DCI Loopholes, Rule clarifications/changes?

[xandandl]

N.E.B.

Bonus like for your research.

For us non-percussionists, what is the difference between "one strike, one note" and Perc's quote of John Schmitt's "one trigger" as they sift WGI history? (cf. post 126, this thread.)

Edited September 23, 2014 by xandandl

[soccerguy315]

I think what Bluecoats did was super effective... I'm just pointing out that they recorded the entire hornline and played it electronically during the show to get more points. So if you can record and play your entire hornline, then I think you can record and play (electronically) anything. If not, where is the line?

It was arguably their biggest GE moment and a musical impact... and it was a recording.

[cixelsyd]

The "one stroke, one note" idea was mentioned several times on DCP (example, example, example); I have been working under the assumption that, for instance, skywhopper, supersop, and JamMan didn't invent the idea on their own, but it may indeed have been a general misconception.

Okay, just to make sure my memory is not playing tricks on me, I went back to the Hopkins rule proposal. It said:

"All instruments would have to be played in real time – Translation; one stroke equals one response. (NO TAPED Sequencing)"

That is not "one stroke, one note". Two reasons why:

a. A "response" could be more than a "note".

b. The restriction only applies to instruments. Under that wording, any non-instrumental sounds (i.e. voice) could be sequenced without limit.

Again, anyone who cares to share the pertinent rule book paragraph is welcome to chime in. I assume DCI still has a rule book.

[xandandl]

Cix,

I am following your logic fine but differ with your premise. Was Hopkins' proposal actually what DCI voted to accept?

My old memory says no, it was tweeked a bit.

Like you, I currently lack an up-to-date DCI rule book and judge's manual.

Anyone out there able to help out the above poster?

With all our subdividing, hair-splitting, chicken-littling according to one poster, and the great discussion these pages have been, we've yet to take from the positive and actually define what a DCI performer is for competitive purposes. Just saying...

[N.E. Brigand]

Okay, just to make sure my memory is not playing tricks on me, I went back to the Hopkins rule proposal. It said:

"All instruments would have to be played in real time – Translation; one stroke equals one response. (NO TAPED Sequencing)"

That is not "one stroke, one note". Two reasons why:

a. A "response" could be more than a "note".

b. The restriction only applies to instruments. Under that wording, any non-instrumental sounds (i.e. voice) could be sequenced without limit.

Again, anyone who cares to share the pertinent rule book paragraph is welcome to chime in. I assume DCI still has a rule book.

Good find, although I am left wondering what sort of "response" could be more than a "note" but less than a "sequence", which I would think describes two or more notes. The only thing I can think of is a chord. If you bend a chord (a la Bluecoats), I suppose that could count as just one "response".

Edited September 24, 2014 by N.E. Brigand

[perc2100]

On a side note.

If corps are receiving credit for the use of electronics.

When the electronics malfunction or do not work I think they should be getting credit taken away from them. The rewards should work both ways.

I'm sure you know that the DCI adjudication philosophy is one of a "build-up" system, and not a "tear-down/tick" system. There are no points ever taken away for anything (excepting, of course, the T&P judge for penalties) as the corps does not start with a number and lose credit for mistakes.

If something is less effective, or less cohesive as an ensemble because of an electronics malfunction, I suspect a corps would get less credit than they would otherwise. I've talked to DCI judges who HAVE given less credit when things didn't work; however remember that judges are human, and there are times when humans feel a bit of sympathy and might think more along the lines of, "they are still doing a great job, I'm not going to let a synth balance issue, or mic malfunction kill their score" so while credit might be a little less placement might not change and thus things might still go unnoticed by audience members who don't have the benefit of listening to tapes or talking to judges in critique.

[Jeff Ream]

I'm sure you know that the DCI adjudication philosophy is one of a "build-up" system, and not a "tear-down/tick" system. There are no points ever taken away for anything (excepting, of course, the T&P judge for penalties) as the corps does not start with a number and lose credit for mistakes.

If something is less effective, or less cohesive as an ensemble because of an electronics malfunction, I suspect a corps would get less credit than they would otherwise. I've talked to DCI judges who HAVE given less credit when things didn't work; however remember that judges are human, and there are times when humans feel a bit of sympathy and might think more along the lines of, "they are still doing a great job, I'm not going to let a synth balance issue, or mic malfunction kill their score" so while credit might be a little less placement might not change and thus things might still go unnoticed by audience members who don't have the benefit of listening to tapes or talking to judges in critique.

a one time issues yes it shouldn't kill the score. but if you have balance issues all show long, yes it should affect the number. I keep thinking back to the upstairs percussion judge at Allentown in 08....Bluecoats pit was way hot, and their number was about a point lower than downstairs because of it

[perc2100]

a one time issues yes it shouldn't kill the score. but if you have balance issues all show long, yes it should affect the number. I keep thinking back to the upstairs percussion judge at Allentown in 08....Bluecoats pit was way hot, and their number was about a point lower than downstairs because of it

Yeah in that case I can see that; I was thinking more when the poster said, "Malfunctioned" or "didn't work" and thinking more along the lines of a narration or solo mic not working or something - not 15 minutes of poor balance

[xandandl]

and yet an electrical malfunction/interruption/squeal/or lack of power can be as glaring. I consider how does the judge reward recovery by the performer? I am thinking of when the mikes cut out just before the Crown choristers began their opening, how they stepped around the deficient mic and performed anyway (and perhaps won a bit of respect and affection from the Crowd who appreciated that the show must go on.)

[2muchcoffeeman]

The solo's quality suffers when it is not amplified because the soloist is focusing too much on being loud. Tone quality suffers.

I'm not a music educator, but I know a'plenty of them. We've discussed this. They tell me that tone quality need not suffer at high volume, if the musician is sufficiently practiced at playing at loud volumes. They tell me it takes practice and muscle development to be able to support good tone at fff. For that reason, one of my professional-musician friends told me, he said his approach to teaching a marching ensemble would be to have the members always practicing at high volume, all the time. Play loud. Play loud some more. Play at loud volumes tomorrow, too. Play loud, a lot. Louder.

With sufficient muscle development, he said, the ensemble -- or a soloist -- can play with good intonation and sound quality at high volumes.