garfield Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I have a newfound understanding of "effect." Cheering, loud clapping, golf clapping, silence, booing, mouth open catching flies, are all effect. Apparently the only thing that's not effect would be dropping dead in the stands, although that's probably effect too. Just dying gets few points. But decapitation scores a lot higher. And spearing with a pike gets you a win. Seriously, actucker, let's consider two extremes for the point. Say a crowd sits on its hands for an entire show and shows no emotion to what's on the field, if it's a show designed to produce no reaction, the design gets high effect. If the crowd is on its feet, screaming, for the entire show when the designers meant for the whole show to be depressing (pick an adverb), it gets no points. Or is the judge completely insensitive to what's happening in the stands, as if the conversation includes only the corps and judge? How does the judge get to the point of knowing what the designers intended? Is it his judgement during the first viewing? Is it the explanation by staff before the show? Is it the recap argument afterwards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Just dying gets few points. But decapitation scores a lot higher. And spearing with a pike gets you a win. Seriously, actucker, let's consider two extremes for the point. Say a crowd sits on its hands for an entire show and shows no emotion to what's on the field, if it's a show designed to produce no reaction, the design gets high effect. If the crowd is on its feet, screaming, for the entire show when the designers meant for the whole show to be depressing (pick an adverb), it gets no points. Or is the judge completely insensitive to what's happening in the stands, as if the conversation includes only the corps and judge? How does the judge get to the point of knowing what the designers intended? Is it his judgement during the first viewing? Is it the explanation by staff before the show? Is it the recap argument afterwards? So who has the better effect? The show with the intent to produce no reaction and gets no reaction or the corps that sets out to get a wild and crazy standing ovation and gets a wild and crazy standing ovation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 So who has the better effect? The show with the intent to produce no reaction and gets no reaction or the corps that sets out to get a wild and crazy standing ovation and gets a wild and crazy standing ovation. If I'm understanding actucker correctly, both of your examples would get high effect scores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 So who has the better effect? The show with the intent to produce no reaction and gets no reaction or the corps that sets out to get a wild and crazy standing ovation and gets a wild and crazy standing ovation. both can..whoever does it better...and measured by criteria not just the emotion of a crowd that could or couldn't be making noise based on several things that could be a reason for applause..and all of which could have nothing to do with if the corps was good or not or even effective or not...that happens all the time.( no Im not mentioning which corps and start a firestorm . ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 So who has the better effect? The show with the intent to produce no reaction and gets no reaction or the corps that sets out to get a wild and crazy standing ovation and gets a wild and crazy standing ovation. Funny thing about that show designed to produce no reaction. If it's really good at producing no reaction, it may also produce future non-attendance. An activity that appears indifferent to its paying audience is either publicly funded, or, has a business model not developed by business people. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 If I'm understanding actucker correctly, both of your examples would get high effect scores. That's interesting because getting no reaction is ALOT easier than getting a wild and crazy reaction. In reality you need to judge that too... How difficult your intent is to produce. Leaving people in stupor while watching a drum corps show is not only really easy to achieve but its also something that shouldn't get rewarded, even if it is the intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) So who has the better effect? The show with the intent to produce no reaction and gets no reaction or the corps that sets out to get a wild and crazy standing ovation and gets a wild and crazy standing ovation. the corps who does it the best..either can achieve...and based on criteria. Audience can make noise for many reasons and many times has nothing to do with if the corps was better or even effective( which has happened many times and no Im not mentioning corps to start a firstorm ) Edited September 10, 2012 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actucker Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Just dying gets few points. But decapitation scores a lot higher. And spearing with a pike gets you a win. Seriously, actucker, let's consider two extremes for the point. Say a crowd sits on its hands for an entire show and shows no emotion to what's on the field, if it's a show designed to produce no reaction, the design gets high effect. If the crowd is on its feet, screaming, for the entire show when the designers meant for the whole show to be depressing (pick an adverb), it gets no points. Or is the judge completely insensitive to what's happening in the stands, as if the conversation includes only the corps and judge? How does the judge get to the point of knowing what the designers intended? Is it his judgement during the first viewing? Is it the explanation by staff before the show? Is it the recap argument afterwards? Again, the sheets don't necessarily concern themselves with the designers intent, only what the judges see on the field. Maybe what they see reflects what the designers wanted. Maybe not. Maybe how we interpret a book is how the author intended, and maybe not. What was intended is not important to pretty much anyone other than the corps and its designers. Having not been a DCI level judge, I can't comment on how sensitive or insensitive they are to what's going on in the stands. All I can comment on is what is on the sheets, and the sheets suggest that audience engagement is a part, but only a small one, of the criteria that a GE judge should be evaluating. Any conversation that goes on between the staff and the judges regarding intent would likely go on at critique. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 both can..whoever does it better...and measured by criteria not just the emotion of a crowd that could or couldn't be making noise based on several things that could be a reason for applause.. I think this is a really long way of saying.... the judges ignore the crowd. I agree with that completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Probably not my best choice of words. Sorry. The discussion on the table is regarding what effect really is, and how much that has to do with raw emotional reaction from the crowd. The conversation I've been having with several others is that crowd reaction, as it is typically characterized (baby throwing, standing ovations, loud cheering etc) is not the only result of an effective show. Again, not every show is designed to get that kind of reaction, nor should it be in my opinion. As I said before, 12 shows that are built for the same reaction would be boring. I've been reading the thread :-) In my experience, in ANY kind of performing arts production (whether it's a drama, ballet, musical, the symphony, or a rock concert) , the audience reaction at the end is a pretty good barometer of (a) the effectiveness of the 'design' and (b) how well the the performers communicated that 'design'. I agree that there are many different reactions a performance may try to elicit *during* a program. And I also agree that audience reactions may change from venue to venue. But in the performing arts, the audience is always the most important consideration. In fact if a production fails to connect with it's audience, the show closes! No tickets sales = no more show. (Drum corps is kind of unusual in that there are always a relatively large number of acts in the show). Conversely when a production is very successfully communicating with the audience, they will ALWAYS return vigorous applause. Even so-called "down" endings get the loud kickback (even if it does take some awkward number of seconds for the audience to determine that "yes -- that really was the end"). So I disagree that (in general) great effect might result in lukewarm applause. I don't want to see 12 cookie cutter shows either. We agree. I enjoy a show with lots of layers that may only be discovered through multiple views / listens. We agree again. But the general ordinary audience member must be able connect with the top (obvious) layer on the first viewing. There's nothing wrong with addressing the least common denominator -- it doesn't preclude you from having depth of design. A design which the general audience can't follow is IMHO a failure. It makes no difference if the "educated elite" understand and appreciate your masterpiece if grandma can't understand at it all. There needs to be an underlying logic to your visual and musical choices that allows the uninitiated viewer to understand your programming even if they miss every single other layer you've written into the production. FMPOV the effect judge is sort of the audience's elected representative. He may recognize and reward those deeper layers in your show, but if and only if those layers are part of a design which has captured and maintained the attention of the audience. If the general audience is confused by your production, if you've lost their attention and interest, if you fail to elicit an emotional response, the rest of those layers are irrelevant because you've failed in your primary responsibility: to take the audience with you wherever you decide to go. That fundamental layer -- "Oh, *I* get it" -- must be present before the rest of the stuff gets any credit at all. Does that mean an audience favorite should always win effect? Absolutely not. There are definitely "home town" crowds. Heck there are "dead" crowds which seem to be unmoved by any performance. Is the judge supposed to magically read the audience's collective mind? No. We're just kind of trusting the GE judge to always react honestly as an average audience member might react. It's not a perfect solution but it's the least offensive option that's available. It seems to me that many on DCP feel this trust has been violated, that perhaps judges are not even attempting to react as an average audience member might react. GE is problematic concept. But without it you risk encouraging shows which might be technically/artistically proficient but leave the audience with a blank look on their face. That's NOT a good thing for an activity that ultimately relies on people buying tickets. 2 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.