Liahona Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Way too subjective for it to actually work. What's entertaining to one audience base could completely fall flat in another one. It was a very interesting proposal to push corps towards more "entertaining" shows, but it would be impossible to measure. Most of the captions outside of GE can be easily measured. Missed notes, dirty drums, guard not together, someone phasing can all be seen. Entertainment can't really be measured in tenths. Which is why some people absolutely love BD's shows and say they're entertaining, while others go nuts for Madison. It's all subjective. Plus, the diversity is great. If every show was designed the same, it would get boring fast. I'm just going to throw my idea out there...Entertainment is subjective, but do we really honestly know how many people find BD more "entertaining" than MS in your example...I'm not advocating either group...I feel true audience interaction is the answer to this....rather than using a judge who attempts to "guess" what your reaction is...the opinions that matter in this case are those that are actually attending shows...I propose DCI uses the following technology to accomplish this objective...a wireless voting system...not cell phones...where everyone attending the show is given one of these wireless voting devices to simply vote after each performance on a predetermined scale or point value of this entertainment caption. It would be interesting even if it is not counted for placement lMO. Here is a link to such a device here... http://wireless-voting-systems.com 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 We can't somehow quantify "entertainment appeal" of shows, but we *can* quantify "intellectual engagement" of shows (GE)? Mike Yes. That's a pretty easy distinction, as has been talked about often on DCP. It is much easier to quantify "intellectual engagement" when looking at a rubric and seeing how a performance engages. Entertainment, however, is purely subjective. To give a brief (ish) example: The film ANTICHRIST is definitely intellectual engagement. I would not deem it entertaining per say, but it engages intellect in many different aspects (visual composition, symbolism within story as well as literal aspects taking place, good acting, etc). The film TRANSFORMERS 2 is awful: poor acting, zero engagement, stupid dumb noise - its literally a 100 million dollar toy commercial and nothing more. Yet it made 100s of millions of dollars, was one of the most popular movies of the year, and might be deemed entertaining by a lot of other people (like maybe my 12 year old son). I can quantify the engagement of ANTICHRIST and TRANSFORMERS 2 (or lack there or, in the case of the latter). It would be difficult to quantify entertainment of either, especially in any sort of objective way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I'm just going to throw my idea out there...Entertainment is subjective, but do we really honestly know how many people find BD more "entertaining" than MS in your example...I'm not advocating either group...I feel true audience interaction is the answer to this....rather than using a judge who attempts to "guess" what your reaction is...the opinions that matter in this case are those that are actually attending shows...I propose DCI uses the following technology to accomplish this objective...a wireless voting system...not cell phones...where everyone attending the show is given one of these wireless voting devices to simply vote after each performance on a predetermined scale or point value of this entertainment caption. It would be interesting even if it is not counted for placement lMO. Here is a link to such a device here... http://wireless-voting-systems.com Wonder how expensive that would be to implement (both purchasing/renting the devices, staffing to write and tally the 'prompts,' etc) Wonder if those could even accommodate 25 groups (that would be in WC Quarterfinals) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 In the back round of this proposal is the concept that the fan needs to feel that their input is important. That the system takes into account what the majority likes, or they will become disengaged and not feel valued. Anybody who went to shows last year can see how the majority of fans were not as "entertained" by the second place corps as they were the by the 4th place one. Easy...no applause meter needed. I applaud caution and analysis when making changes to how things are done. We simply cannot change things for the sake of evolution, there needs to be careful consideration to ALL aspects of a proposal, not just general gut feelings about what sounds good. The complexities of the system are sometimes not easy to see for everyone. I bet you know where I'm going with that? If this is truly the case (that DCI BoD members want to cater to fans' needs of feeling their input implemented), then DCI should just do a "fan favorite" at regionals and/or Quarterfinals. A simple fan vote that gets a trophy, and maybe even a cash prize to make it worthwhile. Keep judging separate, and let fans pick their favorite (wouldn't be cool if they intertwined). Fans who disliked the winner could walk away happy thinking they gave a trophy to their favorites; corps who play the judge game can take their chances with them as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 My guess is it came to a discussion of "how do you measure it?" In a game of tenths, what's the way to measure audience engagement/involvement/interaction/impact? Decibel readings? A judge that sits on the back grandstands and solely counts the number and length of standing ovations? I'm kidding, but I think you see the point. Many of the other captions are largely subjective, but at least have objective overtones. I think once they figure out how to implement that angle so that it's not wholly subjective, we will see this pass. Based on the article I read, it looks like they're shooting for early March? exactly! audience engagement is commonly mistaken as people jumping up and down and spontaneous bursts of applause and burning babies floating down on the field....and it's so much more than that. You also have to take into consideration hometown bias, and to amuse Plan9 I'll even throw in ABBD sentiments The wording in the proposal shows nothing to quantify audience engagement in any of those ways or more. I mean SCV 09....awesome show, but really....THE moment happened after a show long build, and was followed by down ending. I was engaged constacntly while not going nuts the entire show. same with Cadets last year. so...I was engaged, as were many others, but we weren't amking noise...how can you tell? with that judge way above everyone in the booth, and seeing the back of the crowd, how can they tell? For all they know I could be playing angry birds on my phone, and in the 600 level, they can't see me in the 200 level Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 In the back round of this proposal is the concept that the fan needs to feel that their input is important. That the system takes into account what the majority likes, or they will become disengaged and not feel valued. Anybody who went to shows last year can see how the majority of fans were not as "entertained" by the second place corps as they were the by the 4th place one. Easy...no applause meter needed. I applaud caution and analysis when making changes to how things are done. We simply cannot change things for the sake of evolution, there needs to be careful consideration to ALL aspects of a proposal, not just general gut feelings about what sounds good. The complexities of the system are sometimes not easy to see for everyone. I bet you know where I'm going with that? funny. When i saw the 2nd place corps, while the show was not overly loved, people paid attention, so don't mistake silence as not being engaged. i was engaged, mainly because i wasn't high enough to get it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 They passed a simular effort in DCA a few years back. I really did not see any apparent difference in show design nor did I see where judges really gave any reward to it on the sheets. So not sure how or if it would have had any impact in the MBI (Marching Band International) world nowdays. exactly. The runaway winer on the sheet last year had the most intellectual show in DCA, but in terms of crowd response, 2-4 had more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) Yes. That's a pretty easy distinction, as has been talked about often on DCP. It is much easier to quantify "intellectual engagement" when looking at a rubric and seeing how a performance engages. Entertainment, however, is purely subjective. It seems to me that if a DCI judge can judge the degree of precision playing, demand, complexity, etc and all the other technical attributes of ( for a couple of examples ) of an electric rock guitarist, or a singer soloists vocal abilities on the field of competition, and from as much as 100 yards up in a booth from the field, it seems to be that judge.. or a similar judge should be able to determine the overall success rate of the show to connect with the audience in that competition. If we start from the premise that ALL the judging is subjective ( afterall the judges are judging wholly dissimilar things that Corps are currently doing on the field ) then asking the judge to assign more allotment of points to " entertainment " seems no less subjective a request to me than what they are already being asked to do right now as their task. Edited February 14, 2014 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Everyone realizes that this proposal wasn't actually voted down, right? It was rescinded in favor of an alternate "Total Effect" proposal that will be reconsidered in March. Here's the relevant section from DCI's article: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Two rules proposals were submitted for consideration prior to the winter meetings, the first aiming to create an “Entertainment Effect” caption as part of the adjudication process. According to the original submission, corps would be awarded points based on their “art of communication with the audience.” “Using the word ‘entertainment’ can be polarizing, but it also served as a catalyst for a very interesting discussion among the instructors, designers and adjudicators on how best to capture the overall value in a show’s delivery to the audience,” Madison Scouts Executive Director Chris Komnick said. “Our current system is awarding achievement in various caption categories, but it never specifically awards the total delivery—music and visual and continuity—of a corps’ complete show.” The original proposal was evaluated and discussed at length in the instructor caucus sessions on Friday and Saturday of the annual meetings. Common to the Rules Congress process, out of that debate came several alternatives that were revised and honed to maintain the spirit of the original proposal while refining the language to perhaps a more workable format for implementation. Komnick says that the original proposal was rescinded during the sessions in favor of backing a more broadly supported “Total Effect” concept that will still address points made in the original. “It’s a pretty major step to recognize the value of an entire production and its connection to the audience,” he said. Artistic Director Michael Cesario and DCI’s Rules and Systems Task Force will return to work on the subject, evaluating the current judging sheets used to rank and rate corps performances with revisions and amendments incorporating the “Total Effect” approach. An official vote on adoption of the rule for the 2014 season has been scheduled near the beginning of March, allowing the model to be worked out under the current adjudication system with input from the corps. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What are people's thoughts about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 It seems to me that if a DCI judge can judge the degree of precision playing, demand, complexity, etc and all the other technical attributes of ( for a couple of examples ) of an electric rock guitarist, or a singer soloists vocal abilities on the field of competition, and from as much as 100 yards up in a booth from the field, it seems to be that judge.. or a similar judge should be able to determine the overall success rate of the show to connect with the audience in that competition. If we start from the premise that ALL the judging is subjective ( afterall the judges are judging wholly dissimilar things that Corps are currently doing on the field ) then asking the judge to assign more allotment of points to " entertainment " seems no less subjective a request to me than what they are already being asked to do right now as their task. and from the box, how can the judge see the crowds faces to guage their reaction, as well as keep track of everything on the field? 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.