MikeN Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 It's entertaining to me to think that drum corps is like art. And I can't possibly be alone on this. This kind of disagreement on what drum corps "should be" or what it "isn't" is exactly why we (the judges) can not judge entertainment. Then about 2/3 of the General Effect rubric should be tossed as well - it's just as vague. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) the caption is a carrot not a stick. Depending on how well you engage/communicate/hold interest of the audience you earn up to 10 bonus points :-) Honestly, if we are really concerned about how effective these corps are, then I think a more direct approach needs to be taken. Literally have ALL the world class corps, and Dan, and DCI literally sit in a room for hours and just discuss the "effectiveness" and "fan appeal" and "entertainment aspects" of their shows. Just literally sit down and talk with them directly. We are so confident that changing the judging system will fix everything and I"m not so sure. It will definitely make things different... but for the better? There better be a HUGE discussion about this with designers at the Janual. I wonder what THEY (the ones with the power to control shows) actually think about this proposal. Are they as worried about it as I am? Do they feel that they are threatened or limited by this? If I'm a DCI designer, the first thing I'd think about is the audience hands down, then the judging criteria. I mean, if that isn't your first innate thought process then give the steering wheel to someone else. I don't know how we reached a point where we need this kind of intervention... Appealing to the Audience IMO should be beyond just trying to receive more points in a caption. This proposal just FEEDS at the idea that judging requirements should dictate how shows are designed. It only perpetuates the kind of behavior that got us in this mess. We don't just need a change in the judging, we need a change in drum corps ethics. No matter how many regulations you put on the banking world nothing will prevent violations like a good, honest man. Edited January 14, 2011 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) It's entertaining to me to think that drum corps is like art. And I can't possibly be alone on this. This kind of disagreement on what drum corps "should be" or what it "isn't" is exactly why we (the judges) can not judge entertainment. Lot's of people on here quite intentional adopting "pop culture entertainment" as the definition in play. Clearly that's not the definition being considered. Let's say the caption is defined: Evaluate the effectiveness of the program and the performers. The ability to maintain a connection with the audience through a combination of components contributes to effect. The performers are measured in part through excellence but, more significantly, in their ability to communicate the product to the audience. Do you think anyone could possibly do this? How can anyone know how well an audience communicates? How does one measure a "connection" to the audience? Edited January 14, 2011 by corpsband 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I'm not being coy -- I have no idea how it would play it out. This caption has never been judged. Why does it matter? Seems to me you're the one being evasive here. You clearly have a point to make but want me write down some numbers in order to make it. Tell you what -- why don't you save us all a lot of trouble, make up the numbers *you* think I would write down, and then blast away :-) I'm all ready to see the words ABBD and hater. OTOH if your point is "it wouldn't affect the outcome so why bother" my answer in advance is the caption is a carrot not a stick... Okay. You're wrong about my intentions and my courage. I don't want to call anyone a hater. I just want to see whether anyone thinks the final rankings would or should have been different had we judged entertainment separately. I don't. As I apply "entertainment" scores, I give credit to Cavies, Bluecoats and Phantom. I take credit from BD, Glassmen and either SCV or Crown (probably Crown). But having credited Cavies and discredited BD, I still wouldn't give Cavies the gold medal. Nor would I rank Phantom over SCV. The reason why my evaluation of entertainment wouldn't change the rankings is I don't give any enough credit (or discredit) to matter because I don't think any corps' entertainment value was significantly different from its immediate competitors. Bam! That just happened. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Lot's of people on here quite intentional adopting "pop culture entertainment" as the definition in play. Clearly that's not the definition being considered. Let's say the caption is defined: Evaluate the effectiveness of the program and the performers. The ability to maintain a connection with the audience through a combination of components contributes to effect. The performers are measured in part through excellence but, more significantly, in their ability to communicate the product to the audience. Do you think anyone could possibly do this? How can anyone know how well an audience communicates? How does one measure a "connection" to the audience? I don't know... What are you trying to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Then about 2/3 of the General Effect rubric should be tossed as well - it's just as vague. As it should be so it can give credit wherever it is found. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) Okay. You're wrong about my intentions and my courage. I don't want to call anyone a hater. I just want to see whether anyone thinks the final rankings would or should have been different had we judged entertainment separately. Well that wasn't the only option I gave. And my second choice was close the mark :-) I'm honestly not sure what would happen in your imaginary scenario. Maybe your projections are right -- or maybe places would change. I'm much more interested in what happens when shows are designed with this emphasis in place. Edited January 14, 2011 by corpsband 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 It's OK for them to judge based on audience reaction as long as that audience is me. You're going to have to stand in line behind me. Besides, your reaction would be judged based on how similar it is to mine. That's a gift handed down by the Almighty. I thought everybody already knew that. To be serious, your point has a lot of relevance. Each one of us likely feels that if we're not entertained, it's not entertaining, and if we are entertained, it is entertaining. And if others don't see it the same way, they must be missing something. Entertainment for many is in the eye of the beholder, as long as the beholder is them. I don't believe there is anything wrong with that...it's just human nature. Which, of course, means the conversation in Indianapolis the next week should be most interesting. Maybe DCI could sell a pay-for-view subscription to the discussion, with the proceeds split among all the corps for travel expenses this coming summer. (Okay, I'm joking about that last sentence...I think.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Drum corps fans are pretty fair in their offering of spontaneous standing ovations. But since a judge would be making a personal analysis of a crowd's reaction, I suspect regional favoritism would be taken into account, either consciously or sub-conciously. IIRC, in 76 the crowd in Philly sat on ther hands for Cavies, let loose for the (east coast) Bridgemen & 27. I believe you were there. Do you think this impacted your score? But, heck, this might be Pioneer's best chance yet. Just pack the stands with fans. Best of all, no age limit. In fact, you could really buy the score so long as you buy the tickets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOBSMYTH Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Appealing to the Audience IMO should be beyond just trying to receive more points in a caption. This proposal just FEEDS at the idea that judging requirements should dictate how shows are designed. It only perpetuates the kind of behavior that got us in this mess. We don't just need a change in the judging, we need a change in drum corps ethics. You are arguing against human nature. I don't think you will win. Shows ARE designed to the sheets. Anything that is on the judging sheets, the designers and corps directors will react to. They are all very competative people who are going to use whatever available judging criteria exist to try to get more tenths of points and beat the next guy. The judges use the system that they have and reward points accordingly. The designers who want more points design to that system. If it changes, they will change. Whether "entertainment" is to be considered a part of the GE sheets or if it gets its own caption, the designers will adapt and become more "entertaining" whatever that means. "What gets measured gets managed" - Peter Drucker 1 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.