Is being clean an effect?

[rut-roh]

But Effect judges do evaluate performance. The two effect sub-captions are repertoire and performance.

And I agree that being clean is definitely an effect. With the way the activity of drum and bugle corps is (stress on uniformity, coordination, etc...), I would even say that being clean is the most important aspect of an effect. Maybe not all effects are like this, but things like 10 snares playing licks in perfect unison, or 36 guard members spinning their flags exactly together are part of what make drum corps effective and exciting.

Yes, yes, yes, yes and YES. In my experience dealing with DCI judges, this is certainly true.

[nevadageo]

Can someone on this thread point me towards a simple explanation of the DCI judging system (what the different captions are evaluating). Thank you.

[whitedawn]

if clean is an effect, why don't corps play "mary had a little lamb" at 120 in Bb?

any good group could make that perfect in 2 weeks.

[Pinwiz]

Examples where GE was NOT awarded properly, 95 Madison, 90 Star, quite a few PR shows ... you get the idea.

I'd love to see the GE scores from Finals for both of those shows. One show ended up in 4th, the other in 3rd. To me, that's a show that were rewarded for positive emotional responses. In addition, those shows were outperformed by the corps who placed higher.

Looking at the sheet that was linked earlier in the thread, BD certainly could win high Music GC under that criteria. I don't know if I would give them credit for "Emotional Response", but they certainly earn high marks on ever other criteria.

The fact is that BD can put out a difficult show that is extremely clean. They can execute circles around most corps, and even though I may not enjoy some of their design decisions the shows are certainly cohesive. The show works, I just prefer a different one.

[pags]

General Effect captions were always "meant" to be the evaluation of the emotional connection and higher level of understanding of what the show is really trying to convey at any given moment (by the performers). Only in rare cases has effect actually been judged in this manner. 96 and 2008 PR, 1999 SCV are prime examples of GE being awarded properly.

Examples where GE was NOT awarded properly, 95 Madison, 90 Star, quite a few PR shows ... you get the idea.

I just need a clarification. Not awarded properly in your opinion or not awarded properly based on the sheets? Please understand that I'm not attacking here. I just know that the judging sheets have changed over time and I have no clue what the criteria was on the sheets in those years you speak of so I can't say is was or was not awarded properly. So, if you have some insight into what the sheets used to say and how you feel the judges misapplied the criteria, I'm all ears. Otherwise all we're talking about is our own personal "likability factor."

Now, I WILL say that I agree you somewhat on some of the years you mention, but more from the standpoint of, "I don't understand how they came to that conclusion..." versus "They didn't award it properly."

For instance, let's take 1995. I feel that Madison was the most enjoyable show from a music standpoint. Two words describe that show for me: passion and adrenaline. Thus, I've had a qualm with them being "only" second in Music Effect (Madison scored 19.6 and The Cavaliers were first with 19.7) but at least it was by a slim margin and despite them being a 4th place corps they were being rewarded for what they were doing. I understand that they didn't have a great deal of dynamic contrast within passages, or play the greatest variety of music, etc. that seems to factor into the sheets (based on the example sheet posted in another post in this thread), but in my mind a corps should HAVE to have a ton of contrast in musicality as long as they sell what they do play. However, I DO understand their 4th place finish in GE Visual. They had a limited visual program that rarely engaged me. Many will say, "so what, they played great music!" but those people have to remember that the overal GE score is made up of TWO elements: Music and Visual. Madison's music was rewarded, but their visual was not.

Basically, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that GE was not awarded properly that year.

So it has to be designed incredibly well, but it has to be performed well enough for the design to show. There should be enough power and passion in the performance that even a little dirt is totally overlooked because of that magic and power in the performance. Is this why BD keeps winning championships? I would say yes. So clean that the judges turn a blind eye to design. It's not effect, it's a trick. It's a trick that works because the judges are human and fans.

You can probably tell by my post, I would rather have a passionate show with a little dirt that is written exceptionally well and with a ton of imagination and skill -- as opposed to a fairly well designed show that is effective enough and then do it SO CLEAN that the judges are mesmerized into not doing their job.

I feel like this is oversimplifying, or at least more of an indication of the likability factor again that is very subjective to individuals.

I, as opposed to your indicated feelings, think that the Blue Devils shows are brilliantly designed, excellently performed, and VERY effective for me musically and visually. I find them memorable and enoyable both in the moment of seeing them live as well as years after the fact. Other shows that do the same thing for me are Cadets 1995 and 2000 and Cavaliers 2000. There are many programs that don't achieve that effect for me, but that is indicative of MY preferences, not an indication of a misapplied score based on the sheets.

[pags]

I'd love to see the GE scores from Finals for both of those shows. One show ended up in 4th, the other in 3rd. To me, that's a show that were rewarded for positive emotional responses. In addition, those shows were outperformed by the corps who placed higher.

Ask and ye shall receive...courtesy of From the Pressbox

1995 Finals Scores

1990 Finals Scores

[Jeff Ream]

Come on Ream -- get out of beach mode !!

havent been in beach mode since saturday, and thanks for reminding me i'm not there anymore.

[Jeff Ream]

I'd love to see the GE scores from Finals for both of those shows. One show ended up in 4th, the other in 3rd. To me, that's a show that were rewarded for positive emotional responses. In addition, those shows were outperformed by the corps who placed higher.

Looking at the sheet that was linked earlier in the thread, BD certainly could win high Music GC under that criteria. I don't know if I would give them credit for "Emotional Response", but they certainly earn high marks on ever other criteria.

The fact is that BD can put out a difficult show that is extremely clean. They can execute circles around most corps, and even though I may not enjoy some of their design decisions the shows are certainly cohesive. The show works, I just prefer a different one.

emotional response is in the eye of the tape recorder holder. the response doesnt have to be burning babies being thrown.

I love Madison 95. but they had dirt. sure, it was louder, higher, faster..but it was dirtier too.

90 Star...take out that horrid drumline, and you have a top 2 corps

[corpsband]

if clean is an effect, why don't corps play "mary had a little lamb" at 120 in Bb?

any good group could make that perfect in 2 weeks.

Because it's not much of an effect? If a clean effect really does exist it's clearly related to demand. Because we don't see clean and easy rewarded do we?

I'd also suggest that the clean effect is cumulative -- the longer it goes on the bigger it gets.

Edited July 16, 2009 by corpsband

[Jeff Ream]

But Mike...sometimes the best effects in the world don't have to be demanding...it just has to work. thats the beauty of a subjective caption