Recommended Posts

I have made my views on this available on other Forums, so I approach this not as an Advocate but a Seeker. I would like the views of those who marched under "Ticks" (Boo & Olin, are you out there?), those of you who march or have marched under the current system, and maybe MORE importantly, those of you who were there for the transition & how you feel about that change, as well as how you feel it impacted you/your Corps.

Edited by AmFlag61
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There were portable cassette recorders not that far from the size of a Walkman earlier on.  Many developed by Sony, the makers of the original Walkman.  However they were expensive.  The Walkman

I learned and started judging under the tic system as well. Totally agree with the above. I judged in the Garden State Circuit from 76-80'ish. The circuit decided at the winter meeting one year, eithe

The way it was . You Bet. As far as a chance, why not, get better , follow criteria etc etc. we have seen corps jump from the bottom of finals to top 5 ( Boston ) one day to the next ,unlikely just as

I have made my views on this available on other Forums, so I approach this not as an Advocate but a Seeker. I would like the views of those who marched under "Ticks" (Boo & Olin, are you out there?), those of you who march or have marched under the current system, and maybe MORE importantly, those of you who were there for the transition & how you feel about that change, as well as how you feel it impacted you/your Corps.

i MARCHED UNDER BOTH but judged under just newer ( which really isnt new at all )as a marching member the transition was almost not known. Most marching dont know the sheets well ,thats the staffs job. Personally the tic system was even more subjective although it wasnt supposed to be. In many ways the tic was worse than this system IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tick system had it's problems, but one advantage was that it put a certain portion of the score directly in the hands of the players. The down side was that one judge's tolerance for error was often different than another, so you could almost predict the execution score by who was judging that night.

I would like to see a re-visitation of the tick system, but in a slightly different application. Rather than ticking anything that isn't 100% clean in the eyes of the judge (the old way), I would advocate ticking clear and obvious flaws only. For instance, someone clearly out of step, getting lost in the drill or more than a step out of position, a missed attack or release, or an equipment drop in the guard.

One problem in the old days was "gray areas," calling on the judge to make a determination on the severity of an error. But, if ticks were reserved for only the most blatant errors, I think it could work in a positive way to give more control back to the players and balance the opinion captions a little bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The tick system had it's problems, but one advantage was that it put a certain portion of the score directly in the hands of the players. The down side was that one judge's tolerance for error was often different than another, so you could almost predict the execution score by who was judging that night.

I would like to see a re-visitation of the tick system, but in a slightly different application. Rather than ticking anything that isn't 100% clean in the eyes of the judge (the old way), I would advocate ticking clear and obvious flaws only. For instance, someone clearly out of step, getting lost in the drill or more than a step out of position, a missed attack or release, or an equipment drop in the guard.

One problem in the old days was "gray areas," calling on the judge to make a determination on the severity of an error. But, if ticks were reserved for only the most blatant errors, I think it could work in a positive way to give more control back to the players and balance the opinion captions a little bit.

You would have to go back also to what one considers a blatant error. Lets say guard.....drops are not the severity as they used to be because of difficulty and multi dimensions used during a phrase. Its not just judged on SPINNING or the complexity of it. I can see i guess a few of the other things but i think it would come down to who feels what was blatant and who doesnt, who caught it who didnt.

Personally I think it would be a huge step backward...JMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
You would have to go back also to what one considers a blatant error. Lets say guard.....drops are not the severity as they used to be because of difficulty and multi dimensions used during a phrase. Its not just judged on SPINNING or the complexity of it. I can see i guess a few of the other things but i think it would come down to who feels what was blatant and who doesnt, who caught it who didnt.

Personally I think it would be a huge step backward...JMO

Yes, a blatant error would have to be clearly defined. But, when you are sitting in the stands and see someone out of step, that's an easy error to mark. There shouldn't be any argument about whether or not that was a tick. If the entire guard makes a catch and one loses the equipment, that's also easy to see. I'm not suggesting getting into the nitty gritty of execution. That's where the tick system falls way short. But, if grandma can see or hear it from the stands, it should be a tick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who marched under both, the biggest difference I see/hear is the "tolerance" level from the current judging community.

Case in point -- Allen Kristensen marched SCV in '76. Notice how much lower his percussion scores were finals night compared the rest of the week. People who can make a clear distinction between what's clean and what's not tend to "get it right" more often in the musical captions at least. Those that were around back then seem to be able to do that with more of a fine line.

What is more necessary for today is the other captions beyond the "tic" (execution) sheets, and that is the "demand" (what you play/how difficult is it), and the Exposure Error captions (if you are marching but not playing, you don't get the higher number).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can start with several issues conerning the tick system from an adjudicator's Point of View.

It becomes a game. It's more being quickly able to find the proper line on the sheet and making the proper code on it, and you're more worried about that than you are really listening to anything in detail. You need an MA judge to do that.

If you use a counter/clicker device, It's about listening, addressing the tick on the tape and pushing the button as much as possible to count down the score. You'd likely need to do it this way now- you couldn't have your head in a clipboard, you'd get killed on the field in no time with modern drill.

The mistake isn't taken in context. That was the MA person's job, and let me tell you that you will not, repeat not get any fair credit from MA to offset the risks over your opponent in almost every circumstance. There's wasn't enough spread set up on MA. Would you say that its a bigger mistake and less forgiveable with a Bari player plays a seoncd line treble Clef G whole note out of tune or with bad tone quality as compared to some screaming soprano soloist 8965 ledger lines off of the staff that blips a note? Both mistakes are .1 off the score. IMHO, the Bari player deserves a bigger hit, He's taking less risk, but both errors possess equal value. That was also another reason the tick system ended up six feet under. Many staffs and corps were extremely frustrated with that fact as well.

Also, especially in the scholastic end of things, one needs to also talk about what's right as well as what's wrong out there, and offer suggestions as to how to address recurring issues. The 'Zero Tick' concept at the end of the era was worthless in that aspect and a sop to some people, and really, you couldn't talk beyond, "Lead Soprano, one tenth, release"... over and over. I can do a far more educational recording for a group now, where I can talk about what eneds to be done to improve, strengths, weaknesses, and also show and talk about how much I appreciate what's done well, or where risks are taken.

Watering down of parts to hide ticks was even more prevalent than it is now. "Masking" was also far more prevalent. In the modern system, you can address the fact masking is taking place and deal with it with a lower analysis number.

Now, in terms of my experience as a performer- I'd say that had DCA had gone to moder scoring in 1982, we might have had a crack at the championship with the Westshoremen, and at least a better placement in 1983 at the very least.

As a Staff Member-- the circuit the HS I have worked with has poor adjudicaton and the guys are pretty much ticking anyway with modern sheets. I was extremely frustrated with the fact these adjudicators didn't discuss the fact we took some risk, nor were we even minimally rewarded for it, which we should have been. We should have been told, "Look, you have serious problems, but I appreciate that you're attempting to do some difficult things."The director needed to hear that, and didn't.

Ticks created very conservative musical approaches to the activity, because risk wasn't being adequately rewarded at that time.

It's no conincidence that the music arranging really expanded and musicality took off with the end of the tick system.

And as for there being no possible bias in the tick system, that's also quite incorrect. One can change tolerances and gray areas within the tick system as well and cause serious differences in score. Truman Crawford as much told me as well as others that fact back in 1979. Some corps got the benefit of the doubt back then with the ticks, many didn't from a given adjudicator.

Keep in mind BoA started with the non-tick syetem around 1978ish, then DCI adpated it along with other band circuits, then DCA in the late 80's. Had the ticks been thought of as the better way to do things by Corps and Band directors and their staffs, we'd still have them around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the previous post, you would think that music arrangements are taking more risk now than they did 20 years ago. The inverse is now true because the current system is heavily weighted to the visual captions (including bleedover on Ensemble and GE Music sheets).

I love the high level of execution of tick system shows.

I love the creativity that was born out of the tick systems death.

I think the "risk" that is being taken visually (or expected by the judges) in modern times has reduced the opportunities to really write masterful music arrangements that were in full display in the 1984-1993 era. This is where I see the failure in the modern system of adjudication. The system is out of balance within it's structure.

Risk/Reward is now expected visually

Risk/Reward is virtually impossible musically ..... yet the super high numbers are still be rewarded in the design department.

There needs to be a balance like there once was ........ if that means adding a tick system back into the visual captions ONLY .... then I'm all for it (subjective or not). Otherwise, the current system needs a major overhaul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have made my views on this available on other Forums, so I approach this not as an Advocate but a Seeker. I would like the views of those who marched under "Ticks" (Boo & Olin, are you out there?), those of you who march or have marched under the current system, and maybe MORE importantly, those of you who were there for the transition & how you feel about that change, as well as how you feel it impacted you/your Corps.

The tick system has been gone 26 years... you'd have to teach another generation of judges how to use ticks to express their subjective evaluation while concentrating on what a corps did wrong as opposed to what it did right, which by the way is why it's been gone 26 years.

At some point I pray it wil rest in peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the "risk" that is being taken visually (or expected by the judges) in modern times has reduced the opportunities to really write masterful music arrangements that were in full display in the 1984-1993 era. This is where I see the failure in the modern system of adjudication. The system is out of balance within it's structure.

Risk/Reward is now expected visually

Risk/Reward is virtually impossible musically ..... yet the super high numbers are still be rewarded in the design department.

I completely agree. I'd love to see DCI move to a 60/40 music to visual scoring split, but I doubt the visual people will allow that to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.