Jump to content

Creativity at the Top


Recommended Posts

I think the evolution of the DCI sheets over the years has unmistakenly shown a diminishment of value provided to the performance execution of the Brass playing/ Percussion playing, and more increased value provided on the evolving sheets toward the Design component side, particularly the Visual and Guard Visual side.

I also recognize that some that poo poo this , arrived fairly recently to the activity ( not you, Wes ) and as such are really not knowledgeable at all on the older DCI judging sheets, yet feel compelled to embarrass themselves by commenting on such evoutionary changes in the judging sheets, yet have no familiarity at all with those previous sheets to make such comparisons on the evolution to more importance on the sheets of the design to that of performer execution, especially compared to early judging caption sheets. They are upside down and totally clueless, so I don't waste my breathe with them... some of them never marched, taught, or judged themselves, and are recent arrivals to boot, so they're essentialy Know Nothings, on this particular subject that does require a historical context to understand this particular subject ( Corpsband poster comes to mind.)

I'd agree with you until the last batch of sheets came out 2 years ago. Now, I think what's even better about those sheets is the judges are starting to actually use them properly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sense that recently, performance is becoming a bit more important than a few years back. You don't need to playing 10 minutes of runs, just play a run and perfectly, we will acknowledge and credit you. The corps that win are not performing the most difficult shows, but they are per horsing cohesive smart designs extremely well. Much less running and gunning than 2-3 years ago.

agreed. on whats happening at the top. disagree on difficulty

show us you can do it, move on, then show us a new skill. too often people think run and gun is the end all be all of difficulty. it's not. that's why you see some running, some body, this, that etc in there..lots of skills shown, just as difficult. Not always as fun to watch, but that's a different topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pines of Rome -- '75 & '76 Muchachos

'82, '83, & '84 Cavies

(according to Corpsreps)

Edited by HornTeacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When DCI Consultant Michael Cesario spoke to the judges, and was involved in the tweaking of the captions ,and how the shows are to be judged, he never said a wit about performance execution as a reminder to the judges in their captions that have carry over evaluation to multiple captions, particularly GE captions for example. He specifically requested the judges to look more holistically, not micro manage their captions. He talked more about GE in the realm of " how compelling was the show ? "... NOT how clean. polished, executed, it was to generate first rate " General Effect ". Ceasario is not marinated in performance execution in his background, nor experience, nor in his training at all. He's a showman. Its all about " The Show ". I see LOTS of performance execution errors on Finals Night, including the top Corps, and even the ultimate winner. ( shows are undeniably far more difficult than BITD to perform and execute) Things like spacing, cover, distance. feet, positioning, and dozens of other things have quite visible errors. But its the Show Design, and increasingly the Guards that primarily drive the theme home, and selling that " compelling show " to the judges.... just as Cesario envisioned.

Brasso,

if it's not performed well, design intent isn't going to be clear...so then you can't reward design. it HAS to be performed well for intent to be fully grasped, read, credited understood etc. I mean any good judge gets that the minute Michael starts speaking.

Anyone can throw good dots or notes on the paper. if it isn't performed well, then it's dots and notes on paper and won't get credit.

The judges don't get to see the score or the pyware simulation of the drill. They see what's performed. So, if performance is lagging, the design number isn't going to be high. You don't often see spreads of 5-6 tenths or more between book and performance because quite honestly, if there is a huge spread, the judge didn't credit performance enough

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it has changed. .. no matter how many times you say that it hasn't. The newer judging sheets are a pale imitation of previous judging sheets where MM Performance execution counted for much greater garnering for total points to be had than Show Design did... heck in the earlier years of DCI, they never even had themed shows in most cases, and as such, the music need not to have had any relationship to each music selection played within the show at all. Show Design, ala a story telling, or a Visual rendering, was almost a total non factor in the early DCI judging sheets. It was all mostly performance and execution driven by the marcher members themselves. Thats not true today at all however. The Show Design, is a big big deal today, and its where the most points can be had ( or lost ) on the changed, and newer, updated DCI judging sheets ( now built upon a "build up point system ", rather than a" tic deduction point system" ).. So it HAS changed. Those who don't know this simple and undeniable reality either weren't around in the early years of DCI, or have amnesia, or are simply in denial.

even in non themed days, if you went from one tune to another and the flow didn't work, you'd get hit for it. Sure, you could go from classical to jazz on paper, but if the performance of it sucked, and the kids didn't transition well between the genres, you sure paid for it on the sheets!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, lets look at this to find out, since you brought this up. I know that as a former Dino judge BITD, you loved this BK 2012 show design, but its clear that, insofar as this is concerned, you and the current DCI judges are worlds apart. This is because in the all important Show Design captions, ts pretty clear that the judges in 2012 loved the Cadets Christmas Show Design WAY better than BK's " Avian " Show Design . For example, regarding the all important Show Design captions for 2012 at Finals between The Cadets and BK we find the following :

G E Visual........ Cadets, 5th....... BK, 9th

Music Ana. Cadets 4th.........BK 10th

Vis. Ana...........Cadets 4th..........BK 7th

Music Ana........Cadets 4th BK 11th

So what we conclude from this is that BK's 2012 Show Design was a dud compared to The Cadets Show Design, and as such, no amount of marcher " performance and execution " ( if they had it in, Brass, Percussion, Guard..... which they didn't ), was going to allow them to compete favorably with the Cadets that season, as that Show Design, by itself, prevented them from ever having a fighting chance in 2012.... no matter even IF the BK's MM's had performed and executed their show as well as the Cadets did in the Brass, Percussion, Guard and the other performance execution captions..

here I can sum it up for you:

Cadets played better, the show flowed better, and the show made a lot more sense than BK's did.

Hence...Cadets were running for a medal and Bk was happy to be in the Saturday show

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corps design their shows to the sheets... sheets they themselves had major input on. Corps BITD had shows that were designed to maximize their points under THOSE sheets, and similarly BD ( and the others ) design their shows for todays sheets. What is different today however is that a Corps Show Design has much more weight than the performance and execution captions once did. For example, a Corps today can finish 6th in the performance execution caption of Percussion.... which is primarily marcher performance and execution driven... and still win a DCI Title today. . But a Corps can not finish 6th today in a predominantly Show Design caption ( for example, such as Visual Ana. ) and win a DCI Title today under the current sheets. If anyone thinks its possible to finish 6th in a predominently Show Design caption today under the current sheets and still win a DCI Title today, they are probably just kidding themselves ,imo ( not referring here to you, HornTeacher on this )

psst....the sheets are all 50% design 50% performer.

just so ya know

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you so sure that the 2012 performers were up to par with other years? Cavies decline ( funny that decline would be a huge success for others ) was a combination of things..just like a combination of things are needed to be successful............or not

Yes, I am., as a matter of fact. From the preseason published 2012 Cavs camp reports, the 2012 Cavs had a lot of returning vets from their 3rd place 2011 Cavs Corps. This was additionally borne out by the 2012 Finals Age Outs ceremonies. The notion that the 2012 Cavs Corps had a diminishment of member marcher talent from 2011 to 2012 is not borne out by the facts at all. The notion that Show Design and that MM performance execution share equally on the current DCI sheets means that people like you and Corpsband are logically required to place the responsibility for the Cavs placement slide of 5 positions in one season equally between the Cavs marchers and the Cavs Show Designers for that season. But in my view, thats not the case at all here. The primary reason that the Cavs fell 5 placement positions between 2011 and 2012 is because the Show Design was a dud compared to 2011, and no amount of " hard work... cleaning.... performer execution... veteran and experienced marcher talent ", etc from that Cavs MM Corps was going to save them from bigtime placement slide from 2011 to 2012. And this is easily understood by people like me because we understand that is a misnomer that Show Design and MM performance execution are treated equally on the judging sheets. They are not.... no matter how many times some people try to tell themselves otherwise. It wasn't the Cavs MM's that were equally responsible for that one season placement slide of 5 positions. Thats absurd. It was largely the Show Design. That dud could not be saved by any amount of MM cleaning and " performance execution ". The current sheets wouldn't allow the Cavs MM's of 2012 a fighting chance to stay in the top 6 that season, let alone the top 3. The 2012 Cavs MM's were doomed to a big placement slide (under the current sheets )from the moment that show design came off the adult's assembly line for them.

Edited by BRASSO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am., as a matter of fact. From the preseason published 2012 Cavs camp reports, the 2012 Cavs had a lot of returning vets from their 3rd place 2011 Cavs Corps. This was additionally borne out by the 2012 Finals Age Outs ceremonies. The notion that the 2012 Cavs Corps had a diminishment of member marcher talent from 2011 to 2012 is not borne out by the facts at all. The notion that Show Design and that MM performance execution share equally on the current DCI sheets means that people like you and Corpsband are logically required to blame the Cavs placement slide of 5 positions in one season equally between the Cavs marchers and the Show Designers that season. But in my view thats not the case at all here. The primary reason that the Cavs fell 5 placement positions between 2011 and 2012 is because the Show Design was a dud compared to 2011, and no amount of " hard work... cleaning.... performer execution... veteran and experienced marcher talent, etc from that Cavs MM Corps was going to save them from bigtime placement slide from 2011 to 2012. And this is easily understood by people like me because we understand that is a misnomer that Show Design and MM performance execution are treated equally on the judging sheets. THey arn't. No matter how many times some people try to tell themselves otherwise. It wasn't the Cavs MM that were equally responsible for that one season placement slide of 5 positions. Thats absurd. It was largely the Show Design. That dud could not be saved by any amount of MM cleaning and " performance execution ". The current sheets wouldn't allow the Cavs MM's of 2012 a fighting chance to stay in the top 3. The 2012 Cavs MM's were doomed to placement slide (under the current sheets )from the moment that show design came off the adult's assembly line for them.

well im not going to address the ongoing debate because for me at least it doesnt make alot of sense as others stated also BUT I will say that dont always look at reports, things people put out, who left who didnt Do you actually thin any corps knowing their long time staff ere leaving would put out a statement saying." Yeah we have alot of new members, going a new direction, this certain section looks like it might be weak ). I have some pretty close connections to that corps ( very close )and many ( inside ) didnt believe what you do ....again it all doesnt matter ( YOU NEED BOTH DESIGN AND A DAM GOOD CORPS TO BE THE TOP) it's that simple if Cavies show design was a stinker..then fine. this goes both ways if it were a great design and a crappy corps same would have happened. Theres proof of that every year with some great shows but a not so great corps

BUT lets say you are right...then that kind of blows the theory of transfer of MMs theory now doesnt it. Not that anyone wants to go down that road again....lol

i think we exhausted this...lol

Edited by GUARDLING
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT lets say you are right...then that kind of blows the theory of transfer of MMs theory now doesnt it.

No, the lack of a transfer policy had not a thing at all to do with the Cavs placement slide of 5 positions from 2011 to 2012 ( that incidentally they appear to have rebounded nicely from). I have no idea why you brought up a totally unrelated topic to this. But since you did, lets look at this then :.... the Cavs of 2010-2011 were a top 3 Corps both years. As such, one would naturally expect the preseason of 2012 to bring out good talent for the Cavs to draw upon at their winter camps. And from reports, thats indeed what they got. We can also assume that quite a few of them did not expect that Michael Gaines, the genius behind the Cavs Show Designs would leave. But lets assume that many DID know he was gone. Its logical to assume then that the Cavs MM's assumed that Gaines replacement would provide them a Show Design for 2012 that would permit them to compete for the top 3 once again. But lets be real here now. The reality is that the Show Design put together for the Cavs MM's for 2012 could not come remotely close to what he Cavs MM's of previous years were used to receiving from Gaines. Those Cavs MM's in the winter had not seen the blueprint of the Show Design.. thats not how its done. So there was every expectation for the Cavs MM's that went there ( coupled with the goodly number of returning Cavs vets ), that they were going to get a great Show Design, either way. But of course, they didn't. The Cavs Design Team of preseason 2012 struggled mightily to put together a Show Design that would be equal to that of the departed Michael Gaines. They couldn't do it that year. But the Cavs had the marcher talent to compete for a top 3 placement that season... and thats no doubt why some went there, and why other Cavs vets from 2011 there stayed.there. But they had no shot at all to stay in the top 6 that year, let alone compete in the top 3 and for a 2012 Title. The 2012 Show Design under the current sheets doomed those Cavs MM's from the very beginning that year.... so no, there is no connection whatsoever between where MM's gravitate to, transfer policies and final placement, when it comes to Show Design. When we add " Show Design " into the equation... Show Design trumps all. And the Cavs MM's of preseason 2012 thought they'd get the expected top 3 Show Design to enable them to compete for 2012. But nobody, but nobody ( ok, maybe you and 3 others ) thinks they could finish highly in 2012 if they just worked hard, cleaned, worked on performance execution and yada yada.. That is, of course, quite silly when we simply look at what those talented Cavs MM's got for their 2012 Show Design after they lost Show Designer Michael Gaines after the 2011 season.

Edited by BRASSO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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