Should judging be flat?

[jjeffeory]

not really disagreeing at all....but I think we over complicate our activity BECAUSE those who have in trenched themselves in the activity also made it so serious and complicated to feel like it made the activity more legit and NOT the HS bandish activity we are.... just the verbadge alone.

True story:

In the mid 80s there was a winterguard ( Judged by many who judge DCI today ) it was taught by George Z. They were great but a little out there ERTE' PRODUCTIONS.... well it was the Norristown regional in PA. they didnt do well in prelims. I sat at the top of the back stands with George discussing everything.....when it was critique time,,,,,( yeah we use to have them all the time ) he said watch this...he went in told judges how outdated and wrong they were..they went from losing badly to winning it all...same regional....that same year when WGI was televised the commentator who talked through all the shows ( horrible ) talked about their props which were very abstract and in multiple pieces ( very Picasso ish) he stated how the paintings were reminesent of the painter ERTE' ...hilarious because erte painted women and dogs very art deco...they even said the drill was replica of paintings...hmmm i didnt see and dogs or women in the drill.....lol..George told me make a dam story up , be confident and they will believe it...ever judge repeated it over and over as we laughed ..and YES I've used that what George taught me many times...true story

point is at that time..noone cared( audience ) what the whole story was just that it was very cool and different and dam good.

maybe it was a more innocent time...maybe people looked at a show more from an aspect of what was effect, or cool, or different or classic or whatever without picking it to death....Sure seems like people enjoyed more when LESS involved in a judges job...Outcomes seemed to be what people were into NOT the details of it.....is that being to simplistic? is it being less educated? Maybe...was it more enjoyable?...I certainly think it could have been

Thanks for the story! It was very interesting and also amusing. Love it! I can totally see that happening too!

[jjeffeory]

Of course they are, but it's the offseason, what else is everyone supposed to do?

The point of judging is that the people entrusted with it are supposed to be educated enough in their fields to know what is good and what isn't. I usually trust their judgements more than the armchair judges on DCP, most of whom don't have anywhere near the experience level of the top DCI judges. They're the ones who make the judgement call about what is the most engaging show out there, just like they go every other year with GE.

Not calling you out fsubone. I enjoy conversing and debating with you. I do agree with you too about the judges. Unfortunately, we sometimes get a few corps who benefit from "campaigning" and judge education over the course of the season, which I really hate. Guardling had an excellent story from the WGI world along the lines of what I was thinking about happens in DCI.

I've seen it and heard about it time and time again for a very long time.

[fsubone]

Not calling you out fsubone. I enjoy conversing and debating with you. I do agree with you too about the judges. Unfortunately, we sometimes get a few corps who benefit from "campaigning" and judge education over the course of the season, which I really hate. Guardling had an excellent story from the WGI world along the lines of what I was thinking about happens in DCI.

I've seen it and heard about it time and time again for a very long time.

yeah, it's not fair that they do it. But at the end of the day, this is still a competition. The team who learns the rules best wins. It is easier to game the system in something like drum corps than in something like football, but it can happen everywhere. Having someone on staff that can properly explain or BS the show concept is probably a hot commodity in the corps world, as those GE points make or break a champion. I'm not saying shows should be super simple so they don't need to be explained, but having one with a concept that can evolve clearly over the season would be great.

[Jeff Ream]

And well should be. Adjudicators are not there first and foremost to be entertained; rather, they are there to assess. The audience is there to be entertained. That is not to say that the audience does not perform some form of assessment on their own. However, numerical assessment from them of a Corps' performance doesn't count -- and shouldn't in any way, in my opinion.

and in many ways i do not disagree.

but when directors complain about fan reactions, and fan reactions are...well....at times polarizing....the disconnect is probably larger than it should be

[Jeff Ream]

You're not allowed to speak for the fans, Jeff, and you're not allowed to make a contention without empirical evidence you can provide here.

Apparently.

i'll go off of this:

the last time i attended finals, when BD set up to do their victory run, the stadium emptied out faster than I have EVER seen it empty out. I'd be amazed if 2500 people remained.

[GUARDLING]

i'll go off of this:

the last time i attended finals, when BD set up to do their victory run, the stadium emptied out faster than I have EVER seen it empty out. I'd be amazed if 2500 people remained.

Jeff its done the same with many corps in2011 one of the most popular cadet shows people were heading out....not everyone cares about staying for the victory run..its just how it is......i totally understand what you are saying and not saying it might not have some truth to what some like or dislike but I do know even in 08 for the beloved PR show people still headed out...was there more? or less?...I dont think it proves anything either way....jmo

Edited March 6, 2014 by GUARDLING

[BigW]

hence the issue connecting to fans...what engages them is different for the judges

It shouldn't be that radically different. Part of it is that most of the panel isn't deciding who is more entertaining and effective. It doesn't enter into their decisions, or at least it should not.

Also, there are times when even of there's something that's not entirely the way you'd do it or necessarily like it- you still have to appreciate it, understand it and roll with it.

I'd bet there are moments that some of the DCI judges are thinking of a cuppa coffee instead of what they see or hear on-field. The problem is one couldn't state that publicly and for many good reasons.

[corpsband]

Oh I agree that today everyone is an armchair judge. Still we shouldn't ignore some universal ideas. Some of them are engaging or not engaging, even if there are a few who think it is... Not saying it's the judges per se all of the time. But if a judge is rewarding something as engaging when it's not... Shouldn't we be able to discuss that and have a conversation or debate about it? ...many of us have musical backgrounds or have theater backgrounds (through education, degrees, and in practise) in other fields of art (or sport!), so we understand these concepts too.

Big thing for me is when I get people who have backgrounds from other artistic fields to come and evaluate ideas that receive credit in DCI shows and they don't always agree.

Then again, they don't have the rubric to tick off the boxes, but they can evaluate from their education. It's a little like writing a paper according to a set of rules. The paper can cover all the material suggested and be technically perfect, and it will get an "A". But then you read it and it is dry and uninspiring. Sometimes we get that same thing in shows. Technically flawless, but not moving.

I'm just saying that sometimes ideas are good and sometimes they're bad. Sometimes those ideas are still rewarded when they don't work. That shouldn't happen. Why bother ever judging something like engagement if it is not? If it is also as subjective as entertainment, then everything and anything can be engaging, right? As long as it can be explained to the judges, anything is fair game.

There's a difference between "it works" and "not my preference". "It works" is engagment. It captures and holds your attention.

Well-designed effect works for an audience whether or not they "like" it or not. No one "likes" the scene of a car accident yet it captures and holds your attention. Preference has nothing to do with engagement.

The whole "Thou shalt not speak for the audience" commandment some like to 'enforce' on DCP is a deceptive little mantra lots of posters to use to stifle opinions they just don't like. (Please note: not talking about posters who just assume the entire audience reacts to a show just like them -- that's a different story).

There *is* such a thing as effects that "work" for every average audience . Even audiences at a corps "home show" react to well-designed effect by other corps because those effects manipulate human beings at a fundamental level. The reaction is almost involuntary. Are there exceptions in every audience? Yes. Do they matter? No.

Haven't you ever sat through a particular show and thought "yeah it works -- but i don't like it" ?

While we're on silly DCP commandments, here's another "Thou shall fully comprehend a show before thoust liketh it". What a load of crap. There are shows I never did "figure out" in a whole season that still "worked" and that I in fact enjoyed -- without ever really "getting" the conceptual storyline. (favorite recent example is Bluecoats Metropolis" -- loved the show -- still have no clue what it was about).

So if a DCP'r takes a potshot using one these "commandments", toss the tablets over the cliff and call bull#### !!

Edited March 6, 2014 by corpsband

[Fred Windish]

corpsband,

There are elements in your post similar to an earlier thread I started. Maybe it would be easier for some to simply answer this question:

" What would you suggest DCI show designers change to further 'pump-up' the crowd ?"

If the answer is " Nothing, I just don't see the need. " Well . . . .

Edited March 6, 2014 by Fred Windish

[garfield]

There's a difference between "it works" and "not my preference". "It works" is engagment. It captures and holds your attention.

Well-designed effect works for an audience whether or not they "like" it or not. No one "likes" the scene of a car accident yet it captures and holds your attention. Preference has nothing to do with engagement.

The whole "Thou shalt not speak for the audience" commandment some like to 'enforce' on DCP is a deceptive little mantra lots of posters to use to stifle opinions they just don't like. (Please note: not talking about posters who just assume the entire audience reacts to a show just like them -- that's a different story).

There *is* such a thing as effects that "work" for every average audience . Even audiences at a corps "home show" react to well-designed effect by other corps because those effects manipulate human beings at a fundamental level. The reaction is almost involuntary. Are there exceptions in every audience? Yes. Do they matter? No.

Haven't you ever sat through a particular show and thought "yeah it works -- but i don't like it" ?

While we're on silly DCP commandments, here's another "Thou shall fully comprehend a show before thoust liketh it". What a load of crap. There are shows I never did "figure out" in a whole season that still "worked" and that I in fact enjoyed -- without ever really "getting" the conceptual storyline. (favorite recent example is Bluecoats Metropolis" -- loved the show -- still have no clue what it was about).

So if a DCP'r takes a potshot using one these "commandments", toss the tablets over the cliff and call bull#### !!

Excellent post --- IMO---- Thanks.