Rules Congress

[rgil67]

As for your size comment, I should hope any judging system doesn't favor smaller corps.

Really...come on now?

[Kamarag]

Really...come on now?

You want a system that favors smaller corps over larger ones? Really? I sure don't. I want a system that provides a level playing field for all corps, regardless of size. Handicapping smaller corps at the expense of larger ones would be ridiculous.

[Jeff Ream]

As I try to fathom how changing the judging criteria mid season will bode well for 2011. Anyone who designed and started to learn their show based on the old sheets has to scrap it all and is now two plus months behind the competition. And it doesn't sound like the sheets favor small corps at all. So get bigger or DIE? Is that really the optimum route for growth? Is that to have only one competition and one nationals a year? Which is about all that those of us in the skirts currently see of DCA. If we see that.

where does it say get bigger or die?

and really, at this stage, given the changes to the sheets, I can't imagine it will affect design all that much.

if you read the intent of the rules, it's about putting ##### in the seats...and maybe in the corps too.

imagine that. Of course, you saw what you wanted to (not) see and went from there

[Kay]

Anyone who designed and started to learn their show based on the old sheets has to scrap it all and is now two plus months behind the competition.

What corps has 2 months worth of practice in them learning next year's show. From the posts on DCP most corps haven't even had their first camp yet.

So another conspiracy nixed.........

[BX5CM]

Jeff: Great idea putting the GE sheet up. However I think some explanation might be needed to show how those words are taken into consideration in our particular activity:

When one goes to see a drum corps show (or any live performance, musical or otherwise) what we are really talking about is an exchange. An exchange of ideas, feelings, and symbols to the audience to communicate a message. We have our technical captions both on the field and in the box, but they miss a very important element of live performance... connection to the audience. General Effect is a way to qualify and quantify the connection between the performer and the audience. There are accepted conventions in our activity on how to do that... I've outlined the main three (called the "triad of effect") I'm using examples from DCI to illustrate since DCI gets more exposure and more of you will know the references I'm talking about...

#1. Intellectual: That which makes the audience "think." The first example I can think of is Cadets 2001. During Young Person's Guide (opener) they took the low brass playing a slow, very heavy musical line and had them moving slowly in a big dense form. They took the high brass, which was playing a stacatto, fast line, and put then in a snaking, curved form opposite the low brass. There were 2 different simultaneous ideas in the music (maybe 3?) and the designers showed each one simultaneously in the visual. This is only one example but the basic idea I'm aware of is a literal depiction of the music through the visual, or vice versa.

#2. Emotional: That which makes the audience feel. This one is easy... A great example of an emotional effect was when the DM was stabbed during PR's 2008 Spartacus show. We witnessed everything that Spartacus went through and that moment was one of pure emotional release when he defeated his captor and avenged the death of his beloved.

#3. Aesthetic: That which makes the audience identify. A great example of this would be at the end of Crown's 2004 show when they formed a heart and spelled out "Bohemia" in the center. Their entire program was about love, truth, honesty, and they completely connected their idea together by using a universal symbol for all those things... the heart. Aesthetics can also be more literal as well...is the design pleasing to look at and hear? So we're talking about the Aesthetics of the design itself, and... Aesthetics also covers achievement... the best-written show in the world is nothing without a performer who can do it justice. Achievement can drastically effect GE scores.

As a sidebar, I'd like to also add that I often hear people say "How can the top box number continually go up all season if the design doesn't change all that much?" So they're asking how a program can go up 10 points in the top box during one season if massive changes aren't made? Well the answer is that the design DOES change drastically from beginning to end. Not only in actual design changes, but also the quality of the performer and their ability to bring the show to life and perform well. The performer must elevate the design and vice-versa.

That may sound like it makes no sense, but it's very logical: If the performers don't achieve the design, how can it be recognized by a group of judges who are merely using their eyes and ears to interpret it? They have no musical score or drill charts so they have no idea of the designers intent except for what they see and hear. They cannot assume or fill in ANY blanks: They can only judge what they personally see and hear at that show, with that group, on THAT ONE NIGHT. The quickest, easiest example I can think of is the color guard. If a group comes out early with half the guard work absent, the judge must score the group as if that was completely what the group intended. The judge cannot assume more equipment work is coming, they must only judge what they see and hear.

As we all know, each sheet has two numbers to create a total caption score: A top "design" number that measures the quality of the design, and a bottom "performer" number which is in direct corrolation with the top number. They are related and here is how:

Typically the rule is that the top and bottom number on each sheet cannot be more than about 1 full point apart. So if a group's top number is at a certain point, the bottom number cannot be above or below about 1 point away from the top number. The reasoning goes that if the top number is more than a point above the bottom number, the design is being achieved so poorly that logic dictates that it wouldn't be readable to a point where the judge could go FURTHER than 1 point difference.

So it would be impossible for a judge to give a group a 99 in the top box, and a 42 in the bottom box. There is no way the design would be recognizable enough to give it a 99 if the performer is at a 42.

The top number almost always sets the limit for where the performer number can go. Conversely, the design number cannot possibly be more than 1 point below the performer number... because if the performer is achieving the show that much higher than it was written, that design is going to limit the performer from going beyond a certain point (this is referred to as "putting the performer over the book") and once again, how can a group excel with a design that holds them back THAT much? If the design is THAT far below the performer, the performer can only take it so far. To say otherwise is like saying you threw 12 eggs at someone when you only had 6. You can only throw as many eggs as you have.

So there you go, that's the definition as far as I know. Anyone in the judging community care to add to this??

Edited December 18, 2010 by BX5CM

[BX5CM]

Thanks Liz... I was thinking that...

I'll only hasten to point out that unlike DCI, the judging community has only a "gentle guidance" part in the rules congress for DCA... The bulk of the suggestions and all of the decision making come from a task force of staff members from a variety of corps who have been working behind the scene for months. (I know how much time was put in because my son-in-law was on the task force). The general direction of the rules congress was known by all directors well before they completed any show concepts for 2011.

No matter that you have 64 horns or 18... if your program leaves the audience anxious to buy a ticket next week - we will have succeeded.... that is the bottom line...

I feel it's important to point out Tom, that most staff members, especially those in the upper ranks of most DCA corps are judges themselves in other circuits (or are previous and/or future DCA judges.) So not only do they understand the design and performance side, they also have important and helpful knowledge that is productive in crafting DCA's judging system.

Edited December 18, 2010 by BX5CM

[TomPeashey]

I feel it's important to point out Tom, that most staff members, especially those in the upper ranks of most DCA corps are judges themselves in other circuits (or are previous and/or future DCA judges.) So not only do they understand the design and performance side, they also have important and helpful knowledge that is productive in crafting DCA's judging system.

while this of course is true, the focus as staff members is still on what is in the best interest of the corps and they are far more responsible to the wishes of the directors and management... your point simply makes it clear that they are compitent to make these decisions.

[Jeff Ream]

Jeff: Great idea putting the GE sheet up. However I think some explanation might be needed to show how those words are taken into consideration in our particular activity:

When one goes to see a drum corps show (or any live performance, musical or otherwise) what we are really talking about is an exchange. An exchange of ideas, feelings, and symbols to the audience to communicate a message. We have our technical captions both on the field and in the box, but they miss a very important element of live performance... connection to the audience. General Effect is a way to qualify and quantify the connection between the performer and the audience. There are accepted conventions in our activity on how to do that... I've outlined the main three (called the "triad of effect") I'm using examples from DCI to illustrate since DCI gets more exposure and more of you will know the references I'm talking about...

#1. Intellectual: That which makes the audience "think." The first example I can think of is Cadets 2001. During Young Person's Guide (opener) they took the low brass playing a slow, very heavy musical line and had them moving slowly in a big dense form. They took the high brass, which was playing a stacatto, fast line, and put then in a snaking, curved form opposite the low brass. There were 2 different simultaneous ideas in the music (maybe 3?) and the designers showed each one simultaneously in the visual. This is only one example but the basic idea I'm aware of is a literal depiction of the music through the visual, or vice versa.

#2. Emotional: That which makes the audience feel. This one is easy... A great example of an emotional effect was when the DM was stabbed during PR's 2008 Spartacus show. We witnessed everything that Spartacus went through and that moment was one of pure emotional release when he defeated his captor and avenged the death of his beloved.

#3. Aesthetic: That which makes the audience identify. A great example of this would be at the end of Crown's 2004 show when they formed a heart and spelled out "Bohemia" in the center. Their entire program was about love, truth, honesty, and they completely connected their idea together by using a universal symbol for all those things... the heart. Aesthetics can also be more literal as well...is the design pleasing to look at and hear? So we're talking about the Aesthetics of the design itself, and... Aesthetics also covers achievement... the best-written show in the world is nothing without a performer who can do it justice. Achievement can drastically effect GE scores.

As a sidebar, I'd like to also add that I often hear people say "How can the top box number continually go up all season if the design doesn't change all that much?" So they're asking how a program can go up 10 points in the top box during one season if massive changes aren't made? Well the answer is that the design DOES change drastically from beginning to end. Not only in actual design changes, but also the quality of the performer and their ability to bring the show to life and perform well. The performer must elevate the design and vice-versa.

That may sound like it makes no sense, but it's very logical: If the performers don't achieve the design, how can it be recognized by a group of judges who are merely using their eyes and ears to interpret it? They have no musical score or drill charts so they have no idea of the designers intent except for what they see and hear. They cannot assume or fill in ANY blanks: They can only judge what they personally see and hear at that show, with that group, on THAT ONE NIGHT. The quickest, easiest example I can think of is the color guard. If a group comes out early with half the guard work absent, the judge must score the group as if that was completely what the group intended. The judge cannot assume more equipment work is coming, they must only judge what they see and hear.

As we all know, each sheet has two numbers to create a total caption score: A top "design" number that measures the quality of the design, and a bottom "performer" number which is in direct corrolation with the top number. They are related and here is how:

Typically the rule is that the top and bottom number on each sheet cannot be more than about 1 full point apart. So if a group's top number is at a certain point, the bottom number cannot be above or below about 1 point away from the top number. The reasoning goes that if the top number is more than a point above the bottom number, the design is being achieved so poorly that logic dictates that it wouldn't be readable to a point where the judge could go FURTHER than 1 point difference.

So it would be impossible for a judge to give a group a 99 in the top box, and a 42 in the bottom box. There is no way the design would be recognizable enough to give it a 99 if the performer is at a 42.

The top number almost always sets the limit for where the performer number can go. Conversely, the design number cannot possibly be more than 1 point below the performer number... because if the performer is achieving the show that much higher than it was written, that design is going to limit the performer from going beyond a certain point (this is referred to as "putting the performer over the book") and once again, how can a group excel with a design that holds them back THAT much? If the design is THAT far below the performer, the performer can only take it so far. To say otherwise is like saying you threw 12 eggs at someone when you only had 6. You can only throw as many eggs as you have.

So there you go, that's the definition as far as I know. Anyone in the judging community care to add to this??

very well said

[Fran Haring]

No matter that you have 64 horns or 18... if your program leaves the audience anxious to buy a ticket next week - we will have succeeded.... that is the bottom line...

100 percent on the money. Literally. LOL.

[Jeff Ream]

had a good talk with some folks this evening gaining more insight to the new ideas...if the judges do their jobs, everyone wins