DCI Judging 101

[dbc03]

Where did you get this information? I'd like to see the rest of the captions' sub sub sub sub captions like this... Although I have a hard time believing these are all factored into a score - still nice info though.

It was linked in Mike's article. Music Effect was the only one I see actually linked though

[byline]

Slightly off topic... - any possibilty there was an overload of PR fans in bloomington..? only 5 hours from rockford and all. - how were the crowd responses to bd/pr in pasadena last year..? also about 5 hours from concord last year. Could that have tipped the scales just enough or were the fans just looking for the upset?

Again, if an overload of positive fan response were all it took to win a DCI championship, then Madison would have a whole lot more DCI titles than two. Given the fact that fan response doesn't seem to have much impact on the judges, one way or the other, I just don't see it having any more impact if it's a "home" crowd (relatively speaking for both Phantom and BD).

[Peel Paint]

This might be the saddest truth of all. Simply stated, the crowd around me on finals night were strategically PR fans and used the power of "reaction" to move the result in the direction they wanted. So when other specific corps did amazing things on the field they gave a, I'll use the term, "reserved response" and in some cases like with BD many PR fans figuatively and literally "sat on their hands"...

You could almost feel the scowl of the crowd (at least around me) when BD (and even Cavies) entered the field, looking at them like they were some collective interlopers coming to steal the crown again...

I don't doubt that there were PR homers in your seating area and other areas who did this, but I think you're overstating what happened in Bloomington. Phantom Phans didn't get together and mandate that nobody could respond to anybody else's show. Phantom didn't get the best response because of PR homers sitting on their hands during other corps. All of the top 12 were very well received by the audience at finals as a whole, and Phantom had the broadest appeal and the most emotional show and that was why they had the loudest response. We were primarily for Phantom but went nuts for a bunch of other corps including the rest of the top four, as did many others around us. Everybody tends to overgeneralize audience actions based on what happened in their immediate area. Just a few rows or one section away, it can be a very different experience.

2) Why was it that PR never won a single previous meeting with the Cavies or BD until Bloomington? A PR show of the magnatude that I'm now reading about on DCP (i.e. legendary, best DCI show ever, etc) should have won at some point, it's so obvious, such a crowd pleaser!

PR had a great performance and it represents the activity wonderfully, it moves it in the direction of making it palatable to a broader audience (which DCI needs to prosper). But someone needs to explain to the 150 members of BD why local reaction should bare such an important weight unlike the other previous performances.

Not to be trite, but perhaps DCI should consider going in the direction of the American Idolesque shows and have a call-in / internet vote. Let's make the judges irrelivant and just go with crowd appeal.

I'm only answering this because of your request that anybody responding to your post as I did above also answer this question. I don't have a strong reaction to it. I'll just state the obvious that when the top four all score within about a one point range and the top two are separated by well less than one-tenth of a point, there's a lot of luck involved. With a different panel of judges watching the same show, of course the outcome could have been different. You may not like the outcome, or the luck factor or the ambiguity when corps are that close, but such is life. You seem to be suggesting that because the Blue Devils won almost all season and did as good a show as they'd been doing for awhile that they deserved to win finals just for that reason. It doesn't work that way. I don't think it's fair to say they lost it because they weren't the crowd favorite. Being the crowd favorite hasn't by itself won anybody squat in DCI over the years, as several people have pointed out with (among many other examples) Madison shows that brought down the house and finished, what, sixth? Eighth?

These corps traded captions. You can see the captions that hurt BD on the recaps. Were those caption judges in on it, too, dropping BD even more so Phantom could win? That's kind of far-fetched, don't you think? BD had no control over Phantom's show or score. BD scored over 98 points. Other corps were closing in on them all week and for weeks before it, and that's the way it goes sometimes.

Finally, nobody has to explain anything to the Blue Devils. They understand it better than some people posting here.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Peel Paint

[Michael Boo]

...

2) Why was it that PR never won a single previous meeting with the Cavies or BD until Bloomington?

...

A lack of competitive slotting?

[DantheOldMan]

Michael, I am glad that you opened the floodgates with your article, because one of the biggest issues fans have with DCI is scoring. I am not considering a fan someone who has just seen their first drum corp show, but someone who knows music and marching and can't for the life of them explain why the scoring is so divergent.

The problem I have with your article is that it focuses almost entirely on the subjective view of the judge. Is that all judging is? Is it merely one judge's "feelings" about the show? If so, then there is no wonder why so many of us have a problem with scoring. There needs to be objective criteria that a judge looks at. I am sorry, but I have seen individual judges scoring percussionists in high school contests who downgraded one performer because he felt that the drum was not in tune or the field drum should have been on an angle instead of flat. So, percussion judges grading a DCI corp on the tuning of a drum? How absurd!! I may like the sound of mylar heads from the 1980s rather than the kevlar heads from the 2000's. Does a corp get downgraded merely because they chose a different style drum head that one judge doesn't like? There needs to be objectivity in scoring. If there is, then that is what you should focus on for the musicians of the world that wonder how DCI does its scoring.

Let me give you an example. Percussion Judge 1 scored Madison Scouts 4th in percussion in San Antonio, but percussion judge 2 in the stands scored them 11th? How does that happen? That is absurd. That is like the Russian Judges of the 1970s in olympics. "Oh, that score was from the Russian judge, so you can ignore it!!" When one percussion judge scores a battery in 4th and another scores them in 11th, there is a problem with the objective criteria used by the judges. It needs to be standardized.

Also, you didn't focus on an issue I have had for a long time. What if one corps decides to use 7 snare drummers, but another corps goes with 9? Should both snarelines be judged the same? It is impossible for 9 snare drummers to play as cleanly as 7. It is simply impossible. So, do we standardize the numbers of snare drummers, or does the corps with more snare drummers get a break? Does the percussion judge give extra points to the corps that uses 9 snare drummers versus the corps that uses 7? You are comparing apples and oranges. What about difficulty. What if one corps drumline decides to play a very difficult "book." Does the drumline that plays an easier "book" get a good score if it was played cleanly? Same issue with difficulty for brass. There has to be points given for difficulty. Otherwise, everyone will play "Mary hand a little lamb!"

Another issue I have with scoring is performance times. First, I think it is wrong for this year's corps to get a better (or worse) playing time due to the scores of the corps last year. What does last year have to do with it? Plus, you must concede that performing with the sun in your eyes adversely affects you while performing in the dark under the lights is easier. So, the corps that go later get an advantage. Isn't it interesting that the corps performing later get better scores? Also, when corps performance times are based on last year's scores, I am always amazed at how this year's judges score this year's corps in identical order that they placed last year. Don't you think that if the corps pulled a number out of the hat for their performance time and there wasn't a specific order, we wouldn't see judges scoring corps from worse to best as the night goes on? We really wonder if they deserve that score or are really getting that score because of performance time.

Yes. I have a lot of issues with scoring. I have suggested elsewhere on this bulletinboard that judges comments should be posted online as well. DCI should post is rules online for everyone to see. I would like to see the rules. DCI needs to adopt a transparency scheme so that people like me can understand a judge's score, because I can look at his or her comments. I may disagree with the score, but I can see what it is based on. I am a lawyer by day (retired musician at night!!) and lawyers simply want people to be accountable. Having a transparency scheme would keep DCI accountable to the people who pay the ticket prices -- the fans.

Now, I want to say two things in favor of the judges. I thought that the judges did a good job at finals. I believe that the 12 corps in finals were the 12 best. I would have had Cavaliers in 2nd, but again I can live with 3rd. I definitely agree that Phantom Regiment deserved to win. Also, I know that it is a tough job being a judge. One judge's negative comments can keep a corp out of finals. That is not an easy burden to bear.

With finances being tighter for the common man (and woman) who comes to the DCI show, DCI needs to feel the pulse of the public and make its scoring beyond reproach. I would move more to judging based on objective criteria, but we still deal with subjective people in the end. So, I understand it is a hard job.

Those are my comments on a very difficult topic.

[cowtown]

Slightly off topic... - any possibilty there was an overload of PR fans in bloomington..? only 5 hours from rockford and all. - how were the crowd responses to bd/pr in pasadena last year..? also about 5 hours from concord last year. Could that have tipped the scales just enough or were the fans just looking for the upset?

It was a Cavies crowd then Blue Stars in my opinion. Cavies were closer plus all of their alumni for their alumni crops and Blues Stars were everywhere to see them back in finals. Regiments crowd looked light considering but then again, when was the last time people from the Rockford area made up any significant portion of the crops? From what I understand, Texas is really the most represented state in Regiment and Cavies. But it ignores that many people were backing Regiment this year, it went across corps in a very unusual way, the crowd was Spartacus, that’s why it was so notable . Finals are a die hard partisan crowd and can throw out some strange vibes; this year’s vibe was for Regiment.

Now to Plan9.

True –Regiment never beat Blue Devils head to head but you could feel it coming and they topped their score in Allenton, yeah different nights but the premier of Regiments final version. Point being, Regiment show was not 'complete' until almost the end of the year or when they finally beat BD. Where Regiment was lagging was in visual which you boost by cleaning, which they did, a lot of cleaning – their guard was on another level than when I saw them earlier in the season – their guard looked like a top guard, something I’m not use to seeing from them. Of Course Blue Devils guard was better, maybe one of the best ever but they could only carry the rest of their corps so far. Music really caught up to the Devils on finals. They had a dirty snare feature and one of their sop blew his solo. Plus you could see their visual performance drop a tiny bit, their intervals in marching formation were a little off, especially in that one part where the corps was up front on side 1. Also following Regiment, their show seemed absurd. Blue Devils did an amazing job and should be very proud, second place is an amazing feat, they should be proud and so should their fans. Please don't take anything away from the Devils by making them look like sore losers or poor sportsmen

[Plan9]

Slightly off topic... - any possibilty there was an overload of PR fans in bloomington..? only 5 hours from rockford and all. - how were the crowd responses to bd/pr in pasadena last year..? also about 5 hours from concord last year. Could that have tipped the scales just enough or were the fans just looking for the upset?

This is exactly the point, I was in Pasadena (I was a Boston fan) and was stunned by the spontaneous and huge response to PR when they did their closing with the leg out! I hadn't seen their show and wasn't there to see them or really any of the top 6 but I was certain they would win at that point, that's how big the response was. I didn't see that from the Bloomington crowd. Maybe not you, but there was a sufficient number in the stands that applauded PR on the field and off the field (that it ran into BD's set up), that happened only once. Also, last year wasn't close in the scores, this year IT was the difference. Both BD & PR had great performances (include Cavies and Crown in that as well) but only PR had the homer crowd pumped and ready to applaud for their equipment truck. PR jumped 3 places with the same show, while Cavies and BD had great finals runs too. A storybook ending, but don't forget that every story has an author, and the author in Bloomington was a 5 hour drive away.

[08Hawkeye]

I'll be the first to admit I hate being wrong, but when its so blatant I have to speak up: DanTheOldMan... I'm sorry, but you're flat out wrong on a couple things.

I am sorry, but I have seen individual judges scoring percussionists in high school contests who downgraded one performer because he felt that the drum was not in tune or the field drum should have been on an angle instead of flat. So, percussion judges grading a DCI corp on the tuning of a drum? How absurd!!

Tuning of the drums IS on the scoresheet!!!!!!!!!!! C'mon. I've spoke with judges more than once about this after my high school kids' performances. one judge docked us b/c he didn't like our short bass tuning range, and then I had to explain that our bass 5 quit the week before. another time we blew 5 tenor heads in the lot. cranking new heads will do absolutely nothing in that situation. the drumheads fell flat and were way out of tune, and he called us on it. The drum angle thing i don't know about. Tuning though, totally fair game.

It is impossible for 9 snare drummers to play as cleanly as 7. It is simply impossible.

Wow. Is no one else going to call this one out...?!?! It is VERY POSSIBLE 9 are cleaner than 7. I don't mean to be so direct, but I can't fathom your rationale here? Can you explain how its impossible..!?! seriously.

What if one corps drumline decides to play a very difficult "book." Does the drumline that plays an easier "book" get a good score if it was played cleanly?

Short answer: yes. but there's definitely a happy medium. Clearly "mary had a little lamb" played perfectly would not beat something extremely demanding but just a little gray. Demonstration of technical ability is one aspect. Uniformity and quality of sound is another. Readability and execution. there are more. The line that performs these with the greatest skill is awarded a better score. If there are any adjudicators that can provide a more eloquent answer than my own I'd be obliged.

Another issue I have with scoring is performance times. First, I think it is wrong for this year's corps to get a better (or worse) playing time due to the scores of the corps last year. What does last year have to do with it?

Only the first few shows are based on the season prior's scores. The regionals determine performance order thereafter. once in awhile there will be an exception to this if a corps is performing in their home town.

Plus, you must concede that performing with the sun in your eyes adversely affects you while performing in the dark under the lights is easier. So, the corps that go later get an advantage.

Under the lights may be cooler temps, more of a crowd, maybe a lil more performance adrenaline, but i would NEVER say the sun adversely affected my performance. talk about an excuse. and for the record i've played a lot of shows in the setting sunlight.

Isn't it interesting that the corps performing later get better scores? Also, when corps performance times are based on last year's scores, I am always amazed at how this year's judges score this year's corps in identical order that they placed last year. Don't you think that if the corps pulled a number out of the hat for their performance time and there wasn't a specific order, we wouldn't see judges scoring corps from worse to best as the night goes on? We really wonder if they deserve that score or are really getting that score because of performance time.

Can you honestly not see a correlation between performance time and talent level?! I'm not talking about one time slot vs the next.. if you go on last, the 2nd to last corps is probably pretty close to that talent level. but in ordered shows, I'm pretty sure most people can agree that, say, performances ordered 12-15 would generally not be as talented as performances say 3-5. I don't buy your logic one bit.

Edited August 15, 2008 by 08Hawkeye

[Liam]

This is exactly the point, I was in Pasadena (I was a Boston fan) and was stunned by the spontaneous and huge response to PR when they did their closing with the leg out! I hadn't seen their show and wasn't there to see them or really any of the top 6 but I was certain they would win at that point, that's how big the response was. I didn't see that from the Bloomington crowd. Maybe not you, but there was a sufficient number in the stands that applauded PR on the field and off the field (that it ran into BD's set up), that happened only once. Also, last year wasn't close in the scores, this year IT was the difference. Both BD & PR had great performances (include Cavies and Crown in that as well) but only PR had the homer crowd pumped and ready to applaud for their equipment truck. PR jumped 3 places with the same show, while Cavies and BD had great finals runs too. A storybook ending, but don't forget that every story has an author, and the author in Bloomington was a 5 hour drive away.

It's true that Phantom "jumped 3 places with the same show" but they didn't do it all at once. Each night they passed the corps that performed directly after them and no others. Crown, then Cavies, then BD. It's true that by Saturday, the crowd was pretty much 100% behind them, but that built throughout the weekend as the crowd suspected that something special was happening. I don't doubt that the buzz in the crowd before, during and after Phantom's show each night probably affected the corps that followed. Entertainers since the beginning of time have faced the same dilemma -- a tough act to follow. I don't think that that necessarily translates into the judges being affected as well -- maybe just the performance level of the corps following PR were a little flat because the crowd was a little flat (resting?). I just think this was one of those years where what the crowd was looking for and digging was the same thing the judges were looking for and digging and the direct comparisons night after night with the next corps in line made the choice clearer to each. Doesn't always happen that way (just ask Madison). Maybe it's as simple as that ....

Edited August 15, 2008 by Liam

[ShortAndFast]

Let me give you an example. Percussion Judge 1 scored Madison Scouts 4th in percussion in San Antonio, but percussion judge 2 in the stands scored them 11th? How does that happen? That is absurd. That is like the Russian Judges of the 1970s in olympics. "Oh, that score was from the Russian judge, so you can ignore it!!" When one percussion judge scores a battery in 4th and another scores them in 11th, there is a problem with the objective criteria used by the judges. It needs to be standardized.

Percussion 1 is on the field, and thus focused heavily on the battery. Percussion 2 is in the box, and thus is focused more on the pit and the overall percussion ensemble. Since they're seeing different things and using different sheets, there's no particular reason why they should agree on score or ranking.

There's a stronger argument for expecting consistency when you have two GE Visual judges standing side by side.

First, I think it is wrong for this year's corps to get a better (or worse) playing time due to the scores of the corps last year. What does last year have to do with it? Plus, you must concede that performing with the sun in your eyes adversely affects you while performing in the dark under the lights is easier. So, the corps that go later get an advantage. Isn't it interesting that the corps performing later get better scores?

You are aware that performance order at regionals and championships is determined by the corps' scores in the current year, right? If you're performing at 5PM with the sun in your eyes, it's because that's the slot you've earned.

Don't you think that if the corps pulled a number out of the hat for their performance time and there wasn't a specific order, we wouldn't see judges scoring corps from worse to best as the night goes on?

DCI.org has this feature called "recaps" that lets you see the rankings given by each individual judge. Not a single judge at finals put the corps in performance order. This is typical of the results at a major show.

I have a lot of issues with scoring.

Frankly, your post comes off as very poorly informed on the topic of scoring. I'd recommend reading the posted scoring sheet, or studying the recaps more closely, or writing DCI for a full copy of the sheets. Certainly there are some things that could be improved in adjudication - that's why they adjust the sheets somewhat each year - but the current system is really pretty good and most judges are making their best effort to rank and rate according to the published criteria.