Judges biased towards some corps

[skevinp]

I believe the judges are biased towards corps that, in their estimation, best meet the criteria they are trained to apply.

[N.E. Brigand]

Since when? The crowd is there to observe what's going on. The crowd is full of parents, and bias and lack-of trained eyes. Simple as that. Spectators are there to spectate, not adjudicate.

Performers pay their fee, break a sweat, march a show and compete and get judged for reasons that have made the activity what it is/was. Entertaining the crowd is the cherry on top. Not the sole reason for doing what we do.

Excellent! A clear statement, which I appreciate. Thank you.

But does most of the crowd know this? Perhaps the souvenir programs should include a note to the audience reminding them that their entertainment is not a prime consideration? Because more than a few seem not to be getting that fact. There's no chance they'd abandon the activity if they knew that, is there?

I've suggested before that DCI's revenue sharing could be retooled to give more money to the popular corps, while continuing to allow the corps to set the more artistic standards for adjudication. This would be like the difference between critically-acclaimed films and those which do well at the box office (though certainly these overlap at times). What do you think?

[AlexL]

I believe the judges are biased towards corps that, in their estimation, best meet the criteria they are trained to apply.

When a judge, regardless of the particular caption theyre assigned on a particular night, tanks a particular corps (and by that, i mean, assigns a score much lower than any other judge has- so you've either got one judge getting it wrong or several getting it wrong), and you can see this happen throughout the season whenever a corps encounters a judge, they just might be biased against the corps, regardless of how well they meet the criteria on the sheet.

And yes, id be willing to bet most corps can identify a judge or judges that will do this to them.

[GUARDLING]

Since when ?? The Crowd is there to observe what going on. The crowd is full of parents, and bias and lack-of trained eyes. SImple as that.

Spectators are there to spectate, not adjudicate.

Performers pay their fee, break a sweat, march a show and compete and get judged for reasons that have made the activity what it is/was. Entertaining the crowd is the cherry on top. Not the sole reason for doing what we do.

G

I can't belive im going to get into this one but heres my take..ughhhh

you are very right "G"

Problem is the audiance ( which it's good there is one..lol ) is filled with:

1. Parents who even if there kid pooped all over the field....They got screwed

2. 2 year drumcorps experts. ( you know all that wisdom )

3.40 year experts ( again, you know all that wisdom ) alot with great experience, others wouldn't like anything today if Mother theresa herself designed it.

4. Plain ole experts who marched......you know the 3rd soprando in 1970 who got put on the equipment truck because they couldnt play or march.

5. And of course the person who never judged...dont know or follow the sheets to know what is required or not.

6. and lastly the educated Drum Corps person or at least the ones who try.

Thank God their BUTTS are all in the seats otherwise there would be no audiance to perform for. But that is by nature , what we are an what we do, the good and bad of it

[Abbevillekid26]

This may be shocking to find out but the judges are indeed human.

[supersop]

This may be shocking to find out but the judges are indeed human.

This is true, and I do tend to agree with the OP.

I felt BS deserved to be over SCV.

I also felt the top 5 should have all been over a 96 on finals night, with less than a 2.5 spread from 1-5.

None of us were on the field to judge Brass, but a .3 deficit putting Crown in 4th in brass just shows how close these lines really were. The biggest differences in total score came from the GE caption (which is a huge mess as I've dissected this ad nauseum in the past and won't do now).

I will not discount the top 5 placement other than I thought Cadets had Crown in Semis ... but again .. the spreads from 1-5 were inflated and in most cases a rank and rate of +.1 up the line. Kinda disappointing with regards to the judges unwillingness to throw a few more ties in there in subcaptions and award higher numbers where warranted. I've always said, "if 2 corps deserve a 9.8 ... then give them both the score ...... I don't care if it's 4 corps that deserve the score, but the winner of the caption does deserve to have a .1 or .2 edge on the competition".

That said, finals scores were predictable and a major yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. I am glad that percussion was more realistic and showed true diversity of the lines by way of their scores. I applaud a 6th place corps winning Drums ... it rarely happens and we should be seeing more of this in the other captions on a regular basis.

[Michael Boo]

If I remember right, at the Big, Loud, and Live they used "Blue Coats". It made me cringe .

I've heard about that and am still plotting my vengeance. It will be terrifying and awe-inducing. Stay away at least 500 feet.

[Michael Boo]

When a judge, regardless of the particular caption theyre assigned on a particular night, tanks a particular corps (and by that, i mean, assigns a score much lower than any other judge has- so you've either got one judge getting it wrong or several getting it wrong), and you can see this happen throughout the season whenever a corps encounters a judge, they just might be biased against the corps, regardless of how well they meet the criteria on the sheet.

And yes, I'd be willing to bet most corps can identify a judge or judges that will do this to them.

My take is that perhaps the judge in question isn't monitoring other judges' recaps in order so they can view each corps' performance with their own eyes and/or ears, rather than playing it safe and slipping their score somewhere within the generally accepted placement range established by other judges. It takes guts (and a dedication to sticking with their training) to do this.

If a judge merely provides scores that are non-controversial because they know what the other judges are giving at a particular time, they're not judging a corps when they're on duty...the other judges are still judging the corps, even if they're not there.

A funny thing about this is when someone sees scores that reflect their personal opinion, when those scores deviate from the established norm, a typical reaction is something like, "Oh, here's a judge who is finally calling it as they see it. No recap reading here!" And we've all seen that.

[AmFlag61]

The judges are the LEAST biased people at a drum corps show.

Male Bovine Dung, and you know it. The entire current "Judging" system is based on preconcieved bias!

[rpbobcat]

Let me start with a disclaimer:

I never marched and am not a music aficionado.I have been following Drum Corps since the late 70's

and usually go to 3-4 shows a year including the "Easts".

From an "ousider's" perspective I can't see how a judge couldn't have some "bias".

Even when there are objective standards,judging is,by its nature,subjective.Just

ask any figure skater or gymnast.

I do think,however, that,for the most part, the "bias" is unintentional.

I would think that if a judge marched with a particlular corps they would

like their style of drill and/or music and depending on their experience,have a soft or not

so soft spot for them.

If a judge likes a particluar composer or music style,how could he not

think a corps' show was better then a composer or style they didn't like.

I also think its hard to objectively access "GE" when you've seen a show

multiple times.

While a corps may make changes over the season,I would think, when you

judge a show "cold" you can most effectively judge "GE".

To me,subsequent judging would concentrate on wether changes improved or

hurt the GE,but the "overall" impression would still be there.