glory Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 dingdingdingding I think this hits the nail on the head: it's silly to get all upset, freak out, cry conspiracies ... Does this mean I can't drop by to watch DCI dvds on the big screen with the surround sound? I was going to bring pizza! HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Does this mean I can't drop by to watch DCI dvds on the big screen with the surround sound? I was going to bring pizza! HH oooooh In that case, I recant everything I said and I'll leave the light on for ya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 You are absolutely correct. man do people hate that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Which is why I'm a skeptic (if you can be a skeptic having not seen the proposal). There is this mysterious consensus around drum corps that credits Cesario with bringing entertainment back to the field last year. I think the reality is far more complex. Cesario's well-intended and well-timed effort didn't start a wave; it road its crest. In other words, 2011 was more a natural evolution than an engineering marvel. And all on the old sheets. I'll be the first to agree that the sheets could stand to benefit from transparency and clarity. I'm not sure that's what this is about. It seems to me that "overhauling" the judging process has larger goals in mind. It seems that Cesario and others might be pumped up with enough false pride to believe that if they created 2011, they can replicate last year into the future by re-engineering the judging criteria. I am a skeptic - a skeptic on the Cesario consensus, a skeptic about this judging "simplification." We had a good thing going in 2011. Why overhaul it? Tinker maybe. Overhaul why? Music analysis never. HH I'm not pro or con...I'm curious. I judge locally and I always like to keep abreast of judging trends...if it's good, maybe we can adapt it. I'm not sure all the credit goes to Cesario about the entertainment push, but I'm thinking some does. he got vocal about it after seeing fans getting vocal about it, and he threw out some harsh statements that will never seethe light of day. if 2012 goes back to 2010 or 2009 levels, then no, he gets no credit. But I'll at least give him some love for at least being vocal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The entire system is rigged, anyway. Who cares what they do with the judges. Until they're sitting in the stands where we are, they can't judge broad swaths of the show anyway. They can mess with the system all they want, and it doesn't mean a hoot until they appeal to a bigger audience. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumno5 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 music analysis? how incredibly pretentious. Well, it's hard to tell - are you being facetious or serious? If you are sincerely expressing your opinion, I suppose I can't argue; everyone is entitled, I suppose. But you should know that your p.o.v. is a bit lacking in historical perspective. As an earlier poster noted, the term "Music Analysis" is not new to the sheets. The M.A. caption was part of the judging system from the early days of DCI through the mid '80s, a seminal period (even a golden age, to some) in the so-called modern era. Although the format and point allocations evolved during that period, the sheet basically evaluated horn lines in the areas of technique, musicianship and content. As to the similarities/differences between the new M.A. caption and its earlier incarnation, I guess the jury is still out, as the DCI news article provides little information in that regard. But just pooh-poohing the terminology because you think it sounds too high-brow (which is how it sounds to me) strikes me as kind of snobbery in reverse, especially if you were unaware of its background and historical precedence in the activity. Apologies in advance if I've misread your intent or prattled on too long. And of course, no personal disrespect intended. Peace, Fred O. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 none taken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The entire system is rigged, anyway. "Rigged?" Really? This is such hyperbolic nonsense it's hard to take anything else you say on the subject seriously... Who cares what they do with the judges. Until they're sitting in the stands where we are, they can't judge broad swaths of the show anyway. Conversely, you can say that unless someone is on the field they can't judge the detailed minutia of clarity, uniformity of technique, etc anyway. They can mess with the system all they want, and it doesn't mean a hoot until they appeal to a bigger audience. Are you implying that judges currently don't appeal to a bigger audience and should? If so, that's not exactly the purpose of adjudication. Are you implying show designers don't appeal to a bigger audience? That's subjective, and the general consensus seems to be that 2011 was a pretty crowd-friendly/popular year or DCI. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumno5 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 garfield, on 19 January 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:The entire system is rigged, anyway. "Rigged?" Really? This is such hyperbolic nonsense it's hard to take anything else you say on the subject seriously...Who cares what they do with the judges. Until they're sitting in the stands where we are, they can't judge broad swaths of the show anyway. Conversely, you can say that unless someone is on the field they can't judge the detailed minutia of clarity, uniformity of technique, etc anyway. They can mess with the system all they want, and it doesn't mean a hoot until they appeal to a bigger audience. Are you implying that judges currently don't appeal to a bigger audience and should? If so, that's not exactly the purpose of adjudication. Are you implying show designers don't appeal to a bigger audience? That's subjective, and the general consensus seems to be that 2011 was a pretty crowd-friendly/popular year or DCI. Well played, perc'. regards, Fred O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 "Rigged?" Really? This is such hyperbolic nonsense it's hard to take anything else you say on the subject seriously... Conversely, you can say that unless someone is on the field they can't judge the detailed minutia of clarity, uniformity of technique, etc anyway. Are you implying that judges currently don't appeal to a bigger audience and should? If so, that's not exactly the purpose of adjudication. Are you implying show designers don't appeal to a bigger audience? That's subjective, and the general consensus seems to be that 2011 was a pretty crowd-friendly/popular year or DCI. I could say "Over-react much?" but upon reflection I admit that my use of the emoticon was not sufficient to indicate sarcasm. It was meant to reflect the anecdotal response of the perpetual nay-sayers and nit-pickers towards judging. Relax cowboy, we don't disagree much. And your retort was quite good, had I actually believed what I wrote. BTW, the activity doesn't appeal to enough people, not the judges. 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.