2016 Rule Congress proposals

[drumcorpsfever]

Is it possible that if all judges were in the stands that you'd get a better read on the corps early in the season? I only mention this because if a field judge isn't familiar with music and drill book, wouldn't it be difficult for him/her to know where to be at any particular point in the show to judge something that truly needs a closer eye and ear? By being further away from the individual performers, judges may be able to provide a more wholistic evaluation.

DCI has attempted to give credit for fan engagement. By removing judges from the field, wouldn't this ensure giving more credence to the audience experience?

[Ghost]

Is it possible that if all judges were in the stands that you'd get a better read on the corps early in the season?

For several years now, there are usually only about five judges at the early shows and in some of them, there's no percussion judge.

http://www.fromthepressbox.com/20150620plainwell.htm

http://www.fromthepressbox.com/20150622hamilton.htm

http://www.fromthepressbox.com/20150623ofallon.htm

[ironlips]

"...If your kids have the talent and you want to display it, you can't get that credit if your kids are part of a design that has them across the field. The judge simply can't see."

That's actually the point. It is the show designer's responsibility to ensure that music, form, equipment work and technique are actually readable. Why on Earth (sorry, I couldn't resist) would you want to obscure any of that, given a paradigm that rewards demonstrating those skills?

This sea change happened years ago. Evaluation is the method, not counting errors. It has served to improve performance in all areas, not diminish it.

And see what, exactly? There are already visual evaluators galore. Surely the percussion judge's responsibility is rightfully far more directed to hearing, as is the brass adjudicator's. Granted, there are some stick height and grip issues that could be evaluated, but this is certainly not the prime scoring factor. But even those can't be observed while negotiating escape routes out of formations moving at 200 bpm in all directions, weapons flying through space.

Methinks there is a red herring swimming here, the poorly disguised and incongruous desire to see the judge as actually part of the show. The field, by rights, belongs to the performer.

All that said, I'm a pragmatist and willing to make a deal. I'll cease arguing for removal of the drum judge from the field if the instructors will once and for all kill the ludicrous "duts".

[cixelsyd]

Re the current discussion, it might be helpful to remember that, since the mid-1980s, adjudicators are not searching for errors (tics) but rather for opportunities to assign credit for achievement.

Totally lost you on this sentence.

Achievement is a product of what is performed and how well it is performed. If judges are not searching for errors, they cannot say how well it was performed, and thus cannot determine what credit is merited.

What were you trying to say?

[mingusmonk]

"...If your kids have the talent and you want to display it, you can't get that credit if your kids are part of a design that has them across the field. The judge simply can't see."

That's actually the point. It is the show designer's responsibility to ensure that music, form, equipment work and technique are actually readable. Why on Earth (sorry, I couldn't resist) would you want to obscure any of that, given a paradigm that rewards demonstrating those skills?

This sea change happened years ago. Evaluation is the method, not counting errors. It has served to improve performance in all areas, not diminish it.

And see what, exactly? There are already visual evaluators galore. Surely the percussion judge's responsibility is rightfully far more directed to hearing, as is the brass adjudicator's. Granted, there are some stick height and grip issues that could be evaluated, but this is certainly not the prime scoring factor. But even those can't be observed while negotiating escape routes out of formations moving at 200 bpm in all directions, weapons flying through space.

Methinks there is a red herring swimming here, the poorly disguised and incongruous desire to see the judge as actually part of the show. The field, by rights, belongs to the performer.

All that said, I'm a pragmatist and willing to make a deal. I'll cease arguing for removal of the drum judge from the field if the instructors will once and for all kill the ludicrous "duts".

You are a peculiar fellow. You seem to make arguments based on progress, while still sounding like a crusty old fart. No small feat.

[ironlips]

"Peculiar". I like that.

And I am more than a bit crusty, I think.

[ironlips]

"...What were you trying to say? "

It's an evaluation concept called Derived Achievement, which has been the official judging philosophy for drum corps competition since the 1980s.

The short answer is that the judge makes a "judgement" based on balancing what is being attempted and how well it is accomplished, then assigns a criteria-based score to the groups, raking and rating each relatively.

A corps starts with zero points and the score is "built", not torn down from a (theoretically) perfect 100 points. This is why contemporary scores for the best groups often approach that threshold...but that's another discussion.

Ironically, the whole idea is based on the premise that the judge could not possibly identify all imperfections precisely because he/she was often out of position to catch them all, moving around to observe bass drums, for example, while the tenors "ticked" 10 yards away.

One other thing to consider: Good technique is good technique. It will be consistently displayed regardless of position on the field. Snares will not suddenly forget how to grip sticks uniformly just because a judge's view is obstructed momentarily, which it is for instance when trying to extricate himself from a drill form.

Bear in mind that I am simply explaining the concept, not being an apologist. The corps are perfectly entitled to modify the adjudication as they see fit. We crusty old guys did it back in the day, and the Young Turks currently in charge have the same option.

[garfield]

"Peculiar". I like that.

And I am more than a bit crusty, I think.

I'm actually a little jealous that you got that moniker instead of me.

I usually get "Long-Winded".

[ironlips]

"...I usually get "Long-Winded"."

That's just another way of saying "educated". Who else has both Latin and Italian in his signature, after all?

[garfield]

Is it possible that if all judges were in the stands that you'd get a better read on the corps early in the season? I only mention this because if a field judge isn't familiar with music and drill book, wouldn't it be difficult for him/her to know where to be at any particular point in the show to judge something that truly needs a closer eye and ear? By being further away from the individual performers, judges may be able to provide a more wholistic evaluation.

DCI has attempted to give credit for fan engagement. By removing judges from the field, wouldn't this ensure giving more credence to the audience experience?

I actually really love the idea of judges sitting in the stands talking into court-reporter-type voice cones to give feedback.

But, what is the problem we're trying to solve? Potential danger?