Bruckner8 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The quote comes from the latest Drum Corps International Magazine (Winter 2009 I Vol. 3 No. 2). I'm not sure of copyright issues, so i'm not going to post the entire "thought balloon" in which his entire comment was framed, but it had to do with describing the process with tie-breakers. Note that his attitude jives perfectly with Competitive Inertia, because he's basically admitting that he believes judging SHOULD BE more about art than science. He believes that there's SO MUCH subjectivity in it, he must feel the need to "justify" it by claiming it's more about subjective art than scientific method. Then why have the sheets? Why try to quantify at all? If it truly is more about art, then Judge X has every right to place Pioneer above Phantom based on their artistic feelings. FWIW, I completely agree with him, lol. Judging *IS* more art than science, UNFORTUNATELY. So why am I "calling him out" in this way? Because I don't like how he's so quick to dismiss the science aspect. It's a cop-out, and used by judges all the time. I would've felt better about it had he said "Although we strive to make the process as scientific as possible, and we talk about new ways to accomplish it every year, the bottom line is that--at present--judging in DCI is more art than science." He doesn't even pander to the scientific method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baritone13 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 actually its just a number system based on opinion. not much art or science to it Box 2 wording on his part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvs me sum mello! Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Blah blah blah judges suck blah blah blah i feel personally hurt blah blah blah... Get over it, enjoy the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 FWIW, I completely agree with him, lol. Judging *IS* more art than science, UNFORTUNATELY. So why am I "calling him out" in this way? Because I don't like how he's so quick to dismiss the science aspect. It's a cop-out, and used by judges all the time. I would've felt better about it had he said "Although we strive to make the process as scientific as possible, and we talk about new ways to accomplish it every year, the bottom line is that--at present--judging in DCI is more art than science." He doesn't even pander to the scientific method. Pander? Why pander at all, especially when the "science" doesn't exist. The only science in drum corps is the science of sound and sight. The rest is taste with all the cultural baggage that comes along. You can establish some rigor in the process to make judgements more consistent. You can train judges to evaulate to a set of common standards with similar result. What you can't do is measure performance in objective ways - that is, scientifically - and satisfy our sense of what competitive drum corps should be. I haven't read the article in questions. Sounds to me though that his emphasis on art over science tells a necessary truth - and we should be glad for the truth. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 That kind of comment is about what I'd expect from a judge . . .there's no real way (short of something like a modified tic system or some kind of compulsory "you must do x and y in this show", and even then, that's all subjective in some regard) to assign numbers to artistic endeavors. He basically admits that it's all subjective. Even with all of the musical training in the multiverse, it's still a personal judgement as to what you consider good technique, good playing, etc. Maynard Ferguson isn't the same player as Wynton Marsalis, Jon Faddis isn't the same as Joey Pero . . .but they're all pretty #### good. How do you say which is better? Personal preference. Yeah, yeah . . .I know BD goes out there and does things in a more technically proficient manner than Pioneer does, but . . .then again, there's nights were some corps are on and some have a bad night at the top. Those "off" corps get the benefit of the doubt thanks to the "art" we're all in, and the numbers creep up more or less each night whether there's a lot of improvement or not. Judges are pretty much useless to me . . now I know there are those of us here that like to crunch numbers, play with spreads and try to get down into the granular level of scoring and that's cool, 'cause there's different things to like and get into about this activity . . .but whoever gets the most play on my iPod each year is usually my "winner". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Here are a couple of absolute truths for you. In any given year, some will feel DCI judging is bias and sucks the bag. In the same year, others will feel DCI judging is spot on and a credit to all things being judged. Fact: The way an individual feels about about a particular judge or judging process (regardless of the activity) depends entirely on the results in question. Example; Everyone who wanted Phantom to win in 08 praised the judges for finally getting it right. Everyone who thought BD should have won thought the judges were #######. Now I don't mean to generalize, there are always exceptions to the rule, but basically that is how it breaks down. Peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 the only science in drum corps judging is... did the corps arrive at the gate on time? did the corps start and end on time? that's about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I hope this wasn't a surprise to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Judges are pretty much useless to me . . now I know there are those of us here that like to crunch numbers, play with spreads and try to get down into the granular level of scoring and that's cool, 'cause there's different things to like and get into about this activity . . .but whoever gets the most play on my iPod each year is usually my "winner". Agreed within any particular year. Unfortunately, the judges can affect your enjoyment over the long haul because future corps will tend to emulate things that are rewarded this year. So as much as I also couldn't care less how the judges score (other than if I reaaaalllly wanted to see that 13th place corps just one more time!!!), I am concerned about trends that may move the bulk of shows away from my comfort zone. So of course judging is more art than science -- always has been, even in the old tic days. My personal concern is, and has always been, how much does my view of the 'art' coincided with the powers that be?? Less and less, it seems ... but I guess that's my problem .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 So of course judging is more art than science -- always has been, even in the old tic days. My personal concern is, and has always been, how much does my view of the 'art' coincided with the powers that be?? Less and less, it seems ... but I guess that's my problem .... You and I agree about a lot of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.