Return the power to the performers (?)

[Jeff Ream]

You have narrowed the discussion to be too limited.

What the GE score is and how it is derived is part of the discussion. How much is objective/subjective/real/theory is another. There are more facets to this jewel.

There is also the public relations hurdle the judging community, the corps, and the DCI organization has with the general public. How the process of rule making, rule interpretation, and rule application develops is the matter I allude toward for DCI today.

2015 was a unique season with so many good corps in the running with extremely good shows for many tastes. HOW they are judged is the question, not what is judged.

Going to your default of "babies thrown" disrespects the discussion and those discussing.

I'm saying that for DCI to repeat its record setting (business side) and memorable (competitive side) season, it has to address the elephant in the room, bring the general public and lower scoring corps back into the dialogue, and give the folks a greater motivation to attend future championships rather than the "I've been robbed in a very expensive city."

To me, it seems ludicrous that DCI even sent out an evaluation survey of "how did you like 2015 Indy" after already signing the 10 year deal at LOS. It's cart before the hoss thinking. So too the estotericism of GE and CG judging. Talk with the people, not at them or above them.

and over the last few years, fan network aside, has opened the blinds far wider than ever before. they even posted the sheets online when they changed.

and yes they did send the survey out before, even to people that didn't go ( dumb). But, face it, the deal they get from Indy beats any deal they will get anywhere else, so if anything, they want feedback on how to improve it if possible. And we all know people will say "open the roof", but that won't happen or solve anything

[Jeff Ream]

Yes, I do. But I also believe I know somewhat the human limitations of mankind too.

For example,.. I do believe that we have fine GE judges for the most part in DCI. Most are very knowledgeable about the craft, and about the sheets, and they are all honorable , decent, intelligent folks. They have the capacity to judge well.

Now, having said this.. do I believe that once a person that goes thru training, then becomes a GE ( musical ) judge that their hearing improves to superhuman levels as a result of their becoming a DCI judge ? No. I don't believe this. Do I believe that a Percussion judge down on the field can adequately judge the execution levels of the Percussion line ? Yes, for the most part. Do I believe however that a GE ( musical ) judge at Lucus Stadium high up in the booth can tell if the Percussion line is playing well down on the field when half the percussion line are moving and the GE judge is not moving with them ? No. Not particularly. Do I believe then that its not only possible, but probable, that the GE judge is looking realistically at 100% design, rather than the 50% design and 50% performance, while stationed high up in the booth ? Yes, I do. Thus, it is easy to understand how an ineffective performer performance ( despite the good intentions of the GE judge ) can still lead to a high GE score ( Musical subset GE ) as a result of the adult created Show Design itself. Knowing this, it is also relatively easy to understand how Crown had a subpar percussion execution down on the field on Finals Nite in 2013, but the GE ( Musical ) judge could not hear the playing ( with the distance, crowd noise, etc ) and thus awarded Crown a good GE score ( musical ) despite the ineffective percussion playing down on the field picked up by the Percussion judges right down there a few feet away from them. The GE judge ( musical ) liked what he saw.. not what he heard... and that was enough for both him.. and Crown. As such, a Corps can win a DCI Title with a 6th or 7th in performance execution in one or more performance execution captions. But it can not be done if the adult created Show Design is not top 3 in SIGHT design that season. And Man, has BD grasped this all so well and perfectly, imo.

the GE judge's job isn't to look at the percussions execution on a micro level. Their job is to tie that in with the music overall on a macro level.

You seem to want the GE judge to analuyze as if they are a field judge. that's not their job. Their job is took at the big picture, make sure it flows, it makes sense, it's not big hits for the sake of big hits, etc. Really, on effect, it's not just the big hits that matter...it's how you get in and out of the moments that matter just as much. Specific ticky tacky errors come far less into place upstairs because it's not an analysis caption.

[N.E. Brigand]

Not entirely accurate at all. Even if you said it 25 or 50 times. For example, GE judges have been able to look beyond the woefully ineffective performer performance execution in the performance execution captions of percussion or brass or guard (6th, 7th place) and have still rewarded Corps with 1st, 2nd total GE scores, thus allowing the adult-created show design to bring home the bacon, despite the woeful performer performance. This is verifiable. Crown did it. BD has done it (finished 6th/7th in a performance-execution caption) but won it all anyway. It is NOT imperative at all for the execution performance to be effectively executed.. We can only say that it helps the GE scores to have superior performer execution. No more, no less.. But is it absolutely essential that the show be effectively performed in performer execution to win Total GE as you implied here? No. It isn't absolutely essential at all. Just helpful, that's all. Crown and BD alike have won DCI titles with ineffective performer performance execution in one or more captions. It was the adult-created Show Designs (GE) that saved the day. Conversely, performers can effectively perform and execute their playing better than anyone (1st place in Percussion even out of 45 Corps), but if adults let them down by giving them a subpar Show Design (GE), no amount of highly effective, superior, performer performance execution such as 1st place ( Percussion )can save the Corps from the lemon the adults put out onto the field.

First, can we all admit that we're using a bit of hyperbole in referring to a sixth-place percussion line, with a Finals score of 18.95, a score which is solidly in Box 5 (what would be a clear grade of "A" on a test) as "woefully ineffective"?

Second, you keep saying that G.E. is equivalent to show design, for instance in this post where you refer to "adult-created Show Design (GE)". Can you prove that they are the same thing? What on the sheets supports this claim?

Third, this statement you've made probably needs some further consideration:

"Performers can effectively perform and execute their playing better than anyone (1st place in percussion even out of 45 Corps), but if adults let them down by giving them a subpar show design (GE), no amount of highly effective, superior, performer performance execution such as 1st place (percussion )can save the corps from the lemon the adults put out onto the field."

Would you really want it any other way? If the design didn't matter, then couldn't the musicians just play the most difficult but boring technical exercises while marching super-challenging but boring drill? Isn't there a risk that evaluating execution above effect will drive away audiences? Do you know why "figure skating" has that name? For those who don't: it's because originally, a large part of a skater's score in competition came from demonstrating how well they could skate a certain "figure" (like the number "8") on the ice. The judges would then closely examine the marks that skaters left in the ice to make sure that, for instance, circles, were perfectly round. However:

"Pressure to reduce the weight of compulsory figures began when the Olympics Games and other skating competitions began to be widely shown on television. Television coverage posed major problems to the compulsory figures for two reasons. They were not considered appealing to television audiences, with even the most ardent skating fans finding the completion of the figures, followed by seemingly microscopic analysis by the judges, to be tedious, and the general public held even less interest for the figures. In addition, skaters who excelled at compulsory figures were often not the most talented at free skating, but sometimes accumulated such a large lead from the school figures that they won the competitions overall. Such results would often leave general viewers stunned because they had watched only the free skating and had little or no knowledge of the compulsory figures." (Source.)

The compulsory figures counted for 60% of the score until 1968, and were reduced in importance in stages after that, before being eliminated entirely in 1999 (in the U.S.; most of the rest of the world had abandoned them a decade earlier). I have a friend whose daughter had taken up figure skating shortly before that, and he's always been disappointed at this change, because she was quite good at figures. Most of the audience, however, had no taste for such fine execution, no matter how much discipline it required.

Now, maybe it was wrong to let the audience's desire for entertainment change that activity. Maybe the skating purists should have stuck to their principles and let the audience go hang. I'm just saying that there may be consequences to putting execution first that aren't being considered.

[Jeff Ream]

Sure, but the opposite, as it were, might be true: if the judges repeatedly reward shows that aren't entertaining many people, than the corps may decide they need to design shows that aren't entertaining.

There appears to have been some concern in DCI that this was happening a few years ago, which resulted in DCI's appointment of Michael Cesario as artistic director, with a mission to (1) encourage corps to figure out what they do best and break out of the one-model-fits-all-corps mold, and (2) tweak the adjudication sheets so that audience engagement is given more attention. The outcome seems to be a general sense among fans in 2013-2015 that most shows, both those that score well and those that don't, are more entertaining than they were in the several years prior to that.

that I feel is an issue that has been less and less of an issue since 2010. Sure some may have cheered because it was ABBD winning most years, but even in 2014, you couldn't dent BD was liked and respected as opposed to just respected.

[Jeff Ream]

First, can we all admit that we're using a bit of hyperbole in referring to a sixth-place percussion line, with a Finals score of 18.95, a score which is solidly in Box 5 (what would be a clear grade of "A" on a test) as "woefully ineffective"?

Second, you keep saying that G.E. is equivalent to show design, for instance in this post where you refer to "adult-created Show Design (GE)". Can you prove that they are the same thing? What on the sheets supports this claim?

Third, this statement you've made probably needs some further consideration:

"Performers can effectively perform and execute their playing better than anyone (1st place in percussion even out of 45 Corps), but if adults let them down by giving them a subpar show design (GE), no amount of highly effective, superior, performer performance execution such as 1st place (percussion )can save the corps from the lemon the adults put out onto the field."

Would you really want it any other way? If the design didn't matter, then couldn't the musicians just play the most difficult but boring technical exercises while marching super-challenging but boring drill? Isn't there a risk that evaluating execution above effect will drive away audiences? Do you know why "figure skating" has that name? For those who don't: it's because originally, a large part of a skater's score in competition came from demonstrating how well they could skate a certain "figure" (like the number "8") on the ice. The judges would then closely examine the marks that skaters left in the ice to make sure that, for instance, circles, were perfectly round. However:

"Pressure to reduce the weight of compulsory figures began when the Olympics Games and other skating competitions began to be widely shown on television. Television coverage posed major problems to the compulsory figures for two reasons. They were not considered appealing to television audiences, with even the most ardent skating fans finding the completion of the figures, followed by seemingly microscopic analysis by the judges, to be tedious, and the general public held even less interest for the figures. In addition, skaters who excelled at compulsory figures were often not the most talented at free skating, but sometimes accumulated such a large lead from the school figures that they won the competitions overall. Such results would often leave general viewers stunned because they had watched only the free skating and had little or no knowledge of the compulsory figures." (Source.)

The compulsory figures counted for 60% of the score until 1968, and were reduced in importance in stages after that, before being eliminated entirely in 1999 (in the U.S.; most of the rest of the world had abandoned them a decade earlier). I have a friend whose daughter had taken up figure skating shortly before that, and he's always been disappointed at this change, because she was quite good at figures. Most of the audience, however, had no taste for such fine execution, no matter how much discipline it required.

Now, maybe it was wrong to let the audience's desire for entertainment change that activity. Maybe the skating purists should have stuck to their principles and let the audience go hang. I'm just saying that there may be consequences to putting execution first that aren't being considered.

if skating hadn't changed, it wouldn't be as popular as it is

[garfield]

There was some re-wording at last Rules Congress, but not much of a shift.

So far you've talked about a "big elephant" that must be talked about, and allude to allowing all the players back in the room. Must it be talked about?

Now you're talking about judging standards that seem to leave everyone confused, and you offer a promise of clarity when you sort out your thoughts.

I wonder: might you have an agenda?

2015 was a success. It didn't seem to require the things you now say it needs in order to again be a success. But does it? Why can't we simply answer the question of why 2015 was a success and repeat that, even if it means all of the players are snarling at each other in the meetings?

Judging standards ought to somehow be referable to potential members who do guard and indoor. I fail to see how new standards maintain that link to potential MM's and, if WGI standards fit the DCI bill, why they should be changed to something else. If you're suggesting more integration of the guard into the show, I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree. But guard is fully integrated today, and it wasn't that long ago that we were complaining here that judging has gotten too visual and not enough music.

What does that have to do with the success of this season? To what is the success of 2015 owed and shouldn't the energy be placed on duplicating THAT?

(At least for now.)

Edited August 31, 2015 by garfield

[xandandl]

I don't get the contention that they don't get enough attention when the evolution over 35 years has been exactly to give them more attention. Attention that, once given, demanded something to look at and, hence blend and build the show. But you're talking about an evolution that began in 1980; it's not some new phenomenon.

When the DCI sheets were redone the time before last, DCI Rules Congress, by vote and recommendation of the guard caption committee of the official voting member corps decided to adopt lock, stock, and barrel (suitable pun) the WGI standards of evaluation and rewarding of color guards. At the last Rules Congress, there was minor re-shifting of some verbiage but no address of how outdoor color guard for drum corps differed from indoor color guard for WGI.

My contention is that this topic has to be addressed as the idea of General Effect and reward, Visual design and reward, Demand on performer and reward, and integration of all elements of the show has evolved from the score sheets of 1980 (20th century) to what we have seen in 2015 (21st century.) Thus the guard caption has to be considered in 2016 not 1980.

I am not saying there should be more evolution. What I am saying is that one can't put a round peg in a square hole unless the peg is smaller and the hole larger. The color guard in 2016 is more than single spinning flags and rifles in 1980. What it means to integrate the guard into the 2016 show needs a greater discussion and consideration.

I also contend that this is a different environment doing it with live brass and percussion in a visual movement in an outdoor arena or NFL stadium than doing this in a standard indoor basketball court.

[N.E. Brigand]

Exactly. It's like I hear some honks saying with guard: "Oh, we're throwing a lot of 7s or 8s." Yeah, so?

After a few, it's not effective, AND is that the only way you know how to create effect?

"After a few it's not effective" ... in your opinion.

Just because you would prefer to see four examples of skill A, four examples of skill B, and four examples of skill C doesn't mean that someone else can't prefer to see twelve examples of one of them. Both opinions could be equally valid. (Some people adore Ravel's Bolero, which is largely the same thing done over and over; others can't stand it for that very reason.) Depending on how it fits the music and the theme, the latter might indeed be more effective.

No, that't not how it works. Corps should be displaying a variety of skills, not the same one over and over. That's not a skill anymore at that point: we are talking likes or dislikes of an audience, BUT even if we were, doesn't watching the same thing over and over and over get boring? I say for sure.

This is not my opinion on this; it's how corps, guards in WGI, etc etc. get rewarded. Here's a few of the statements Jeff Ream posted from the sheets a few pages back:

How extensive and dramatic are the variety of effects over time?

· How prevalent is creativity and/or originality and/or artistry?

· How do each of these factors, collectively and individually, compare to each and all the other units in the competition?

If one creates effect the exact same way for 12 min. it no longer becomes effective

This is all still merely your opinion. Just because the sheets agree with you doesn't make it not an opinion.

"Forty million Frenchmen can't be right." -- George Bernard Shaw

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." -- Anatole France

See how I bolded the word "should" in your post? "Should" indicates that your comment is not a statement of fact. And "boring", which I also bolded, is another indicator of opinion. What's boring to you may be exciting to someone else. There were intelligent movie critics who said that Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark were boring. You can't prove they really weren't bored.

That said, it's perfectly fine for you to express your opinion (in my opinion). While, as I've said before, it's the poor writer (in my opinion) who uses the phrase "in my opinion", nonetheless, from time to time, it's helpful (in my opinion) to remind people that what many are taking as fact is actually opinion.

And this (in my opinion) deserves repeating and extra-special emphasis: EVERYTHING ON THE SHEETS IS SUBJECTIVE. Everything. (In DCI, DCA, BOA, WGI, etc.) There is nothing on the sheets that any rational person (in my opinion) would be factually incorrect to disagree with. Nothing.

For example:

Q: How extensive and dramatic are the variety of effects over time?

A: It doesn't matter, because variety is unimportant.

You can't prove that answer to be wrong. All you can do is disagree with it.

[xandandl]

So far you've talked about a "big elephant" that must be talked about, and allude to allowing all the players back in the room. Must it be talked about?

Now you're talking about judging standards that seem to leave everyone confused, and you offer a promise of clarity when you sort out your thoughts.

I wonder: might you have an agenda?

2015 was a success. It didn't seem to require the things you now say it needs in order to again be a success. But does it? Why can't we simply answer the question of why 2015 was a success and repeat that, even if it means all of the players are snarling at each other in the meetings?

Judging standards ought to somehow be referable to potential members who do guard and indoor. I fail to see how new standards maintain that link to potential MM's and, if WGI standards fit the DCI bill, why they should be changed to something else. If you're suggesting more integration of the guard into the show, I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree. But guard is fully integrated today, and it wasn't that long ago that we were complaining here that judging has gotten too visual and not enough music.

What does that have to do with the success of this season? To what is the success of 2015 owed and shouldn't the energy be placed on duplicating THAT?

(At least for now.)

If the public tires of the same old ones winning all the time because the judges like them and the crowd picks someone else, then tickets eventually wither especially when costs of travel increase..

If people go home wondering why Crown doesn't win guard (or gold) when when winning it all season, tickets eventually wither especially when costs of travel increase..

If people don't understand what on earth is GE and why who wins GE usually wins DCI, tickets eventually wither

I am agreeing with your last position ("To what...) but am differing in the conclusion that is based merely on business factors.

DCI is a competition. When the public thinks it is rigged or skewed or leaves common sense out, that hurts business as being other than fair competition.

I suspect you and I speak with very different folks involved in drum corps; your perspectives and mine are not in opposition, but different sides of a triangle which has DCI is fair competition as its base. I am saying that the elephant in the room is that these questions must be addressed for that perception to continue no matter who wins or medals or misses finals.

Edited August 31, 2015 by xandandl

[GUARDLING]

When the DCI sheets were redone the time before last, DCI Rules Congress, by vote and recommendation of the guard caption committee of the official voting member corps decided to adopt lock, stock, and barrel (suitable pun) the WGI standards of evaluation and rewarding of color guards. At the last Rules Congress, there was minor re-shifting of some verbiage but no address of how outdoor color guard for drum corps differed from indoor color guard for WGI.

My contention is that this topic has to be addressed as the idea of General Effect and reward, Visual design and reward, Demand on performer and reward, and integration of all elements of the show has evolved from the score sheets of 1980 (20th century) to what we have seen in 2015 (21st century.) Thus the guard caption has to be considered in 2016 not 1980.

I am not saying there should be more evolution. What I am saying is that one can't put a round peg in a square hole unless the peg is smaller and the hole larger. The color guard in 2016 is more than single spinning flags and rifles in 1980. What it means to integrate the guard into the 2016 show needs a greater discussion and consideration.

I also contend that this is a different environment doing it with live brass and percussion in a visual movement in an outdoor arena or NFL stadium than doing this in a standard indoor basketball court.

In the guard world this type of thing has come up often over the years. Many years already. There is a difference between the both, a vast difference BUT I do think some things can be applied and of course some not so much. I do think most GE and guard judges do know the difference and reward accordingly .

example: there are very small and intricate hand moves a guard person may do in winter that can not be seen on a football field. Why do them then. Big sweeping moves work better summer than in winter

You are right though guard today is not just about the spinning and the drop etc etc and effect can and should be created in multiple ways. I do think judges do get its different and one to the other creates effect differently. Evolution took place not just within the corps but how one has to look at things in the present. This goes for members, staff, judges as well as the viewer. Now the viewer can choose what to like or not like but if one wants to truly understand then thats quite another thing.