For Dinosaurs Only

[corpsband]

i hear what youre saying but when words like MOST of the audience, m,ajority, I dont buy it. Maybe I travel in circles that feel very differnt than whats on news groups. I think alot of the negativity with people is not that it doesnt get through but not liking or buying the TYPE of show...it drill varies from lines,files,arcs and speed and a corps decides staging is the way to go, people dont like it, if props are used to enhance a show, some dont like it, #### if a corps chages a plume color, people dont like it.

Our activity for sure is very subjective although the tic system was even worse. I do agree with you that audience should never be involved in a #..there would be no way to figure from show to show how to attact a # given by spectators

i understand designers who don't want to be beholden to an audience. they want to pursue their vision and explore untested waters.

that's fine and laudable and i fully encourage it. but the adjudicator needs to be able to say " i see what you're doing but...no -- you've lost the audience". if you're gonna go out on a limb, the limb needs to be allowed to break. otherwise you're not really going out on a limb at all.

i ignore most of the silliness i see here with regards to taste (your plume example). but i think there's also a legitimate perception underlying a lot of the comments. interestingly enough michael gray talks about this very thing in the latest roundtable podcast with his "grand ma" rule. if granny can tell you what the show was about, you win. if she says "oh -- that was the green band" -- you failed.

you can be as sophisticated as you like but you still need to address the "average fan" . ive seen many shows i don't particularly like (taste) but some of those shows still "worked". i generally despise narration (no matter how you spin it, it's a crutch !) but ive seen shows with narration that work -- really well -- even if i didnt care for it at all. taste is not the same as good design.

i think dci judges are too timid. put those same judges in front of high school units and they're more than willing to say "no -- that doesn't work". but in dci suddenly boring the audience to tears is 'exploring boundaries'. in MB you might hear "that's over-arranged -- let the original music speak" but in DCI it's "innovation". 'it's ok if the audience doesn't get it -- they're just ignorant morons'.

as for staging -- a stadium is not a gym. there are really substantial physical differences and some things DON'T translate. i'm all for cross-pollination -- i think it's actually really cool. but not everything translates. anyway i think using the word staging as the opposite of drill is really misleading. the absence of drill is not the same as staging. lots of great staging has "drill" behind it.

[cixelsyd]

crowds dont think a corps won to many times? are you kidding? where have you been...just read back on a thousand BD pages...

I have. Just a few days ago, you were agreeing with someone who said DCP posters do not represent the majority of drum corps fans. Now today they suddenly do, if it suits your argument?

please a crowd? now how are you going to decide this by applause? I know band programs that are horrible that get huge applause, some even train their parent where to scream in a show..

No, an applause meter would not be sufficient. There are several better ideas. Either paper ballots or a geographically-limited cell phone app would enable fans attending the show to provide input. You could even present them with "criteria", if it makes you feel better.

your line about overcoming bias and staying home is great I guess you never sepent thousands to do this other wise you wouldnt want your fate decided on a whim and with no criteria......you 1st paragraph...now what does that or them have to do with anything?

Some of those ideas coming from the G7 basically proposed to decide the fate of their corps versus other corps on a whim, and with little or no criteria.

[GUARDLING]

i understand designers who don't want to be beholden to an audience. they want to pursue their vision and explore untested waters.

that's fine and laudable and i fully encourage it. but the adjudicator needs to be able to say " i see what you're doing but...no -- you've lost the audience". if you're gonna go out on a limb, the limb needs to be allowed to break. otherwise you're not really going out on a limb at all.

i ignore most of the silliness i see here with regards to taste (your plume example). but i think there's also a legitimate perception underlying a lot of the comments. interestingly enough michael gray talks about this very thing in the latest roundtable podcast with his "grand ma" rule. if granny can tell you what the show was about, you win. if she says "oh -- that was the green band" -- you failed.

you can be as sophisticated as you like but you still need to address the "average fan" . ive seen many shows i don't particularly like (taste) but some of those shows still "worked". i generally despise narration (no matter how you spin it, it's a crutch !) but ive seen shows with narration that work -- really well -- even if i didnt care for it at all. taste is not the same as good design.

i think dci judges are too timid. put those same judges in front of high school units and they're more than willing to say "no -- that doesn't work". but in dci suddenly boring the audience to tears is 'exploring boundaries'. in MB you might hear "that's over-arranged -- let the original music speak" but in DCI it's "innovation". 'it's ok if the audience doesn't get it -- they're just ignorant morons'.

as for staging -- a stadium is not a gym. there are really substantial physical differences and some things DON'T translate. i'm all for cross-pollination -- i think it's actually really cool. but not everything translates. anyway i think using the word staging as the opposite of drill is really misleading. the absence of drill is not the same as staging. lots of great staging has "drill" behind it.

im not disagreeing at all BUT I will say knowing every judge I can tell you THEY werent bored at all...and I will also say that in a social setting I cant tell you the many many people that go up to them and say..its cool you have to guts to put so and so ahead ( and deserving ) and NOT to listen to some who may or may not be stuck in 1 way of thinking.....now, this I witnessed myself many times, So maybe that in itself could be a problem. Many judges do believe in the products that some dont as well as encouraging something other than rehashed, re- angled over done shows or music......maybe people arent honest for whatever reason face to face ..who knows BUT i do know for a fact that many judges do feel that something obscure has just as much merrit and needs a knod to move forward in the activity as well as something familiar can also get a knod....so when you balance things out......lets say corps A loses in the connection dept...but excells in the excellence dept and the development department, etc etc.....BUT corps B really connects on some level to an audience but falls somewhat short in those other areas....which holds more weight?...i think this is what you may have seen this year..IF all things were equal there might have been a different outcome and many would be prasing the process as well as the judges decisions........

[GUARDLING]

I have. Just a few days ago, you were agreeing with someone who said DCP posters do not represent the majority of drum corps fans. Now today they suddenly do, if it suits your argument?

No, an applause meter would not be sufficient. There are several better ideas. Either paper ballots or a geographically-limited cell phone app would enable fans attending the show to provide input. You could even present them with "criteria", if it makes you feel better.

Some of those ideas coming from the G7 basically proposed to decide the fate of their corps versus other corps on a whim, and with little or no criteria.

we werent taking about the G7 and if you want to go back to that stuff theres plenty of criteria ( in their eyes ) that was presented.

Now you cant get a handful of judges to agree with what some audience think, now you expect a few thousand to get it right.....ok let me know how that works out. I dont remember saying at all DCP represents any majority....it doesnt at all, not a fraction.....so If i said that maybe you didnt understand my point , wherever it was or I didnt explain whatever I was saying correctly

[Jeff Ream]

And then there's Jersey Shore and Honey Boo Boo. It seems a large portion of the population is engaged by absolute crap.....

well then that explains some scores the last few years

[Jeff Ream]

the same way you account for judges who just aren't buying what you're selling. there's no absolutely no difference :-\

anyhow i don't think the audience should be directly contributing to the number -- it's just too unreliable.

i do think designers who "lose" the audience should get an "F" in general effect. the INTENT of the caption is to prevent corps from presenting programs which might be technically proficient but do not appeal to the general audience. note this means fan in the stands -- not judge in the stands.

the criteria on the effect sheets are designed to assist the adjudicator in evaluating something that nearly everyone understands but almost no one can quite describe in words ie. a show that connects with an audience. unfortunately those descriptors have REPLACED the nebulous concept and it's entirely possible to design shows which satisfy the sheets but completely miss on the connection. it's a classic example of the LETTER of the law eclipsing the SPIRIT of the law.

if most of the audience doesn't "GET" a show on the first read, IMHO the designer has completely failed. note: that does not exclude the idea that upon multiple viewings the program can reveal layers of design that might be missed on the first viewing.

does that mean that some "ART" might be bad drum corps design ? yes it does. a football field is not a fine arts gallery.

[Jeff Ream]

i hear what youre saying but when words like MOST of the audience, m,ajority, I dont buy it. Maybe I travel in circles that feel very differnt than whats on news groups. I think alot of the negativity with people is not that it doesnt get through but not liking or buying the TYPE of show...it drill varies from lines,files,arcs and speed and a corps decides staging is the way to go, people dont like it, if props are used to enhance a show, some dont like it, #### if a corps chages a plume color, people dont like it.

Our activity for sure is very subjective although the tic system was even worse. I do agree with you that audience should never be involved in a #..there would be no way to figure from show to show how to attact a # given by spectators

I agree with some of what you say here, but I also agree with corpsband.

Effect is made up of the triad of effect, the intellectual, the emotional and the aesthetic. If one follows the new sheets, to be really box 5, you should have all 3 in liberal doses, and you don't see that reflected in the shows. You havean overabundance of the intellectual, and a sprinkling of the emotional and aesthetic. Yet it seems that intellect rules all in the sheets that account for 40% of the score, yet seem to cause the most controversy and almost always end up calling the show.

[Jeff Ream]

i understand designers who don't want to be beholden to an audience. they want to pursue their vision and explore untested waters.

that's fine and laudable and i fully encourage it. but the adjudicator needs to be able to say " i see what you're doing but...no -- you've lost the audience". if you're gonna go out on a limb, the limb needs to be allowed to break. otherwise you're not really going out on a limb at all.

i ignore most of the silliness i see here with regards to taste (your plume example). but i think there's also a legitimate perception underlying a lot of the comments. interestingly enough michael gray talks about this very thing in the latest roundtable podcast with his "grand ma" rule. if granny can tell you what the show was about, you win. if she says "oh -- that was the green band" -- you failed.

you can be as sophisticated as you like but you still need to address the "average fan" . ive seen many shows i don't particularly like (taste) but some of those shows still "worked". i generally despise narration (no matter how you spin it, it's a crutch !) but ive seen shows with narration that work -- really well -- even if i didnt care for it at all. taste is not the same as good design.

i think dci judges are too timid. put those same judges in front of high school units and they're more than willing to say "no -- that doesn't work". but in dci suddenly boring the audience to tears is 'exploring boundaries'. in MB you might hear "that's over-arranged -- let the original music speak" but in DCI it's "innovation". 'it's ok if the audience doesn't get it -- they're just ignorant morons'.

as for staging -- a stadium is not a gym. there are really substantial physical differences and some things DON'T translate. i'm all for cross-pollination -- i think it's actually really cool. but not everything translates. anyway i think using the word staging as the opposite of drill is really misleading. the absence of drill is not the same as staging. lots of great staging has "drill" behind it.

[GUARDLING]

I agree with some of what you say here, but I also agree with corpsband.

Effect is made up of the triad of effect, the intellectual, the emotional and the aesthetic. If one follows the new sheets, to be really box 5, you should have all 3 in liberal doses, and you don't see that reflected in the shows. You havean overabundance of the intellectual, and a sprinkling of the emotional and aesthetic. Yet it seems that intellect rules all in the sheets that account for 40% of the score, yet seem to cause the most controversy and almost always end up calling the show.

the sheet or triad can be seperate in itself you can have more of one of the 3 than another...it also can as you say be equal all around....like in any judging situation...who had more of what.should be winning.as far as wheather you see it reflected in the shows....that becomes opinion as well as subjective and very much not understood by many judges at times let alone the average spectator, now thats not to say that there arent many spectators very educated in the activity, even by todays standard BUT that doesnt mean people get how it all fits together...thats a debate by judges let alone the public

Edited September 5, 2012 by GUARDLING

[actucker]

I agree with some of what you say here, but I also agree with corpsband.

Effect is made up of the triad of effect, the intellectual, the emotional and the aesthetic. If one follows the new sheets, to be really box 5, you should have all 3 in liberal doses, and you don't see that reflected in the shows. You havean overabundance of the intellectual, and a sprinkling of the emotional and aesthetic. Yet it seems that intellect rules all in the sheets that account for 40% of the score, yet seem to cause the most controversy and almost always end up calling the show.

I agree in principle. That's a really good way to put it (intellectual, emotional and aesthetic). I disagree with your assessment of the shows however. BD, Crown, Cadets, Phantom, Bluecoats etc all had their share of all three. The problem is, there is a pretty narrow view of what aesthetic or emotional effect should be. If a show doesn't give someone goosebumps, its not considered emotionally effective. Some of the afore mentioned shows did just that. Some others appealed to other emotions, such as anger, confusion, wonder, surprise, etc. As for Aesthetic, you had christmas gifts, hula hoops, hobby horses, 7 sets of timpani, snowflakes, masks, beheadings, and flat out crazy running all over the field. What exactly about that lacks aesthetic effect?