The difference between a clean show and an entertaining show

[saxfreq1128]

I have to ask this even though I know the answer...are you serious? Who thinks that drum corps is "an important artistic/performance medium?" I am as passionate about the activity as the next guy but "important" ? Seriously?

Uhh. Willful misinterpretation? I'm not comparing Drum Corps to Shakespeare.

Within the range of marching arts / pageantry activities and organizations, I'd say DCI is pretty important -- markedly visible, with a great ability to set trends for the greater activity. Wouldn't you?

[Plan9]

Uhh. Willful misinterpretation? I'm not comparing Drum Corps to Shakespeare.

Within the range of marching arts / pageantry activities and organizations, I'd say DCI is pretty important -- markedly visible, with a great ability to set trends for the greater activity. Wouldn't you?

I would!

[corpsband]

Uhh. Willful misinterpretation? I'm not comparing Drum Corps to Shakespeare.

Within the range of marching arts / pageantry activities and organizations, I'd say DCI is pretty important -- markedly visible, with a great ability to set trends for the greater activity. Wouldn't you?

No willful misinterpretation and I'll agree with what you're saying above... but I'll just remind you of what you said in your OP.

If this were a college band competition, whose investment is purely in the entertainment factor of each show, I would see your point.

But does this really serve an organization that has the potential / has already gone far to make the marching arts, not only an important entertainment medium, but also an important artistic/performance medium? You may think so, but I would have to respectfully disagree.

[saxfreq1128]

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.

I'm not sure... I agree that 'we,' or those of us who're interested in giving it any conscious thought, know when things "work" and when they don't work. But I think this has less to do with what 'works' for the audience and gets the audience to react, and more to do with what 'works' within the show itself. When you say that GE pivots around connecting with the audience, I take you to be measuring 'audience' in terms of 'audience reaction' -- but I could be wrong.

I think of a dc show as analogous to a novel, or better yet, a movie. Authors, directors and designers are trying to build a world for us, the audience, from the ground up, and to convince us of that world. (I think this might explain why we seem to be getting more emphasis on "Themes" in DCI these days). From a creative standpoint, these designers are more or less allowed to set their own rules: tightrope walkers, samurai, the metropolis and daytime talk shows are, apparently, all fair game. What should matter most to a GE judge is how seamlessly and convincingly these shows manage to engage. I take this, rather than outright audience reaction (standing O's in the middle of a show, for example), to be how a GE judge thinks of a show's capacity to "entertain": each show on its own terms.

I think of a GE judge's job as, partially, putting a number on how convincing these programs are -- pointing out to the designers moments where the plaster and strings are showing. Something about that very much adds up to what you're talking about: thinking about the crowd-pleaser moments that get audience reaction, because let's face it, crowd-pleaser moments are absolutely something designers and performers have to earn, and a competent GE judge will pay attention to how it happened. These kinds of moments are easy to evaluate, from an audience / audience reaction perspective.

But what about other moments? Examples from what I think are two of this season's most effective shows: BD and Crown. BD's hornline push out from behind the mirrors at the beginning of their show this year is kind of forced, visually, but given that there's no way this moment is intended to actually "surprise" the audience, what's audience reaction going to tell you here? On the other hand -- seeing the hornline "mirror" the guard members as they move from behind is kind of surprising, clever, and thematically convincing, but not in a way that'd inspire some kind of audience response. Crown's insistent use of slow-sequence rifle tosses to punctuate key passages in their music this year gets a great audience reaction, as it should: it's high exposure, technically difficult, musically appropriate, and wonderfully performed. But it, too, is kind of forced: a little too obvious a way for the guard to reflect what's happening in the music, and less surprising/exciting each time it happens. GE judges are thinking about the audience, in these moments, but is audience reaction the most helpful way to think of these things?

I guess these examples make me think that relying too much on audience reaction could be a mixed bag. After all, judges aren't only there to give a number. They're there to give feedback about specific aspects of the show. From a designers' standpoint, I can't think of less helpful feedback than "because the audience said so -- look how they reacted." I don't disagree that the people a corps is performing for -- US -- should be on the minds of the judges. I just happen to think we are already in mind, and shouldn't necessarily be considered in a more explicit way.

Edited July 21, 2010 by saxfreq1128

[Maestro1]

People, people!

There are Apples, and there are Oranges.

We are all judges, but only a few get to make the final decisions.

I would like to think their years of experience counts for something.

Wether you agree with scores or show construction, or execution, etc.

or not - a judge must weigh hisor her knowledge and expertise according to

the guidelines provided them, and hope that over the course of several

viewings of all the corps they can make an appropriate judgement call on

the relativity of their performances given nightly and/or over time.

End it already.

[Jeff Ream]

can't we all just celebrate there are still clean shows and dirty shows and entertaining shows and not so entertaining shows...that there are still drum corps shows?

I would have thought in this economy to hear of more corps shuttering their doors. Instead, a new OC corps marched for the first time last night. We have a new WC corps this year in Teal. I guess whether a show is clean or dirty is a discussion between those who teach, perform and judge.

What makes an entertaining show is always going to be a subjective conclusion drawn differently by each person.

So, here's what my definition is...

An entertaining show cannot be defined except to say I know one when I see one and my immediate reaction is to feel bad for the kids having to perform it day after day. But, hey..maybe to them, they love the show. Maybe that's why I'm not a judge.

23 drum corps is a small enough number to find something you like in each and every show.

however, if thousands of fans have walked away, and many cited "lack of entertainment" as why, maybe there is some merit to it

[Jeff Ream]

wow, you had to be stopped from making a scene because some fans didn't enjoy the BD show? really?

if someone doesn't stand up, that's no class? I say it's the customers way of, without making a huge scece, expressing their dislike of the show. it's not like they booed or catcalled...they stayed seated. IMO, they were perfectly within their rights to do so, and displayed a lot of class by not resorting to other methods possible to show their displeasure.

and i'd say it regardless of who the corps was they stayed seated for

[Jeff Ream]

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!!

why SHOULD they HAVE to stand up? if they don't like it, and they aren't being total ########, they did nothing wrong.

[perc2100]

"You can only get judged on what you achieve."

Or more aptly, "You can only get judged on what you ATTEMPT to achieve."