The tick system from BITD

[Peel Paint]

Disagree with this. The execution portion of the tick sys (remember, the sys included a build-up portion), in theory, was/is concrete. As I remember it, problems didn't really arise as a result of differing tolerances "between" judges. As long as a specific judge's tolerance for gray vs. tick is applied consistently and evenly across corps, there really is no problem (especially if the panel is well chosen).

Problems arose when corps A felt that a single judge applied a different level of tolerance to their corps vs. corps B, C, and D... in other words, inconsistent tolerance levels for a single judge. Was that a valid gripe? Maybe. But, if it was, then that doesn't point to the tick sys as being subjective. Rather, it points to an individual applying subjectivity to a concrete system in order to yield a specific result (kind of akin to keeping a "mental note" of execution under today's system).

...tolerance... being the key word there. And I'm sure you saw what Jim Peashey had to say about tolerance earlier in the thread, as it applied to the tick system. Tolerance is, in itself, subjective. Whether two judges fall into a given range of tolerance is subjective. You can take something that can be evaluated subjectively and increase the objectivity of its measurement by training judges, practicing together, and so on, but you can never make it completely objective if you cannot measure it with 100% mathematical consistency.

Here are some things that can be measured objectively: distance, time, the pitch of one note. Two different people working independently can measure the same thing if they follow the same procedure using one or two identically calibrated tools and get consistent results.

Here are some things that can be evaluated subjectively: the beauty of a painting, the visual design of a drum corps show, or how clean feet, drum rolls, and horn releases are. These things are measured in degrees and there is always room for debate or disagreement after two people have independently completed their evaluation.

Splitting hairs, you wonder, perhaps? If you don't make the distinction the problem that results is that there are people who think they have something scientific that is artistic in nature. They think they've solved the problem, but they've only moved it.

In your case, when you disagree with garfield's restatement of the thread, you're disallowing any possibility that there is at least a degree of subjectivity in scoring ticks. I can never agree with that, and I doubt many in drum corps do.

[Blackstar]

I have a questions that will hopefully get answered.

People say the tick system was subjective because you can't count all the ticks. But isn;t the new system subjective also?

From my understanding its built on what a corps is trying to convey not what thier doing. Meaning a corps is attempting someone really difficult they get credit for the performance and not excatly execution?

[Peel Paint]

I have a questions that will hopefully get answered.

People say the tick system was subjective because you can't count all the ticks. But isn;t the new system subjective also?

From my understanding its built on what a corps is trying to convey not what thier doing. Meaning a corps is attempting someone really difficult they get credit for the performance and not excatly execution?

I already answered the exact same first question once in this thread, and I'll restate the answer. Of course build-up judging is subjective. That isn't even in dispute. You can train both build-up and tick judging to be more consistent, more objective, to a degree through training and practice. But tick judging has never been as exact as its proponents still believe. It doesn't solve the problem some of them are trying to solve, which is to make the scores consistent with what they saw and heard in the stands.

And no DCI judges don't just give credit for trying something difficult. You are awarded credit based on the skill you demonstrate. If you're ticking a lot, you're not showing much skill, whether the show is easy or hard. But judges may not give as much credit for something done moderately well that's pretty easy as they give something done moderately well that's really hard, because they can see/hear more skill achieving the second of those two outcomes. What some fans don't like is seeing scores of 97 for something that wouldn't have broken 90 BITheirD... because of ticks.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Peel Paint

[Blackstar]

Thanks PP for being clear and conise. Sorry, I was too lazy to read all the post.

[Jimisback]

OLD shows had 3 to 4 standing Os per show. Todays do not. The heck with scoring. The shows are not better today. And no one knows what the heck all that dancing is about. That is bottom line. Too much confusion. We never played for the judge before, we played for the fan. That is the problem. When you play for the judge, you play for nothing other than score. Fans do not know that. Hence you lose fans. If you want to play for judges, then do it in a closed room. It would be about the same. Few would give a wopping care.

[Jeff Ream]

I have a questions that will hopefully get answered.

People say the tick system was subjective because you can't count all the ticks. But isn;t the new system subjective also?

From my understanding its built on what a corps is trying to convey not what thier doing. Meaning a corps is attempting someone really difficult they get credit for the performance and not excatly execution?

kinda. you get some credit for the attempt, but if the achievement isn't there, you don't get a free pass. the what gets credited more the better the how is done

[perc2100]

OLD shows had 3 to 4 standing Os per show. Todays do not. The heck with scoring. The shows are not better today. And no one knows what the heck all that dancing is about. That is bottom line. Too much confusion. We never played for the judge before, we played for the fan. That is the problem. When you play for the judge, you play for nothing other than score. Fans do not know that. Hence you lose fans. If you want to play for judges, then do it in a closed room. It would be about the same. Few would give a wopping care.

Sorry, that's the wrong answer. You might've meant to say "the shows are not entertaining today," or to be more accurate, "I DON'T THINK the shows are entertaining today."

I know what the heck all the dancing is about. I'm not confused watching most of the drum corps shows. Talking with drum corps members today from all ranks of DCI ALL of them play for the fans.

Thank you for your opinion, though.

[Jeff Ream]

Sorry, that's the wrong answer. You might've meant to say "the shows are not entertaining today," or to be more accurate, "I DON'T THINK the shows are entertaining today."

I know what the heck all the dancing is about. I'm not confused watching most of the drum corps shows. Talking with drum corps members today from all ranks of DCI ALL of them play for the fans.

Thank you for your opinion, though.

I get the dancing, but lately I seem more confused watching the shows

[perc2100]

kinda. you get some credit for the attempt, but if the achievement isn't there, you don't get a free pass. the what gets credited more the better the how is done

Exactly. And the later the season gets, the less the "what" gets credit if it's dirty. I think Cadets have fallen into this "trap" a bit the past several seasons. The "what" is OK, but it's not clean enough to place higher (as in last season).

[Peel Paint]

OLD shows had 3 to 4 standing Os per show. Todays do not. The heck with scoring. The shows are not better today. And no one knows what the heck all that dancing is about. That is bottom line. Too much confusion. We never played for the judge before, we played for the fan. That is the problem. When you play for the judge, you play for nothing other than score. Fans do not know that. Hence you lose fans. If you want to play for judges, then do it in a closed room. It would be about the same. Few would give a wopping care.

Actually, I agree with that, but that's another thread. I don't think that's build-up vs. tick. That's the directors and judges taking the activity in a different direction than the fans want. But you could have build-up that still reward entertainment rather than artistic concept.