hostrauser Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Opening statement: It is my opinion that in modern DCI visual achievement is both valued higher than and rewarded more than musical achievement by the current judging system. Part of this, I suppose, is understandable. Most of the musical instruments used in a DCI show have been around (in one form or another) for hundreds of years. There's a very defined baseline, a very specific set of expectations for performance on each instrument. From tuning to intonation to phrasing, there's a pretty well-established scale to decide what is great versus what is merely good. The expectation of musical CONTENT in a show has changed, but the expectation of musical performance technique has not (or, at least, not changed drastically). On the other hand, the majority of techniques used in the visual aspect of the activity--from body carriage to lower body transitions, from flag angles to form on weapons tosses--are relatively newer. Indeed, many visual aspects of DCI have been developed or evolved from older forms over the last twenty or thirty years. The visual expectations for a drum and bugle corps show is constantly evolving. Every few years, imperceptibly, the expectations slowly morph into something slightly newer and different from what came before. In my opinion, since the activity itself is pretty much setting the visual standards and expectations for performance (with and without equipment), this leads to over-rewarding and over-scoring visual achievement. The numbers bear this out... Number of corps to have a total visual score of 29.65 or higher since the new judging system was adopted in 2000: 11. Number of corps to have total music score of 29.65 or higher in that same span: 1. (Cadets 2005) Number of 19.8s or higher given out in the visual sub-captions since 2000: 33. Number of 19.8s or higher given out in the music sub-captions since 2000: 16. Number of perfect 20.0s given out in visual sub-captions since 2000: 7. Number of perfect 20.0s given out in music sub-captions since 2000: 1. (Cavaliers 2002 Music Ensemble) ***** The consequences of this is that any corps that chooses focus on musical performance more than visual performance is facing what almost amounts to a 0.25 point penalty in their journey to the top... Average Visual Score of Top 5, last five seasons: 29.130 2012: 29.010 2011: 29.040 2010: 29.100 2009: 29.250 2008: 29.250 Average Musical Score of Top 5, last five seasons: 28.876 2012: 28.720 2011: 28.870 2010: 28.850 2009: 28.980 2008: 28.960 **** This focus on visual achievement has also led to a return to DCI dynasties, where the corps who take advantage of the judging system monopolize the top of the standings. This has always been a problem of varying degree within the activity, but the current expectations have only exacerbated the issue. Over the past 20 years, the corps that emphasized visual excellence (Blue Devils, Cavaliers, to a lesser extent The Cadets) rose to monopolize the top of the standings, while corps that emphasized musical excellence (Phantom, Vanguard, Glassmen/Bluecoats/Carolina Crown/Flavor of the Decade) struggled to reach the medal stand (even if there was a long corps history of being a perennial contender; it's worth noting that Phantom and Vanguard combined for seven Top 3 finishes and two titles in the 1990s, four Top 3 finishes and one title in the 2000s, and so far only one Top 3 finish in the 2010s). Consider: from 1985 through 1996, there were NO repeat champions in DCI. NONE. And only two corps won twice in three years. From 1997-2012 there have been four repeat champions, and there have been TEN instances of the having the same champion twice in a three-year span. When you look at the three most recent DCI Dynasties, again the numbers bear out the visual emphasis... Blue Devils 2007-2012 First in 13 of 18 (72%) visual sub-captions First in 8 of 18 (44%) music sub-captions Cavaliers 2000-2006 First in 10 of 21 (48%) visual sub-captions First in 6 of 21 (29%) music sub-captions Blue Devils 1994-1999 First in 9 of 12 (75%) visual sub-captions (ensemble and performance) First in 8 of 18 (44%) music sub-captions (ensemble and performance) ***** That said, even in those dynastic spans other corps crashed the party. However, when that DID happen, even then it was usually upon the strength of visual achievement that led them to the top... For the 20-year span covering 1992-2011*: The corps that scored highest in Visual Performance at Finals: 15 of 20 won DCI Championship (75%). The corps that scored highest in Brass Performance at Finals: 11 of 20 won DCI Championship (55%). The corps that scored highest in Percussion Performance at Finals: 9 of 20 won DCI Championship (45%). (* 2012 was left out due to my uncertainty as to how to classify the redefined visual subcaptions.) ***** Now, am I suggesting (another) complete overhaul of the DCI judging system? Certainly not. But I do think the visual criteria needs to be overhauled to level the playing field between musical and visual achievement. Visual excellence is currently the key to DCI Titles, and it takes a once-a-decade Musical performance (Phantom Regiment 2008) to ascend the summit without visual dominance also backing you up. My thoughts. Yours? Edited February 5, 2013 by hostrauser 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed post. I think it comes down to expectations for the judges. If the visual judges are consistently giving out higher scores than the music judges, then some reworking needs to be done. How about embracing the fact that the scores are relative and normalizing them to a max value after the scores have been assigned. You could do that per caption or across broader groupings. If you normalized to 10.0 in each subcaption, then a corps who won all captions across the board would get a 100.00 final score, which would probably bug people, but so does the current system bug people. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyGranite Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Opening statement ~snipped~ (I didn't mean to quote your whole post) My thoughts. Yours? A wonderful presentation. I thank you for going through the word involved to construct it.I'll have to leave the analysis, interpretation and judgment of your presentation to others who have more knowledge of past and present DCI judging. It is clear, though, that DCI does place more emphasis on visual than performance now-a-days. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing, I think, is up to subjective opinion. Personally, I don't have such an opinion. When I go to see a show, I'm more concerned with the entertainment value that I get. I think visual plays a greater role in that respect. From a Corps' point of view, though, I suspect they realize what you've shown and design their shows accordingly. Edited February 5, 2013 by RockyGranite 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Opening statement: It is my opinion that in modern DCI visual achievement is both valued higher than and rewarded more than musical achievement by the current judging system. Part of this, I suppose, is understandable. Most of the musical instruments used in a DCI show have been around (in one form or another) for hundreds of years. There's a very defined baseline, a very specific set of expectations for performance on each instrument. From tuning to intonation to phrasing, there's a pretty well-established scale to decide what is great versus what is merely good. The expectation of musical CONTENT in a show has changed, but the expectation of musical performance technique has not (or, at least, not changed drastically). On the other hand, the majority of techniques used in the visual aspect of the activity--from body carriage to lower body transitions, from flag angles to form on weapons tosses--are relatively newer. Indeed, many visual aspects of DCI have been developed or evolved from older forms over the last twenty or thirty years. The visual expectations for a drum and bugle corps show is constantly evolving. Every few years, imperceptibly, the expectations slowly morph into something slightly newer and different from what came before. In my opinion, since the activity itself is pretty much setting the visual standards and expectations for performance (with and without equipment), this leads to over-rewarding and over-scoring visual achievement. The numbers bear this out... Number of corps to have a total visual score of 29.65 or higher since the new judging system was adopted in 2000: 11. Number of corps to have total music score of 29.65 or higher in that same span: 1. (Cadets 2005) Number of 19.8s or higher given out in the visual sub-captions since 2000: 33. Number of 19.8s or higher given out in the music sub-captions since 2000: 16. Number of perfect 20.0s given out in visual sub-captions since 2000: 7. Number of perfect 20.0s given out in music sub-captions since 2000: 1. (Cavaliers 2002 Music Ensemble) ***** The consequences of this is that any corps that chooses focus on musical performance more than visual performance is facing what almost amounts to a 0.25 point penalty in their journey to the top... Average Visual Score of Top 5, last five seasons: 29.130 2012: 29.010 2011: 29.040 2010: 29.100 2009: 29.250 2008: 29.250 Average Musical Score of Top 5, last five seasons: 28.876 2012: 28.720 2011: 28.870 2010: 28.850 2009: 28.980 2008: 28.960 **** This focus on visual achievement has also led to a return to DCI dynasties, where the corps who take advantage of the judging system monopolize the top of the standings. This has always been a problem of varying degree within the activity, but the current expectations have only exacerbated the issue. Over the past 20 years, the corps that emphasized visual excellence (Blue Devils, Cavaliers, to a lesser extent The Cadets) rose to monopolize the top of the standings, while corps that emphasized musical excellence (Phantom, Vanguard, Glassmen/Bluecoats/Carolina Crown/Flavor of the Decade) struggled to reach the medal stand (even if there was a long corps history of being a perennial contender; it's worth noting that Phantom and Vanguard combined for seven Top 3 finishes and two titles in the 1990s, four Top 3 finishes and one title in the 2000s, and so far only one Top 3 finish in the 2010s). Consider: from 1985 through 1996, there were NO repeat champions in DCI. NONE. And only two corps won twice in three years. From 1997-2012 there have been four repeat champions, and there have been TEN instances of the having the same champion twice in a three-year span. When you look at the three most recent DCI Dynasties, again the numbers bear out the visual emphasis... Blue Devils 2007-2012 First in 13 of 18 (72%) visual sub-captions First in 8 of 18 (44%) music sub-captions Cavaliers 2000-2006 First in 10 of 21 (48%) visual sub-captions First in 6 of 21 (29%) music sub-captions Blue Devils 1994-1999 First in 9 of 12 (75%) visual sub-captions (ensemble and performance) First in 8 of 18 (44%) music sub-captions (ensemble and performance) ***** That said, even in those dynastic spans other corps crashed the party. However, when that DID happen, even then it was usually upon the strength of visual achievement that led them to the top... For the 20-year span covering 1992-2011*: The corps that scored highest in Visual Performance at Finals: 15 of 20 won DCI Championship (75%). The corps that scored highest in Brass Performance at Finals: 11 of 20 won DCI Championship (55%). The corps that scored highest in Percussion Performance at Finals: 9 of 20 won DCI Championship (45%). (* 2012 was left out due to my uncertainty as to how to classify the redefined visual subcaptions.) ***** Now, am I suggesting (another) complete overhaul of the DCI judging system? Certainly not. But I do think the visual criteria needs to be overhauled to level the playing field between musical and visual achievement. Visual excellence is currently the key to DCI Titles, and it takes a once-a-decade Musical performance (Phantom Regiment 2008) to ascend the summit without visual dominance also backing you up. My thoughts. Yours? Uh, WOW. Pretty thorough academic reading post. If I only had the energy.... My goodness, I've got my Master's Degree now; can't I just come on here for fun? ( I kid, good thesis) I chose Visual Achievement with the knowledge that my idea of "Visual Achievement" is probably different than for others. This is a topic that comes up in various forms on here over and over. It seems that most of the musical meat is now put in the pit for most corps so that higher visual achievement may be obtained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan9 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Hostrauser, you are a veritable cornucopia or DCI knowledge and measurement. I won't challenge your data...who could? However, suggesting that the scales need to be balanced away from visual toward music is waaaay too simplistic. Afterall, without visual, DCI is just band. The only way I can compare what you suggest here is to ask you an opinion. Fred Astaire was a well known song and dance man. Most would agree that his voice and acting were just OK, as a matter of fact (IMO) he would never have been selected by a producer to just sing, if he hadn't already been a well known genius dancer. You could really say the same thing about Gene Kelly. For you youngen's, look them up on wikipedia! Anyway, here's my question to you: When these two guys were popular (including the critics....i.e. judges) how do you think they were weighing their performances.... the music, the dancing or both equal? I suggest to you....it wasn't even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I agree with the OP, the scale is tilted towards the visual, but based on the evidence, it seems to be more of an issue, not with the sheets, but with how the judges fill them out. In essence, they're scoring the corps too high when compared to music judges. Or music judges are scoring corps too low... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hostrauser Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Hostrauser, you are a veritable cornucopia or DCI knowledge and measurement. I won't challenge your data...who could? However, suggesting that the scales need to be balanced away from visual toward music is waaaay too simplistic. Afterall, without visual, DCI is just band. The only way I can compare what you suggest here is to ask you an opinion. Fred Astaire was a well known song and dance man. Most would agree that his voice and acting were just OK, as a matter of fact (IMO) he would never have been selected by a producer to just sing, if he hadn't already been a well known genius dancer. You could really say the same thing about Gene Kelly. For you youngen's, look them up on wikipedia! Anyway, here's my question to you: When these two guys were popular (including the critics....i.e. judges) how do you think they were weighing their performances.... the music, the dancing or both equal? I suggest to you....it wasn't even close. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, though. Both men were VISUAL performers who used music as a supporting device. There was never intended to be a balance (for example: how many times would you be willing to just LISTEN to "Make Em Laugh" without watching Donald O'Connor's frantic physical comedy that accompanies the song?) Yes, I suppose this is a matter of philosophy for the activity: is DCI a visual medium with music for support? Or is it a musical medium with visual support? Or should both be essential? Naturally the last choice should be the GOAL. But there is no right answer between the first two as far as personal preference goes. I think DCI began as a musical medium with visual support (look at "the olden days" when corps would just stand in place and PLAY for a section of their show) and, as a musical mind myself, that is my personal preference (I stopped buying DVDs a few years ago, but still get CDs and APDs every year). Mike hit closest to my point: it's not that visual is not important to DCI, it's that--right now at least--it's too easy for visual to be made MORE important than music in the overall score. It could be sheets problem (are the criteria too loose, allowing judges to justifiably toss out 19.9s and 20.0s every year?), or it could be a judging problem (are they just getting carried away?). IMO, something needs to be fixed, though, because I see a distinct imbalance. PS: Gene Kelly and I share a birthday (August 23rd). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I agree with the OP, the scale is tilted towards the visual, but based on the evidence, it seems to be more of an issue, not with the sheets, but with how the judges fill them out. In essence, they're scoring the corps too high when compared to music judges. Or music judges are scoring corps too low... Mike I'm with Mike. Taking it one step further, it seems to me the major difference between visual and music scoring reflects the approach to the subcaptions. The visual category doesn't have the unique criteria to distinguish the subcaptions the way brass v. drums does. What I'm saying is the visual subcaptions seem to overlap more significantly than the music subcaptions (where only ensemble links brass and drums). More generally, excellent analysis Hostrauser. You've provided the data to confirm what many of us have been thinking. Loved it. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Hostrauser, you are a veritable cornucopia or DCI knowledge and measurement. I won't challenge your data...who could? However, suggesting that the scales need to be balanced away from visual toward music is waaaay too simplistic. Afterall, without visual, DCI is just band. Without music, DCI is just wandering around on a football field in silly clothes throwing sticks. The fact that visual and music are supposed to have equal weight is established in the scoring, which allots each 50% of the overall score, so your questions about dancers is moot. In any case, Fred wasn't playing the music as he danced. Corps do both at once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gak27 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 It could be sheets problem (are the criteria too loose, allowing judges to justifiably toss out 19.9s and 20.0s every year?), or it could be a judging problem (are they just getting carried away?). IMO, something needs to be fixed, though, because I see a distinct imbalance. I'm wondering if part of this is due to the relative/perceived weight that "execution" plays in each of the categories. On the surface, the music caption(s) would tend to be affected more by "execution-type" evaluation (tics, difficulty, tangible stuff) whereas visual caption(s) would tend to be affected more by "choreographic-type" evaluation. Using gymnastics as an example :lookaround:/> I would venture to say that more markdowns/less buildups occur in the technical categories than the artistic ones. 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.