Hup234 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 So, the "need to evolve" thing seems to me to be an excuse made up to explain the constant tinkering and changing. Agreed. The old justify-and validate security blanket. It's comforting. Except that "need to evolve" can't explain or excuse the 90%+ decrease in sheer numbers since the DCI evolutionists ended the Golden Age. That particular ghost isn't as easily explained with "need to evolve", and so the stalwarts ignore it, just like a kid whistling past a graveyard. (Whoops ... wrong choice of words.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) the big issue with what youre asking is that enjoyment, entertainment, good, bad,like, dislikes are all subjective and will vary from show to show, and person to person. Fans can not be part of outcome because I think many things get in the way including the fact that most in a audience wont know or care about any criteriaand hopefully there just to enjoy and not analyze. I guess gone are the days of a spectator being just that......a spectator Well that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. But if you think that today's judging is NOT subjective, I couldn't disagree more. Fan enjoyment can be part of the outcome if DCI chooses to make it so. I think that's what they were trying to do with the "engagement" criteria, but, it seems to have missed the mark. Because, as I read so many times here..."engagement" became rationalized as "engaging the judges". If DCI had a different idea for what it's supposed to be, they should fix it. Edited September 5, 2012 by HockeyDad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Well that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. But if you think that today's judging is NOT subjective, I couldn't disagree more. Fans can be part of the outcome if DCI chooses to make it so. i never said judging wasnt subjective it actually is very subjective BUT at least they are trying to follow a criteria and hopefully with minimal bias to a corps or a style of personal taste as far as engaging..the words wre chosen carfully, thats for sure because engaging doesnt have to mean throwing babies as some like to say, it could be silence as well, it can be many things Edited September 5, 2012 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 engaging doesnt have to mean throwing babies as some like to say, it could be silence as well, Good point. We've had Corps win with substantial numbers in the audience providing stone cold silence after the performance. I noticed this in a theatre showing this year as a matter of fact. Most of the Corps got applause in the theatre after their performance was finished, but one high placing Corps received complete silence. But they did score well, so they did engage the judges rather well it appears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) engaging doesnt have to mean throwing babies as some like to say, it could be silence as well, Good point. We've had Corps win with substantial numbers in the audience providing stone cold silence after the performance. I noticed this in a theatre showing this year as a matter of fact. Most of the Corps got applause in the theatre after their performance was finished, ( but no babies were thrown into the aisles that I noticed ) ) but one high placing Corps received complete silence. But they did score highly, so they did engage the judges rather well it appears. Edited September 5, 2012 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 i never said judging wasnt subjective it actually is very subjective BUT at least they are trying to follow a criteria and hopefully with minimal bias to a corps or a style of personal taste as far as engaging..the words wre chosen carfully, thats for sure because engaging doesnt have to mean throwing babies as some like to say, it could be silence as well, it can be many things Yes, it CAN be silence or many things.....but is that what they intended?? Or were they looking for a way to include crowd appeal? I actually do not know the answer to that question. I suppose only Michael Cesario can answer it. The rest of us are speculating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Yes, it CAN be silence or many things.....but is that what they intended?? Or were they looking for a way to include crowd appeal? I actually do not know the answer to that question. I suppose only Michael Cesario can answer it. The rest of us are speculating. engaging is engaging....crowd appeal is something or could be something veryyyy different....one doesnt have to appeal to a crowd to have engaged them which can also make them , if techinical also the winning corps.......would a corps choose this route? sure why not..i know many winter programs that have written many successful programs NOT looking for the throw baby reaction Edited September 5, 2012 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 engaging is engaging....crowd appeal is something or could be something veryyyy different....one doesnt have to appeal to a crowd to have engaged them which can also make them , if techinical also the winning corps.......would a corps choose this route? sure why not..i know many winter programs that have written many successful programs NOT looking for the throw baby reaction Yeah, you don't know either, do you? If engaging is engaging the judges then there was no need to change the sheets, because functionally, the change had no effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actucker Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Let's not turn this into yet another thinly veiled conversation about whether or not the Blue Devils should have won. There are plenty of threads for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Yeah, you don't know either, do you? If engaging is engaging the judges then there was no need to change the sheets, because functionally, the change had no effect. no youre changing what i said....i didnt say engaging just the judges,...engaging anyone ..and shows do that...without baby throwin 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.