Judging Deficiencies

[garfield]

The reduced panels where agreed to by a vote of the Executive Directors of the member corps. What people forget is that most shows are now sponsored by indiviudal corps with many in a partnership with a local band booster group or other local civic group. The majority of the Tour Events Partners have stoped running shows because of the risks involved with running a local show.

DCI charges the show sponsor a fee that includes cost of judges, costs of corps and a show coordinator. So with a corps sponsred show DCI has an implied guarantee that they will get paid since they require the majority of the show expenses be paid in advance and DCI has leverage with the corps because have open accounts with the corps.

If it where not for many DCI corps running multiple shows there would be no DCI Tour. So as much as many dislike the present arrangements it is better than having fewer opporunities for the corps to perform.

Umm, no. No way. Not true. Hogwash.

From rationale to results, this post is just plain wrong.

[ShortAndFast]

Scores are only vaguely useful until all the corps are at the same contest. The DCI judging group is actually pretty consistent in broad strokes, but when you get down to details like "was that brass performance a 15.9 or a 16.2?" or "was that the 6th best brass performance in the country or the 8th best?", there's just no way to know until you have the same guy listen to all the lines on the same night and make his call.

So why spend extra $$ on judging that's of very little value to either the performers or the fans? There's plenty of time for full panels when everyone shows up at regionals in mid-July.

[dcifanforlife]

It is not about the fans but having money coming in on a regular schedule to a corps so they can pay the daily expenses of being on tour. The members and staff have to be feed whether it is a show day or not.

The real fans are the people that attend shows and buy the tickets. Most of the people on DCP just watch via the Fan Network a few shows and complain about the process. Go out and support the corps.

[MikeZ]

I don't understand what the problem is with the limited panels. The scores from the show in Cedarburg tonight mean absolutely nothing. As long as there is a full panel in place for the regionals, I'm fine with whatever happens before then. I understand that corps will want to get reads and feedback, but I would be fine with all of the June shows having no judges at all. It's not like Vanguard sees what cadets percussion score was on June 30 and then decided to make changes. I say lets save money and have less judges before the regionals.

Z

[fsubone]

The only thing I find weird is when there will be big score swings one night to another. I know different judges see things differently, but when a corps can swing 2 or 3 points in one night, or over a full point in a caption or sub-caption, it's a bit strange. I know none of it means anything until the first regional, but it is strange to see when looking at scores.

[Peel Paint]

Percussion staffs really don't need judges to find things for them to work on at this stage of the season. The staff already has a list of performance issues to work on. That's why the directors picked this as a place to cut judging costs early. What's most useful to the staff at this point is comments on effect, because sometimes judges perceive that differently than show designers. A reading on that early when it may do the most good is useful.

Do early numbers from six-corps shows really mean anything? Except in establishing the perimeters a corps is not likely to exceed or fall out of later in the season, nah.

[skywhopper]

Meh.

[skevinp]

Umm, no. No way. Not true. Hogwash.

I can't be sure, but it sounds like you might not be in complete agreement.

Edited July 4, 2013 by skevinp

[onceuponatime]

The season pretty much begins about the same time in all areas of the country, including California. The big difference is that corps from everywhere except areas of the west coast have abbreviated judging panels for their early season competitions. The abbreviated panels were quite simply a cost-saving measure, and since DCI is the corps, and the corps are DCI, apparently they thought it had to be done to remain financially solvent. The twist is that it doesn’t happen on the west coast. They have a full judging panel for all their shows from day one of the season. The reason for the disparity is simple. Out in California they pay for the extra judges themselves. Do the other corps directors around the country think this gives a corps competing in early California contests an unfair advantage? I don’t know. I never hear it mentioned by any of the other corps directors, which is kind of mystifying to me. They obviously know that full-panel exposure means that a corps would have the competitive advantage of knowing what’s working and what isn’t working from a full-panel judges perspective, in every caption, long before the other corps against whom they will be competing have had similar evaluations. I am surprised that these other corps don’t simply vote to require uniformity in judging panel structure regardless of where you are from, or whether you can afford to supplement the panels with your own bankrolls. If abbreviated panels are used in one area of the country, shouldn't they should be used in all areas of the country? The California corps obviously think the full-panel evaluations are important, or they wouldn't be funding them.

[corpsband]

I find it interesting that West Coast shows are willing to pay for full panels but the East / Midwest shows do not. If the full panel option is available (for an additional fee), is it DCI who should carry blame or the show sponsors? I don't know the answer -- just throwing the observation out there.