The tick system from BITD

[garfield]

The build up system is certainly subjective. My point is that people tout the tick system as being objective. It is not

I'm not one of those who touts that the tick system is objective, it certainly is not. It is limited by where, physically, the judge is on the field. But I also contend that that uncertainty cancels out because staff doesn't know where the judge will be in order to hide an obvious tick or weak player.

And the exact same problem exists for a BU judge as well.

[garfield]

your tolerance for what was a blown release or bad diddles could be different from mine.

hence the issue.

ticks isnt like compulsaries in figure skating. there was not set standard manual of what a tick was or to define the judges tolerance

a perfect example thats real.

in DCA one year in the 70's, team A tuned their drums really tight, team B kept them a little looser.

judge A thought team B was dirtier because of that....the sound had some inherent fuzziness to it...wasn't that they were dirty, but the tuning left him unsure. so when Judge A saw Team A and B together all summer, A always won.

judge B however was ok with Team B's tuning, and that it helped hide fuzz, meanwhile Team A, who cranked, left themselves open to every error being magnified due to tuning. So when Judge B saw them together all summer, he had Team B up.

OK, so remember, I'm a drummer (I can hear "Oh, THAT explains it!"). A diddle is a diddle. There's no fudginess about it. If the execution across the line is out of time it will be mushy. If the judge is in front of a player who's faking it and never touches the head the GE judges may never know, but the tick judge would. The BU judge may say "No harm, still sounds clean." But a tick judge would knock off a tick for the faker.

If the horn tick judge hears a blown attack between two players he'd tick the attack (regardless if other missed the attack as well).

In your DCA example, did anyone from staff speak up during the season and inform this judge that the heads were intentionally tuned loose? Would the problem have gone away if a BU judge who didn't like the loose sound had judged the line?

[Tez]

All of the above comments are very rational, but I still don't see where the tick system is better than a build-up system.

No judging system is perfect, especially when trying to judge something as complex as a drum corps show.... but I think the best system is the one that is the most fair, and allows the judges (who are human) to most accurately compare each group that performs.

In the build up system, the judge does not "give a point" for every good maneuver/phrase/etc..... this is an oversimplification. Judges use the sheets as a guideline and score accordingly. For instance if a certain set of guidelines determine their score to be between 6.0 and 8.0, then they know the score must be in that range..... a more specific set of guidelines further specifies the scoring between those figures. And when the judge decides whether to give out a 7.1 or 7.2, they then compare the corps to the others. I am pretty sure this is the thought process for the judges. Having said that, I can guarantee you that most performance judges even today still keep "mental ticks" during the show to help them at the end when they decide upon the score. But it is just that... another tool (one of many) to help a judge.

In my personal opinion, the great amount of knowledge and experience a judge brings to the field would be wasted if all they were doing was keeping track of mistakes.

[Peel Paint]

Sounds to me that some people think of today's judging system as being "objective"? How is it "objective". Please, explain this to me?

Inquiring minds want to know,

Ron Gunn

Since you're quoting me when you post this I assume you mean me, but no, I said right out in the first sentence of the second paragraph: As Tez suggested, tick scoring is highly subjective, as much as build-up.

Of course the current system is subjective. And garfield clarified that he understands that tick judging is subjective, too, but many other people who think counting errors is something that can be done objectively and would make DC judging more scientific. And no, it wouldn't. People who think tick counting is objective judging need to just try doing it for five minutes with some friends-- especially in the month of June when there are so many errors to try and count-- and see how far apart they all are, and they'll get the point: there are teeny-tiny ticky-tack errors made by one performer, there are huge tears that impact a show negatively, and lots of ground in-between. There is no way to reliably quantify the differences. The more you try to be specific about what counts as a tick, the bigger the rule book gets, and the more objections people raise causing you to go back and revise it again, and pretty soon everybody laughs at how absurd and convoluted it all is. No, they didn't do that back in the 70s. They counted errors and disagreed with one another and had a subjective tick and GE judging system where reputations and friendships and repertoire and performance levels all mixed together and influenced the standings... much like today.

[Blackstar]

People seem to make up all kinds of reasons the tick system won't work. If the snare line should hit on 1 and one dummer doesn't thats a tick. Same for releases. same for guard. How hard is that.

Oh they won't try a hard show.... then they shouldn't be in the Major League of marching music huh.

I would rather have a champion score a clean 89 then a dirty 98.9. And speaking of scores noticed how they jumped when the tick system went away. Did corps really become that good. I don't beleive you can have 128 or now 150 people march a 98 out of 100 show. Well only if they give them credit for trying real real hard.

This is the only activity you credit for trying.....

[ItsOnTheField]

In order to properly judge a corps, the technique must be understood, regardless of whether the judges use a ticksystem or today's sytem.

Example:

Cadets start off on the RIGHT foot, while most corps start off on the LEFT foot. To judges who have never seen that technique, it would look like a mistake, tick or present sytem. The judges have to have an understanding of the techniques used by any and all of the corps they judge....period.

Stickin' my foot in,

Ron Gunn

Not totally true. Regardless of the corps, if everyone steps off with the same foot (no matter which one) that would be considered correct. I'm talking about the technique of the actual style of marching and the details that go into it. How would one know if there is enough knee bend...or not enough..based on what the corps teaches? If the corps were to do a lunge, and they define it differently then another corps, what is the "correct" way to determine what is a tick or not a tick?

What about the color guard. Lets just take a basic drop spin. Not everyone has exactly the same hand placement. Same with tossing...where do they teach/define release points and hand placement. While there are many similarities, its not all exactly the same. How would you determine what is a tick or not a tick (especially early in the season)?

Edited January 16, 2010 by ItsOnTheField

[garfield]

All of the above comments are very rational, but I still don't see where the tick system is better than a build-up system.

This is the only question that really matters. And I still struggle with the answer, but Blackstar hinted at it. A difficult show played clean should score higher than any show played dirty. When a corps "cleans" a show aren't they trying to eliminate those things that would tick? Therefor, isn't the tick the ultimate judge of "clean"?

No judging system is perfect, especially when trying to judge something as complex as a drum corps show.... but I think the best system is the one that is the most fair, and allows the judges (who are human) to most accurately compare each group that performs.

From an execution standpoint isn't the tick the fairest way to judge performance, and doesn't it help reduce "slotting"? Ticks judge execution of the basics of musical performance (attack, intonation, sustain, diddles, flams, rolls, tosses, and catches). BU judging gives credit where credit is due (or doesn't where it's not).

In the build up system, the judge does not "give a point" for every good maneuver/phrase/etc..... this is an oversimplification. Judges use the sheets as a guideline and score accordingly. For instance if a certain set of guidelines determine their score to be between 6.0 and 8.0, then they know the score must be in that range..... a more specific set of guidelines further specifies the scoring between those figures. And when the judge decides whether to give out a 7.1 or 7.2, they then compare the corps to the others. I am pretty sure this is the thought process for the judges. Having said that, I can guarantee you that most performance judges even today still keep "mental ticks" during the show to help them at the end when they decide upon the score. But it is just that... another tool (one of many) to help a judge.

Isn't this slotting at it's core? Most corps out there say they don't perform according to what other corps do, they perform against their own executioin best. Yet, this judging guidline seems to pit one corps against another. Why not judge against the accepted definition of musical and guard elements and let the scores fall where they may to determine a winner?

If the judges are really are keeping personal "mental ticks" then why not provide a system to expose the ticks?

In my personal opinion, the great amount of knowledge and experience a judge brings to the field would be wasted if all they were doing was keeping track of mistakes.

But the overall score is not just "keeping track of mistakes". It's including mistakes in a system that also credits difficulty and chance-taking. In my OP example the BU judges could give more credit than the tick judge could take away.

Great, great discussion.

[dbc03]

This is the only question that really matters. And I still struggle with the answer, but Blackstar hinted at it. A difficult show played clean should score higher than any show played dirty. When a corps "cleans" a show aren't they trying to eliminate those things that would tick? Therefor, isn't the tick the ultimate judge of "clean"?

Is this not happening?

Which corps is getting screwed by the current system?

[perc2100]

OK, so remember, I'm a drummer (I can hear "Oh, THAT explains it!"). A diddle is a diddle. There's no fudginess about it.

True, but there are different levels of clean/dirty. In Jeff's example, he's describing tuning that is still very much in vogue, where the batter head of the snare line is tuned a bit lower to "hide" some of the dirt vs. another snare line with a very tight sound that exposes anything. One line, with the looser batter head, has a constant sound that's "grey," and if it's consistent a judge will credit it. The other line, with a very tight batter head, will be very easy to read, and if there is any hint of dirt it will be obvious. On any given night, a percussion judge might credit if "grey" line if they hear too many ticks on the "tight" line. However, if the "tight" line is consistently clean, another judge might not credit the "grey" line because their sound is "grey" and not as obviously clean as the "tight" line.

This is a very real debate that takes place constantly in WGI, DCI, and other circuits, and it's all a judgement call for the judge. If you tune your snare line batter head super tight and easy to read, you take your lumps when the line ticks. If you tune your line looser and it read "grey," you take your lumps when you go up against a snare line that sounds cleaner.

[Tez]

From an execution standpoint isn't the tick the fairest way to judge performance, and doesn't it help reduce "slotting"? Ticks judge execution of the basics of musical performance (attack, intonation, sustain, diddles, flams, rolls, tosses, and catches). BU judging gives credit where credit is due (or doesn't where it's not).

This is the only point I take exception to.

All ticks are not created equal.... especially in music.

Under a tick system, performance judges would give ticks... that includes the Brass judge, correct? They judge things like tone quality, blend, etc... Let's say Corps A come out and has outstanding tone quality and blend throughout the whole show and receives no ticks for these things. Corps B comes out and is also outstanding, but performs with an extra element of professionalism in these categories. They also receive no ticks, but rightfully should be scoring higher than Corps A. When looking at an aspect of brass playing such as tone quality, there is no such thing as "perfection" and an infinite amount of different levels of achievement. I don't see how you could possibly tick this. I know you would say that the positive aspects would be picked up in build-up judges, but shouldn't the brass judge be the primary judger of tone quality?

Under a tick system, it just seems that many of the aspects of drum corps would be simplified into "correct" or "not correct" when it is really so much more complex than that. As another example, take two snare lines playing a long double stroke roll.... one plays perfectly clean at a constant dynamic, while the other plays perfectly clean but with a subtle crescendo. The second is much harder to achieve and should be rewarded..... but it very well may go unnoticed by the judges in the press box. And shouldn't the field percussion judge be able to account for things like that? This is why I believe the tick system does not work in the modern drum corps activity.