corpsband Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 Mike...given the attention to detail that goes into designing a DCI show, every single moment of those shows are planned out and programmed. Right -- but not every single moment is a planned effect. What we're discussing here is "effect" from being squeaky clean in the non-programmed-effect parts of the show. Does that "effect" exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 i think honestly Mike it has to be a combination of design and performance. given some corps have 200 plus pages of drill, every effect point doesnt have to be a huge programmed moment...it could just be the end result of finishing a musical phrase or the transition from one drill set to the next. again as been said...squeaky clean doesnt mean it's effective. the design could make no sense, but if it's squeaky clean....it isnt effective. I mean how can it be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 Still looking for some help on finding a website or whatever that explains the DCI scoring system in simple to understand language. Have mercy on the new guy. DCI does not publish their sheets, judges manual, or rulebook. I think the books are available for purchase (although they don't list them in their store). I'm sure the sheets are available under some sort of licensing agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 i think honestly Mike it has to be a combination of design and performance. given some corps have 200 plus pages of drill, every effect point doesnt have to be a huge programmed moment...it could just be the end result of finishing a musical phrase or the transition from one drill set to the next.again as been said...squeaky clean doesnt mean it's effective. the design could make no sense, but if it's squeaky clean....it isnt effective. I mean how can it be? OK. You're just coming down on the "No" side of the original question. I'm sure you're not alone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAFL Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 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. I'd say that cleanliness only becomes an effect when the whole of a show is considered. A perfectly clean stretch of boring drill won't have any effect for it being clean. A whole show of even the most boring and predictable drill--I'm thinking of military marching--does have an effect, however. So, I'd say cleaniliness has a tipping point--before reaching that point, it has no effect, and once past that point, it becomes an effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris ncsu Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 2007: Cadets win GE Vis, while: 3rd Vis Perf, 2nd Vis Ens, 4th CG. (BD wins Vis overall, though 1st only in Vis Ens). Cadets 2nd in GE Music while: 2nd Brass, 3rd Mus Ens, 4th perc. (BD wins GE Mus and all Mus captions). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'd say that cleanliness only becomes an effect when the whole of a show is considered. A perfectly clean stretch of boring drill won't have any effect for it being clean. A whole show of even the most boring and predictable drill--I'm thinking of military marching--does have an effect, however. So, I'd say cleaniliness has a tipping point--before reaching that point, it has no effect, and once past that point, it becomes an effect. clean may help, but its got to have the package Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersop Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 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. 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. You bring up a great point about my preferences and/or likability. Fact is, that's why they call judging an ART. Preference is definitely called into play. The difference in GE sheets really hasn't changed since their inception other than the weight of the scores for the sub caption criteria and the total caption score. If you look at my explanation and label it "The universal theory of GE" and then compare it to the sheets, you'll see I'm not pulling your leg. In the same respect, you have to consider that each judge will put more weight in specific sub captions as their deciding factor. After all, a good handful of corps at the top could win GE on every finals night, it's just a matter of which sub caption criteria are most important to the judge who is judging that night. Example: I might put more weight on Coordination, Concept, Pacing and Creativity and Originality. Those things are VERY important to me in the design elements of the REP. Whereas, Don Warren might emphasize Tension/Release and Impact and Climaxes. It's a matter of deciding as a judge what will actually be more important to them as the winning factor in the Effectiveness of the Repertoire. Rep Effect is the more "ART" driven sub caption there is on the field. By far, the most subjective. It carries equal weight on the GE Score. Effectiveness of the Performers is a bit more cut and dry (then again, perception, preference and subjectivity do come into play). Example: I put more emphasis on Nuance, Expression, Emotional Intensity and Musicianship. I feel that with these 3 things, Technical excellence, Communication and Professionalism is exposed. You can't accurately judge the last 3 without the first 4 (IMO). Let me clarify: The first 2/3 of the season judge the last 3 in GE. It's when you get to that next left in the final weeks that the Nuance, Expression etc. really puts you over the top. So the judges look for ticks and technique and want you projecting to the box and you get pounded on it until you're reaching the 90 mark. Then all of a sudden, the points I put emphasis on REALLY come into play. Those should be the numbers that put you over the top in the end. This is also why I feel that my examples in the original post were judged improperly. As to your GE Music vs. GE Visual comments, I'll do my best to explain why people naturally put more emphasis on the music and why visual scores are effected by it. First let me say, judges and fans don't see eye to eye on this. Here are some "cold" examples that some people won't want to read. Cavies Machine. Great Visual .... Meh Music effect = This is typically NEVER rewarded with higher Music effect scores. Cavies are the only corps I've EVER seen get away with having a visually driven show that is "accompanied" by the music ... and get away with it. If this weren't the case, a judge would sit in a silent booth for every show and just judge drill ... but how would that make sense? The music is what is driving the drill/visual elements and the judge can't put a true number on this element all by itself. Drum corps is based on MUSIC. Visual is there to enhance and show off the music. Period. BD just about any year has Great Music .... Meh visual effect = This is typically ALWAYS rewarded with higher visual scores. If the corps is kickin it on the music... squeeky clean and maxing out most of the sub captions in REP and Execution .... the visual just needs to support the overall theme, have proper staging and have some high impact effect at the right chosen moments in the show. Not sure I can clarify much more than that, and I feel this analysis supports my examples in prior posts. DCI is a music activity .... that enhances the musical through visual design. Some corps do it better than others and I personally feel it's not always rewarded properly. REP and Performance are typically weighted equally ... however Performance can blind a judge to REP flaws if it's execution is over the top. Not saying I agree with this, but it just illustrates the subjectivity of the activity and the people who adjudicate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersop Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Looking at the recaps (OMG Old Scoring Systems!!!!1!) both shows got the scores they deserved. Music/Brass GE and Brass Performance were properly rewarded. It was the other captions where the shows were rightfully dinged. Are you judging their actual scores or their spreads? I believe the spreads are WRONG WRONG WRONG. Which would mean, other corps got scores they didn't deserve? Sorry for the monkey wrench but this is the fatal flaw in judging a subjective activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersop Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Still looking for some help on finding a website or whatever that explains the DCI scoring system in simple to understand language. Have mercy on the new guy. This should help. There are more videos with breadowns of each caption. http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category...v3223086HjrMcBz 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.