The difference between a clean show and an entertaining show

[Plan9]

so everyone should jump up and cheer at the end of every show?

fwiw, I do stand for everyone and cheer at the end of every show. Let's you stretch the legs also.

booing = classless

not cheering = classless

cheering, but not loud enough... is also classless?

Booing = classless (is this even a question?)

Not cheering = meh

Not standing up for the last finals performance of any corps = classless

Cheering but not loud enough....not classless!

Are we clear here, Marine!!!!! Crystal!!

[Plan9]

Just curious, would you have felt the same way if, when you stood and screamed and clapped over your head, the fan next to you clawed out of his seat, pulled his shorts out of his butt, stretched a little, then clapped a few golf claps?

Or is it that they weren't as responsive for your corps as you were for theirs?

Just getting clarification...

I think this is getting away from the subject, but I'm fairly certain that I don't need to qualify what I've said already. Except to say that they weren't registering a pulse after BD's show.

[corpsband]

GE can only be about what the judges think, no matter what little blip is included in the wording about audience reaction...an applause-o-meter would be 1000000 times more objective than a judge trying to use their ESP to determine what the audience thinks, and few people are advocating that....yet they seriously think a guy "judging" it can somehow be accurate.

Understand, I'm not getting on you here. I'm talking around my main point which is judging is ridiculous to begin with, and what makes a show "entertaining" to an audience member is usually very complex depending on tastes, and also what your own background and likes are when it comes to dci. Lots of people don't care too much about perc, or guard, while others don't care so much about brass or.

When people get on here and start talking about what is and is not "entertaining," it's almost 100% them thinking their own tastes are super duper special and that others (duh) just MUST share theirs, and if not, they make every attempt possible to marginalize others's tastes over and over and over and over....

I agree 100% that it's a subjective topic and that one man's GE is another man's poison.

Why then do we have "GE" ? Because we want to reward shows that "connect". It's that simple. I agree 1000000% that the details of the connection are unknowable (probably even for our own reaction -- in fact I couldn't even tell you *why* I like drum corps in any great detail. I just do).

Regardless of the audience, there seem to be things that human beings emotionally respond to.

Look at WGI's definition:

WHAT IS GENERAL EFFECT?

General Effect is the creative and appealing design of the show combined with the performance

and communication of the program.

These two elements together produce what we call “Entertainment Value” or General Effect.

General Effect is a part of the judging system that rewards the extent the audience is interested,

involved, entertained, or emotionally engaged in the program.

Even they can't help being circular "GE is the thing we judge called GE". LOL.

But IMHO the reason everyone wants to put it in there is because we know -- by sheer experience -- when things "work" and when they don'.t So we try to quantify it and measure and put helpful phrases on the sheet. Because even if we *can't* quite define it, we know it's real.

So I'll stand by my assertion. GE pivots around connecting with an audience. Make the connection -- the audience responds. Fail to make the connection -- the audience fails to respond.

It's really that simple.

As for whether a judge can successfully gauge that connection, if they can avoid being analytical I think they can. One does not need to be psychic or possess extraordinary abilities to see when an effect creates a response and when it does not. This does not mean the judge *knows* exactly what each member of an audience is thinking or feeling; in fact the judge must simply note that audience does or does not react and to what degree that reaction took place.

And clearly there are common reactions to specific categories of events that an experienced is judge more quickly able to identify and credit.

I agree is it's all a bit vague in some respects. But as I said earlier, the caption exists because common experience has identified that it *does* exist and that we want to reward shows that "connect to audiences"

Edited July 20, 2010 by corpsband

[corpsband]

Which fans? Whose standards are the baseline?

That's easy: The audience in the seats for that particular show. Is the audience responding to an effect or aren't they? Can you tell when an effect creates a response in the audience?

This whole thing about "individual tastes" is just a distraction. No one is exalting or vilifying any particular style or design choice. It's all very simple : does the audience react to your effects or do they not react to your effects ?

Edited July 20, 2010 by corpsband

[megadrive]

That's easy: The audience in the seats for that particular show. Is the audience responding to an effect or aren't they? Can you tell when an effect creates a response in the audience?

This whole thing about tastes is just a distraction. No one is exalting or vilifying any particular style or design choice. It's all very simple : does the audience react to your effects or do they not react to your effects ?

What about home shows? It's pretty easy to say corps get a louder reaction closer to home rather than farther away.

[corpsband]

What about home shows? It's pretty easy to say corps get a louder reaction closer to home rather than farther away.

You have clearly identified this to be a common occurrence. What makes you think a judge can't identify it too?

Also, once a show has started, you'll notice that the "hometown" stuff largely goes away and the audience is reacting to what they see and hear. So while you might get a larger response in the beginning and the end from homers, *during* the actually performance I suspect reactions are still pretty much authentic.

[Lance]

You have clearly identified this to be a common occurrence. What makes you think a judge can't identify it too?

I think you should be a judge.

[corpsband]

I think you should be a judge.

No thanks. I *like* the other side of the table :) As much as I enjoy *watching* shows, making them come to life is much more rewarding!

Edited July 20, 2010 by corpsband

[perc2100]

Please see the GE Music sheet.

On the back :

Contains a pleasing combination of AESTHETIC, INTELLECTUAL, EMOTIONAL considerations resulting in entertainment

Thanks. Haven't looked at a DCI sheet in awhile.

Entertainment is, of course, subjective, and obviously not the main focus of the GE music sheets (not even a 'bullet point' type word, really). I appreciate you correcting my false assumption that the word "entertaining" or any of its derivatives is found on a judges sheet. I think my broader point, however, stands:

A corps show can be very clean, well executed, and chock full of effect (as dictated by the sheets: "effect" does not necessarily mean "entertaining"), max out points & fulfill the rubric on the sheets, but not be entertaining to everyone. Obviously, no show is entertaining to everybody. And yes, shows that focus on designing programs that max out the effect, execution, and design captions should be rewarded with points over shows that are entertaining but dirty.

[Cardman]

Belgian waffles with a side of bacon!