garfield Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 Yep. When you say stuff like garfield, on 03 Mar 2014 - 1:44 PM, said: that is you projecting your opinion on the "vast majority of fans." You have NO CLUE what the vast majority of fans think (as I do not either). I have quoted a DCP poll that says the majority of those who responded felt Music AND Visual were 'most important.' DCP polls don't carry much weight anywhere, but that is the ONLY evidence I've seen while you have shown nothing but relate anecdotal evidence and gross over-generalizations. OK, whatever you say Perc. Nothing I can say will change what you think, and that's fine. But you are, in fact, wrong. Ces la vie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 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. Actually, what he said is pretty much a universal truth. What engages everyone is different. What engages you is going to be different than what engages the person next to you. That's not saying a majority of the fans like things a certain way, he's saying that people are engaged differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) 1) as you say above, I was specifically commenting on your assessment of "squat, pivot, blahblahblah." If you took offense to my assessment that you don't really understand the sheets or intent of those types of musical/visual phrases as you write them off in a very broad manner, then I guess that's on you: not meant as an insult, just meant as my observations of what you say. Heck, you say things like that is just obviously a lack of understanding of the nature of those types of phrases. Disagree with the general effect of those phrases, but saying it doesn't add to the demand is silly. What a drum line can play stationary becomes more difficult when in movement: it's simple physics. The brain has to process even more levels of concentration in order to achieve the additional movement, the correct choreography counts, etc. while playing perfectly in time w/correct heights & approach. All with a fairly large group. A line standing still only has to worry about the playing aspect. You honestly don't understand how adding ANY visual motion adds difficulty to playing? You don't get how adding choreography is more difficult than just marching? 2) the fact that you keep generalizing for audience members gets old. Just you YOU DON'T LIKE IT and leave it at that. I know you've written IMO, but you do it while also speaking for fans who in your mind you feel would appreciate more music and less visual. You speak even for MM's, speculating they might agree with you. It greatly diminishes any discourse whenever you generalize and speak for masses. I mentioned Blue Devils 2007 as a drum line who does the "squat, pivot, whatever" while playing a solo. You can clearly hear on multiple different videos of separate performances that the audience is into it. 3) like ALL aspects of drum corps design, some stuff is effective, and some is not. Not all body movement is effective, but at the same time some of it is amazing. A corps might get some credit doing choreography during an exposed, difficult battery feature: they will get more credit if the phrase is effective. I agree that sometimes that stuff seems mundane, and feels like the choreography is done because a designer is going over a design checklist of "must have's." I've never been a fan of the horn line post of horn in carriage position on the side with a arm out-stretched in front: always has looked like a cheesy GQ pose. But even that is effective sometimes. Just like the "squat, pivot, whatevs" stuff during a battery feature can also be effective. I'll just leave your sig as my reply, as you obviously aren't interested in seeing the point, despite the examples I referenced, '07 BD included, of effective use of body movement in the drum line. It's OK that we disagree. You are naive to my understanding of the sheets or the intent of SD. And that's OK, too. We'll agree on something else sometime. Edited March 6, 2014 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) hence the issue connecting to fans...what engages them is different for the judges Read it again. His sentence compares the difference of engagement between judges and fans, not that engagement is different between fans. I agree with both, but someone making blanket statements about fans, all of them, is not allowed. After all, some fans may be engaged the same way judges are. I think it's semantics BS to his point, but a literal interpretation of his comments is too broad to make, apparently, in spite of his point. Edited March 6, 2014 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I'll just leave your sig as my reply, as you obviously aren't interested in seeing the point, despite the examples I referenced, '07 BD included, of effective use of body movement in the drum line. It's OK that we disagree. You are naive to my understanding of the sheets or the intent of SD. And that's OK, too. Actually, what he said is pretty much a universal truth. What engages everyone is different. What engages you is going to be different than what engages the person next to you. That's not saying a majority of the fans like things a certain way, he's saying that people are engaged differently. No offence to you at all fsubone, but that statement is such a cop-out statement. There are some pretty universal things that most people enjoy ( or are engaged by) - Like puppies and rainbows; spinning things and spinning forms... ...and the opposite is also true: war for example... I don't think too many people like that. Then again, I'm sure there are people who are engaged by war too, especially when they have a stake in it or money to be gained in it... If everyone is engage by different things, what's the point in discussing any of this? Obviously there is no right or wrong. There is no "better" or "worse". Everything works and is engaging to someone. So there can never be any bad designs or bad themes. There are no bad concepts. With this logic, what's the point of judging anything other than the ticks? ....and ticks are subjective too. Point being is that these types of conversations are just crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) No offence to you at all fsubone, but that statement is such a cop-out statement. There are some pretty universal things that most people enjoy ( or are engaged by) - Like puppies and rainbows; spinning things and spinning forms... ...and the opposite is also true: war for example... I don't think too many people like that. Then again, I'm sure there are people who are engaged by war too, especially when they have a stake in it or money to be gained in it... If everyone is engage by different things, what's the point in discussing any of this? Obviously there is no right or wrong. There is no "better" or "worse". Everything works and is engaging to someone. So there can never be any bad designs or bad themes. There are no bad concepts. With this logic, what's the point of judging anything other than the ticks? ....and ticks are subjective too. Point being is that these types of conversations are just crazy. judging is for judges......the technical, the sheets, the boxes, etc etc.( but also engagement )...audience is to be engaged, entertained( subjective ) like something or not.......the difference between now and BITD or other times in the activity I think people were alot less concerned with the judging as far as the ins and outs of it just the results...today everyone is a judge...its not just drum corps its everything...look at some tv shows.....im sure this wont be a popular statement given that everything from music to sock color is judged on here....lol.....its all good ................well not all....lol Edited March 6, 2014 by GUARDLING 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) judging is for judges......the technical, the sheets, the boxes, etc etc.( but also engagement )...audience is to be engaged, entertained( subjective ) like something or not.......the difference between now and BITD or other times in the activity I think people were alot less concerned with the judging as far as the ins and outs of it just the results...today everyone is a judge...its not just drum corps its everything...look at some tv shows.....im sure this wont be a popular statement given that everything from music to sock color is judged on here....lol.....its all good ................well not all....lol 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. Edited March 6, 2014 by jjeffeory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) 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. 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 Edited March 6, 2014 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Read it again. His sentence compares the difference of engagement between judges and fans, not that engagement is different between fans. I agree with both, but someone making blanket statements about fans, all of them, is not allowed. After all, some fans may be engaged the same way judges are. I think it's semantics BS to his point, but a literal interpretation of his comments is too broad to make, apparently, in spite of his point. This is all semantics that we're fighting over. Engagement is such a broad term anyways, it will always cause conflict. The answer for fans would be a clap-o-meter that decides the champion, but that is way too open to bias and abuse. And corps would find ways to game that system just as well as they're doing for the judges now, since this is still all about competition. And how can we know that there aren't fans being engaged by the same stuff the judges are? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 If everyone is engage by different things, what's the point in discussing any of this? Obviously there is no right or wrong. There is no "better" or "worse". Everything works and is engaging to someone. So there can never be any bad designs or bad themes. There are no bad concepts. With this logic, what's the point of judging anything other than the ticks? ....and ticks are subjective too. Point being is that these types of conversations are just crazy. 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. 2 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.