Demand vs. Execution

[vferrera]

Try a thought experiment: would corps X be in the same place if they had to perform the show of corps Y?

Example: would BD still be in first if they had to perform Madison's show?

Answer: except for the color guard show, I think the answer is yes. Madison has a well-designed show musically and visually. The level of demand is certainly in the top 6 if not top 3.

I'm not saying their show is perfect or that it is as tailored to the score sheets as BD. However, I think the flaws would be forgiven if it were performed at BD's level.

The major flaws in Madison's show are:

1) the closer does not sustain or build on the level of excitement generated by the first half of the show. BD's shows in the past have had similar issues. But they generally have the ability to "muscle through" and ram it down your throat. It would be interesting to see if BD could march the first 3/4's of Madison's show and still have the stamina.

2) color guard - there are staging issues and too much sabre work. When they all pick up the flags, it really pops visually. BD generally puts the guard "front and center" and dresses them in eye-catching costumes. That alone is worth a point or more in guard score. For all the kvetching about Madison's guard uni, the major issue is color. The blue and black is too muted. You could put them in bright red and gold t-shirts and their score would go up.

Bottom line: if BD were performing Madison's show, I think they would still be in first provided they fixed a few minor flaws. In fact, I think people would be raving about them rather than bagging on how easy their show is.

[OICMR corps]

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."

Wow!

paranoid much

Edited July 19, 2009 by OICMR corps

[audiodb]

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.

And I've read many posts from fans of particular corps who, when their corps loses, suddenly discover systemic problems with how the contests are judged.

[zig zig ZAG]

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."

Funny, but I wasn't thinking of any particular corps. That you thought I'm referring to the Cavaliers says infinitely more about what you think of the Cavaliers or their design/demand than anything else.

And yes, it is an analytical question: what do judges and fans value more - go-for-broke demand or flawless execution of less demand?

Think of gymnastics: they put a numerically higher value on harder vaults, let's say, and specific deductions for specific levels of error.

Not in DCI. (Harder to do and not entirely comparable, but worth considering.) Here we don't even know for sure. What it seems in the last decade is that, for the most part, aiming not quite so high and hitting a much larger target is valued by judges more highly. That dumbs down the art form and diminishes innovation, plain and simple. Whichever type of show 'wins' tends to be imitated down the top-25. Mostly we've seen safe, easier choices because that's what gets the gold.

It's like people being afraid of saying what they really think because we're all so friggin litigious and afraid of being sued. The cost is too high to go for broke in most cases.

I'd prefer to see more demand, more craziness, more jaw-dropping music and drill, more challenging music, and yes, sometimes more drops or an intonation problem here and there.

Pushing the envelope doesn't mean the envelope should be digital or synthesized either. Usually when that happens, it's more distraction than innovation.

Vladimir Horowitz wasn't the cleanest pianist. He wasn't afraid to go for broke, miss some notes, whatever it took, whatever it takes.

What corps go for broke these days? Most, I contend, don't. They're afraid they'll get ticked by the judges, which really ticks me off, but even more, it makes me yawn and wait for the next go-for-broke show.

[perc2100]

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.

Demand is a factor when judging, but it is not the end-all, be-all of a score. What is infinitely MORE important is EFFECT, and then EXECUTION (not necessarily in that order). The corps that performs the most effective show the cleanest will ALWAYS win. Demand is more of a tie breaker: for example, if the percussion judges thinks that Phantom Regiment and Bluecoats are drumming just as clean, then the group exhibiting the most demand (not only music, but simultaneous demands like marching while moving, cold attacks, difficult listening environments, etc) will be put on top.

* edit *

I also think that if a corps attempts something unique they also get recognition. For example, the way BD uses those chairs this season is pretty unique, vs. just about EVERYONE who performs a rotating/contracting box (all of this is, of course, only applicable if the unique thing is effective).

Edited July 19, 2009 by perc2100

[corpsband]

Demand is a factor when judging, but it is not the end-all, be-all of a score. What is infinitely MORE important is EFFECT, and then EXECUTION (not necessarily in that order). The corps that performs the most effective show the cleanest will ALWAYS win. Demand is more of a tie breaker: for example, if the percussion judges thinks that Phantom Regiment and Bluecoats are drumming just as clean, then the group exhibiting the most demand (not only music, but simultaneous demands like marching while moving, cold attacks, difficult listening environments, etc) will be put on top.

* edit *

I also think that if a corps attempts something unique they also get recognition. For example, the way BD uses those chairs this season is pretty unique, vs. just about EVERYONE who performs a rotating/contracting box (all of this is, of course, only applicable if the unique thing is effective).

Which pretty much boils down to "a satifactory demand" and "cleaner than everyone else". The question here is does mistake free outweigh hanging it all out there and mostly (but not perfectly) executing it ? I don't get how the "what" in some shows continues to rise when clearly it's only the "how" that's increasing. That's just NOT on the sheets. I would love to see judges brave enough to put bottom numbers over the top numbers. I think zigzigzag is making some good points here.

Isn't going for it really better for the activity than surgical precision?

Edited July 19, 2009 by corpsband

[rut-roh]

Isn't going for it really better for the activity than surgical precision?

Not if it doesn't really make sense in the context of how the corps is generating a specific effect. Less is sometimes more.

[Feathers Up]

I'd prefer to see more demand, more craziness, more jaw-dropping music and drill, more challenging music, and yes, sometimes more drops or an intonation problem here and there.

Pushing the envelope doesn't mean the envelope should be digital or synthesized either. Usually when that happens, it's more distraction than innovation.

Vladimir Horowitz wasn't the cleanest pianist. He wasn't afraid to go for broke, miss some notes, whatever it took, whatever it takes.

What corps go for broke these days? Most, I contend, don't. They're afraid they'll get ticked by the judges, which really ticks me off, but even more, it makes me yawn and wait for the next go-for-broke show.

I have the opposite view to be honest. I feel some corps "go for broke" just to have high demand at any costs. There is no flow to the show. And there is no emotional connection to the audience from the show. It's just a very hard, dirty, and unemotional product on the field just for the sake of "going for broke". Don't get me wrong, I love seeing a great show with great demand. But at the same time, less is sometimes more. Some of the most "simple" pieces of music ever composed are in my view some of the greatest.

[corpsband]

Not if it doesn't really make sense in the context of how the corps is generating a specific effect. Less is sometimes more.

I agree -- I'm not suggesting demand for demand's sake is good. In fact it becomes boring. But safe is really, really boring.

[Feathers Up]

I agree -- I'm not suggesting demand for demand's sake is good. In fact it becomes boring. But safe is really, really boring.

I agree. It can indeed go both ways. Take Bluecoats 2007 book. They had some very nice and demanding licks in that show (which I thought they were performing very well) and they watered it down to be "safe". But what if a corps is playing a piece which in it's original form isn't too difficult? Would you rather them hold true to the piece and play it with beautiful musicianship, or just add random runs and notes just to make it more demanding?