Did DCI Get it Right?

[saxfreq1128]

I would say to some degree, no. I like what they are doing with the new system primarily because they are saying to the corps that they must at least try to make a connection with the crowd. The better connection and response, the higher they will be scored against an equally performing corps that lacks that connection. If a corps is boring but is clearly performing at a higher level than the rest, yes they should win. But if corps are at an equal level, giving them a bump for making that connection I think is a good idea. It incentivizes all of the corps to consider the fans when designing their shows. This in turn provides us with a better overall experience when we attend. I remember a number of years when anywhere between two to five corps for one reason or another stunk up the joint with utter boredom, overuse of props, distracting voiceover... Take your pick. All of the issues I just listed are considered under the new system. Given time, we may not see corps stinking up the joint quite so much. Kudos to those corps who have spent their careers remembering the fans. A few long standing corps quickly come to mind: Phantom, Scouts, Cavaliers, Troopers. And Kudos to the class and traditionalism of Santa Clara. Blue Devils, you'd been my favorite since I first saw you in 1976, but I hardly know you anymore.

If what matters is a corps' connection with individual audience members, why should their connections (or not) with you matter more than their connections (or not) with me, even if you outnumber me? Why should your feelings have more weight in their fate than mine, or vice versa? To me, what needs to change are not the judges' sheets, but the fans' ways of understanding what a score means versus what a performance makes them feel. It doesn't matter that I think Cadets 2011 was corny, because it did truly outperform the shows that spoke more directly to me. I can respect that it won without needing the judges to validate my feelings.

Because if what matters is that corps are connecting with people -- someone, anyone -- then the only true disqualifier would be a corps that connected with no one, and that's never the case. Beyond that, it has to be legitimate that some shows simply aren't made to please everyone, in part because of every audience members' inherent biases, in part because pleasing everyone is impossible, and in part because universal populism would eventually get boring.

These are artistic choices, and corps should be free to make them.

[Lancerlady]

PR clearly showed up better prepared and better able to perform their show to the audience than the other 5 corps. If all the talk about the new sheets is true, we should see that in the results, and we did. So +1 new sheets. Doesn't mean PR will be in the same position in August, but they got rewarded for what they achieved on June 16th.

I also thought Cesario's answer on the changes was a little bizarre. I mean, who really cares that you changed the sheets from portrait to landscape or that you should read them back to front? We care about the differences in what will be rewarded under the old and new systems.

I too thought his responses were odd and it almost seemed like Steve (interviewer) wanted to laugh in his face..just really awkward to me. I don't think Cadets should've won but that's just me, I thought it should've been 1) Phantom 2) Crown 3) Cadets and after that IDK.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Lancerlady

[BRASSO]

I don't think Cadets should've won but that's just me, I thought it should've been 1) Phantom 2) Crown 3) Cadets and after that IDK.

You're not totally alone, as this was my placements for Akron too.

[GUARDLING]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder, art is subjective..your survey ( to me ) doesnt really mean much, especially in a place which doesnt by any means show majority ( no place would ) entertainment as well as crowd responce will be different night to night which may or may not have anthing to do with the corps, the show, if they were good or not..............entertainment is subjective and ever changing...just depends who you talk to...yeah yeah and we all know the majority who sides with our own opinions always..lol

[falcon]

OK, I've been out of the drum corps scene for a long time--even though I enjoyed Carolina Crown at the Akron show (at the movies), were they really over 2 and a half points better the following night in Louisville? I know that the scores get progressively higher as the season goes on, as they should, but raising your score more than 2 and a half points in a 24 hour period . . . Maybe I just don't understand the scoring process, and if that's the case, could someone try to explain this in a simplistic way?

[Schnitzel]

The new judging system developed by Michael Cesario was unveiled this past weekend. Now that scores are up, did DCI get it right? Those of you that watched the Akron and Louisville show live, as well as all those that saw the theater broadcast what are your thoughts? Has DCI taken a step in the right direction on judging, or is it the same old thing with a new name?

Will a fan favorate show that fans go wild over win finals this year? Or some abstract artsy thing that barely gets applause from the audience win again?

[Schnitzel]

Just like the individual drum corps shows take time to develop, so will the new judging system.

One thing is for sure: the three judges on the field, and at least two in the box aren't judging entertainment, crowd-appeal, congeniality, or anything else related to fandom. You just can't look at total scores on this (or any other system thus far) and say with any credibility that the "system" did or didn't reward "fan-friendly" shows.

Anyone who says they can sit in the stands (or in front of a computer screen) and tell if "DCI got it right" is delusional.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Schnitzel

[chaos001]

I didn't know DCI judges were supposed to post on DCP.

[flammaster]

Only two choices? this thread sucks!

[drumno5]

Not voting. This is bait.

I agree. Even the title is bait and switch, pulling you in by appearing to ask about the merits of the judging system as an evaluative tool (at least that's how I read it) and then asking, in stark with-us-or-against-us terms, about "fan friendly" vs. "artsy" - the implication of course, being that artsy = fan unfriendly. The final giveaway is the derogatory "business as usual" tag at the end. Can I guess what kind of show the pollster favors?

Peace,

Fred O.