N.E. Brigand Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 To be specific, you are referencing the character from the play Oliver Or more generally, Charles Dickens's 1838 book, Oliver Twist, from which Lionel Bart's 1960 musical was adapted--itself later translated to film in Carol Reed's 1968 Oscar-winning version, with Ron Moody in the role. However, probably the best-known portrayal of Fagin was by Alec Guinness (later to play Obi Wan Kenobi in the first three Star Wars films) in David Lean's 1948 movie adaption. (Lean is most widely-known for The Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia. Reed's most-viewed film may be Oliver!, but his best is generally considered to be The Third Man.) For those who wish to know more, here is Wikipedia's entry on Fagin. As it happens, many corps have played selections from the musical Oliver!, notably "Who Will Buy", "As Long As He Needs Me", "Consider Yourself", and "Food, Glorious Food". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I think the 150 rule makes it more static. Some people have advocated for allowing corps to have as many members as they wish, finding a limit of 150 to be an unhelpful restraint. Lots of competitive high school marching bands, after all, have more than 150 members. Is that your position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
31rabbit Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 As it happens, many corps have played selections from the musical Oliver!, notably "Who Will Buy", "As Long As He Needs Me", "Consider Yourself", and "Food, Glorious Food". i notice that no corps has ever won the DCI championship when fielding a show based on music from the hit movie 'Oliver!', could there be any more clearcut sign that the system is broken? #FreeOliver 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 i notice that no corps has ever won the DCI championship when fielding a show based on music from the hit movie 'Oliver!', could there be any more clearcut sign that the system is broken? #FreeOliver S.O.P. on DCI corps tour: No seconds until everyone, including volunteers and bus drivers have eaten first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) i notice that no corps has ever won the DCI championship when fielding a show based on music from the hit movie 'Oliver!', could there be any more clearcut sign that the system is broken? #FreeOliver It's a conspiracy, I tell you! There must have been a judge, or committee member, named Oliver who hated both his mother and the Madison Scouts. EDIT: Any similarity between my comments above and any person, living, dead, still judging, or still judging dead is strictly coincidental, accidental, unintentional, and incidental. ($1 to xandandl) Edited February 20, 2015 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) George Oliver.....oh?, ha, ha. Edited February 20, 2015 by xandandl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesiscorps Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 They are a little off from my expectations. In 42 years, I would expect a couple more names engraved on the trophy. It is disappointing. If I were not so deeply interested in the activity, I could see it potentially driving me away. First, it tells me that the system is subjective. That is unavoidable. I expect some "inertia" as a result, as we see in other subjectively judged activities. However, I also expect the circuit to recognize this and take steps to avoid compounding the problem. That has not happened. Among your suggested terms above, "agenda driven" strikes a chord. The agenda for judging, like I related in an earlier post, has evolved from "rate" to "rank and rate" to "rank, then rate" to what we have now, which emphasizes: - do not give tie scores in captions, or even in subcaptions - scores should increase steadily from day to day - opinions in opinion captions (GE) should conform Pursuit of these agenda items has caused other behaviors, such as increased overuse of a small pool of judges, and other practices that drive conformance through peer review, critiques, etc. There are other systemic factors, though, that have nothing to do with judging - for instance, the uneven pay scale. In a game that requires money to be fully competitive, we pay the winners more. Is it any surprise when they keep winning? I arrive at two primary conclusions. One is that DCI as a circuit should support all their member corps fairly via even pay rates. Another is that the agenda for judging should alter emphasis. The pool of judges should be larger, more evenly utilized, and more frequently replenished. Scoring should be restructured to give judges more numbers to work with. Performance judges should be more focused on evaluating the performance of the day, and giving scores that reflect it. Effect judges should be able to provide valid, differing opinions without it being a "problem" that must be fixed by removing judges from future assignments until the remaining few conform. (One more thing, since you emphasize addressing "DCI as a circuit". Some of the issues I describe here have applied to the drum corps activity prior to DCI as well - thus, DCI did not create them. While I hope DCI will solve them one day, I am not even inferring that DCI is to blame for issues that pre-date their own existence.) Excellent. What are you doing come November 2016? I hear there may be an opening for a job on Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington D.C. - You have my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) They are a little off from my expectations. In 42 years, I would expect a couple more names engraved on the trophy. It is disappointing. If I were not so deeply interested in the activity, I could see it potentially driving me away. First, it tells me that the system is subjective. That is unavoidable. I expect some "inertia" as a result, as we see in other subjectively judged activities. However, I also expect the circuit to recognize this and take steps to avoid compounding the problem. That has not happened. Among your suggested terms above, "agenda driven" strikes a chord. The agenda for judging, like I related in an earlier post, has evolved from "rate" to "rank and rate" to "rank, then rate" to what we have now, which emphasizes: - do not give tie scores in captions, or even in subcaptions (A Ranking process) - scores should increase steadily from day to day (A rating process) - opinions in opinion captions (GE) should conform (...to a set of rules and observations as established by a committee organized to do so, and led by an accepted artistic impressionist) Pursuit of these agenda items has caused other behaviors, such as increased overuse of a small pool of judges, and other practices that drive conformance through peer review, critiques, etc. I fail to see how the current judging process is any different from the progression of judging, and I'm curious about how you would have opinion captions rated if not by some agreed metric. A smaller judging pool is the result of a combination of demographic issues and DCI not building a more robust judges-training program, regardless of the causes. But, by your desire for "non-conformity", it seems irrational to talk about organizing judges at all because training will require conformity to a set of agree-upon standards. There are other systemic factors, though, that have nothing to do with judging - for instance, the uneven pay scale. In a game that requires money to be fully competitive, we pay the winners more. Is it any surprise when they keep winning? And don't forget the inequity of equipment sponsors wanting their products displayed by the corps that keep winning. (/sarcasm) Would you level that "payout" as well? Centralize sponsorship, maybe? I arrive at two primary conclusions. One is that DCI as a circuit should support all their member corps fairly via even pay rates. All those below this new "average" payout will agree with you, and all those above it won't. Now what? Another is that the agenda for judging should alter emphasis. The pool of judges should be larger, more evenly utilized, and more frequently replenished. Scoring should be restructured to give judges more numbers to work with. Performance judges should be more focused on evaluating the performance of the day, and giving scores that reflect it. Effect judges should be able to provide valid, differing opinions without it being a "problem" that must be fixed by removing judges from future assignments until the remaining few conform. (One more thing, since you emphasize addressing "DCI as a circuit". Some of the issues I describe here have applied to the drum corps activity prior to DCI as well - thus, DCI did not create them. While I hope DCI will solve them one day, I am not even inferring that DCI is to blame for issues that pre-date their own existence.) But, apparently your solutions have been considered by the voting membership and deemed to be not what they want to do. Is it better to mandate that corps conform (there's that word again) to some new payout program that benefits corps "below the line", or is it better for corps above the line to build the kind of relationships they choose to with corps below the line? The ironic twist is that most corps "below the line" rely less on the DCI payout than do many corps above the line. Edited February 21, 2015 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesiscorps Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 But, apparently your solutions have been considered by the voting membership and deemed to be not what they want to do. Consequences of a centric-oriented entity (Understandably, it's their organization to do with what they please), a classic case of, "What's good for us right now?" as opposed to, "What's good for everyone longterm?" (e.g. growth, stability, and sustainability.) I'm also not convinced that what some of them (maybe even most of them) "want" isn't substantially different from what they are compelled to do under the circumstances. (reference G7 threats) Is it better to mandate that corps conform (there's that word again) to some new payout program that benefits corps "below the line", or is it better for corps above the line to build the kind of relationships they choose to with corps below the line? Again, it depends upon what the ultimate goal is. If it's organizational growth, stability, and sustainability based upon expansion of healthy organizations/corps, I think they're on the wrong track. Though I'm not comfortable with (or an advocate for) a "mandate," evidence shows that the status quo represents a clear picture of what the future will likely be if nothing is done. One can look reflectively at the past 42 years and draw a reasonable conclusion from that. The ironic twist is that most corps "below the line" rely less on the DCI payout than do many corps above the line. Most corps below the line have limited options... meaning that they don't have much to bargain with or negotiate with. They're pretty much in survival mode. They rely less on it because they don't have much choice. All my opinion only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 All my opinion only. Aren't all organizations "centric-oriented" entities? What if you believe the best way to sustain the activity is to sustain your drum corps? Those that make themselves dependent on the largese of others shouldn't complain... well, due to their "circumstances" doesn't hold up. In a nutshell, the corps that bring in the paying fans have the greatest control of the activity - - said the G7. It really depends on what you call "healthy". SCV is healthy, so is BD. Any corps that didn't rack up debt and/or fold last year is "healthy" isn't it? You mean like repeating the same mistakes over and over and expecting a different result? Maybe. But maybe that's success to them. You claim the "lower corps" are in survival mode; heck, if I'm a top 5 contender and DCI winner I'm in survival mode if DCI falls out from under me. I don't know how one can quantify "Survival Mode" without recognizing that the "winning" corps don't end up with a salable show after the competition dies, and they know it. Most corps "below the line" get so little financial support from the DCI payout schedule that they've built their organizations based on getting nothing from DCI. $100,000 payout to a million-dollar corps is 10%, but a $15,000 payout just 3% to a way-down-the-rankings corps that fields a $450,000 program. 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.