Medeabrass Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Fascinating -- I had no idea this idea had been officially proposed before. However, despite my repeated suggestions here that audience response needs to be a factor in the way corps are rewarded --I suggested two systems, like the movies, which are rewarded both with Oscars and with box office returns: judges' rankings for prestige and fans' rankings for money-- I do think this has its own risks. Popular Hollywood movies tend to be formulaic and often not very good. Maybe prize money could be divied up between the score winner and the fan favorite winner. Of course, mom and dad will stuff the ballot box for Billy's team so is a fan favorite vote even fair?...ugh I gotta stop being so negative :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 (edited) Not really a fan of "fan favoriting" as part of the score; my feeling is that the GE sheets simply need to be rewritten to emphasize effective communication of a show's idea or presentation to the audience (as opposed to rewarding something just because the staff has browbeat the judges into buying their internal discussions re: the design). To my mind, it's a shame Devils never had to actually live up to the standard of successfully communicating to the audience what they were trying to do to this year. If the judges told them that people weren't getting what the show was trying to do, they could have made modifications that would have changed the show from something that was impressive, but distant, to something that really made an effort to get the audience talking in terms more sophisticated than just "I didn't like it." (To clarify, Scott Stewart presented the concept as part of his RAMD symposium paper back in the mid to late 90s - I don't know if it was ever presented formally to the other Board members.) Edited September 9, 2010 by mobrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 Not really a fan of "fan favoriting" as part of the score; my feeling is that the GE sheets simply need to be rewritten to emphasize effective communication of a show's idea or presentation to the audience (as opposed to rewarding something just because the staff has browbeat the judges into buying their internal discussions re: the design).To my mind, it's a shame Devils never had to actually live up to the standard of successfully communicating to the audience what they were trying to do to this year. If the judges told them that people weren't getting what the show was trying to do, they could have made modifications that would have changed the show from something that was impressive, but distant, to something that really made an effort to get the audience talking in terms more sophisticated than just "I didn't like it." (To clarify, Scott Stewart presented the concept as part of his RAMD symposium paper back in the mid to late 90s - I don't know if it was ever presented formally to the other Board members.) Anyone know if this missive is still around to read? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Not really a fan of "fan favoriting" as part of the score; my feeling is that the GE sheets simply need to be rewritten to emphasize effective communication of a show's idea or presentation to the audience (as opposed to rewarding something just because the staff has browbeat the judges into buying their internal discussions re: the design). I did find it curious that apparently corps staff meets with some or all of the judges before a show to help lay out what their show is about. Am I wrong about that, because that seems... odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 (edited) I did find it curious that apparently corps staff meets with some or all of the judges before a show to help lay out what their show is about. Am I wrong about that, because that seems... odd. It's been going on since dirt was young (though it used to be at the post-show critique). Just found Scott Stewart's RAMD paper online. Worth reading, especially in light of the general agreement at this point in time that the last 10 or 12 years haven't necessarily been a period of overall growth for the activity. Edited September 9, 2010 by mobrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piper Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Hoppy is so out of touch with the Drum Corps community he might as well live on Mars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 (edited) I did find it curious that apparently corps staff meets with some or all of the judges before a show to help lay out what their show is about. Am I wrong about that, because that seems... odd. It called "Pre-tique", and it replaced the end of show critiques. At our show we had to provide a meeting space where the corps directors trooped in to talk with judges about what they were about to see. I sat within earshot of these discussions and, although I'll not give away details, it was quite amazing to hear the corps staff try to educate the judges. I kept feeling that the whole exercise took the place of letting the show speak for itself and, afterward, I kept thinking of that judge who went completely to pieces the year Troopers came back from the dead (anyone have the link? Please post again...). Nobody had to explain Troopers' show to him before-hand; it spoke for itself. And (this is my personal perspective) I would have been insulted if I had been a judge in these "get-togethers". The staff generally talked down to them, and made comments as if they were talking to a 5 year old or a judge who had never adjudicated anything in his life (again, my personal perception that is, in reality, completely meaningless). I've always felt an explanation of why a judged viewed the show the way he did is much more useful than a pre-determination of how he should judge the show. But that's just me... Edited September 9, 2010 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 It's been going on since dirt was young (though it used to be at the post-show critique).Just found Scott Stewart's RAMD paper online. Worth reading, especially in light of the general agreement at this point in time that the last 10 or 12 years haven't necessarily been a period of overall growth for the activity. Thanks for the link, Mobrien. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 I did find it curious that apparently corps staff meets with some or all of the judges before a show to help lay out what their show is about. Am I wrong about that, because that seems... odd. yea, this is when the corps staff explains how many points they should be awarded for each aspect of their show and explains things that the judges wouldn't figure out, aka what the corps programmed poorly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 It's been going on since dirt was young (though it used to be at the post-show critique).Just found Scott Stewart's RAMD paper online. Worth reading, especially in light of the general agreement at this point in time that the last 10 or 12 years haven't necessarily been a period of overall growth for the activity. that paper deserves it's own thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.