Jump to content

Sanford trophy vs. DCI ring


Sanford trophy vs. DCI ring  

55 members have voted

  1. 1. from a percussionists perspective which is more praiseworthy than the other

    • DCI World Class first place corps
    • Fred Sanford trophy for best World Class percussion section


Recommended Posts

A subjective 'opinion' shared by many in the drum corps community this past season

But a subjective opinion nonetheless. Many think the way you do: that they they were the best of the best sir, but some well respected and well educated people might hold a different opinion; and the only way to determine the best on any given show is to agree that the person on the field judging, in this case Prosperie, has final say in the matter. If the 2013 Atlanta judge, Rothe, who placed them 3rd in Atlanta had been judging Finals he may well have placed them 3rd or 2nd; that would not make him wrong it would just make it his educated 'opinion' in which you would probably disagree. The World Record for the 100 meter dash is 9.58 seconds held by Usain Bolt; that is an absolute objective fact in which nobody, unless delusional, can contest. However, the Cadets percussion receiving a 19.8/20.0 and winning the Sanford is the educated opinion by Prosperie as well as many others. But opposed to the 100 meter dash record it is not delusional to disagree with Prosperie's rating and ranking because the score was based on his educated subjective opinion not shear objective fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd rather not win a ring, nor a Sanford, nor an Ott.

In the early days, no medals or rings were issued. A performer only received a trinket & patch with the DCI logo in the design for that particular year that only had on it "Finalist"

The reason the caption trophies are named is only because these guys passed away. It was heart-breaking.

Competing for the DCI Champion title, and the High Percussion, or the High Brass, now that I'd prefer, as then, Jim and Fred would still be with us, and the focus was more on being in finals.

I always considered the overall title more important than the caption. I will also admit how wonderful it felt to sweep all captions finals night.

Edited by c mor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason the caption trophies are named is only because these guys passed away. It was heart-breaking.

Competing for the DCI Champion title, and the High Percussion, or the High Brass, now that I'd prefer, as then, Jim and Fred would still be with us...

The Heisman, The Lombardi, The Cy Young, The Stanley, The Sanford, The Ott, The Brazale, are all named after very influential people in those respected fields and done as an honor and tribute to the influence they had on each of those activities. And while we may wish those people were still alive today, or some may wish to go back in time, that is an impossibility; and thus I for one am completely fine in honoring those people by naming specific awards after them.

... and the focus was more on being in finals.

Ummmm... maybe for the bounce in and out of the finals corps the focus was being in finals just like it is today; but even back in the day for The Blue Devils, SCV, Garfield, etc... the focus was on 'winning' finals not 'making' finals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The converse of your statement is that anyone who did not win the 'Ott', or 'Sanford', did not do their job as individuals and did not max out their own individual performances. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am positive that each and every performer on the field at DCI is 'doing their job by maxing out their own individual performance'. And it is the opinion of the judges, all of them, which determines 'the best' on any given caption award; and no matter the caption, their opinion is always beyond your control.

C'mon Stu, that's not what I meant and you know it. The operative was "individual", i.e., what motivated me to go the Red Team that year in the first place. I went to the Red Team because at the time they were one of the acknowleged leaders in the marching & maneuvering realm, and I wanted to contribute my talents towards that because while I was a very good horn player, I was a better marcher. Judges don't control your toe lift, or your backup technique, etc., I do (did). I graciously thanked WD for his invite to march BD in '82 ('81 had a lot of age outs, I was told) but passed to stay with the Associate level corps I was with at the time, otherwise I'd be able to contribute as Sam's '84 marching colleague Mr. Detweiler did on Page 7. (Dan: your name sounds familiar)

Edited by TRacer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a subjective opinion nonetheless. Many think the way you do: that they they were the best of the best sir, but some well respected and well educated people might hold a different opinion; and the only way to determine the best on any given show is to agree that the person on the field judging, in this case Prosperie, has final say in the matter. If the 2013 Atlanta judge, Rothe, who placed them 3rd in Atlanta had been judging Finals he may well have placed them 3rd or 2nd; that would not make him wrong it would just make it his educated 'opinion' in which you would probably disagree. The World Record for the 100 meter dash is 9.58 seconds held by Usain Bolt; that is an absolute objective fact in which nobody, unless delusional, can contest. However, the Cadets percussion receiving a 19.8/20.0 and winning the Sanford is the educated opinion by Prosperie as well as many others. But opposed to the 100 meter dash record it is not delusional to disagree with Prosperie's rating and ranking because the score was based on his educated subjective opinion not shear objective fact.

I think everyone in the activity understands scores come from the evaluation of a human judge, living, breathing, subject to influences through upbringing, education, performance experiences, personal preferences, and tastes.

Do you wish for every poster to include a qualifying disclaimer when discussing scores? Somewhere along the way, you have to accept that corps are not scoring runs, touchdowns, goals, or measured on running fastest, jumping highest and farthest. The system is set to trust the human evaluation for that show. Does it really lessen the validity in your eyes?

I just find the continuing refrain of : "Now I know such and such made a score of xx.xx, but remember, it is all subjective, and another person may have scored them differently" to be demeaning to the work and accomplishments of the members. Let them enjoy their time, for crying out loud.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Heisman, The Lombardi, The Cy Young, The Stanley, The Sanford, The Ott, The Brazale, are all named after very influential people in those respected fields and done as an honor and tribute to the influence they had on each of those activities. And while we may wish those people were still alive today, or some may wish to go back in time, that is an impossibility; and thus I for one am completely fine in honoring those people by naming specific awards after them.

Ummmm... maybe for the bounce in and out of the finals corps the focus was being in finals just like it is today; but even back in the day for The Blue Devils, SCV, Garfield, etc... the focus was on 'winning' finals not 'making' finals.

Work with me here, Stu. I wasn't saying not to name the trophies, I'm all good with that-a great way to honor their contributions. I was just trying make an artistic, wistful statement how fortunate it was to be in the same era with these people, that is all.

Personally, I felt honored to be at the same show with the corps I grew up idolizing, much less being in position to compete head to head.

Our line wore Boston Crusader t-shirts under our uniforms because of our respect for them.

Edited by c mor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got this one....

A flam consists of a soft grace note played just slightly before an accented note which is played by the opposite hand. The resulting sound mimicks the name of the rudiment - "Flam" Example lR, rL

Likewise, the name paradiddle resembles the sound of the rudiment when played. "Par-a" is a pair of alternating beats, the first one accented. "Diddle" is two beats in succession played by the same hand that played the first accented beat. Example Rlrr, Lrll, Par-a-did-dle.

Hope that helps.

:smile:

Thank you.

I'll have to work on this.

And Stu-

Isn't a good bit of those sports refereeing decisions subjective judging: is the ball inside the batter's strike zone or not, was it foul or not, did the foot hit the bag before the tag? Because it is so subjective because it is human judgement, not robotic, that's why they had to invent the call to the Toronto office to review the play and the review under the hood in other sports.

But I would prefer to see the dialogue get back on track on the discussion of the various views, particularly of the percussionists themselves, of which award is more prized. I too find this thread interesting for its varied perspectives. Thanks guys.

Edited by drilltech1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were not top-notch? Really? As it applies specifically to the Field Level Percussion Trophy I agree. However...

a) In 1984 the Garfield Cadets percussion finished 1st, that is 1st, in Percussion GE and 4th in Percussion Ensemble; it was the 9th in Percussion Field which dropped them. So Allison and Kennedy thought they were top-notch while it was Lorenzi down on the field, where only he and no other judge, nor other fan for that matter, observed them up close and thought they performed at a 9th place level.

b) In 2013 Crown finished 1st, that is 1st from both Music GE judges in which, ummmm, the percussion is an integral part of the Music GE judging influence, and 6th in Field Percussion. So Bell and Dillon believed that the Crown percussion was musically top-notch while Prosperie down on the field, where only he and no other judge, nor other fan for that matter, observed them up close and thought they performed at a 6th place level.

c) While we do need the field judge, and difficulty along with technical execution and clean beats are important in evaluating one line against the next in the context of competition, when it all is said and done it really does not matter 'musically' one iota from the perspective of the fans the stands or the judges in the press box if a snare line is playing Munster Cheese Uncle Charles Book Markers with internal Inverted Accents off the left or tap-drags. What matters, to be top-notch from the box judges standpoint, is Phrasing, Balance, Dynamics, Blend, and all of the other plethora of musical intricacies; and according to the box judges both 1984 Garfield and 2013 Crown percussion were top-notch.

What matters in the end is the total score, not a single subcaption.

84 Garfield took 7th in drums and won the ring

13 Crown took 6th in drums and won the ring

Period.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone in the activity understands scores come from the evaluation of a human judge, living, breathing, subject to influences through upbringing, education, performance experiences, personal preferences, and tastes.

Do you wish for every poster to include a qualifying disclaimer when discussing scores? Somewhere along the way, you have to accept that corps are not scoring runs, touchdowns, goals, or measured on running fastest, jumping highest and farthest. The system is set to trust the human evaluation for that show. Does it really lessen the validity in your eyes?

No disclaimers needed because we are discussing 'opinion'. Also, the 100% subjectivity of the outcome does not lessen anything in my eyes as long as the winner, whether overall or a single caption, is not seen a being 'objectively' the best. I trust Prosperie, I trust Rothe, I trust Pipitone, I trust Webb, I trust Griffen, etc... but I also know that they will more than likely rank lines differently based on their own educational, performance, experience, and musical philosophy. And that is ok in a 100% purely subjective outcome based contest.

I just find the continuing refrain of : "Now I know such and such made a score of xx.xx, but remember, it is all subjective, and another person may have scored them differently" to be demeaning to the work and accomplishments of the members. Let them enjoy their time, for crying out loud.

Not demeaning the work and accomplishments of the members at all; and I have said time and time again that we should abide by, and accept, the rankings of the judges at any competition. But even I as a former member of a corps with rings and caption awards state that in every case it was all the 'opinion' of the judges on that particular evening at that particular show. That is why I never go around bragging, "Hey, my corps won DCI!" or, "Hey, my corps won that Caption Award!"

Edited by Stu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What matters in the end is the total score, not a single subcaption.

84 Garfield took 7th in drums and won the ring

13 Crown took 6th in drums and won the ring

Period.

a) My response was to the contention that they did not have top-notch percussion; and I showed where two out of the three judges in each case maintained that they certainly were top-notch.

b) And you are correct in that the sub-captions do not matter; both 1984 Garfield and 2013 Crown scored first overall in 'total score' thus winning DCI.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...