For Dinosaurs Only

[corpsband]

So let me get this straight, a show that is designed to garner crowd reaction, does, can be considered poor design because it works? Help me with this.

Can't wait to read the replies to this :-)

[actucker]

Do as you wish....doesn't matter. I think I was clear enough in my post about a phenomenon that occurs sometimes. And you were clear enough about misrepresenting it as if I claimed it happens all the time.

Right. Saying that major movement in placement doesn't happen outside of the first two shows because the judges have access to the recaps, and then calling for judges from outside the activity because competition has stagnated and outside judges "wouldn't be influenced by the previous night's recaps" just SCREAMS the word sometimes.

You were very clear with what you meant. You're just trying to soften that stance now because you know you can't back it up. I haven't twisted anything. You should go into politics.

[actucker]

Can't wait to read the replies to this :-)

Huge crowd reaction, and great design aren't always the same thing. A poorly designed show can get fantastic crowd reaction for a myriad of reasons. A really well designed show can get exactly the effect the designers are looking for and create a minimal reaction from the crowd.

The point is, a show doesn't have to get a huge standing ovation to be effective, and just because a show got a huge standing ovation doesn't mean it was well designed or executed. Please reference Jersey Surf as an example.

[Mello Dude]

Huge crowd reaction, and great design aren't always the same thing. A poorly designed show can get fantastic crowd reaction for a myriad of reasons. A really well designed show can get exactly the effect the designers are looking for and create a minimal reaction from the crowd.

The point is, a show doesn't have to get a huge standing ovation to be effective, and just because a show got a huge standing ovation doesn't mean it was well designed or executed. Please reference Jersey Surf as an example.

So, you are saying that a corps "could" design a show that would get no crowd reaction "because that is what they said they would shooting for" and that would be considered good design? So wouldn't the opposite be true as well?

So are you saying because Jersey Surf was trying to get crowd reaction with their show, did so and it worked, that was considered poor design?

Understand execution is something completely different from design.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Mello Dude

[actucker]

So, you are saying that a corps "could" design a show that would get no crowd reaction "because that is what they said they would shooting for" and that would be considered good design? So wouldn't the opposite be true as well? Understand execution is something completely different from design.

There is more to effect than simply how the crowd reacts. That's the point. There is also more than one way a crowd can react. Stunned silence is a pretty meaningful reaction, albeit not the traditional baby throwing. There's also effect garnered from "excellence as it relates to effect" (essentially doing really difficult, virtuosic or acrobatic things really well, and the effect that that generates). Take the Cavaliers tenor feature last year. Sure, it was gimmicky, but that doesn't stop it from being really difficult, and they did it really well. Tie that in with their theme of "XtraordinarY", and you get excellence as it relates to effect. There are tons of examples of this kind of thing.

That being said, a show that is solely designed for crowd reaction (Velvet Knights back in the day, Jersey Surf this year, Bridgemen of old) isn't necessarily the most effective thing on the field. Sometimes it is. Sometimes not. Again, there is more to effect than simple visceral emotional reaction.

The point is, a show doesn't have to make someone cry or throw babies to be effective, nor does a show doing those things necessarily trump a show that doesn't in effect.

And no, I'm not saying that Jersey Surf's show was poorly designed. However, it was not as well designed from an effect standpoint as some others, because again, emotional reaction isn't the entire sheet.

Edited September 9, 2012 by actucker

[Mello Dude]

There is more to effect than simply how the crowd reacts. That's the point. There is also more than one way a crowd can react. Stunned silence is a pretty meaningful reaction, albeit not the traditional baby throwing. There's also effect garnered from "excellence as it relates to effect" (essentially doing really difficult, virtuosic or acrobatic things really well, and the effect that that generates). Take the Cavaliers tenor feature last year. Sure, it was gimmicky, but that doesn't stop it from being really difficult, and they did it really well. Tie that in with their theme of "XtraordinarY", and you get excellence as it relates to effect. There are tons of examples of this kind of thing.

That being said, a show that is solely designed for crowd reaction (Velvet Knights back in the day, Jersey Surf this year, Bridgemen of old) isn't necessarily the most effective thing on the field. Sometimes it is. Sometimes not. Again, there is more to effect than simple visceral emotional reaction.

The point is, a show doesn't have to make someone cry or throw babies to be effective, nor does a show doing those things necessarily trump a show that doesn't in effect.

And no, I'm not saying that Jersey Surf's show was poorly designed. However, it was not as well designed from an effect standpoint as some others, because again, emotional reaction isn't the entire sheet.

There are many ways a crowd can react. Stunned silence in what way? Amazement, bewilderment, sadness, horrified etc? People generally come to an activity like a Drum Corps show to be entertained, or am I incorrect on this? Who is to measure the reaction? What are the guidelines and who dictates what is doing what it's supposed to do or are they simply being told what it is daily what it's supposed to be? I am trying to understand what you are getting at because music or a show that cannot get VAST amounts of emotion reaction in some way I think misses the point. Appreciating a show vs loving a show I suppose.

[corpsband]

Huge crowd reaction, and great design aren't always the same thing. A poorly designed show can get fantastic crowd reaction for a myriad of reasons. A really well designed show can get exactly the effect the designers are looking for and create a minimal reaction from the crowd.

The point is, a show doesn't have to get a huge standing ovation to be effective, and just because a show got a huge standing ovation doesn't mean it was well designed or executed. Please reference Jersey Surf as an example.

Why should any designer be rewarded for a show *designed* to get minimal crowd reaction ? This does not meet any definition of general effect I've ever seen (including the published DCI GE sheets).

Furthermore, is a show "designed" to get minimal crowd reaction what DCI wants to market as their product?

Edited September 9, 2012 by corpsband

[Mello Dude]

Why should any designer be rewarded for a show *designed* to get minimal crowd reaction ? This does not meet any definition of general effect I've ever seen (including the published DCI GE sheets).

Furthermore, is a show "designed" to get minimal crowd reaction what DCI wants to market as their product?

This.

[actucker]

There are many ways a crowd can react. Stunned silence in what way? Amazement, bewilderment, sadness, horrified etc? People generally come to an activity like a Drum Corps show to be entertained, or am I incorrect on this? Who is to measure the reaction? What are the guidelines and who dictates what is doing what it's supposed to do or are they simply being told what it is daily what it's supposed to be? I am trying to understand what you are getting at because music or a show that cannot get VAST amounts of emotion reaction in some way I think misses the point. Appreciating a show vs loving a show I suppose.

Stunned silence can be a result of any of those things you described, and if that's the reaction the corps was going for, then they achieved that goal.

Nobody measures crowd reaction. The judges judge the show as they see it. People often misunderstand general effect as if its supposed to be some barometer of crowd reaction. The word effect does not refer to how it effects the crowd. The effect on the crowd is simply a symptom of a show with good compositional effect and execution. The problem with trying to gauge crowd reaction is that you will get different reactions based on crowd bias. The Madison Scouts would never, ever lose general effect in Wisconsin ever again. The same could be said for Carolina Crown at Night Beat. Is that fair judging? Allowing a crowd that has loyalties and fandom dictate results on the sheet?

The issue here is, most people interpret general effect as solely a product of the design. The fact is, that's only half the sheet. The effect sheets are split into two sets of criteria. One is Repertoire Effect, where you see things like "crowd engagement" (notice it doesn't say anything about reaction), audio and visual coordination, interpretation, variety of effects, artistry. The other half of the sheet is evaluating the performer, and how they relate to effect. Things like, "engaging the audience" (again, no mention of reaction), delivered and or sustained effects, embodied or sustained character or role, communicated detail/nuance.

Half of that score is generated by how well the performer handles the composition (not unlike the rest of the sheets).

Nowhere on either side of the sheet does it mention what kind of effects should be performed. Nowhere does it say what character or role need be performed. Its simply evaluating the intent of the show, and how well the performers are realizing that intent. Even the word "engaging" doesn't necessarily mean emotional reaction, and its only one of several criteria on each side of the sheet. There's been a lot of discussion as of late regarding the fact that a show can be engaging without necessarily being emotional.

Sure, most of the crowd goes to be entertained, but what entertains one, doesn't necessarily entertain the other. There were certainly shows on the field that I thought were entertaining, and others that I didn't. There were shows that I thought were entertaining, and others didn't, and vice versa. There were even shows that didn't make me jump up and down cheering, that I thought were very entertaining and engaging.

For you, clearly a huge emotional reaction is what you find entertaining. Not everyone feels that way. I like emotionally charged shows, but I also like shows with a lot of subtlety and layers of artistry. I also like shows that challenge me as a spectator, whether that be a show that is exploring things I hadn't seen or heard before, or a concept that is more complex than I can understand on one read. That is all entertaining to me.

That diversity of intent, and show design is part of what makes drum corps able to reach as wide an audience as it does. If all of the corps were to approach effect the same way, you would lose all of the fans that don't find those shows entertaining. Sure, all of those shows would be effective, but the fan base would shrink. Entertainment value, or even visceral emotional reaction however, is not a good way to determine placement, or even a good barometer of effect as it is currently defined. Entertainment value, and effect are two different things.

[actucker]

Why should any designer be rewarded for a show *designed* to get minimal crowd reaction ? This does not meet any definition of general effect I've ever seen (including the published DCI GE sheets).

Furthermore, is a show "designed" to get minimal crowd reaction what DCI wants to market as their product?

Not minimal crowd reaction. Different crowd reaction. Again, baby throwing isn't the only kind of reaction possible.