What does BDs’ victory really mean?

[fsubone]

Also out of the 1970 show!

And in 1970, it was a very controversial song, and extremely controversial show. Huh, guess it's not just George Hopkins doing controversy. Always loved the Cadets, even during their mis-2000s stretch

[mn trumpter guy]

Sounds pretty naive to me.

Honest question: How does that sound 'naive'? I could see a bevy of other words being used to describe that, but 'naive' is not one of them. In no way does that reasoning imply an immaturity or innocence of thought. In the past, he has agreed with the judges, and the public, in general, was not up in arms about the way results were reported. Now they are. Something clearly has changed. People don't hate the winner solely because they win; not in the magnitude of people's discontent with the Blue Devils winning.

And just to avoid any accusations or thoughts; I have not problem with BD winning this year. I may not agree, but I understand and accept.

[glory]

I know you aren't ignoring this: but it would be extremely easy for a corps to clean a show where they do nothing but march 8 to 5 at 140 BPM, playing children's songs...

You're right. The challenge has to be judged even if the core content isn't. I said (I think I said!) in a previous post that one of the lessons of this year (and several previous years) is difficulty by itself can't earn you credit. BD's successful formula for most of the past two decades has been to design shows that allow its considerable talent to max out execution.

The same can't always be said for Cadets, for instance, who have at times programmed more difficulty than the corps could manage artistically. So 2009 is a great example of two talented corps where one (BD) optimizes its execution where the other (Cadets) stretch for a score too far. Similarly in 2012, Crown over-complicated and therefore underscored a challenging program where BD met the challenge more completely. In both cases, the crowd wants content (program, design, likability, whatever you want to call it) to act as some score multiplier and give Crown, Cadets or whomever the edge. The problem with that is there's no such box on the judges' sheets. The judges can only evaluate achievement via execution. The content, in that respect, is irrelevant.

HH

[mn trumpter guy]

You're right. The challenge has to be judged even if the core content isn't. I said (I think I said!) in a previous post that one of the lessons of this year (and several previous years) is difficulty by itself can't earn you credit. BD's successful formula for most of the past two decades has been to design shows that allow its considerable talent to max out execution.

The same can't always be said for Cadets, for instance, who have at times programmed more difficulty than the corps could manage artistically. So 2009 is a great example of two talented corps where one (BD) optimizes its execution where the other (Cadets) stretch for a score too far. Similarly in 2012, Crown over-complicated and therefore underscored a challenging program where BD met the challenge more completely. In both cases, the crowd wants content (program, design, likability, whatever you want to call it) to act as some score multiplier and give Crown, Cadets or whomever the edge. The problem with that is there's no such box on the judges' sheets. The judges can only evaluate achievement via execution. The content, in that respect, is irrelevant.

HH

You did indeed say that, and I agree; BD are masters at finding that line.

What would be very interesting- though it will not and should not happen- would be for the top 12 to all learn the same show. That would really be the only way for content to play no role at all in the competition.

And I completely agree with your analysis; I am probably still jaded a bit because my corps followed the Crown/Cadets approach of "here's a really hard show, please give us credit." and I hated seeing shows that (I thought) were 'easier' than mine beat me. I am extremely competitive, though

[corpsband]

You're right. The challenge has to be judged even if the core content isn't. I said (I think I said!) in a previous post that one of the lessons of this year (and several previous years) is difficulty by itself can't earn you credit. BD's successful formula for most of the past two decades has been to design shows that allow its considerable talent to max out execution.

The same can't always be said for Cadets, for instance, who have at times programmed more difficulty than the corps could manage artistically. So 2009 is a great example of two talented corps where one (BD) optimizes its execution where the other (Cadets) stretch for a score too far. Similarly in 2012, Crown over-complicated and therefore underscored a challenging program where BD met the challenge more completely. In both cases, the crowd wants content (program, design, likability, whatever you want to call it) to act as some score multiplier and give Crown, Cadets or whomever the edge. The problem with that is there's no such box on the judges' sheets. The judges can only evaluate achievement via execution. The content, in that respect, is irrelevant.

IMO this is a very confusing use of the word content.

Most times I see content I think of the "WHAT" as in "the What and How". (In that context) Content most certainly *is* judged.

Clearly you're using content to indicate something more akin to "theme" or "selections". I can understand why you might choose 'content' but it throws me for a bit of a loop. Are you picking up this usage from elsewhere or is this your own usage?

Anyway -- just to stay on topic -- I'll disagree with the above. IMO the audience reaction has more to with a desire to reward the program that takes far greater risks but perhaps was a fraction of a degree less clean in some of those risks. Audiences find exposure to risk very exciting (take a look at the size of the average audience size at a Nascar event) . Playing very difficult music, spinning a difficult guard book, and marching difficult drill is risky. And it's a risk an audience can clearly identify as well as evaluate. If there are form errors or bad attacks, it's out there for everyone to see and hear. While it might be a competitively successful strategy (and clearly it has been for BD) , minimizing risk is not nearly as exciting for an audience. Don't misunderstand me - I don't claim BD takes no risks. They're just very carefully planned moments which expose a specific item and nothing but that item.

Anyway I didn't find BD particularly clean this year. In the portions of the program with readable drill, there were (uncharacteristic) errors. The percussion caption dinged Crown a little but the strength in the program design, books (content) and execution should have more than compensated for that. They out marched, out played and (especially) out spun the competition with far more effect both musically and visually . In my opinion, of course :-)

[ibexpercussion]

People complain about "content" and "degree of difficulty" etc. It is just like in sports when a team has an excellent coach that has a really good "system" or "scheme" to use to help the team win. Also, when you have coaches that are innovative and come up with new schemes, etc., that walk that "line" so to speak. Everybody needs to stop clamoring about what the groups are playing, and sit back and appreciate what they are doing. We can not ask every basketball team in the NBA to have the same philosophy about how they play. Then it would always come down to pure talent, and no sort of "strategy" or in drum corps "design," would play a part of the success.

[glory]

I used the term "content" because "theme" seemed too narrow. Wondering now if my own struggle with the terminology might reflect somehow a similar struggle the judges' have differentiating and evaluating these elements.

We agree on the audience reaction. I think you're right that we in the stands are more generous with our credit when it comes to programs we like best. The reverse might be true too. The programs we don't understand (or don't like) don't always get full credit for execution.

The judges have a tough task. They have to be neutral when it comes to the thematic content elements. It shouldn't matter to them that Fanfare for the Common Man gives most of us goosebumps while Dada This Or That doesn't. If it were any other way, championships would be decided in the spring when the repetoires were chosen.

HH

[bchorn]

Did anyone watch the Men's High Bar routine at this year's olympics?

I think it has interesting parallels with this discussion because the gold medalist won the event despite having alower execution score than the silver medalist. The reason the gold medalist won was because his difficulty score was .4 higher.

Difficulty Execution Total

Gold 7.9 8.63 16.53

Silver 7.5 8.90 16.40

While the gold medalist had more mistakes, he wasalso performing a much harder routine. If gymnastics was using the DCI system, then the gold medalist would not have been rewarded for performing a harder routine.

Edited August 22, 2012 by bchorn

[Tusayan]

You're right. The challenge has to be judged even if the core content isn't. I said (I think I said!) in a previous post that one of the lessons of this year (and several previous years) is difficulty by itself can't earn you credit. BD's successful formula for most of the past two decades has been to design shows that allow its considerable talent to max out execution.

The same can't always be said for Cadets, for instance, who have at times programmed more difficulty than the corps could manage artistically. So 2009 is a great example of two talented corps where one (BD) optimizes its execution where the other (Cadets) stretch for a score too far. Similarly in 2012, Crown over-complicated and therefore underscored a challenging program where BD met the challenge more completely. In both cases, the crowd wants content (program, design, likability, whatever you want to call it) to act as some score multiplier and give Crown, Cadets or whomever the edge. The problem with that is there's no such box on the judges' sheets. The judges can only evaluate achievement via execution. The content, in that respect, is irrelevant.

HH

Good observation. I'd compare it to Olympic ice skaers who think the only way they can win is with a move so complicated that they can't perform it cleanly and end up eating ice.

[glory]

I'm not sure the gymnastics scoring system can ever parallel what we do in drum corps. Drum corps is just too complicated. You can't set a difficulty factor for each component the way you can for a double this or a backward that with a twist. Also, in gymnastics, several judges evaluate a single gymnast. It's far easier for them to parse the elements of execution than it would be were they to judge 150 brass, drums and guard over as much as 100 yards.

HH