Spartacus Effect?

[MikeD]

It's a conflict anywhere. A doctor who writes a prescription for themselves or a family member can lose thier license or be suspended in all 50 states. In most states high school refs are required to drive out of their region so they don't see teams they live near or grew up near, and in all levels of amateur athletics it's customary to make sure refs are not alumni of the teams they are refereeing. You know those CSI shows that are so popular, where the techs are always interacting with suspects? Completely ludicrous, I dated a forensic tech for a while and they were never allowed to see a suspect, or even know their name (unless they were coroners and had to id a body). They were required to recuse themselves if they had any relationship of any kind, no matter how casual, with someone who even lived on the same street as the crime scene, just to avoid conflicts of interest. Cops, DA's and Judges are all under the same general guidelines. The fact is, if someone is invested in either the product or the people generating it they can't be objective, no matter how noble, disciplined or well intentioned they may be.

No, it's not, IMO. Judges are not "invested in the product" when they are evaluating the performance. That is what they are hired to do, and it includes the critique. On the one hand some complain that there are judges that never marched, while here you don't want judges who have ever marched in corps. Can't have it both ways.

Judges are not creating the show they are judging. They may point up deficiencies and possibly make a suggestion, but they are not creating the shows.

As for being objective...it's not a hard thing to do, as one who has judged around 200 shows between corps and band since 1976. As long as the judge understands just what it is he or she is judging, it's not difficult...when I judge a performance, I am judging a group of young people...NOT the staff...NOT the past...nothing other than the show as it is being performed by the members. Even comments on the 'what' are not hard to make when I keep in mind that it's the members who count. I think you are making something out of nothing...just MHO.

Saying that it isn't a conflict just because it's alien to figure skating people (who have struggled with many of the same issues) is just a cop out. You may not like figure skating (can't say as I'm a fan myself) but as an activity it bears many striking parallels to drum coprs. Just look at the skating world, blending artistry and athleticism into a highly structured and competitive performance viewed and judged by a rabid niche audience? Sounds a hell of a lot like drum corps. And the combination of reputations and careers on the line in a small and hyper competitive community that grows ever more incestuous over the years as interpersonal relationships forced by constant contact at a limited pool of events grow on the one hand and personal jealosies and gripes fester on the other? Drum corps would do well to pay attention to what happens in other activities that face very similar community pressures.

Saying it's ok in drum corps because people are used to it, it's traditional doesn't carry water with me either. People were used to apartheid, weren't they? You think we should stop researching cancer and aids treatments ebcause people are used to dying from them? Not all traditions are good, and not all innovations are good either. We should be more concerned with what works and what doesn't than with what we are used to or what is new and exciting.

Yes, we need to be aware of what works...and the judging system does work. I'm all for exploring new things in every aspect of drum corps. IMO in this case you are building some horrific scenario that just isn't born out by what actually happens.

[chaos001]

It's a conflict anywhere. A doctor who writes a prescription for themselves or a family member can lose thier license or be suspended in all 50 states.

not exactly. depends on what the script is for...if it was for narcotics, they might be sanctioned or restricted in their script writing abilities. if they're for antibiotics or just general whatever, it's not a big deal. it's harder for a dr. to lose their license than most may think. i've known of a few who were in rehab (and writing their own scripts) more than once and still practice.

[corpsband]

Spartacus Effect: IMHO it was not the design or murders or dark stuff. The powerful effect of that show came directly from the performers connecting emotionally through the written book directly with the audience and the ensuing feedback loop of madness that ensued. That's why people say it was special. When you go back and watch that show on video with no sound there's nothing out-of-the-ordinary about it at all. It was all about the performers 'buying in' emotionally; they literally TOOK the audience with them on the journey through the show. Of course the designers had to build the vehicle to make that journey and the instructional staff had to teach them to use it (and convince them to buy-in as they did). But I don't think that magic is something anyone writes or teaches or inspires. It just happens and whether you're a performer, judge, spectator or staff -- it really is magic.

Judges influencing design? Umm....the judges do NOT write the book and only influence to the extent of commenting how the performance and written book meets (or does not meet) the criteria. Do the criteria influence design? Absolutely. That does NOT mean that design is driven by the green shirts.

Critique: giving some people the chance to explain what the h*$@ they meant on a tape is priceless. Face to face communication is much more effective than numbers + a few words + a tape that may or may not need further explanation.

----

mike

[mad_scotty]

not exactly. depends on what the script is for...if it was for narcotics, they might be sanctioned or restricted in their script writing abilities. if they're for antibiotics or just general whatever, it's not a big deal. it's harder for a dr. to lose their license than most may think. i've known of a few who were in rehab (and writing their own scripts) more than once and still practice.

can be suspended, not will. what does happen is a board review if they get caught, and the board determines the punishment. most dr.'s will do anything to avoid spending a couple of hours explaining their ethical or procedural lapses to a group of colleagues though. and i have been in a room with a dr. who called a colleague and asked them to call a scrip into a pharmacy for antibiotics for one of their kids because they didn't want it in their own name, just to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

[mad_scotty]

No, it's not, IMO. Judges are not "invested in the product" when they are evaluating the performance. That is what they are hired to do, and it includes the critique. On the one hand some complain that there are judges that never marched, while here you don't want judges who have ever marched in corps. Can't have it both ways.

Judges are not creating the show they are judging. They may point up deficiencies and possibly make a suggestion, but they are not creating the shows.

As for being objective...it's not a hard thing to do, as one who has judged around 200 shows between corps and band since 1976. As long as the judge understands just what it is he or she is judging, it's not difficult...when I judge a performance, I am judging a group of young people...NOT the staff...NOT the past...nothing other than the show as it is being performed by the members. Even comments on the 'what' are not hard to make when I keep in mind that it's the members who count. I think you are making something out of nothing...just MHO.

Yes, we need to be aware of what works...and the judging system does work. I'm all for exploring new things in every aspect of drum corps. IMO in this case you are building some horrific scenario that just isn't born out by what actually happens.

try this one on for size. 2 corps at a show. the judge tells corps A that part of their show isn't working from a design standpoint. it's clunky, awkward, and overdone. the staff says wow, we really need to work on that. the judge goes to corps B and gives them virtually identical advice about a section of their show. the corps says all due respect, but the audience loves that hit, and we would rather work on cleaning it and keep it in. a month later the same judge sees the same two corps at a different show. corps A has made changes per the judges recomendations, and their new show, while still a little dirty, matches the judges notion of what proper design should be. corps B is still running the same stuff, very clean by now, and the crowd is into it, but they are clearly using designs the judge has staked their professional reputation on deriding a month previously. and you think there is no conflict at all for this judge in this show? they can remove themselves from the situation emotionally and give both corps a fair shake?

in all the staff meetings you have sat through, all the designers you have collaborated with, have you really not noticed how emotionally attached people get to their notion of what the proper way to do something is? how easily they shift from thinking something is a cool idea to becoming an evangelist for that technique to thinking anyone who doesn't do things that way is lost in the desert? i'm not saying a judge will be as bad as a staffer who spent a year planning, teaching, and cleaning, but if they have even a shadow of that emotional atachment to the use of certain ideas in design then they are clearly not objective.

i see this in my line of work all the time. one of my companies main products is a line of consulting services we market primarily to fortune 1000 companies, entertainment and athletic brands, etc. our consultants are truly gifted individuals with serious track records of producing for some of the worlds most recognizable brands, and they are well worth the six figure salaries they pull down. they are well educated, curious, open minded, and eager to learn. and occasionally i will tell one to do a strategic appraisal, and make a list of recomended changes and next steps for the client with targeted benchmarks, metrics and methodology to assess achievement. pretty simple. they go away for 1-3 weeks, come up with a plan, i review it and approve them to go live with the client. and every once in a while these bright, commited, open minded eager to learn people will get off the phone with the client and come at me looking like a burning eyed prophet of doom and tell me they want to quit, or fire the client, or burn the office down, or whatever, because their advice was shot down.

these guys are real a listers, always thinking, learning, and growing, and aren't naturally inclined to be pushy and arrogant at all. but they work very, very hard at what they do (to the point i have to monitor their days off to make sure they actually take them and recharge) and they are so invested in working to give the client the very best advice they can give that when a client basically blows them off they sometimes flip. i have to bring them back down to earth and calm them down (i really am the calming influence at my company, of course i can't express my opinions very freely theirceither, though) and i get them to give the client what they want. in the end, the client pays our bills, and their salary, so we try to educate clients on best practices and give our best advice but we always come around to delivering what they are paying for. but my people, who do what dci judges do: observe, evaluate, and make recomendations, spend so much time working on defining what is best so they can give the most professional, well refined advice that through the process they become emotionally invested in the advice itself, and sometimes lose perspective as a result.

i find it hard to believe that my people are less professional, talented, educated, or ethical than dci judges. and i also find it hard to believe that dci judges are immune to the issues my colleagues have to work through.

of course, i doubt any of this will really resonate with you. the real issue here is that you feel the judging system works, and as long as you are happy with the systems end product it will be easy for you to rationalize its culture and methodology. it will be just as easy for you to ignore the serious concerns of people who see problems where you believe none exist. if the results are so good, then the process HAS to work, right? but i ask you, dci fans seem to me a fairly intelligent and educated group as a whole. if the judging works, why are so many educated and intelligent people so convinced that it is massively flawed, and that results are far too often skewed as a result?

[Richard]

try this one on for size. 2 corps at a show. the judge tells corps A that part of their show isn't working from a design standpoint. it's clunky, awkward, and overdone. the staff says wow, we really need to work on that. the judge goes to corps B and gives them virtually identical advice about a section of their show. the corps says all due respect, but the audience loves that hit, and we would rather work on cleaning it and keep it in. a month later the same judge sees the same two corps at a different show. corps A has made changes per the judges recomendations, and their new show, while still a little dirty, matches the judges notion of what proper design should be. corps B is still running the same stuff, very clean by now, and the crowd is into it, but they are clearly using designs the judge has staked their professional reputation on deriding a month previously. and you think there is no conflict at all for this judge in this show? they can remove themselves from the situation emotionally and give both corps a fair shake?

...

If the judge is telling them that "it doesn't work" what they mean is that it doesn't meet the criteria on the sheets. If that segment doesn't meet the criteria on the sheets, then they'll receive similar feedback from different judges over multiple shows. Also, in your example, the staff in corps B is probably putting too much weight in what the crowd thinks. Your stereotypical DCI crowd will go nuts for volume over all else, poor blend/tone quality/timing be ######, if that hit is balls-to-the-wall quintuple forte, then 75% of the crowd will be on their feet. Crowds usually don't react to things like dynamic contrast, or a perfectly tuned 9 chord, or pristine tone-quality, and if they do it's certainly not with the same vigor as when they react to pure decibels.

If in corps B's big hit, the baritones are on the front sideline cranking way out of quality and blend, the judge may probably say "I'm getting way too much baritone here, it's really taking away from the moment". If the staff says "well we're not backing anyone off because the crowd loves that hit" (which they certainly have a right to do) then I would expect the judge to come back with a similar comment next time. To answer your question at the end of the first paragraph: they can remove themselves from the situation by judging against the criteria on the sheets.

For example, at a fall band competition UMASS Amherst showed up to play an exhibition. Now, their percussion is completely legit, but the package they put on the field is what many would refer to as bando. The band kids behind me, and much of the band crowd, ate up their insane volume and cheesy 'clap your hands' gimmicks. If that band was in a competitive circuit similar to DCI, they would get killed for absolutely no visual demand, and occasionally questionable blend and quality, not to mention tremendous inconsistencies from player-to-player (obviously, they have like 350 people). Would the crowd love them? You bet. They're built to entertain first and foremost, not execute, and they entertain very very well (nothing against UMASS, they're a great college band and many fine musicians have come through it). This is why an 'applause-o-meter' type evaluation is not worthwhile and should not be the focus for competitive drum corps. Simply put, the "crowd" as a whole is not educated enough to make an accurate evaluation of the package on the field.

[bawker]

Simply put, the "crowd" as a whole is not educated enough to make an accurate evaluation of the package on the field.

Well, guess it's time for me to put on my overawls, pack up dem straw bales and git on back to the country, where we's can wraps our head arounds simple-like ideas.

I guess if I don't meet the musical and pedagogical bar as an audience member, it's time for me to stay home. I hope one day I can deceipher the deeper meaning of "West Side Story", "Appalachian Spring" and every other borrowed piece of pastiche drum corps somehow claims is their very own "art".

[BillH]

Simply put, the "crowd" as a whole is not educated enough to make an accurate evaluation of the package on the field.

I think it would be more accurate/fair to say that the crowd does not react to the performances according to the criteria on the judges' sheets. Whether that is a good thing is open to debate.

I do believe the point is, if Scotty's corps B was not meeting sheet criteria (which should be the driver behind a judge's advice to make revisions), then they certainly should not expect that their score in that sub-caption will improve, if they do not do SOMETHING to better meet the criteria. Scotty clouds the matter slightly by introducing that decades-old and never-to-be-resolved quandry of clean/lesser design versus great design/lesser execution (let's not even throw demand in there!), but if we believe the judges are using the sheets to judge, then audience reaction has no bearing. If that is not acceptable, rather than claim judging incompetence or worse, let's blame the true source. DCI members set the criteria. If audience appeal should be a part of that, then change the rules/sheets.

[skewerz]

Simply put, the "crowd" as a whole is not educated enough to make an accurate evaluation of the package on the field.

hehe..what a load of elitist crap...

Just remember...there are thousands upon thousands of out-of-work artists in the world, just because no one understands their genius.

[Phantombari1]

The degree can be debated, but to say the fact of Phantom winning had nothing to do with the appeal of Spartacus is naive, I think. Yes the show was very popular before championships, but a crowd doesn't erupt for the announcement of scores like ours did if the scores truly don't matter.

I agree, however if Phantom had not won that night, the discussions would still have occured about it's impact on the future of Drum Corp. The crowds reaction would have been just a amplified had they not won but it would have been in a negative tone and probably would have brought on more discussion on the activities demise, not to mention the cultured linch mob mentality and conspiracy nut job backlash.

In regards to Phantoms win creating more appeal, I don't agree. That's putting the cart before the horse, the appeal was generated before the results were announced. I don't love the show any more or less because they won.