DCI Judging 101

[YoostaMarch]

A huge part of Phantom "selling itself" was the fact that the Blue Devils have 12 titles and Phantom had one. BD has a track record in DCI untouched by any other, despite that noticeable 7-year drought from 1987-1993. Some of that gargantuan crowd response was about Concord's "success syndrome." Phantom offered more unique emotions, and face it: Phantom won because BD had weaknesses this year.. they rarely do when ahead most of the year (1988 a huge exception). And BD's weaknesses (drums/ensemble) were Phantom's strengths, so I rarely say this, but it's true: 2008 is as much about Phantom winning as BD losing.

[mad_scotty]

Emphasis on what you seem to be overlooking

you don't question that the series of examples i named were head and shoulders above the competition in their respective years in "selling themselves" or creating an impact with the audience. you do point out that this is only part of the equation. follow your logic to its obvious conclusion here. in audience impact all of these corps should have been rated in first, or possibly at worst a close second, but their overall ge scores were mediocre, anywhere from 4 to 6 overall. that means that in the other, unnamed quotient of ge scoring, in order to average out with these exceptional audience impact "wow moment" producing shows they had to have been 8-12th place corps.

now, do you really think the corps i named, once you remove audience impact from the equation, should have placed from 8-12 in ge? because i don't, and thats follows to my conclusion, that audience impact is part of the rulebook but is not judged at all, it can't be, because it clearly does not impact scoring in most years. in 92-93 dci underwent a huge sea change in scoring methodology. first off, brass was discarded as the difference maker in 92. the 92 cavaliers would not have won at any point in the 70's or 80's, a strong top 3 hornline was an unspoken part of the minimum standard for champions, but the cavie's did it in 92 with a pretty weak hornline but the best drumline, color guard, and visual design package. basically, they won with what was essentially a winterguard show, choreography first with music incidental to the overall package. maybe the most influential show of the last 20 years because the 92 cavaliers winning formula is the one dci judging has encouraged ever since. and 93 was the last year audience impact was a difference maker at all, clearly 93 star was held back because people just didn't like tham (at the time). there was a huge hangover when emotions cooled, the dvd's came out and everyone realized just how much better star was than everyone else in 93. the ge judges stopped considering audience impact (they determined never to miss another 93 star), and started awrding scores to designs that focused on choreography over musicality. it's nowhere in the rulebook, but the unspoken rule changes of 92-93 have dominated both scoring and show design ever since.

since 92-93 then theres still an occasional year where the biggest emotional/audience impact show in dci is the winning show, but these years have been the exception, not the rule. ge just isn't judged by the book anymore. there is no way you can rationally read the judging criteria, review the shows, and find a mathematical relationship between them. no way.

[Michael Boo]

Please rate this thread so more people will see it. I've been getting a lot of inquiries since Bloomington about how the process works and I keep directing people to this article. Thank you.

[Perry S]

.

[DCIHasBeen]

Evaluate the effectiveness of the program and the performers. The

ability to maintain a connection with the audience through a

combination of components contributes to effect. The performers are

measured in part through excellence but, more significantly, in their

ability to communicate the product to the audience.

Mike:

Great article, but just looking at the above caption from the top of the Musical Effect sheet, I think we are still seeing a disparity between intent and implementation.

If that last sentence were truly representative of what should be going on in the effect captions, Phantom would have won by points.

Part of the problem, from my perception, is that we are too obsessed with getting to big numbers by finals night, that the numbers get so inflated over the course of the season that judges don't have sufficient room to really open up a gap ... The practice of mostly one-tenth point spreads in the upper echelons isn't helping either (I'd offer BDB losing Open Class because one drum judge had opened up a substantial gap out of parity with the rest of the judges as an example of where this can go wrong.)

It also seems to be that there needs to be another GE Caption ... One that is not judged by a music or visual person, but someone who has a background in both, along with a solid education in a discipline like Musical Theatre or Film (Theory & Criticism, not so much production.) That caption would solely evaluate the entire corps program as it relates to communicating with the audience.

The criteria would, no doubt, be extremely difficult to delineate, but it could be a valuable component in evaluating the program and putting the audience back in the GE box.

Also, I think it would help if the judge, especially the GE judges, we put into a section of the stands in the big stadia and not in the press box ... Depending on the stadium and the press box, they can be removed from the audience by several stories. I think the effect judging can suffer for that.

Edited August 15, 2008 by DCIHasBeen

[08Hawkeye]

so, mad scotty, are you upset that you can't find a satisfying description of judging criteria? or that you believe dci judging works by an unwritten law? I can't tell if your replies, which are clearly articulate and well learned, are a rant, working towards a yet unfound solvent, or just an attempt to expose an alleged loophole in judging.

Edited August 14, 2008 by 08Hawkeye

[cowtown]

OP, Thanks for that

[Michael Boo]

OP, Thanks for that

You are most welcomed.

And you're allowed to call me Mike. :)

[Bob984]

I agree with other posters here that GE judging has been warped beyond comprehension for many years now. This year, I felt Phantom and Crown had by far the most effective musical programs on the field, and by a margin. They did fare well, but the margins weren't there, and at times they were beaten by programs that were far less effective MUSICALLY.

Then, you factor in absolutely ASTRONOMICAL visual scores given to BD (which I highly question.....good visually, yes.....among the best ever there.......NOT.....)....those highly questionable astronomic visual numbers nearly put BD in the winner's circle.......the brass performance judge, in my opinion (and also pointed out by others), also "missed the boat", as Phantom and Crown clearly outplayed them by a margin.

There is a glimmer of hope. For once, some music judges called a spread that was well-earned (ie ensemble and percussion), and the most effective musical program actually won music effect, and by more than a stinking tenth. If caption integrity can ever fully return to this "sport", and you have the best people making a call with no pre-conceived notions, it can't help but improve things. I don't think we had an upset crowd last Saturday....they weren't BD haters, and they weren't hometown Rockford people.....just thousands from all over who thought Phantom was the best on the field, and for once the judges gave that corps the nod as well.

GB

[byline]

Great overview, Mike. Thanks for posting this!