score. I learned a lot by reading Nikk Pilato's excellent paper on the history of DCI judging - I can't find a working link in Google, but maybe someone can post one?

and since you asked, here's the Box 5 language for visual performance

Visual Performance Technique

Performers display superior achievement. Style is completely refined. Technique of movement and equipment is consistent and accurate with problematic variations rare or non-existent. Expressive opportunities appear constantly eurhythmic and superior. Articulation with respect to time and position is superior. The principles of movement are consistent and refined in a superior manner. Swift recovery.

Visual Performance Excellence

Performers display a superior achievement with movement (form and body) and equipment in areas of space, time and line. Flaws, when noted, are minor in nature and infrequent even when performers are challenged by responsibilities of a greater magnitude. These flaws are usually caused by individual lapses and are momentary. Maximum visual demands are consistently present during the performance from beginning to end.

[grimmo]

How far do you need to go back?

If you watch stuff from the early 90's I don't see it being any cleaner or individual technique being any stronger (at equivalent tempos).

If you go back to the early mid 80's I'd say the same.

On the footage I've seen from the 70's the individual quality of technique wasn't any better then either.

Can someone quote a year we can go and watch where the drill was noticeably tighter than it is today?

Certainly the shows I remember as being really tight have benefited from a rose tinted memory when I've gone back and watched them!