Scores..."where everything is made up and the points don't mat

[Stu]

I see we have reached a settlement.

There are different approaches people can take to drum corps, neither is "wrong", just only in the eyes of the opposing ideas.

I agree with the bolded sentence above; but it is different from what you initially stated which was, "THAT is why kids march drum corps.", which indicated that you believe 'all' kids march for the same reason you did.

[DAvery]

It never made much sense to me either where many in the audience " feel cheated " by a performance, and yet the judges rewarded the show performance with " a trophy ". I'm glad that the marchers understand that being rewarded by the judges with a high score, is not as fulfilling for them as rewarding an audience with their show performance.

I guess I teach a little different. I tell the performers their first obligation is to themselves. Did they challenge themselves? Did they perform the best they could at this time? The next obligation for the performer is to the audience. As a performer, were you able to communicate with the audience successfully? Did they respond? The last obligation is to the judges.

I refuse to allow 6-10 people in the press box, who know very little about us, have a deciding factor if we are a success or not. They do not know the struggles we have or our potential. After every performance, we decide if we were successful or not.

[Stu]

I guess I teach a little different. I tell the performers their first obligation is to themselves. Did they challenge themselves? Did they perform the best they could at this time? The next obligation for the performer is to the audience. As a performer, were you able to communicate with the audience successfully? Did they respond? The last obligation is to the judges.

If judging is not really all that important then why make it a 'competitive activity’ and not just a performance activity? Why keep score? Why rank the corps? Why have caption awards? Why have a Gold, Silver, and Bronze? Why would we even want to have judged auditions, which are actually subjective evaluation ‘competitions’ judged by people ranking performers for playing positions?

I refuse to allow 6-10 people in the press box, who know very little about us, have a deciding factor if we are a success or not. They do not know the struggles we have or our potential. After every performance, we decide if we were successful or not.

So here is what I get out of this statement: You refuse to allow corporate Interviewers and people in the HR Departments, who know very little about you, to have a deciding factor if you are a success or not at landing a high level career position. They do not know the struggles or potential you have. After every interview, you decide if you were successful or not.

[drumcorpsfever]

I think the OP is right on!

Sometime the scores really don't matter. Anyone who's ever had the pleasure to see Blast! on stage, didn't walk away from the show afterwards and say, "gee, the show was great, but it would have been better if they'd only gave it a score!".

Entertainment, true entertainment, is scored by the fannies in the seats. Scores and judging do provide an incentive for corps to work toward perfecting their show. I think, to a certain degree, that judging and scores do provide an incentive toward perfecting a show from June to August. But overall, to the performers, their drive toward perfection is not because of scoring, it's because of the members themselves.

To anyone ever having marched in a top finalist drum corps, hat's off to you. I never had the experience, but my time in the activity was just a memorable and rewarding to me.

[IllianaLancerContra]

I think the OP is right on!

Sometime the scores really don't matter. Anyone who's ever had the pleasure to see Blast! on stage, didn't walk away from the show afterwards and say, "gee, the show was great, but it would have been better if they'd only gave it a score!".

Entertainment, true entertainment, is scored by the fannies in the seats. Scores and judging do provide an incentive for corps to work toward perfecting their show. I think, to a certain degree, that judging and scores do provide an incentive toward perfecting a show from June to August. But overall, to the performers, their drive toward perfection is not because of scoring, it's because of the members themselves.

To anyone ever having marched in a top finalist drum corps, hat's off to you. I never had the experience, but my time in the activity was just a memorable and rewarding to me.

I wonder what Blast's show/performance would look like if they were scored using the current DCI judging criteria?

(edited for more better English)

Edited October 29, 2013 by IllianaLancerContra

[fsubone]

If judging is not really all that important then why make it a 'competitive activity’ and not just a performance activity? Why keep score? Why rank the corps? Why have caption awards? Why have a Gold, Silver, and Bronze? Why would we even want to have judged auditions, which are actually subjective evaluation ‘competitions’ judged by people ranking performers for playing positions?

Is success only judged by the placement at the end of the year? Are the medals seriously all that matter? Or is someone's personal improvement worth more? There are 22 world class corps, 12 make Finals, 3 medal, and 1 wins. That means a lot of corps aren't "Successful" using that model. But what about the corps who has their best finish ever, or their highest score ever? Is that not successful? Or had their biggest corps, that did the most shows? Or a corps that finally got on good financial footing after getting a new sponsor? I'm pretty sure all of those can be gauged as success, even if the judges don't notice it in August.

[Stu]

Is success only judged by the placement at the end of the year? Are the medals seriously all that matter? Or is someone's personal improvement worth more? There are 22 world class corps, 12 make Finals, 3 medal, and 1 wins. That means a lot of corps aren't "Successful" using that model. But what about the corps who has their best finish ever, or their highest score ever? Is that not successful? Or had their biggest corps, that did the most shows? Or a corps that finally got on good financial footing after getting a new sponsor? I'm pretty sure all of those can be gauged as success, even if the judges don't notice it in August.

I never wrote, said, implied, or otherwise indicated that scoring placement was the only thing that mattered. However I will state that winning certainly does matter (within a competition); and if winning does not matter then we should just eliminate the competition, the scores, the placements, and the medals, with all corps drawing for performance times throughout the entire season, then give all who engage in DCI participation awards at the end of the season. I am typing this while watching the MLB World Series. While there are many differences between MLB and DCI one thing they have in common is that both activities are 'competitions'; so here is a question for you: How 'successful' was the Houtson Astros this past 2013 season?

Edited October 29, 2013 by Stu

[fsubone]

While there are many differences between MLB and DCI one thing they have in common is that both activities are 'competitions'; so here is a question for you: How 'successful' was the Houtson Astros this past 2013 season?

Short-term successful no, but they are laying the groundwork for later on success. They drafted in a good class of rookies that will help them once they mature and grow as players. I'd compare it to the people who start out a corps. They're not automatically successful placement-wise unless you're Star, but you build the foundation for those who follow to be successful and win down the line. Like those first people to come through BD or SCV or Cadets or Crown. They didn't win their first year, and had no aspirations as such. They went out to try and get their corps on some sort of solid footing for the future. Same way the Astros are right now. Maybe they'll be like Crown in 20 years, maybe not.

[DAvery]

If judging is not really all that important then why make it a 'competitive activity’ and not just a performance activity? Why keep score? Why rank the corps? Why have caption awards? Why have a Gold, Silver, and Bronze? Why would we even want to have judged auditions, which are actually subjective evaluation ‘competitions’ judged by people ranking performers for playing positions?

So here is what I get out of this statement: You refuse to allow corporate Interviewers and people in the HR Departments, who know very little about you, to have a deciding factor if you are a success or not at landing a high level career position. They do not know the struggles or potential you have. After every interview, you decide if you were successful or not.

As I said in my prior post, score are of relative concern. If a higher score means we get to perform again, then I am all for it. As for you other questions, why do we have ranking, score caption awards and such? That is a good question. People often ask me if the scores don't matter that much, why take the band to a comp. Valid point. My answer is that this is the only place we get to perform where the audience is there just for us.

Your second point about a job interview is interesting. I actually have used this exact scenario about competition. When I go into an interview I don't really feel as I am competing against the other applicants. My goal is give the interviewer accurate information so they can select the person that best fills their needs. There have been many times in my career when after talking with an interviewer I told them I was not interested position. Could I have got the job? Maybe, but I no longer wanted it. So I guess since I didn't get the job, you would not consider me a success. OK, that's fine by me.

The bottom line is that I guess I define my success. Not anyone else. I don't live my life to measure up to anyone's standards but my own.

Edited October 29, 2013 by DAvery

[Stu]

Short-term successful no, but they are laying the groundwork for later on success. They drafted in a good class of rookies that will help them once they mature and grow as players. I'd compare it to the people who start out a corps. They're not automatically successful placement-wise unless you're Star, but you build the foundation for those who follow to be successful and win down the line. Like those first people to come through BD or SCV or Cadets or Crown. They didn't win their first year, and had no aspirations as such. They went out to try and get their corps on some sort of solid footing for the future. Same way the Astros are right now. Maybe they'll be like Crown in 20 years, maybe not.

So, in a competitive activity, again a competitive activity, the amount of ‘success’ one has is defined by the goals reached on the journey toward 'winning' correct?