nightBEAT 2012

[Corbin]

Although it was Crown's home show, I think the scoring between them and BD is more accurate than it has been at previous shows, especially concerning brass. I know BD is good in this category, but Crown should be a few tenths above them in every brass related category right now and into the future. The one tenth here or there is not a good representation of how much better Crown's brass is this year. BD is good in this category, but Crown is AWESOME.

[7567BC]

I have a question and would like to hear other POV from DCPer's.. Disregarding recaps for a moment and considering scoring solely from a performance perspective, one day to the next, I am perplexed how BAC could drop 2.3 in one night coming in well behind the Cavies who they were slightly ahead of the previouls night (.35). Here is what I found curious. Of the 8 corps at Crowns show, 7 dropped in score from Atlanta. All but Crown who gained .9. The average of the drop for those who dropped (BD, Cadets, Phantom, SCV, Bloo & Cavies) was .28. The total aggregate drop of the 6 was 1.7. How is that BAC dropped 2.3 points. 2.02 more than the average of 6 other corps. And at 2.3 versus 1.7 aggregate, BAC dropped .6 more than the total drop of the 6? Call me crazy, but logic seems to have been defied. Was there somethng so out of BAC's performance at Crowns show so unusual, that a drop of that much was warranted? If the judges deemed the perfomances so close to one another the night before, how did it come to be so different for ONE corps the following night. Beuller?

[BRASSO]

I have a question and would like to hear other POV from DCPer's.. Disregarding recaps for a moment and considering scoring solely from a performance perspective, one day to the next, I am perplexed how BAC could drop 2.3 in one night coming in well behind the Cavies who they were slightly ahead of the previouls night (.35). Here is what I found curious. Of the 8 corps at Crowns show, 7 dropped in score from Atlanta. All but Crown who gained .9. The average of the drop for those who dropped (BD, Cadets, Phantom, SCV, Bloo & Cavies) was .28. The total aggregate drop of the 6 was 1.7. How is that BAC dropped 2.3 points. 2.02 more than the average of 6 other corps. And at 2.3 versus 1.7 aggregate, BAC dropped .6 more than the total drop of the 6? Call me crazy, but logic seems to have been defied. Was there somethng so out of BAC's performance at Crowns show so unusual, that a drop of that much was warranted? If the judges deemed the perfomances so close to one another the night before, how did it come to be so different for ONE corps the following night. Beuller?

Its not all that complicated. One judge sees the forest. One judge sees the trees. One judge imagines himself in France.... another at a cheerleading contest. And another judge is lost in the weeds. We have a variety of shows. And we have a variety of judges.. and apparently neither the twain shall meet.

[7567BC]

Its not all that complicated. One judge sees the forest. One judge sees the trees. One judge imagines himself in France.... another at a cheerleading contest. And another judge is lost in the weeds. We have a variety of shows. And we have a variety of judges.. and apparently neither the twain shall meet.

Wouldn't you just love it if the judges at some point in time imagined themselves in Logic Valley where they all review the sheets at one time and reach a consensus on interpretation of sheets based on performances. Then judged corps that way? Don't judges have yearly workshops anymore where they review how the sheets are supposed to work (serious question).

[skywhopper]

I have a question and would like to hear other POV from DCPer's.. Disregarding recaps for a moment and considering scoring solely from a performance perspective, one day to the next, I am perplexed how BAC could drop 2.3 in one night coming in well behind the Cavies who they were slightly ahead of the previouls night (.35). Here is what I found curious. Of the 8 corps at Crowns show, 7 dropped in score from Atlanta. All but Crown who gained .9. The average of the drop for those who dropped (BD, Cadets, Phantom, SCV, Bloo & Cavies) was .28. The total aggregate drop of the 6 was 1.7. How is that BAC dropped 2.3 points. 2.02 more than the average of 6 other corps. And at 2.3 versus 1.7 aggregate, BAC dropped .6 more than the total drop of the 6? Call me crazy, but logic seems to have been defied. Was there somethng so out of BAC's performance at Crowns show so unusual, that a drop of that much was warranted? If the judges deemed the perfomances so close to one another the night before, how did it come to be so different for ONE corps the following night. Beuller?

Scores aren't comparable or objective across shows. And since judges have to turn in scores as soon as a corps performs, the number of corps performing matters, and the order of performance matters. In a show with more corps, the spreads will inevitably be compressed, and the further the show progresses the more constrained the judges will be in what scores are available to them. So in a show with fewer corps, the judges can widen the spreads to show relative differences in strength.

In Atlanta, the judges had to fit Boston in with the scores they'd already given. In Charlotte, they only had to score them versus Cavies. But they also wanted to leave room to fit in all the corps yet to come, particularly with Blue Devils performing third.

So say you're the Visual Proficiency judge in Atlanta. 14 corps have already performed and Boston is up next. You just gave BK an 8.3/8.1, Spirit an 8.2/8.1, and Madison and 8.7/8.7. So Boston performs and you think they're definitely cleaner than Spirit and BK, but just a little weaker than Madison, so you give Boston an 8.6/8.5. Now, when Cavies perform, you've got to hope they're either clearly stronger than Madison or clearly weaker than Boston because you've got no room between them available on the content score. Well, turns out Cavies are definitely stronger than Boston, maybe you'd even say they're four-tenths better than Boston, but they're definitely not justifiably better than Madison, so you don't have room to give the right spread! You have to resort to a tie in content scores with Madison and you split the performance score so that overall they end up between Madison and Boston in the overall VP caption, you give Cavies an 8.7/8.6, right between Madison's 8.7/8.7 and Boston's 8.6/8.5.

But in Charlotte, you're now magically a different visual performance judge. Cavies go first this time, no one to compare them to, uh oh. But you are a professional with decades of experience, so you're confident in your judgment, and you didn't pore over the scores from last night, there wasn't time and of course you would never intentionally base your scores off a different show anyway. So you give the Cavies your best fair shake, and they're sloppier than usual this time of year, but still strong. You give them an 8.4/8.1.

Then Boston comes *next* and you think they are noticeably weaker. Turns out, since you're both professionals, your opinion about the relative achievement of both Cavaliers and Boston in Visual Proficiency is exactly the same as the Atlanta judge. You'd say Cavies deserve to be just about 0.4 points higher in VP than Boston. Well, congrats because since you only have one score on the books, you can make it happen. Drop two tenths from technique and from excellence, and you can set the spread exactly right. Feels good, don't it?

Only there goes 0.15 of Boston's spread over Cavies, all because of the number of corps in the show and the order of performance.

Edit: Sorry I did the math wrong on my first attempt. But all the numbers are real!

Edited July 30, 2012 by skywhopper

[BRASSO]

the number of corps in the show and the order of performance.

Neither of these 2 factors are as important as what the judge sees and hears relative to what another judge might see and hear from all the Corps in competition.

If you are entering your art work in an art competition and your art work is from the impressionism field ala Claude Monet, you hope and pray that the judge drawn in your Art show competition prefers the Impressonism field over that of ( for example ) Salvadore Dali or Pablo Picasso and Surrealism or Modernism. Or if you're bringing in your Picasso like work, you hope that the Artist judge doesn't think that Norman Rockwell illustrations are the cats meow in Art... and then look beside you and see a competing artist taking the covers off a Norman Rockwell like illustration on their canvas. DCI judges are no different in that they all have finely tuned talent, experience, training, and knowledge of what consitutes " good ". These are good and decent people. But when push comes to shove, no 2 judges see the same things alike, and as such can't be expected to evaluate the same.We can't always admit this... but much of this variance is the simple whim of the judging panel draw. For an example, Phantom Regiment was a deserving winner at Finals Nite in 2008. But anyone that is objective recognizes that the 2 judges drawn from the pool of judges in percussion that nite could not have lined up better for Phantom Regiment, and not so much for the BD on Finals Night. We can't underestimate the luck or the unluckiness of the whim of the draw of judging pool. Given a choice as to whether I could select my Corps judges for a show or the performance order for my Corps and the others in competition, its a no brainer for me. I 'd much prefer to select the judges for the show in which my Corps would appear in competition rather than the performance order of my Corps and the other Corps in competition. I believe most Corps staff would too, if given the choice.

Edited July 30, 2012 by BRASSO

[CLD]

I 'd much prefer to select the judges for the show in which my Corps would appear in competition rather than the performance order of my Corps and the other Corps in competition.

Being a fan of some of the not so top 12 corps, I think I'd go the other way around. Slotting for those lower corps in the big shows almost always equals little to no upward movement regardless of performance - sigh. I guess that's why I hate the idea of putting in a score after each performance with judges sitting on scores. I much prefer the idea of a judge taping his notes then doing his final assessment and tally at the end of the night. Sure, it would delay results a bit, but I'm willing to wait. I know those lower corps won't vault from zero to hero, but maybe just maybe they won't be stuck in the same spot week after week.

eta: I guess what I'm saying is - I would love to see what happens when judges must score with their ears and eyes and not with what is an impossible to avoid no matter how small because they're human too mental bias due to performance order.

Edited July 30, 2012 by CLD

[7567BC]

Scores aren't comparable or objective across shows. And since judges have to turn in scores as soon as a corps performs, the number of corps performing matters, and the order of performance matters. In a show with more corps, the spreads will inevitably be compressed, and the further the show progresses the more constrained the judges will be in what scores are available to them. So in a show with fewer corps, the judges can widen the spreads to show relative differences in strength.

In Atlanta, the judges had to fit Boston in with the scores they'd already given. In Charlotte, they only had to score them versus Cavies. But they also wanted to leave room to fit in all the corps yet to come, particularly with Blue Devils performing third.

So say you're the Visual Proficiency judge in Atlanta. 14 corps have already performed and Boston is up next. You just gave BK an 8.3/8.1, Spirit an 8.2/8.1, and Madison and 8.7/8.7. So Boston performs and you think they're definitely cleaner than Spirit and BK, but just a little weaker than Madison, so you give Boston an 8.6/8.5. Now, when Cavies perform, you've got to hope they're either clearly stronger than Madison or clearly weaker than Boston because you've got no room between them available on the content score. Well, turns out Cavies are definitely stronger than Boston, maybe you'd even say they're four-tenths better than Boston, but they're definitely not justifiably better than Madison, so you don't have room to give the right spread! You have to resort to a tie in content scores with Madison and you split the performance score so that overall they end up between Madison and Boston in the overall VP caption, you give Cavies an 8.7/8.6, right between Madison's 8.7/8.7 and Boston's 8.6/8.5.

But in Charlotte, you're now magically a different visual performance judge. Cavies go first this time, no one to compare them to, uh oh. But you are a professional with decades of experience, so you're confident in your judgment, and you didn't pore over the scores from last night, there wasn't time and of course you would never intentionally base your scores off a different show anyway. So you give the Cavies your best fair shake, and they're sloppier than usual this time of year, but still strong. You give them an 8.4/8.1.

Then Boston comes *next* and you think they are noticeably weaker. Turns out, since you're both professionals, your opinion about the relative achievement of both Cavaliers and Boston in Visual Proficiency is exactly the same as the Atlanta judge. You'd say Cavies deserve to be just about 0.4 points higher in VP than Boston. Well, congrats because since you only have one score on the books, you can make it happen. Drop two tenths from technique and from excellence, and you can set the spread exactly right. Feels good, don't it?

Only there goes 0.15 of Boston's spread over Cavies, all because of the number of corps in the show and the order of performance.

Edit: Sorry I did the math wrong on my first attempt. But all the numbers are real!

Wow. That is one long explanation and I absolutely appreciate it but I'm not buying it. My thinking is that all judges are supposed ot be trained up on the sheets and their interpretation. And at this point of the year is it logical to presume all corps are improving their show performances. If a corps has an off night, that's one thing but I saw nothing in any write up that indicated BAC booted the pooch. What struck me was when I looked at numbers that put BAC distinctly down from Cavies from the previouls night and that they were definitively and significantly lower than ANY of the other 7 performaing corps. Numbers for 7 were relatively comparable to the previous night. And I'm saying relative because the performances were realtive to the previous nights by the numbers reflecting that. The average drop was .28 for those that dropped their score. BAC's was 2.3 The total of all the numbers dropped was lower than BAC's. Now I can look at the recap and see what I can see but at initial look it is a curious result. Thanks again for your POV.

[7567BC]

Neither of these 2 factors are as important as what the judge sees and hears relative to what another judge might see and hear from all the Corps in competition.

If you are entering your art work in an art competition and your art work is from the impressionism field ala Claude Monet, you hope and pray that the judge drawn in your Art show competition prefers the Impressonism field over that of ( for example ) Salvadore Dali or Pablo Picasso and Surrealism or Modernism. Or if you're bringing in your Picasso like work, you hope that the Artist judge doesn't think that Norman Rockwell illustrations are the cats meow in Art... and then look beside you and see a competing artist taking the covers off a Norman Rockwell like illustration on their canvas. DCI judges are no different in that they all have finely tuned talent, experience, training, and knowledge of what consitutes " good ". These are good and decent people. But when push comes to shove, no 2 judges see the same things alike, and as such can't be expected to evaluate the same.We can't always admit this... but much of this variance is the simple whim of the judging panel draw. For an example, Phantom Regiment was a deserving winner at Finals Nite in 2008. But anyone that is objective recognizes that the 2 judges drawn from the pool of judges in percussion that nite could not have lined up better for Phantom Regiment, and not so much for the BD on Finals Night. We can't underestimate the luck or the unluckiness of the whim of the draw of judging pool. Given a choice as to whether I could select my Corps judges for a show or the performance order for my Corps and the others in competition, its a no brainer for me. I 'd much prefer to select the judges for the show in which my Corps would appear in competition rather than the performance order of my Corps and the other Corps in competition. I believe most Corps staff would too, if given the choice.

Can we have each corps select their personal panel of judges and see how numbers go after that? Brasso, that is quite an explanation you've given and it will take me a while to digest it I think. Love your viewpoints. Going to any shows this week?

[noneofyourbusiness]

Wouldn't you just love it if the judges at some point in time imagined themselves in Logic Valley where they all review the sheets at one time and reach a consensus on interpretation of sheets based on performances. Then judged corps that way? Don't judges have yearly workshops anymore where they review how the sheets are supposed to work (serious question).

Actually, the majority of DCP fans have been strongly demanding just the opposite of what you are asking for for years. Judge the performances of the corps for THAT NIGHT. What happened on Saturday should have absolutely no bearing on what scores corps get on Sunday. If a corps has a big ensemble tear, or their drums are just really off, or they have no energy in their show from the staff over-rehearsing them, than their score should drop 2.5 or more. Stuff happens and it should be reflected in the scores. Kind of like going to a double header between two baseball teams, 'A' and 'B'. 'A' wins an exciting game 1 by a score of 5-4 in 12 innings, and then it's players lose focus and wind up on the short end of game 2 by a score of 17-2. I've seen that happen many times, even to the perennial top-dogs.

Maybe it needs to happen more often in drum corps.

Edited July 30, 2012 by noneofyourbusiness