What is missing from Drum Corps today

[Bob984]

I think we're getting into dangerous territory when we start to talk about gearing the sheets to be more aligned to what pleases the crowd (and I acknowledge that I've made an assumption about what some people are talking about when they mention changing the sheets). The problem is that "crowd pleasing" is absurdly ambiguous. This would also result in corps being rewarded for playing "fan favorite" music and relentless gimmicks, taking away from the excellence and execution that are currently the cornerstone of a successful (score-wise) show. It would also hinder ingenuity in show design, because corps would be more afraid to try something that might not get a positive initial audience reaction, but may end up pushing the activity in a new, better direction (e.g. Star 93).

How do you quantify something like "getting the crowd on their feet" and put it into words on the back of the sheet? Not only will this vary from judge to judge, but it will vary even more so from show to show. As much as many people on DCP like to gripe about the current judging system, it is at least defined relatively clearly. Granted, the judges have to make a personal judgement (weird right?) about how well the show on the field satisfies the criteria on the sheets, but that sure beats the hell out of "I like this, so it's getting a high score" or "This is enjoyable to me, so this corps will be in 1st in my caption". I'm sure a few judges end up judging in that manner anyway, which just means that bad judges can exist, but that's human nature.

The show that is most enjoyable is often not the best according to the sheets. This is a necessary discrepancy until someone can figure out how to universally define "enjoyable" to the point where multiple judges can reach similar conclusions.

I'm all for making modern drum corps more accessible in general, but I haven't heard a reasonable suggestion for how to go about it yet.

Disclaimer: I find modern drum corps EXTREMELY entertaining and I think they get better every year.

I don't think that anyone here is asking for an 'applausometer" to determine an effect score. However, there is zero doubt that the current DCI effect judge does not care at all if the show "connects" with even one person in the audience. I think a start for change could be "you can not achieve a box 5 effect score unless the judge clearly perceives that your show has connected with a majority of the audience". I don't think that would be hard to determine, and yet would still be far from a simple show popularity contest. One thing that I know for certain is this......when a corps that barely gets a "polite" standing O at the conclusion of their program gets a perfect music effect score, we have a problem, especially when there were multiple shows which were far more effective musically and connected with the audience at a far greater level.

GB

[BRASSO]

Well, I'll be darned. That's the simplest explanation of the answer to this question I think I've ever read.

It can get dicey however when some say that don't want a judge to make a subjective evaluation on how a performance was received by the audience. Too difficult. And I get that.

But then it seems some of us will not question whether or not a judge can properly evaluate ( for just one example ) a singer's voice in the show.... or whether or not the guitar players played in unison, or if they misplayed the guitar chords, or if the lower bass guitar player was not in sync with the music passage, and created an ensemble discord, and so forth.

If a judge can judge a singers voice re. proper voice control, tone, pitch, range, ensemble unity with brass and percussion, etc and so forth....... then it seems to me we should be able to trust the judge's competence to judge whether or not the show was being received in a coherent and connecting way on the part of an audience or not. This seems no more subjective and difficult to judge than what the judges are being asked to judge in shows already.

If we are happy with the judging system that is in place, and want no change in this...... fine. We will continue to have shows designed to impress 6-12 people ( judges ) and audiences will be irrelevent. But know this...., no activity can expect growth if the audience is considered a non factor in the adjudication of what is considered " good ". And if audience responses to performances are not important in scores and placements, then we can expect continued disconnect with audiences on the part of shows. Why in heaven's name would Mr. Hopkins ( or anyone else ) expect anything different from audiences when they are essentially considered no more than deadwood in the stands when it comes to General Effect captions credit ?

Edited January 22, 2010 by BRASSO

[Jeff Ream]

Not only is that not the idea, it's not even close to how DCI is judged.

good call

[Western Burger]

If we are happy with the judging system that is in place, and want no change in this...... fine. We will continue to have shows designed to impress 6-12 people ( judges ) and audiences will be irrelevent. But know this...., no activity can expect growth if the audience is considered a non factor in the adjudication of what is considered " good ". And if audience responses to performances are not important in scores and placements, then we can expect continued disconnect with audiences on the part of shows. Why in heaven's name would Mr. Hopkins ( or anyone else ) expect anything different from audiences when they are essentially considered no more than deadwood in the stands when it comes to General Effect captions credit ?

I really agree with this last paragraph. We can see in so many shows today that they are focused on what the judges will be looking for, and not necessarily audience reaction. Which is fine to a point, but I could see in the future, many new shows that are clean and beautiful, but are not really connecting to the audience. Sure, us DCPers and music majors are going to continue to find things that we love and WE will stand up and scream at shows...but what about a show that reaches out and grabs the majority of the audience? Some thing that takes their breath away for a second? Or makes you ask, "wow! how did they do that?"

Now, I don't know the best way to go about this, or what changes need to be made, but I personally want to see shows like Madison 95 and SCV 89 that emotionally move me! And I want to see them more often by more corps! We all have our favorite shows that have moved us for one reason or another, and I don't doubt that any person with a heart couldn't be moved by one show or another. Is there something we can change/do to expect more shows of this caliber? Or do we leave things as they are now, and only be truly moved by 2 or 3 shows a year?

I may edit this post later for clarity...it is one in the morning!

[Perry S]

I don't think that anyone here is asking for an 'applausometer" to determine an effect score. However, there is zero doubt that the current DCI effect judge does not care at all if the show "connects" with even one person in the audience. I think a start for change could be "you can not achieve a box 5 effect score unless the judge clearly perceives that your show has connected with a majority of the audience". I don't think that would be hard to determine, and yet would still be far from a simple show popularity contest. One thing that I know for certain is this......when a corps that barely gets a "polite" standing O at the conclusion of their program gets a perfect music effect score, we have a problem, especially when there were multiple shows which were far more effective musically and connected with the audience at a far greater level.

GB

[MikeN]

Which of course begs the question - what is GE really for? Effectiveness of what? Making what clear? We have 60 points in the scores for technical proficiency and 40 for... what, exactly? For the clarity towards the GE judge himself? What clarity, exactly?

I really think, in my heart of hearts, that this is an easy fix, and one that would reap the greatest rewards - simply adjust GE so that it's rewarding shows for effectiveness towards the audience, not the fairly nebulous standard it seems to be right now. Problem solved.

Mike

[salad315]

Which of course begs the question - what is GE really for? Effectiveness of what? Making what clear? We have 60 points in the scores for technical proficiency and 40 for... what, exactly? For the clarity towards the GE judge himself? What clarity, exactly?

I really think, in my heart of hearts, that this is an easy fix, and one that would reap the greatest rewards - simply adjust GE so that it's rewarding shows for effectiveness towards the audience, not the fairly nebulous standard it seems to be right now. Problem solved.

Mike

I half agree with you, and want things to change, but if we start taking audience effectiveness into account, that means we also start taking audience bias into account. There's little doubt that BD had a championship caliber show this past year (and in 2008), but if we based a huge portion of the score off of 'connecting with the audience', i think there would have been a big drop in score. Would it have mattered?....would some people have been happy to see them lose??....who knows. What I do know is had finals been held in California, or maybe even Denver, BD would have been much better received. For another example....everytime I saw the Cadets in 2007, they got a pretty good reception, especially towards the end of the season once they got really good. Finals though - not a chance. Did they somehow stop connecting with the crowd through any fault of their own?...no - it was just downright displeasure and annimosity, which many bd fans say (i wasnt there) that they dealt with these past two years in the midwest.

Maybe I'm making too much of this, and maybe it wouldnt affect many scores anyway, but at 40% of the total value, even if just a part of that goes to 'connecting with the audience', i think it would create a home field advantage greater than the louisiana superdome or cameron indoor...and thats something I dont want at all.

[BRASSO]

I really agree with this last paragraph. We can see in so many shows today that they are focused on what the judges will be looking for, and not necessarily audience reaction. Which is fine to a point, but I could see in the future, many new shows that are clean and beautiful, but are not really connecting to the audience. Sure, us DCPers and music majors are going to continue to find things that we love and WE will stand up and scream at shows...but what about a show that reaches out and grabs the majority of the audience? Some thing that takes their breath away for a second? Or makes you ask, "wow! how did they do that?"

Now, I don't know the best way to go about this, or what changes need to be made, but I personally want to see shows like Madison 95 and SCV 89 that emotionally move me! And I want to see them more often by more corps! We all have our favorite shows that have moved us for one reason or another, and I don't doubt that any person with a heart couldn't be moved by one show or another. Is there something we can change/do to expect more shows of this caliber? Or do we leave things as they are now, and only be truly moved by 2 or 3 shows a year?

I may edit this post later for clarity...it is one in the morning!

The other thing that can't be emphasized enough is that the DCI judging ranks is a very small in number group indeed. There is very little turnover, or new blood. As a result, DCI show designers know exactly what the preferences are of these judges. And there is very little diversity among the judgng communities tastes. If some of the shows from each of the Corps tend to have a sameness quality about them now, some of this can be attributed to the fact that many of the same faces are judging each year.

In pro sports, coaches and players learn very quickly the preferences, foibles, inclinations, etc of each individual umpire, referee, and adjust their game accordingly. In baseball for example, some umpires have a wider strike zone than other umps. In basketball, some refs have quick whistles for technical fouls on challenging a refs call, while others give more lattitude to players and coaches who want to yap at them on questionable calls. So saavy players and coaches learn to adjust to these idiosyncracies.

It's the same in DCI...... DCI show designers have heard the tapes in previous years. So in the offseason, they are not about to put together a show that will not take into strong consideration the likes and dislikes of these same judges that they see year in and year out.

Edited January 22, 2010 by BRASSO

[Jeff Ream]

I half agree with you, and want things to change, but if we start taking audience effectiveness into account, that means we also start taking audience bias into account. There's little doubt that BD had a championship caliber show this past year (and in 2008), but if we based a huge portion of the score off of 'connecting with the audience', i think there would have been a big drop in score. Would it have mattered?....would some people have been happy to see them lose??....who knows. What I do know is had finals been held in California, or maybe even Denver, BD would have been much better received. For another example....everytime I saw the Cadets in 2007, they got a pretty good reception, especially towards the end of the season once they got really good. Finals though - not a chance. Did they somehow stop connecting with the crowd through any fault of their own?...no - it was just downright displeasure and annimosity, which many bd fans say (i wasnt there) that they dealt with these past two years in the midwest.

Maybe I'm making too much of this, and maybe it wouldnt affect many scores anyway, but at 40% of the total value, even if just a part of that goes to 'connecting with the audience', i think it would create a home field advantage greater than the louisiana superdome or cameron indoor...and thats something I dont want at all.

great point on audience bias. On the Left Coast, BD will kill, so will SCV. but take lastyear...BD wasn't getting burning babies thrown at it in Allentown.

so...would their score drop?

[Richard]

...Also, keep in mind that the judges would not be asked to make " audience reaction " a predominent component of their score, just one factor in it. Right now, " connecting to an audience " is a NON FACTOR in the judging caption. In my personal opinion, this does not make much sense.... particularly when we are trying to promote excellence in the Performing Arts. And no commercially successful Performing Artist doesn't have as THE predominant goal that of " connecting to the audience ". And ANY successful performer can tell you whether or not their performance on any given nite was " connecting to an audience " or not....

But what connects to you may not connect to me. We’re both members of the audience right? I understand you’re looking for the majority of the audience’s reaction, but this results in fan-favorite corps placing better (as salad315 was saying). Phantom Regiment surely would have scored higher last year (when they did not deserve to) were this “connection with the audience” metric in use, because so many people LOVE them! If anything, this will reinforce the theory of “competitive inertia”. People still love Madison because of their 95 show even though their recent shows haven’t been as good. This nostalgia factor will still cause 10-15% of the audience to go nuts for them even when they know they shouldn’t. Bottom line: it’s just too subjective.

I don't think that anyone here is asking for an 'applausometer" to determine an effect score. However, there is zero doubt that the current DCI effect judge does not care at all if the show "connects" with even one person in the audience. I think a start for change could be "you can not achieve a box 5 effect score unless the judge clearly perceives that your show has connected with a majority of the audience". I don't think that would be hard to determine, and yet would still be far from a simple show popularity contest. One thing that I know for certain is this......when a corps that barely gets a "polite" standing O at the conclusion of their program gets a perfect music effect score, we have a problem, especially when there were multiple shows which were far more effective musically and connected with the audience at a far greater level.

GB

Precluding excellent shows from receiving a box 5 effect score because they don’t “connect with a majority of the audience” is ridiculous to me. 2009 Blue Devils should have been mired in box 4 effect numbers because they didn’t connect with the audience? 2005 Cadets same deal? 1993 Star? Star 93 would have struggled to make finals if this was the case! And Madison 95 would have won when they did not deserve to (conspiracy theories aside).

Now, I don't know the best way to go about this, or what changes need to be made, but I personally want to see shows like Madison 95 and SCV 89 that emotionally move me! And I want to see them more often by more corps! We all have our favorite shows that have moved us for one reason or another, and I don't doubt that any person with a heart couldn't be moved by one show or another. Is there something we can change/do to expect more shows of this caliber? Or do we leave things as they are now, and only be truly moved by 2 or 3 shows a year?

The thing is, if corps could program shows like Madison 95 and Vanguard 89 they would. Those landmark shows don’t just have some magical formula that can be reproduced, that’s why they’re so few and far between.

And I would be SHOCKED if the Blue Devils design team got together and said “ok let’s create something that will win, and hopefully a few fans will like it”. I’m sure they say “Let’s create something that will win…” but I’d bet that they also say “and something that will be entertaining at the same time”. A lot of people here talk as if 6-9 corps in the top 12 are making no attempt to entertain the audience and cater strictly to the judges. How do these groups have fans if not for putting out enjoyable and entertaining shows? Sure, BD 2009 may not grab you personally the way Madison 95 did, but it’s entirely possible and probable it did have that affect on some. What this all really comes down to is a lot of people saying “I want every corps to do a show that I LOVE every single year”. Sure, we all want that, but that won’t ever happen. Tastes differ.

It's the same in DCI...... DCI show designers have heard the tapes in previous years. So in the offseason, they are not about to put together a show that will not take into strong consideration the likes and dislikes of these same judges that they see year in and year out.

The preferences of a judge are not consistent across a panel, or across a caption from show to show throughout the season. It’s impossible to cater to a specific judge’s whim in the hopes of a championship. The finals week panel is revealed late in the season anyway. Sure, there may be things that the majority of the judges prefer, but those are almost always the things that are on the sheets.