Judging: How do YOU want to see it?

[actucker]

I would never presume to express an opinion on how judging should be conducted, but last night I saw someone use a term that disturbed me: "score management". Now, I understand why score management might be used...especially in the case of Allentown with it's split shows. But is that really fair?

Why can't the judges just score the corps' performance...at that particular time...honestly?

Score management, or numbers management is a term that's been used in the activity for a long time. While I can see why one might be turned off by the idea, or think that the idea would promote unfair numbers, but let me ask you this. Is it more important that a corps get the exact number that they deserve, or that the corps are placed in the correct order with the correct split. There is an upward limit to how high a score can go, and considering that everything we do is merit based (rather than starting at 100 and deducting as the tick method did), we can get really close to 100 really quickly if we catch the right moments of a show. That being said, numbers management is employed to ensure that you don't end up with no room if a later group is a lot stronger than a group you saw early in the day. It can result in overall lower scores for everyone, but often ensures that the correct spreads occur, rather than having every ensemble bunched up from 95 and up.

The fact is, a show can't really objectively be assigned a number. You can't watch a show and say with any kind of certainty that it was a 96. Even a well trained judge can't just pull a number out of his butt. There has to be some sort of bench mark. There is stuff built into the sheets to make that job easier (for example, WGI has boxes with corresponding words like "always", "sometimes", "often" etc. But even then, you can't watch every performer on the field all at once.

[whitedawn]

Less judging of the program that was designed by non-members. I still don't understand how the members' performance can affect "content" subcaptions, or how "content" subcaption scores can be different from show to show.

[AlexL]

I would put less emphasis on 'clean'. I'm a bit sick of hearing that a show isnt getting effect just because it isn't as squeaky clean as another show (to the vast majority of the audience, it is getting plenty of effect). At a certain point (once you're up in the top 5) clean gives decreasing returns in terms of the audience value, yet it seems to be the chief factor in overall scoring, even into the effect captions.

Would also like to see demand factored better. Simultaneous demand especially. Its one thing to do difficult drill... its another to play tough notes. But its a completely different thing to do both at the same time, and some take this challenge and others shy away from it, and those that take on the challenge should be rewarded.

[AlexL]

All very good points. I would like the fans considered but I have no clear idea how that would be achieved. Sure I love Malaguenea but after the 8th or 9th rendition in a night it might get a little old, even for me.

The thing is though, a lot of the shows DO look the same in the elements that are written into them. It's starting to look like design by ticking the boxes.

electronic patch - check

dancing horn players - check

body during snare feature - check

No as formulaic as the '60s, but to some extent the sheets will always push design.

Yeah, there's definitely a lot of this. One of my least favorite ones... 'melodic passage of a piece of music that doesnt finish, instead it terminates abruptly with angry dissonance, as if teasing the audience'. Its not original, and is done far too often.

[JamMan]

It's interesting that we all clamor for better and more consistent judging, yet we freak out when scores and ordinals are all over the place. I think the idea of "consistency" has a different meaning for many people and causes too much confusion and frustration among fans today.

Personally, I miss the old days of 3 seasons (June-July-August), where corps like Spirit and Sky Ryders would beat Cadets early season by being much cleaner, yet get caught by the better show in august. We just don't see that as much anymore and whenever we see big changes in numbers or placements, (especially with our own biases towards certain groups), we complain to no end of cheating and "slotting".

I still think that some of the lower tier teams don't get enough credit early season for coming out on clean and think the judging should more wide open and not "uniform based" at the beginning of each season. Judges are human, but it takes a lot more "intestinal fortitude" to make calls like that in this generation than it did 20 years ago.

So, what say you and how would you like to see things judged differently?

I wish I could say I knew of a time when Spirit was cleaner than Cadets at ANY point in the season.

[whitedawn]

I wish I could say I knew of a time when Spirit was cleaner than Cadets at ANY point in the season.

http://www.fromthepressbox.com/19870628westchester.htm

[JamMan]

http://www.fromthepressbox.com/19870628westchester.htm

Today I learned! Thanks!

[whitedawn]

Today I learned! Thanks!

Just one of those stupid little trivia things you pick up over time.

Also, Spirit's guard placed 1st at DCI Finals that year, while Garfield's was 7th. I think if color guard scores counted as part of the final score in 1987, SCV would have won the title outright.

[RockyGranite]

Score management, or numbers management is a term that's been used in the activity for a long time. While I can see why one might be turned off by the idea, or think that the idea would promote unfair numbers, but let me ask you this. Is it more important that a corps get the exact number that they deserve, or that the corps are placed in the correct order with the correct split. There is an upward limit to how high a score can go, and considering that everything we do is merit based (rather than starting at 100 and deducting as the tick method did), we can get really close to 100 really quickly if we catch the right moments of a show. That being said, numbers management is employed to ensure that you don't end up with no room if a later group is a lot stronger than a group you saw early in the day. It can result in overall lower scores for everyone, but often ensures that the correct spreads occur, rather than having every ensemble bunched up from 95 and up.

The fact is, a show can't really objectively be assigned a number. You can't watch a show and say with any kind of certainty that it was a 96. Even a well trained judge can't just pull a number out of his butt. There has to be some sort of bench mark. There is stuff built into the sheets to make that job easier (for example, WGI has boxes with corresponding words like "always", "sometimes", "often" etc. But even then, you can't watch every performer on the field all at once.

Order be ######.

Give the score the corps earned from their performance. Let THAT determine the order. Look, just because Spirit has been slightly ahead of BK the whole season, doesn't mean the judges HAVE to keep it that way to the end...to keep them in the "correct order". I find the above highlighted concept offensive.

If the judges can't judge a corps without bunching up and running out of room, then there is a problem with the judging system.

Edited August 4, 2012 by RockyGranite

[jasgre2000]

Make all the Guard performers have to play a percussive instrument or a brass instument at some point in the show. This will make up for the scoring that the Brass and Percussion performers are under for not playing their instruments but instead are doing dance routines or exercise routines on the ground and are being judged on these elements. Absent this, each Guard performer is more important to a Corps on the current judging sheets than a single brass performer. Thats because we have 80 brass in these Corps, but less than half that in Guard. BD will win DCI this year, because they have a phenomenal Guard. Crown has a phenomenal brass line. So what. They always do. We can't blame the winning DCI Corps for figuring out how the judging sheets are constructed scoring wise. Corps that win DCI do it primarily through the Visual and Guard, notthe Brass and Percussion. The Cadets won DCI last year because their drill and visual show was better than the others. Phantom won in 2008 by making a late season VISUAL change ( with the DM ). BD has figured out the VISUAL gig, and knows that if you've got a world class Guard, you are going to be right there at Finals. Some people that are still looking at the scoring through a MUSIC prism and are frustrated with the scores and placements, need to ask themselves 1) how is the Guard ? and B) how is the Visual program ? The DCI scoring sheets have " evolved " into a VISUAL oriented scoring system over a MUSICAL oriented scoring system. And the influence of WGI ( even in the newer judges coming into DCI) is unmistakable, imo. Until we bring the judging sheets more in line with the Music, Corps that have a phenomenal Guard and Visual show will continue to score higher over those that do not.

Isn't visual performance the thing that distinguishes drum corps from other performing arts? If all you care about is music, go watch a band.