DCI Suggestion Box

[Jeff Ream]

I said in the Finals thread, before scores were announced, that I would be reasonably content to see any of the top four take the gold, so I'm no knee-jerk Blue Devils opponent. With that in mind: if you're right, and I think you are, then for most of the season, BD probably should have been scoring a little lower in visual effect even than they sometimes were. I said a few times before championship week that BD's show was somewhat confusing when seen live, particularly from on high (as the G.E. judges see it), and I even cited comments I had solicited from other fans in the stands to support that claim. (The books weren't identifiable as such under the typical outdoor stadium lights, the characters with giant capes were the only ones even approximately recognizable as their fairy-tale counterparts, etc. Not to mention that the show generally looked more cluttered than did, for instance, Crown 2014, a show that was subject to many complaints about its overall visual appearance.) But a few BD aficionados here ridiculed those comments, intimating that the only audience members who couldn't follow BD's show were mentally deficient.

Since championship week, I've seen more than one comment here stating that the addition of Clara made the show clear to them. Unless they, like me and the people who saw BD's show live when I did, are oafs, this means, as I said in late July, that the show wasn't fully clear before.

i too thought the numbers were a tad high. however, i dont get to sit on critique when the idea is explained fully and fleshed out to the judges to see the intent more so than just by watching online. by Allentown, even without Clara, it made a lot more sense and the numbers didnt bug me.....but even early on, if you understand the sheet, i can see the numbers

[Jeff Ream]

There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium . . .

I still can sing about two-thirds of this from memory before stumbling* (neon comes near the end):

But I no longer remember most atomic numbers. Though I daresay a number (though far from a majority) of high school and college students know the atomic numbers of the first thirty elements or so, as of course do a lot of scientists!

*Thanks to the "Presidential Boogie" (which I can't find on Youtube), even now I can name all 44 presidents in chronological order in about ten seconds. But that's a much shorter list.

i only remember what i had for lunch yesterday if i still have the receipt LOL

[Jeff Ream]

Are BD's show really all that intellectual? Or do some members of the audience just perceive them that way? (Must I quote Britney Spears on Sundance again?)

08-13, in many ways yes. they really focused on intellectual effect, leaving aside emtional and aesthetic

[N.E. Brigand]

Are BD's show really all that intellectual?

Grrr. Sorry about the typo. That should be "shows", of course.

[cixelsyd]

Welcome to the internet, where the anonymous claim superior experience and expertise over each other.

And since this was brought up, a reminder that the caption is called "general effect". It is not "experiential effect", or "effect for experts only".

[xandandl]

i too thought the numbers were a tad high. however, i dont get to sit on critique when the idea is explained fully and fleshed out to the judges to see the intent more so than just by watching online. by Allentown, even without Clara, it made a lot more sense and the numbers didnt bug me.....but even early on, if you understand the sheet, i can see the numbers

Your defense here is the evidence of why the modern DCI scoring is no longer based on the performance but on the design.

To me, that's a tragedy. The weight should go to the performers not the designers.

What happens in critique should not overbear the credit given to the performers, no matter how much verbiage or lobbying a staff member renders to the judge.

I am counting the minutes in anticipation for the next Rules Congress to return the DCI contest to the performers.

[xandandl]

While I can appreciate the frustration of these 3 finalist corps with the current judging system, there are lots of obese football coaches that evaluate their recruits and players abilities, and have a say on these players drills, endurance, performance, etc too. Some of 'em can't even see their shoes from their neck over their bellys, let alone tie the laces on the shoes. But so what ? They know how to evaluate football performers, performances, and thats all that really matters,.. not their waist size.

One of the suggestions coming from the MMs had us all laughing from the imaging of the same.

"Instead of the judges being escorted into the contest in their chauffeured limo van with their hoard of begging directors, techs, and caption folks behind them like a royal train in tow, why not warm up the crowd by having the judges first do a lap or two around the track, even some stretching exercises out on the field in front of the audience, before they take the elevators and escalators up to their air-conditioned sky-boxes to give numbers to how we break sweat out on the field? The crowd would definitely go for it."

I say this after having lost six inches off my own waist toward a goal of dropping 80 pounds to assist my medical condition. No, I can't do the 5 miles at the rate the MMs do before each practice session, but then again I am no longer in my late teens or early twenties. But I've got the Tony DiCarlo "racing gait" down pat.

Edited August 27, 2015 by xandandl

[GUARDLING]

Welcome to the internet, where the anonymous claim superior experience and expertise over each other.

And since this was brought up, a reminder that the caption is called "general effect". It is not "experiential effect", or "effect for experts only".

If you read back This was posted as to a statement made by a poster stating one thing ( snarky, their new word ) and an answer of at least some intelligence by Jeff ream.

Not sure where you are going with the GE comment but general does not mean everyone in the stands. It means overall effect of the program. Maybe you didnt read back at the posts that lead to the pic.

I still stand by it though. There are some great people and info here and also quite the opposite.

Also , don't assume an anonymous poster is doing it to hide out. Some here are with corps and can not nor should not interject anything that might be associated with a corps , same goes for members. I myself are quite known in the activity and ONLY come in here to possibly add a perspective maybe different from another ,even another corps. This and also because most if not all directors frown upon even getting involved with all this on line stuff. You are right though many do exactly what you said BUT thats easy for many to see through it.,Very easy. Also easy sometimes to find out who someone is...lol

Many colleagues of mine or a few posters here who actually do know me have asked WHY do you even bother here,

( something i ask myself often I'm afraid ) BUT I like to believe there are more good people and info and less of those who at times are very disturbing but often it seems quite the opposite . Funny though with many I know here, when confronted face to face it's totally different...lol.That is the internet world Im afraid. This is fact all over I guess.

well anyway,Ive enjoyed your perspective in the past though.

Edited August 27, 2015 by GUARDLING

[cixelsyd]

If you read back This was posted as to a statement made by a poster stating one thing ( snarky, their new word ) and an answer of at least some intelligence by Jeff ream.

Not sure where you are going with the GE comment but general does not mean everyone in the stands. It means overall effect of the program. Maybe you didnt read back at the posts that lead to the pic.

I still stand by it though. There are some great people and info here and also quite the opposite.

Also , don't assume an anonymous poster is doing it to hide out. Some here are with corps and can not nor should not interject anything that might be associated with a corps , same goes for members. I myself are quite known in the activity and ONLY come in here to possibly add a perspective maybe different from another ,even another corps. This and also because most if not all directors frown upon even getting involved with all this on line stuff. You are right though many do exactly what you said BUT thats easy for many to see through it.,Very easy. Also easy sometimes to find out who someone is...lol

Many colleagues of mine or a few posters here who actually do know me have asked WHY do you even bother here,

( something i ask myself often I'm afraid ) BUT I like to believe there are more good people and info and less of those who at times are very disturbing but often it seems quite the opposite . Funny though with many I know here, when confronted face to face it's totally different...lol.That is the internet world Im afraid. This is fact all over I guess.

well anyway,Ive enjoyed your perspective in the past though.

- First, my response was motivated by a desire to see continued discussion on two topics (intellectual component of GE, and current MMs commenting on judges' physical fitness). Photo-grams like yours, whether intended or not, could be taken by some as categorically dismissive of their opinions, thus discouraging such discussion.

- As for "general effect", not sure what you mean. Clearly, it does not mean overall effect, because when we judged brass, percussion and visual GE separately, we still called each of those captions "general effect". I like to think that the word "general" was included to remind the judge that it is not just how the performance affects him personally, but how effective it is to people generally. If that were not the case, the caption would simply have been called "Effect".

[Jeff Ream]

Your defense here is the evidence of why the modern DCI scoring is no longer based on the performance but on the design.

To me, that's a tragedy. The weight should go to the performers not the designers.

What happens in critique should not overbear the credit given to the performers, no matter how much verbiage or lobbying a staff member renders to the judge.

I am counting the minutes in anticipation for the next Rules Congress to return the DCI contest to the performers.

well it has to be performed well enough for the design to be read.....so if I isn't performed well enough to make sense, you don't get design credit.

so while in critique, you can learn the intent, it still has to be performed. Just because the staff explains the idea to you doesn't mean your score automatically shoots up. it means they get the idea, and if anything makes it harder for the corps, because they know what to look for...if it isn't there....well, sorry!