Throwdown at Scranton

[bcc]

Thanks for such an informative and insightful review. I always enjoy your take on things.

RCC

[Jeff Ream]

great review Dub

[goalieguy]

great review Dub

Pat

[A Cavalier TDY]

Thanks for the great review BigW. You said you'd do it and came through! Makes me wonder if I could still get good tickets to Finals ...

P.S. I ordered them REALLY early the last time I went and ended up sitting on the 10 or 15 yard line.

[coloradocorp]

All the positive expletives have already been used in describing your review of this show. What more can one say - point on super !

One thing I wonder about is the scoring. DCI gets slammed for 'slotting' by the judges. Top corps can have off nights yet their scores go up and from the same caption judges. DCI denies there is slotting - yet - how else can one corp's scores get into a 'groove' - how can the scores remain consistent across different sets of judges on the same night in 5 different places across the country - yet the scores/overall rankings remain point on same. Hmmmmmmmm. Has DCA reached into that bag as well ?

Example - I noted the review on the Cabs by two different reviews from Scranton - they aren't former Cabs either. Both said Cabs were improved and pushing it YET - their score and position remained the same as previous weeks basically. Are the Cabs slotted regardless of how they perform ? NOt just them - but I've noted on the flip side - Reading has a few issues at various shows yet their scores don't reflect it though no one disputes they are the top corp once again. The ancient 'tic' system had its flaws for certain, but at least it allowed a much better chance of the old axiom - 'on any given night......' upsets rarely if ever can happen under the current judging criteria and process - for good or for bad - or so it appears.

Edited August 23, 2010 by coloradocorp

[Kamarag]

NOt just them - but I've noted on the flip side - Reading has a few issues at various shows yet their scores don't reflect it though no one disputes they are the top corp once again.

Well, you don't really know that do you? It's quite possible...even probable...that Reading's scores did indeed reflect those "issues". If those issues weren't there the spreads might be even bigger, especially when you factor in derived achievement.

I haven't seen any east-coast DCA corps this year, but I will next weekend. I'll do a review.

[BigW]

Well, you don't really know that do you? It's quite possible...even probable...that Reading's scores did indeed reflect those "issues". If those issues weren't there the spreads might be even bigger, especially when you factor in derived achievement.

YES.

The Field Visual numbers are all more or less in the same basket. They're all pretty much marching as well as everyone else physically. Where the spread will happen would be in the difficulty of what they're expected to do. Thinking about it and re-reading my Bucknell review, Bush has a pretty demanding drill on the individuals, and could be lumped in there with Reading and Hurcs- in third-- but still "up there", IF they can perform it well enough.

Also, I hope I can explain this well... as the numbers drive higher into the top boxes (definitions/rubrics of excellence and quality for those not familiar with the term), the boxes are smaller in numerical size and more demanding. Each tenth means more and has more weight. That's a good bit of why Reading's gap is closing down. It's a lot harder to earn the tenths you need as you get better. It's a law of diminishing returns.

In some subcaptions and captions, corps are relating well to one another, and the numbers send a message the call could flip if the performance on a given night earns that flip. The problem is, no one's got enough captions and subcaptions within flip distance of Reading for lack of a better term. The Cabs are getting good numbers in Brass and their Field Visual is in there, their percussion improves, but everyone else's apparently are, and really, the Hurcs, Bucs and Empire have very good percussion sections, very, very good...-- but they're just not getting any real closure or traction everywhere else on those ahead of them. It's got to be frustrating for them, and all you can do is put your head down, get out the stiff-arm, and try and rumble through to daylight like Jerome Bettis by cleaning like maniacs and working harder, which they are.

Also... there are several wild cards out there. Renegades, Kidsgrove, and MBI in particular. Prelims will be extremely interesting, and the panels will really have to be at their absolute best to make sure everyone gets ranked and rated where they should be, and not do the easy thing and just go from 11 to 1. It could shuffle up things depending on who performs and who doesn't....

[coloradocorp]

Well, you don't really know that do you? It's quite possible...even probable...that Reading's scores did indeed reflect those "issues". If those issues weren't there the spreads might be even bigger, especially when you factor in derived achievement.

I haven't seen any east-coast DCA corps this year, but I will next weekend. I'll do a review.

Possibly so. My point - last season I saw Cavies for example - 2 consecutive shows within a few days. First show was fine about 50% of the way into the season. Next performance was one of those nights where things go bad - brass line was noticeably off and they had 2 guys go down YET their score went up by 1.35 - why - when you looked at the ordinals from the shows in between as well as the scores - the off night was in line with the overall score progressions across the country. Just odd is all.

As to your quote - if its too loud you are too old - it should be more like - if its too loud you must be listening to a recording from the 60's or 70s when things were LOUD and didn't need Amps.

[Jeff Ream]

did you look at the recaps as to why the score went up? could be maybe some musical issues, but visual was a lot better. maybe new drill was in and the book numbers went up, yet the performance numbers stayed down. could be a variety of issues

[Kamarag]

As to your quote - if its too loud you are too old - it should be more like - if its too loud you must be listening to a recording from the 60's or 70s when things were LOUD and didn't need Amps.

Well, if you want to read my quote in that way, I'd say loud and quality don't always go hand in hand. For example, the 60's and 70's might have been loud, but it also sounded crappy.