Panel Doubling

[Penguin]

I have a feeling we won't see any increase in judging panels due to the increase in cost.

In fact, I have a feeling we might see some smaller judging panels rather soon.

[cowtown]

I've always felt the only absurd question is the one wondered but not asked.

Yeah, I never really agreed with that philosophy, there are many adsurd questions that are better not asked.

Like the OP for example, combine it with some of their more recent posts and you’ll understand the real intent, if the sub text is not already screaming at you. My impression of the poster would be more positive had they not asked, made the OP

yeah, adsurd, it's an 'in joke' - quarries however, is just rank stupidity on my part, it happens

[Michael Boo]

Yeah, I never really agreed with that philosophy, there are many adsurd questions that are better not asked.

Like the OP for example, combine it with some of their more recent posts and you’ll understand the real intent, if the sub text is not already screaming at you. My impression of the poster would be more positive had they not asked, made the OP

yeah, adsurd, it's an 'in joke' - quarries however, is just rank stupidity on my part, it happens

I guess it's a matter of personal perspective. I believe few, if any, think their own questions or opinions are absurd.

I don't catch any perceived intent on behalf of the OP. I'm not saying there isn't one...I just don't know what it is. Might you enlighten us who haven't followed the OP's prior posts?

The thing about "quarries" isn't rank stupidity. My fingers fly off in directions I don't always intend. But I couldn't pass up the easy "straight line" by not responding with the photos. There is too little levity here, as in the real world.

[Bob984]

I don't think double panels will improve anything. However, I do (and I know I am in the minority on this one) think it may be time to pull judges off of the field and judge everything from the stands. Reasons...

(1) I don't have to have my head 12 in. from a snare line to hear a bad roll....

(2) I don't have to have my head in front of a horn bell to hear bad articulation or some out of tune mellophones....

(3) I can clearly see visual forms and movement and notice any problems much more accurately from the stands....

Field judging from the beginning was during the "tick" era, and judges would actually use a tick sheet, identify errors made, subtract those errors, and there was your score. You may have had a small "credit" subcaption for content/demand. In visual, you judged for straight lines, heels, uniformity, timing in the feet, intervals, and later on some simple arches/circles.

Visual programs are so intricate today, with things like changing intervals, whiplash moves, high velocity, etc. that the only clear performance vantage point IS the stands.

If someone, to the totally trained judge's ear or eye, is performing at a great level from the stands, chances are that group is great. If we had a concert band, jazz band, or orchestra contest, would we really have judges crawling around on their hands and knees on stage??

I think that it is time to move into the 21st century and have all judges where it counts, in the stands.

GB

[Bob J]

and the Judge Computer could measure GE if we can get the crowd to wear "goosebump sensors".

[Jeff Ream]

I don't think double panels will improve anything. However, I do (and I know I am in the minority on this one) think it may be time to pull judges off of the field and judge everything from the stands. Reasons...

(1) I don't have to have my head 12 in. from a snare line to hear a bad roll....

(2) I don't have to have my head in front of a horn bell to hear bad articulation or some out of tune mellophones....

(3) I can clearly see visual forms and movement and notice any problems much more accurately from the stands....

Field judging from the beginning was during the "tick" era, and judges would actually use a tick sheet, identify errors made, subtract those errors, and there was your score. You may have had a small "credit" subcaption for content/demand. In visual, you judged for straight lines, heels, uniformity, timing in the feet, intervals, and later on some simple arches/circles.

Visual programs are so intricate today, with things like changing intervals, whiplash moves, high velocity, etc. that the only clear performance vantage point IS the stands.

If someone, to the totally trained judge's ear or eye, is performing at a great level from the stands, chances are that group is great. If we had a concert band, jazz band, or orchestra contest, would we really have judges crawling around on their hands and knees on stage??

I think that it is time to move into the 21st century and have all judges where it counts, in the stands.

GB

with larger hornlines, you dont always hear bad rolls in the stands. i was amazed in 2006 what sounded good in allentown that sounded horrid on the drum track on the dvd.

plus lets be honest...there isnt much room left up top for performance judges to go too.

the only doubling needed is GE. if any modification is to be made, take away the 2nd perc judge and double music ensemble...one a drum guy, one a horn guy, kinda like how DCA does effect at finals weekend

[Tez]

The thing I have had a problem with is simply calling the Brass judge "Brass" I think it should be like "individual brass" or something, because I know the sound from higher is much different than on the field. Many large ensemble moments really go over the judges head and need to be heard from the middle of the stands. (I know that would be extremely hard to logistically get a judge positioned there)

For example: In Crown's show, I thought one of their best 'brass' moments was Claire de Lune. They were so spread out at that moment, how could the brass judge on the field possibly award them for their blend, balance and phrasing. There is no way he heard it like the audience did. The members he was closest to would always be out of balance with the rest. To me, it is just hard to call the award 'Best Brass' when what the audience heard was different than what the judge heard.

(plus, I think the less judges running around on the field, the less cluttered the visuals would look)

[bluecoats88]

Here's a couple.

Boo - that was classic

[MelloUno]

Dirty feet stick out

unless you wear black pants...

[Top Cat]

The thing I have had a problem with is simply calling the Brass judge "Brass" I think it should be like "individual brass" or something, because I know the sound from higher is much different than on the field. Many large ensemble moments really go over the judges head and need to be heard from the middle of the stands. (I know that would be extremely hard to logistically get a judge positioned there)

For example: In Crown's show, I thought one of their best 'brass' moments was Claire de Lune. They were so spread out at that moment, how could the brass judge on the field possibly award them for their blend, balance and phrasing. There is no way he heard it like the audience did. The members he was closest to would always be out of balance with the rest. To me, it is just hard to call the award 'Best Brass' when what the audience heard was different than what the judge heard.

(plus, I think the less judges running around on the field, the less cluttered the visuals would look)

Tez, you make some nice points, but look at the total scoring system now in place. There is a Music Ensemble judge to hear the ensemble performance as you indicate "award them for their blend, balance and phrasing". The Fiels (Individual) judge is looking to hear the performance technique and musicianship of the INDIVIDUAL player. A much different perspective and balances off to those lines that may concentrate on the full sound vs, the individual performance of the member. True best Brass may be the combination of both numbers but that will reflect the total performance of the group. Afterall, should not the objective of the instructional staff be to improve each individual's potential AND the potential of the full ensemble?