Granny Smith Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I understand that. And I agree more entertaining shows are a good thing. But what of my hypothetical? (It's now a hypothetical so as to take the prior calculation out of the discussion.) Cavies need a 1.2 spread in entertainment to pass BD last year. But the judges only award Cavies 1 point differential in the entertainment caption. So BD is the champion. Where does that leave drum corps? We'd have Cavies, the fan favorite and the judges top pick in entertainment, in second. BD gets the ring. It would be worse than 2010. More discredit on the legitimate champion. More griping than ever. And all because we separate entertainment from general effect. Why must we? HH That is unless BD has a flashback to the late 80s and gives everyone a brass burn on their face and they actually increase their margin of victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) I get your point. What I don't understand is how it relates to drum corps. We just can't compare the capacity of figure skating to pull the American Idol demographic into the ice rink with drum corps' eternal struggle against the American Pie "one time at band camp" stereotype. Yes, we have to save fans while attracting fans. And yes, entertainment is good. It is a virtue. It is something we want to encourage in drum corps. Entertainment will help retain and perhaps attract fans. I agree with you on all these things. What I just can't agree on is that trying to grade something so broad and subjective will help in any of this. What I fear is it will be counter-productive. HH If you couch entertainment in terms of "American Idol" I agree. (pun intended) Remarkably enough the dictionary definition of entertainment -- an activity that is diverting and that holds your attention -- is quite on target. If a performance captures and holds the attention of an audience it can be said to be entertaining. Unfortunately entertainment is most often thought of as watching TV. In my view this new caption attempts to recapture the intent of the Effect sheets without trying to change the way effect is currently judged. I think it bows to the realization that the current model for judging effect is so deeply entrenched that there's little hope of re-casting it. I don't think it's really controversial at all. Edited January 14, 2011 by corpsband Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Yes, it can! It can also being completely unappealing, which was exactly my point. It's not to say that riskier show designs would completely disappear, but I think fewer show designers would be willing to take that risk when it's pretty easy to build something that will have mostly favorable reviews. 1. If it's that easy, why isn't everyone accomplishing it in spades? 2. You are one of several who are equating "entertainment" with "safe" design using proven tactics. Obviously, those who rely on the tried-and-true will find their entertainment value fading in the face of fresh and effective ideas. So which approach is the "risk", actually? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Yet you think that if they have a greater incentive, they'll be less inclined to take that chance? They'll be less inclined to do things that have never been done before to entertain the audience. Especially since they there is more security in doing something that has more "expected" outcome. Afterall, who's not going to cheer for a corps in company front? Pretty standard get your butt out of the seat technique! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Either way. The way it is now doesn't matter because it will all change with this proposal. The audience will now be self-aware of their reactions just as a corps performer is aware of their actions and performance being judged by the judged. If the audience were DCP perhaps I'd agree. But in my experience this place hardly represent the norm :-) Audiences will watch shows and they will react to shows. If an audience has time to consider how they should react, perhaps that corps has already lost the audience's attention! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Forte Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Imagine all the shows that would not have existed if designers had this entertainment caption like a gun at their back. Designers will be less risk takers, they will just put together songs that "work" or had a history of "working" like Madison did. It's a bit extreme to say but I think Madison didn't take much risk in show design last year. THey just did what "worked" and that was "good enough" to achieve the reaction they wanted. It is a bit extreme...for sure. Madison (one might argue) took a tremendous amount of risk by selecting and playing music that just about everyone knows (And most probably know very well). What I think is even more extreme is your comment about "good enough". No corps I know would design and perform a show with the idea of "good enough". That's a fairly significant insult.....IMO BD took a HUGE risk in show design, unimaginably so, and they pulled it off. While Madison was instantly "entertaining" it in no way compared to the risk taking that BD did. One can certiantly say BD took a big risk with their 2010 show and you know what.....a corps like BD (IMO) should be taking big risks....they have won more DCI titles than any other corps and came off an undefeated season. I would expect a corps like this (BD or otherwise) to take risks once and a while. BD "may not have" thought about the audience but maybe in indirectly they were. THey were designing a show in a way that shows were always designed in the past. They took risks, they didn't just display drum corps like it had always been, they took it to a different level, it may not have been as well received as Madison, but that corps pulled off something unworldly. As genius of an idea/show many feel it was.....one or two viewings for others is/was more than enough. To me....they did some things that we haven't heard or seen before...but most of their show sounded and looked like other recent BD (And other corps) offerings.....so IMO unworldly is a major stretch.... And even though BD wasn't my favorite show I feel terrible that a proposal like this would basically limit the ingenuity and risk taking that BD 2010 displayed under the idea that it "might" not be entertaining. Again I ask....if you were given an assignment by Dan A. himself (ceo of dci) to come up with ways to encourage the DCI corps to pick and perform more entertaining shows.....what would "YOU" do ? Anyone can say I don't like this proposal or that idea..... What would you propose ? And don't say I wouldn't change anything....because in this example your assignment is to come up with something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) ...In my view this new caption attempts to recapture the intent of the Effect sheets without trying to change the way effect is currently judged. I think it bows to the realization that the current model for judging effect is so deeply entrenched that there's little hope of re-casting it. I don't think it's really controversial at all. Okay. So let's start here. And anyone can play. Use the new rule to recast the intent of the effect sheets. Tell me how that exercise would impact last year's programs/results. You don't have to quantify anything. Just tell me who succeeded at "entertainment" and who failed. And tell me (if you like) how that result might have changed the rankings in your opinion. HH Edited January 14, 2011 by glory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicBobert Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) 1. If it's that easy, why isn't everyone accomplishing it in spades? 2. You are one of several who are equating "entertainment" with "safe" design using proven tactics. Obviously, those who rely on the tried-and-true will find their entertainment value fading in the face of fresh and effective ideas. So which approach is the "risk", actually? I don't think I really have to defend this idea, considering that it's played out that way in almost every facet of the entertainment industry. Hollywood churns out buckets of sequels and cookie cutter action flicks, and nearly everything on the Billboard Top 40 sounds identical. ("Gettin crunk in the club" -- check, copy pasta beat in Sony ACID -- check...) Am I saying that fresh and new designs won't happen and won't win. Absolutely not. Let me make that abundantly clear with bold type. What I'm saying is that fewer designers will be willing to take the risk. When you try something risky, you go for the gold or fade into obscurity. You can sit and list risky movies that did well, or innovative songs that topped the charts, but for each example you have of something risky that did well there are countless others that failed miserably and have never seen the light of day. Edited January 14, 2011 by MagicBobert 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) 1. If it's that easy, why isn't everyone accomplishing it in spades? 2. You are one of several who are equating "entertainment" with "safe" design using proven tactics. Obviously, those who rely on the tried-and-true will find their entertainment value fading in the face of fresh and effective ideas. So which approach is the "risk", actually? Well, I didn't feel that Madisons show last year was all that risky, It seemed to just play to the traditionalist in terms of design. They took something that was already entertaining (The music selection, the Madison Brand, etc.) and brought that back to the field. It worked, nothing wrong that! But, I also want to see a show takes something that might not be entertaining at first glance and MAKE it entertaining. Bottom line, if everyone thinks that Madison was the most entertaining show in 2010... I don't want to see every corps try to be like Madison. What's MORE important is that each corps sticks with its identity. This proposal actual goes against what Cesario was saying about letting each corps' identity shine. If we have entertainment as a judged entity that's just another pressure corps will be competing to be like that one corps that gets the most standing O's. Corps, be yourself! Be your most entertaining self! That's all you need to be to make everyone happy. We DON'T need competition pressures to make this happen, we should be broadening the judging criteria not ADDING to it and making it more convoluted. If we want corps to stop writing for the judges, stop adding categories for them to be judged on! Edited January 14, 2011 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) It is a bit extreme...for sure. Madison (one might argue) took a tremendous amount of risk by selecting and playing music that just about everyone knows (And most probably know very well). What I think is even more extreme is your comment about "good enough". No corps I know would design and perform a show with the idea of "good enough". That's a fairly significant insult.....IMO Well, I did say it was extreme! I mean, you can argue anything you want. I don't know what you mean by what I meant, but they were certainly good enough to elicit that kind of reaction. They didn't have to do anything over the top, they did everything exactly the way they wanted it too and people loved them. They knocked it out of the park. Again I ask....if you were given an assignment by Dan A. himself (ceo of dci) to come up with ways to encourage the DCI corps to pick and perform more entertaining shows.....what would "YOU" do ? Anyone can say I don't like this proposal or that idea..... What would you propose ? And don't say I wouldn't change anything....because in this example your assignment is to come up with something Well, goodness. I'm flattered to be held at such high regard as to solve DCI's problems single handedly! Well... There DOES need to be changes in the judging system, nothing this drastic as to add a new category making things convoluted. I mean, I'm not going to think how exactly things need to change in the scoring rubric, maybe just train judges differently, maybe how they see general effect. Has Dan just written a mass letter to Corps designers urging them to be more "entertaining"? I mean that's worth a shot. Offer a completely different "champion" outside of the current judging system. You have the DCI World Champion and Fan Favorite Champion (they could be the same corps). I mean honestly, just because I can't think of an alternative in 5 minutes doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. I think something needed to be done. Thanks Madison for confirming that, I think your means are a little drastic, lets scale it back a bit, lets open the discussion. That's mainly what the proposal is supposed to do, just wake DCI and the designers up a bit. Edited January 14, 2011 by charlie1223 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.