DCI scoring change proposal

[Bob984]

I believe that DCI should return the scoring emphasis to music. When DCI was founded, the scoring system allocated 60 points to music captions and 40 points to visual, thus 60% of the scoring (and thus the emphasis) was on music. In a short amount of time (the very next year), that emphasis was actually increased another 5 %, with music receiving 65% of the score, and visual receiving 35%. This percentage allocation lasted for 21 seasons. In 1994, the scoring allocations were changed, with music receiving 55% of the score and visual receiving 45% of the score. In 2000, the color guard caption was added into the 100 point mix, and allocation became 50% music/50%visual, and thus the emphasis on music was eliminated. Thus, in a 7 season time frame, the visual influence in the activity caused 15 percent of the score to be shifted from music to visual and removed the allocation edge that the music captions had. Before I go on, if you do believe that the visual element should have an even scoring allocation (50%/50%) with music, simply state that and we will agree to disagree; however, be aware that for DCI's first 28 seasons, the scoring emphasis was on music. Also, I am fully aware that the corps themselves had to agree to these changes, although I do believe that these changes were highly influenced by the visual community.

The area where I feel we should start to initiate change is in the music effect allocation. In my opinion, If you do not have a totally effective musical program, there is nothing that the visual can do to salvage that. Yet, in my opinion, we have had corps win championships with programs that were lacking in musical effect.

Keep the overall allocation of effect at 40 points. However, allocate 24 points to music effect and 16 to visual effect. That seems like a huge change, but we would still only be at 54% music to 46% visual, and the judge splits (mus./vis.) would remain intact. The musical "emphasis" would still be 6% less than it was in 1972 and 11% less than it was in 1993.

I fully understand that the audience really isn't considered in the effect score by the adjudicator. I believe this is wrong. When you have a corps that really is not connecting with the audience with their musical program and is leaving 90% of the audience flat, does that performance deserve to have a +95 percentile in music effect??? I think not, yet this has been commonplace. I actually fell asleep during the preliminary performance of a corps that made finals a few years ago, as the musical content was that boring. Yes, they were clean, but conveying musical emotion/expression to your audience is just as important, yet seems to fall by the wayside in the evaluation at times. You never see anyone get a 17.5 in musical performance and a 15.6 in effect......yet, that should be a distinct possibility. Also, there is far more to effect than coordination. Is it possible to have a very effective musical presentation and be lacking in visual effect?? Absolutely. It should also be highly possible for a corps to have a very effective visual presentation and be lacking in musical effect. Yet, you do not see wide variances. There is a corps this year who I believe should be a 19.5 in musical effect and a 17.8 in visual effect. I guarantee that will not happen. There is also a corps that I believe should be a 19.7 in visual effect and a 17.5 in music effect. Again, it will not happen. So, I would divide the music effect sheet in the splits below......

repertoire effect: 100

performer effect: 100

communication to audience: 40

add all 3, and place one decimal for the score out of 24

I am certain the last 40 points will raise some eyebrows, and the question will be how is it judged?? The judge must assess if the program "moved" the audience emotionally, and how much. Not just an ending, either, but the entire program. Were they engaged throughout, or were they bored with "lulls".....Yes, this will be subjective. They must also be careful to remain in caption. Maybe that 40 yard rifle exchange was "off the hook" effect-wise, but if you are on music..........or, maybe that park and blow was fabulous, but you are on visual, and the guard work was very average there...........if you get through an entire program, and 90% of the effect was visual, you have a problem with music effect.....Ditto, if you have a show that was great musically but the visual was lacking and you are on visual effect, there is a problem. Also, that communication to audience number can and should fluctuate up and down, night to night. If you come out tired, play a relatively clean show, but do not communicate the program to the audience, that should show up. If the next night you do a very emotional job and bring the house down, that should show up.

I think making the above changes will return to placing the emphasis on music, change the approach a bit to music effect (frankly, the judging of music effect currently is so warped that the word effect should be changed, as it is not accurate)

GB

[Hrothgar15]

Agree 100%. Although I'd love to see music 65%, visual 35%.

[Tom Brace]

and I think each corps should just arc up and play.

no visual program at all.

and they should get chairs...and music stands with little lights on the top of each one.

and wind could hurt the sound...so can we have the show moved indoors?

and to help me see...could we have each corps perform on some kind of raised platform?

and...wait, wait...I got it. So we know when each corps is going to start...could we have a curtain that raises? And then it could drop because I don't want to see them all move their equipment off and the next corps bring their equipment on...could we do that too?

Yeah....that's what I want. And no flags or rifles either. Flags indoors scare me.

Thanks.

[Hrothgar15]

and I think each corps should just arc up and play.

no visual program at all.

I'd still pay just as much money to see that.

and they should get chairs...and music stands with little lights on the top of each one.

and wind could hurt the sound...so can we have the show moved indoors?

and to help me see...could we have each corps perform on some kind of raised platform?

and...wait, wait...I got it. So we know when each corps is going to start...could we have a curtain that raises? And then it could drop because I don't want to see them all move their equipment off and the next corps bring their equipment on...could we do that too?

Yeah....that's what I want. And no flags or rifles either. Flags indoors scare me.

Thanks.

Again, this would be a cool way to present drum corps, but I think people would miss the visual aspect. The original poster isn't advocating getting rid of it, but weighting it less compared to the music. Thank you for employing the "slippery slope" logical fallacy.

[MikeN]

C'mon, Tom - you ignored the post and went way far afield. All he said was shifting the balance of scoring towards music rather than visual.

Mike

[Nation of Bass]

Not gonna convince me with that one. Drum Corps is no longer the activity that it once was. Visual is now considered equal with the music and frankly, that is how I think it should be. As for the audience connection idea, I say no way. I like being entertained by shows, but understand that the show I want to win often won't. That's part of the activity. Enjoy the shows you wish to enjoy. But don't expect to always enjoy the shows that win. Just not gonna happen.

[mobrien]

100% of the corps members contribute to the visual presentation. Only 70% of the members contribute to the Musical presentation.

When 70% of the members are responsibile for 50% of the score, music is already given a greater emphasis on a per capita basis.

Edited August 4, 2009 by mobrien

[mingusmonk]

100% of the corps members contribute to the visual presentation.

Really? I am curious as to how the pit analyzed by the visual judges.

[mobrien]

Really? I am curious as to how the pit analyzed by the visual judges.

Heh. Fair enough. Ok. 94% of the members contribute to the visual score. The other 6%, however, could be considered to disproportionately be represented in the musical score, since the writing and performance of the pit has a tendency to draw more attention than any other segment of 9 or 10 musicians in the corps, so they make up for their slackerhood in the visual department.

Edited August 4, 2009 by mobrien

[BRASSO]

I believe that DCI should return the scoring emphasis to music. When DCI was founded, the scoring system allocated 60 points to music captions and 40 points to visual, thus 60% of the scoring (and thus the emphasis) was on music. In a short amount of time (the very next year), that emphasis was actually increased another 5 %, with music receiving 65% of the score, and visual receiving 35%. This percentage allocation lasted for 21 seasons. In 1994, the scoring allocations were changed, with music receiving 55% of the score and visual receiving 45% of the score. In 2000, the color guard caption was added into the 100 point mix, and allocation became 50% music/50%visual, and thus the emphasis on music was eliminated. Thus, in a 7 season time frame, the visual influence in the activity caused 15 percent of the score to be shifted from music to visual and removed the allocation edge that the music captions had. Before I go on, if you do believe that the visual element should have an even scoring allocation (50%/50%) with music, simply state that and we will agree to disagree; however, be aware that for DCI's first 28 seasons, the scoring emphasis was on music. Also, I am fully aware that the corps themselves had to agree to these changes, although I do believe that these changes were highly influenced by the visual community.

The area where I feel we should start to initiate change is in the music effect allocation. In my opinion, If you do not have a totally effective musical program, there is nothing that the visual can do to salvage that. Yet, in my opinion, we have had corps win championships with programs that were lacking in musical effect.

Keep the overall allocation of effect at 40 points. However, allocate 24 points to music effect and 16 to visual effect. That seems like a huge change, but we would still only be at 54% music to 46% visual, and the judge splits (mus./vis.) would remain intact. The musical "emphasis" would still be 6% less than it was in 1972 and 11% less than it was in 1993.

I fully understand that the audience really isn't considered in the effect score by the adjudicator. I believe this is wrong. When you have a corps that really is not connecting with the audience with their musical program and is leaving 90% of the audience flat, does that performance deserve to have a +95 percentile in music effect??? I think not, yet this has been commonplace. I actually fell asleep during the preliminary performance of a corps that made finals a few years ago, as the musical content was that boring. Yes, they were clean, but conveying musical emotion/expression to your audience is just as important, yet seems to fall by the wayside in the evaluation at times. You never see anyone get a 17.5 in musical performance and a 15.6 in effect......yet, that should be a distinct possibility. Also, there is far more to effect than coordination. Is it possible to have a very effective musical presentation and be lacking in visual effect?? Absolutely. It should also be highly possible for a corps to have a very effective visual presentation and be lacking in musical effect. Yet, you do not see wide variances. There is a corps this year who I believe should be a 19.5 in musical effect and a 17.8 in visual effect. I guarantee that will not happen. There is also a corps that I believe should be a 19.7 in visual effect and a 17.5 in music effect. Again, it will not happen. So, I would divide the music effect sheet in the splits below......

repertoire effect: 100

performer effect: 100

communication to audience: 40

add all 3, and place one decimal for the score out of 24

I am certain the last 40 points will raise some eyebrows, and the question will be how is it judged?? The judge must assess if the program "moved" the audience emotionally, and how much. Not just an ending, either, but the entire program. Were they engaged throughout, or were they bored with "lulls".....Yes, this will be subjective. They must also be careful to remain in caption. Maybe that 40 yard rifle exchange was "off the hook" effect-wise, but if you are on music..........or, maybe that park and blow was fabulous, but you are on visual, and the guard work was very average there...........if you get through an entire program, and 90% of the effect was visual, you have a problem with music effect.....Ditto, if you have a show that was great musically but the visual was lacking and you are on visual effect, there is a problem. Also, that communication to audience number can and should fluctuate up and down, night to night. If you come out tired, play a relatively clean show, but do not communicate the program to the audience, that should show up. If the next night you do a very emotional job and bring the house down, that should show up.

I think making the above changes will return to placing the emphasis on music, change the approach a bit to music effect (frankly, the judging of music effect currently is so warped that the word effect should be changed, as it is not accurate)

GB

I'm on board with such a proposal. As a matter of fact, I would not be surprised to see such a reallocation occur once the new musical toys are added. I'm convinced that the Visual Age of Drum Corps is about to give way sooner rather than later to a new era.... and that the new ara will not be so visual emphasized as it will be musically inspired. And the judges sheets, which have always shifted and evolved, will reflect a diminuation of the Visual and a rebirth of the Musical. ( but some of you may not like all the musical toys that inevitably will be coming into the activity. But that's for another thread and for another day )

Edited August 4, 2009 by BRASSO