audiodb Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 While I'm processing my third cup of coffee and thinking about judges, something nags at me...Judges. Why do we, who run the central Ohio show, have to pay to fly in judges and put them up in a hotel overnight? While I understand and accept the desire for synergy and consistency among the judging, aren't most judges band directors? Our show director is a retired band director and currently the percussion head at THE Ohio State Univ. marching band, and judged DCI many years ago. My brother, a band director, is a USSBA judge, and I've sat in the stands with a long-time band director who's a DCI Open class judge. And if we enlisted the local band directors to judge our show, wouldn't that engage them enough to get their students to the show, too? The cost to transport and house "official" DCI judges has got to reach a couple-thousand dollars anyway. Wouldn't a local band director like to earn a few hundred bucks to judge one night? I think it would save significant costs, and it would certainly invest local music educators in the local show. Possibly leveraging USSBA's pool of judging talent is wise, and I recognize that it feels like throwing Hopkins a bone. I also think that watering down the cloistered pool of judges could push the activity towards broader appeal via their impressions, provided the sheet requirements aren't so restrictive that the judges' impressions are squelched. Judging is such a contentious issue (especially on DCP) that I hesitate to raise the issue. But if we're going to sweep the house clean and find a better way I'm convinced the issue should be raised. That sounds nice....I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a few fresh opinions stirring the judging pot. But the reason the DCI judging pool is so small is because the corps (including the G7) have wanted it that way. They wanted consistency, and the best way to get that is with fewer judges doing more shows. We hear how much training and trial judging is required before one can judge DCI shows. We hear about how judges need to see each show numerous times to evaluate it properly. We hear how judges whose results deviate from the norm aren't as likely to be asked back next year. We hear how individual corps have requested that specific judges be removed from the judging pool. And we hear how shows are modified to suit the tastes of those judges that will be working championship week. I don't think the DCI member corps would want to exchange the current system (a few respected judges repeatedly viewing their shows) for what you suggest (a much larger number of judges, some only working shows local to them). But if the corps could be persuaded, that is a change that could be made within DCI. DCI could sign up more local judges without cutting open-class loose and giving all voting power, money and show access to seven self-selected corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Isn't Lucas Oil Stadium supposed to be an example of "retro" architecture? Yes; retro back to a time when all stadiums were enclosed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dckid80 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 That sounds nice....I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a few fresh opinions stirring the judging pot. But the reason the DCI judging pool is so small is because the corps (including the G7) have wanted it that way. They wanted consistency, and the best way to get that is with fewer judges doing more shows. We hear how much training and trial judging is required before one can judge DCI shows. We hear about how judges need to see each show numerous times to evaluate it properly. We hear how judges whose results deviate from the norm aren't as likely to be asked back next year. We hear how individual corps have requested that specific judges be removed from the judging pool. And we hear how shows are modified to suit the tastes of those judges that will be working championship week.I don't think the DCI member corps would want to exchange the current system (a few respected judges repeatedly viewing their shows) for what you suggest (a much larger number of judges, some only working shows local to them). But if the corps could be persuaded, that is a change that could be made within DCI. DCI could sign up more local judges without cutting open-class loose and giving all voting power, money and show access to seven self-selected corps. A larger and more diverse pool of judges would tend to even out the very discrepancies that the member corps seek so strongly to control. The application of basic statistical principles. DCI could move itself into the future, lower it's cost base and create a little excitement all at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 From what I've read, Camden Yards in Baltimore is perhaps the best example of retro made modern. Baseball fans love it for its intimacy and its modern comforts. It is a great ballpark, indeed. Hard to believe it's been around since 1992....it still seems like it's new. You're right, Mike... it's the best of both worlds.....retro and modern. Fran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opti-Burr Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Yes; retro back to a time when all stadiums were enclosed. The retro look to the stadium is a result of Indianapolis's liking towards the historic fieldhouse appearance of sports venues from decades ago. They were not trying to replicate any type of actual stadium at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 The retro look to the stadium is a result of Indianapolis's liking towards the historic fieldhouse appearance of sports venues from decades ago. They were not trying to replicate any type of actual stadium at all. Agree. but you might have missed my joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opti-Burr Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Agree. but you might have missed my joke. Oops, sorry...I think I did miss it totally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 It is a great ballpark, indeed. Hard to believe it's been around since 1992....it still seems like it's new. You're right, Mike... it's the best of both worlds.....retro and modern. Fran Now if the good baseball fans of Baltimore could only get a major league baseball franchise to play at Camden Yards..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Oops, sorry...I think I did miss it totally. Do you get it now? The thing about all stadiums being enclosed at one time? Which, of course, they weren't, but... I guess when jokes have to be explained, they kind of lose the imprimatur of being jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Now if the good baseball fans of Baltimore could only get a major league baseball franchise to play at Camden Yards..... Good point. Very frustrating being an Orioles fan these days. Actually, these years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts