garfield Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Maybe I'm misunderstanding? Since when have we tried to control the content of shows through judging? I thought the judging was supposed to reflect performance and not to drive any agenda. HH For your answer see BD 2010. I just know my rep is going to get dinged for that comment. Be nice, please. I'm racing Ream. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) For your answer see BD 2010. I just know my rep is going to get dinged for that comment. Be nice, please. I'm racing Ream. Well, really, we keep saying that BD 2010 was designed for the judges... I mean, its said so often I think I actual believe it. But to put things in perspective wouldn't we have to ask the BD design staff to really be sure about this? I mean, scoring well with the judges shouldn't be seen a negative thing but it is... in the is case... Edited January 14, 2011 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) Well, really, we keep saying that BD 2010 was designed for the judges... I mean, its said so often I think I actual believe it. But to put things in perspective wouldn't we have to ask the BD design staff to really be sure about this? I mean, scoring well with the judges shouldn't be seen a negative thing but it is... in the is case... Since when is proof a requirement to post on DCP? Did they change the rules? Seriously, yes, of course you're right. But if you were BD, fighting for a six-pete (or whatever) would you take the "Madison chance" and program for the crowd or would you program for the sheets? We can ask, but I'm not sure the answer will reflect the true motivation of the design team. (look down here) l l l l V Edited January 15, 2011 by garfield 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 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. The pay-per-view audience could vote on who made the best --or most entertaining-- arguments, and the money could be distributed accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I would WANT that to happen, but I still don't know... well....look at the 80's. Lots of risks taken. some of the most popular seasons...not just shows...but seasons of all time. I think they'll be ok. Oh, some may feel like they are going outside the box at first. But that can be healthy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Valid point...but how is this different from the "fan favorite award"? The Disney Award was driven by some of the same dynamics but it could couch itself as a reward for Entertainment Design and not so much about fan approval. The new Fan Favorite Award is a straight up popularity contest about the corps and not (necessarily) the show itself. ok quick...who won DCI in 1998? now how won the Disney award in 1998. right 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 However...and this may be counter to my own argument....more and more, arts performances are relying on the standards if their main audience is 30+. Look at your local symphony and the tickets they "give away" the night of the new experimental piece by a new composer versus the sellout crowds for "A Night of Beethoven," etc. Playing it safe pleases..or "lulls" many current audience members in the symphony, opera and ballet crowds. So, crowds riot, at times when they listen to the new composers with their avant guarde compositions with their "dancing to the death." Much like a couple of Star's early 90s offerings, they are only truly appreciated over time. So, guess what. It still makes sense to assume that Mason's proposal goes nowhere. Yes, there is a "test" environment in the DCI structure now, but, Mason's corps isn't part of that. Had he jumped in with Blue Stars instead of his alma mater, we may be looking at a different outcome. Is it possible Mason will become the new Stewart in DCI terms? or maybe Stewart was right and the checkbooks are finally proving it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 That's language right off an Effect Sheet. The point being that all the arguments people are making here against the new caption proposal apply equally to current GE captions *as written*. All the things people are saying: impossible to judge will be too strongly affected by composition of audience will lead to safe shows all apply to the current GE captions. Which brings me right back to where I started -- this proposal does nothing more the emphasize things which are already on sheets but are being ignored. Why are they ignored? IMO because judges have lost sight of the intent of the effect captions and have focused entirely on smaller parts of the subcaption language that is there to assist the judge in evaluating the higher order intent. In effect (pun intended) they have lost sight of the forest for the trees. There's nothing at all new in the proposal -- it's conceptually all from GE. In many places GE is defined as entertainment value. People are freaking out over language which is already part of the rubric. Remember -- entertainment: an activity which diverts (redirects) one's attention. it ties into that speech Cesario gave at that clinic you and I were both at a few years ago. judges are fans too. We want to laugh. We want to cry. We want to hoot and holler. but we arent allowed to, because everyone is too busy trying to be the coolest cat in the room. because show design is geared overwhelmingly to one third of the triad of effect 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Maybe I'm misunderstanding? Since when have we tried to control the content of shows through judging? I thought the judging was supposed to reflect performance and not to drive any agenda. HH ah but who sets the judging criteria? the corps 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 You know, this is almost criteria I could live with. Could we just call it GE? HH we used to 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.