Spartacus Effect?

[Richard]

I have faith in 60% of the system, so i beat the curve. i think too many times, IMO, book gets more credit than performance, and with judging this activity in general, visual demands get more reward on music sheets that music demands get rewarded on visual sheets

All fair points, although that's probably because visual demands impact the performers' ability to meet musical demands much more frequently. Visual demands usually receive top priority from the performers as well, probably because it's more obvious if you miss a form that you're jazz running into than it is if you skip out on that 16th note lick.

[byline]

@byline: I agree that what you've pointed out appears to be a major flaw in the DCI judging system. However, when a staff enters critique after getting a sheet with a lower-than-expected number on it, the first thing they want to know is "Why are we getting this number?" If the judges do not provide any feedback on the show, then they cannot answer this question.

This, IMO, is why you eliminate critique. All the information a staff needs to know should be on the judging sheet and tape. And if a judge is not making his/her comments clear enough, then that complaint should be made to DCI, which would then be taken to the judge to make sure that said judge knows how to explain his/her points of view on tape and on the sheet. It shouldn't be done in a face-to-face setting whereby the staff then "explain" what they're doing, which ends up being nothing more than influence-peddling. It may not feel that way, but if either side really needs to explain themselves, then that tells me the job is not being done effectively enough.

I go back to the one and only critique I was ever called upon to do as a guard judge (over 20 years of judging), and I actually told the band director, in essence, what I said above. I did not feel comfortable with critique, and so the band director agreed with my choice to avoid it. However, two young guard instructors actually chased me down as I was leaving. You know what they wanted to know? "What can we do to our show so that we beat so-and-so?" Sorry, but that is not my job to tell you. My job is simply to analyze what you put on the field, assess everything that you're doing and assign a score accordingly. They were baffled (which tells me that, in other critiques, judges were telling them the things they expected to hear). As I told them, "Everything I could possibly say to you is on the sheet and my judge's tape. It's up to you to take my comments, and if you agree with my observations, then utilize them. But it's strictly up to you, and it's not up to me to tell you how to beat so-and-so. It's for you to decide how you want to develop your own show."

[byline]

Who made figure-skating judges the icons of adjudication? More important, it’s only supposition that judges punish corps who don’t heed their suggestions.

The reason I pointed out her reactions is because of the public spectacle that figure skating went through, and over some of the very same issues we're debating now. Part of the reason the figure skating judging system was overhauled was because, as we could see, judges were far too susceptible to subjectivity, ranging from acts as overt as collusion to more human reactions like pitching out the numbers they wanted to based solely on what they liked or didn't like. The advantage of the new system is that it leaves a lot less room for that kind of behavior. It doesn't completely remove subjectivity, because short of computer-generated scores, nothing could. But at least now, judges must assign set numbers for technical and artistic elements which are or are not executed. Plus, the high and low numbers are thrown out, meaning that there's no way for one judge to be influenced to skew too heavily high or low, because that number will be thrown out. So there's a lot less room for overt collusion between certain judges.

Yes, drum corps (and winter guard) are different disciplines, but what they share in common is an inherently subjective judging system. The figure skating judge's complaint about critique is that it, in effect, creates a conflict of interest due to such direct contact between judges and staff. She was simply pointing out the painfully obvious. She tried to imagine a scenario in which that could work in figure skating. After all, if a figure skater feels s/he is judged "too low," mightn't s/he want to know why? But going directly to the judges is the very thing that they see as creating yet another conflict of interest . . . which is one of the things they're trying to minimize in the sport.

[MikeD]

I go back to the one and only critique I was ever called upon to do as a guard judge (over 20 years of judging), and I actually told the band director, in essence, what I said above. I did not feel comfortable with critique, and so the band director agreed with my choice to avoid it. However, two young guard instructors actually chased me down as I was leaving. You know what they wanted to know? "What can we do to our show so that we beat so-and-so?" Sorry, but that is not my job to tell you. My job is simply to analyze what you put on the field, assess everything that you're doing and assign a score accordingly. They were baffled (which tells me that, in other critiques, judges were telling them the things they expected to hear). As I told them, "Everything I could possibly say to you is on the sheet and my judge's tape. It's up to you to take my comments, and if you agree with my observations, then utilize them. But it's strictly up to you, and it's not up to me to tell you how to beat so-and-so. It's for you to decide how you want to develop your own show."

Just because two instructors asked silly questions does not make the idea of a critique invalid. Critiques can be valuable, or they can be useless...it depends on the judges and the staffs in attendance. Doing a tape in real time can often lead to verbal shortcuts that critique can help explain, for instance. Also, when I was judging a lot I used to write on the back of the sheets (before we had the boxes on the back), but it was often difficult to figure out, since it was done pretty fast and sketchy. If I had an issue with a particular moment, I'd sketch the form and circle the area I was having the issue with...say a balance issue when doing ensemble music.

As a staff person I'd never ask the silly question you were asked, and your reply was right on the money. I've judged a couple hundred shows since 1976, and outside of champs, we always had a critique. As a staff person I make it a point to attend them in USSBA; often a judge has taken decent notes and has some added info to tell us that might not have made the tape.

[MikeD]

Yes, drum corps (and winter guard) are different disciplines, but what they share in common is an inherently subjective judging system. The figure skating judge's complaint about critique is that it, in effect, creates a conflict of interest due to such direct contact between judges and staff. She was simply pointing out the painfully obvious. She tried to imagine a scenario in which that could work in figure skating. After all, if a figure skater feels s/he is judged "too low," mightn't s/he want to know why? But going directly to the judges is the very thing that they see as creating yet another conflict of interest . . . which is one of the things they're trying to minimize in the sport.

Just because she thought it a conflict of interest in her sport...that doesn't make it so in drum corps or marching band. Judges and staffs do interact more in our activity I guess, but that's OK, since we have grown up with that concept. She has not, so to her it's an alien idea.

[Jeff Ream]

All fair points, although that's probably because visual demands impact the performers' ability to meet musical demands much more frequently. Visual demands usually receive top priority from the performers as well, probably because it's more obvious if you miss a form that you're jazz running into than it is if you skip out on that 16th note lick.

but it should be a balance...if you look at the scoring, it's 50/50 weighted. yet, in any circuit, i have yet to credit a performer for what they were trying to do musically while running on the visual side, but if you dont do it on the musical side, you get your ### handed to you. it SHOULD go both ways.

hell, more and more GE music tapes sound like GE visual with some musical comment tapes

[Jeff Ream]

This, IMO, is why you eliminate critique. All the information a staff needs to know should be on the judging sheet and tape. And if a judge is not making his/her comments clear enough, then that complaint should be made to DCI, which would then be taken to the judge to make sure that said judge knows how to explain his/her points of view on tape and on the sheet. It shouldn't be done in a face-to-face setting whereby the staff then "explain" what they're doing, which ends up being nothing more than influence-peddling. It may not feel that way, but if either side really needs to explain themselves, then that tells me the job is not being done effectively enough.

I go back to the one and only critique I was ever called upon to do as a guard judge (over 20 years of judging), and I actually told the band director, in essence, what I said above. I did not feel comfortable with critique, and so the band director agreed with my choice to avoid it. However, two young guard instructors actually chased me down as I was leaving. You know what they wanted to know? "What can we do to our show so that we beat so-and-so?" Sorry, but that is not my job to tell you. My job is simply to analyze what you put on the field, assess everything that you're doing and assign a score accordingly. They were baffled (which tells me that, in other critiques, judges were telling them the things they expected to hear). As I told them, "Everything I could possibly say to you is on the sheet and my judge's tape. It's up to you to take my comments, and if you agree with my observations, then utilize them. But it's strictly up to you, and it's not up to me to tell you how to beat so-and-so. It's for you to decide how you want to develop your own show."

first of all, any staff that says that to me gets told to worry about themselves. second of all, sometimes, in the heat of the battle, you dont have enough time to go into detail while making the tape, so the critique can be very usueful. Doesnt mean you have to tell people how to rewrite their shows, but sometimes, especially if you are on the field, you dont have time to do into in depth discussions on tape

[jamesplaysbari]

It's for the fans, not the judges. When you forget that, you're lost.

That's why PR is building up such a "phan" base. Starting with '04, they've been putting out very audience-friendly shows ('05 especially!). They've been engaging, arguably without crossing into cheeky (which can often happen when corps try TOO hard to engage audiences). They may not have been the most technically flawless shows out there, but they caught your attention, and stuck with you. Ultimately that's more important than getting the highest score ever...at least in my opinion.

If there is a "Sparticus Effect", I'm very excited to see this year's batch of shows.

[rut-roh]

It's for the fans, not the judges. When you forget that, you're lost.

To be fair, a great deal of why people have come to worship that show was because it WON. This thread is a perfect example. If Phantom had come in 3rd, nobody would even be mentioning any "Spartacus Effect."

[Phantombari1]

To be fair, a great deal of why people have come to worship that show was because it WON. This thread is a perfect example. If Phantom had come in 3rd, nobody would even be mentioning any "Spartacus Effect."

I don't agree with that assessment. Regardless of it winning or not, the fans reaction makes it the Sparticus Effect and not the placement.