zig zig ZAG Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 What's more impressive from a judging standpoint? Are there any standards whatsoever? How does a show designer or arranger know what to do when it's unclear what will be valued highly, since no one's writing a show to lose? What's more impressive - running around the field doing spectacular geometric drill moves without playing, or doing the same, slightly more dirt though, while playing? What's more impressive - standing around and playing well, or running around and playing well? What's more impressive - a book full of donut whole notes, or fast runs, angular lines, hard harmonies? It's a real probem in my view. We have no standards save for being 'clean' which isn't the most important thing if we're really valuing innovation and challenge. Like the old tick system. Disincentive for innovation, disincentive for pushing the envelope musically and visually, disincentive for fan interest in watching new shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetman1287 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 It's been my perception amongst those in the community that it must be clean first, THEN difficulty comes into play. Not the way it should be IMO, but cleanliness and clarity seems to take importance over demand. So you'd logically think that it must be effect where coolness and hardness comes into play...but that is not the case. Because effect is so subjective, you could make the case for any top 6 corps to win. Lame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NR_Ohiobando Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 I really don't understand it either. Troopers are performing much better than usual this year, but honestly they are VERY dirty. I just cannot see how they are beating Colts and Scouts by the margins they are. More importantly, I can't see how they are beating Scouts in the margins they are in certain captions (brass in particular). Scouts have a much more difficult product both visually and musically, and IMO are performing on the same level if not better. But that's just my opinion, which I will most likely get flamed for... I did this little study comparing CCrown and Scouts, and while it doesn't take everything into account I think it's pretty clear that demand isn't the biggest thing on a judge's mind. Design and execution seem to be more important overall, but once you get down to the wire I think you'll want to be executing the harder show. I think that's one of the reasons Cadets will probably be leading the pack once it comes down to the end of the season. But yeah, like I said, I don't really understand it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 It's been my perception amongst those in the community that it must be clean first, THEN difficulty comes into play.Not the way it should be IMO, but cleanliness and clarity seems to take importance over demand. So you'd logically think that it must be effect where coolness and hardness comes into play...but that is not the case. Because effect is so subjective, you could make the case for any top 6 corps to win. Lame I never understood GE either...judged on showmanship, variety, originality, overall setup, demand on individuals, exposure to error, coordination of musical/visual elements, command of audience, and spectacular effects???hmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetman1287 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 I never understood GE either...judged on showmanship, variety, originality, overall setup, demand on individuals, exposure to error, coordination of musical/visual elements, command of audience, and spectacular effects???hmmmm But sometimes the sonority of the sopranos in the negative space doesn't linearly connect with the contrasting visual style of the rifles, which is too bad. If only the vertical space were better utilized, it would really put a more exciting product on the field for the fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob984 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 The judging system is to take both into account..... "WHAT".....what is being asked of the performer to do (in the performance captions, this would reflect demand) "HOW".......how well are they doing it (in the performance captions, this would be reflect execution) The score should consider both items to accurately measure achievement.........for example, if you are marching the hardest drill in the world, but you have major execution problems, you are not going to get maximum credit for the demand because you did not execute or thus achieve it. On other end of the coin, maybe you were super clean, but the demand was inferior to others. I think this is where there is the most debate. Perhaps we have too much emphasis on the "how", and not enough consideration of the "what". Also, because a corps is weak in one caption does not mean they are weak in another. If corps A marches an easier show clean, and corps B marches a much tougher show respectably but not as clean...shouldn't it at least be close or a toss up??? In my opinion, if the judge does not fully consider what is being asked of the performer in combination with how well it was done, they have not fully done their job. Even worse, if they have left a negative evaluation by another judge in another caption impact their evaluation of their caption. If a corps is 10th in visual and 3rd in music, so be it, or vice versa. The judge's job is to stay in caption, and those results may vary quite radically from overall placement. Last year, it took all year for differences in musical programs, in quality, substance, and effect, to finally show up in the score....differences that I heard in early July....I agree with the author that the emphasis on "how" is a bit too heavy....it will be interesting to see how things pan out.......... GB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rut-roh Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) Context is impressive to me. I could care less if a corps is running all over the field playing a million notes (even if they do it brilliantly) if it doesn't fit into the context of the effect they're trying to generate. If it's there just to say 'look at how much running we do and how many notes we play,' then I'm not impressed, and no I don't think it should necessarily be automatically rewarded. And honestly, if a corps who is playing less notes and moving less is doing a better job of generating their effect (less is more), then I believe it should be rewarded. Just as I believe that loud doesn't always equal good, I also believe that lots of notes and running around doesn't always equal good. Sometimes, everything a show needs, it has. Even without the million notes and running all over the place. Edited July 19, 2009 by rut-roh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zig zig ZAG Posted July 19, 2009 Author Share Posted July 19, 2009 My impression is that we still have the tick system, repackaged, but unchanged. The tick system stifled risk-taking and innovation for decades, and because many designers (understandably so) had winning on their minds, it took decades for corps to figure out that you don't have to be symmetrical to the 50 yard line, don't have to march forward all the time, and that it's possible to play hard music while marching hard, exciting, innovative drill. I love whichever corps pushes the art, design, athletic, musical envelope that particular year. Period. Man it's nice on that rare occasion when the corps that pushes the envelope most, while executing at a high level, actually is fairly rewarded for their efforts. I've read many posts from fans of particular corps worrying that the corps/show they're programmed to honk for lacks demand when it's losing, then as soon as it wins, it's suddenly the hardest and best thing on the field. Probably the Mom Mafia. We see what we want to see especially if it's our flesh and blood sweating blood all summer. I do, however, think that objectivity is possible, but it has to come from clearer priorities handed down to judges, and judges who are willing to push the envelope on open mindedness so that the designers and kids can push the envelope too. I won't hold my breath, though. So I'll just say, Corps X is, like, friggin AWESOME because they, like, totally THROW IT DOWN, and because they, like, scored a 102.95, they TOTALLY must have pushed the envelope the most and certainly have the bestest show ever. Oh yeah, GO KATIE X! We LUV U 4EVR! In a word, too many judges, too many of us, still fetishize ticks. Dronish clean freaks. Militaristic, uncreative, average, boring. We're dirt-o-phobes, spraying Lysol onto the field to kill off 99.99% of the risk-taking creativity, like Uber-Mom in the bathroom or on the kitchen counter. "Wash your hands first! Wash your hands or you'll liable to be DIRTY! You're liable to have GERMS! Show me those FINGERNAILS young man! You Get Back Here Now or you're going to be Penalized!" Too often, uber-clean pseudo-demand is what gets the gold, though. Too bad. Why? Not sour grapes because our fave corps didn't get gold, but because the other corps imitate that "aim kinda high" or "hit a big target" fallosophy. Excuse me, but I've got to go use hand sanitizer now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwillis35 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 The judging system is to take both into account....."WHAT".....what is being asked of the performer to do (in the performance captions, this would reflect demand) "HOW".......how well are they doing it (in the performance captions, this would be reflect execution) GB Some of this was snipped for brevity, but this was very well written, and I agree. The "What", as stated above, is Content, and the "How" is execution. Some categories are judges a bit different, but this is the idea. Content is important because it contains a long list of important variables, such as: demand, for sure but also design, coordination, projection of idea or concept to top box, and so on. In the area of GE Vis and MUS for instance, content is very important. Although content may contain a sub-area like demand, the more important factors are design, coordination, ability to project the theme or show instance to the box, to logically present the material in a manner conducive to what happened before it and after it in order to allow the show to flow better. Demand is in the sheets, and each judge may use it differently, but ultimately being clean with a well-programmed show is more important. From that point you can add demand if you wish. People have often complained that the Blue Devils are boring or that they do not put out shows that are as entertaining as others. They have complained that their demand, especially in visual and GE, is just not there. BUT.... The Blue Devils know how to program a show, whether you like it or not, that flows logically, grabs your attention, connects the dots, highlights all of their strengths, and moves well from beginning to end. Their 1930 show this year is a classic example. Some like it, some do not, but the show is readable. It is logical. All the elements are combined well, showcased well. Their drill alone is certainly not Cadets or Cavaliers, and it's probably not as hard as SCV's drill, but BD's drill is good enough within the confines of all the other elements. It makes sense, it presents the sections the way they need it to, without cluttering things up for the sake of demand only. Their drill helps them feature their musical book and the musical effect, perhaps better than most, if not all. The Cavaliers are masters at using their visual to drive their effect, the Blue Devils use a different method, but one that also works--they use their visual to drive the music, which in turn drives the effect. And the Blue Devils use COLOR brilliantly. All this dark crap on the field is pointless. I remember all the corps going DARK in the 90s and thinking to myself WHY? The activity needs COLOR. COLOR sells, it flatters, it fascinates, it helps to project ideas and music. I am always reminded, when watching these show, just how dark some of these corps are, and you really can't see the effects. The saying used to be that you had to hide the dirt, yet three of the brightest corps on the field are what we often refer to as the Big 3 or Elite 3. Yes, Cavaliers and BD use dark pants, but their tops are bright green or blue. BD has white and silver mixed in, with fabulous guard outfits and bright yellow projecting throughout the show. LOVE IT!! The Cadets march cream pants, have those beautiful bright maroon tops, and bright white slashes with a very bright yellow/gold cumber bun. Their guard also used color brilliantly. COLOR COLOR COLOR with all the top corps, then somehow, and for some reason, we get everyone else saying that they must go DARK. Anyway, now that I have ranted about color, let me say again that demand is just one part, but if the show is not well crafted and performed, WHO CARES? I don't want to just watch demand. The wonderful thing about the Cadets this year is that they have great construction of show, with some tweaks needed, and they also have demand. The Cavaliers have great construction of show (although I wasn't sure at first reading), and they have demand, and they are pretty clean. And BD has great construction, fun music, and they are clean. If you want to paint a great work of art, you first start with a base. Everything else falls on top of that base. If the base product sucks, no amount of sprinkles and candy on top of it will save it. The base must be there from the beginning, and that has nothing to do with demand. It has everything to do with logical show construction! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvs me sum mello! Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 What's more impressive from a judging standpoint? Are there any standards whatsoever?How does a show designer or arranger know what to do when it's unclear what will be valued highly, since no one's writing a show to lose? What's more impressive - running around the field doing spectacular geometric drill moves without playing, or doing the same, slightly more dirt though, while playing? What's more impressive - standing around and playing well, or running around and playing well? What's more impressive - a book full of donut whole notes, or fast runs, angular lines, hard harmonies? It's a real probem in my view. We have no standards save for being 'clean' which isn't the most important thing if we're really valuing innovation and challenge. Like the old tick system. Disincentive for innovation, disincentive for pushing the envelope musically and visually, disincentive for fan interest in watching new shows. Why don't you just come out and say it? You don't like the way The Cavaliers do things and you've painted them with as many stereotypes as possible. Don't pretend that's what this isn't about. I'd have a lot more respect for the thread if you'd stop hiding behind a pretend "analytical question." 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.