Beanpot Invitational - Lynn, MA July 3rd

[N.E. Brigand]

I have no idea what goes on behind closed doors, nor what level of support (or frustration) judges might have with any of this.

If judges didn't make a stink when DCI implemented the new policy of withdrawal of the availability of recaps to the judges, and on the official DCI press release-given reason of "to limit the potential for judge bias", then I would imagine these DCI judges wouldn't go public with a "rebellion" on this either. Just imagine the DCI judges' reaction when they were collectively told as a group, "Look, you just might have judge bias" and "One of the things we are going to do about it is to punitively disallow you to have access to recaps that you've had at your disposal as judges since 1972". Whoa, if that's not a slap at the current DCI judges, then what is? BUT, did we hear any public judges' "rebellion" on this? No. But common sense should tell us that no self-respecting DCI judge could possibly be privately liking this new policy implementation imposed upon them with this either, nor the explanation given by DCI for the need for its implementation as well.

Did DCI actually put what I have bolded above into writing anywhere?

I have been searching the "news" section of the DCI website, and I can't find it.

[BRASSO]

Sorry, I still disagree. But that is OK. I've evaluated all sorts of ensembles using all sorts of instrumentation in my time, and it is just not the impossibility you make it out.

" Ensemble Music".... " GE Music.... etc I'm with you on this. Where we part company and disagree ( no problem ) is when we ask the " Brass Caption" judge to determine who had the " better " and then " the best" brass line in competition among brass competitors with now wholly different brass line instrumentation composition mixes. I did confine my remarks to the " brass caption " only here too, as a reminder. If people... including current DCI brass judges themselves.. believe that they can effectively compare and contrast the playing of brass instruments that are now more than ever, completely dissimilar in the sounds they create, and some easier to play than others, etc, I'd simply say good luck with that endeavor, as I do not believe that it can be intelligently done... no matter the training, experience, hearing abilities, decernment, pedigree, etc that such a DCI Brass judge might legitimately possess. Oh well, its been a civil and good dialogue on this, and unless you have anything more to add, MikeD, I say we kick this can down the road now, and move on.

Edited July 5, 2016 by BRASSO

[Ghost]

Oh well, its been a civil and good dialogue on this, and unless you have anything more to add, MikeD, I say we kick this can down the road now, and move on.

If you kick that can to the curb, then you can move on down the road without coming up on that dam can again.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Ghost

[MikeD]

" Ensemble Music".... " GE Music.... etc I'm with you on this. Where we part company and disagree ( no problem ) is when we ask the " Brass Caption" judge to determine who had the " better " and then " the best" brass line in competition among brass competitors with now wholly different brass line instrumentation composition mixes. I did confine my remarks to the " brass caption " only here too, as a reminder. If people... including current DCI brass judges themselves.. believe that they can effectively compare and contrast the playing of brass instruments that are now more than ever, completely dissimilar in the sounds they create, and some easier to play than others, etc, I'd simply say good luck with that endeavor, as I do not believe that it can be intelligently done... no matter the training, experience, hearing abilities, decernment, pedigree, etc that such a DCI Brass judge might legitimately possess. Oh well, its been a civil and good dialogue on this, and unless you have anything more to add, MikeD, I say we kick this can down the road now, and move on.

NP...we totally disagree, but then again that is nothing new.

[jwillis35]

More instruments to judge including amplified and reverb ones does make it more complex. Especially with the great range of techniques these days

More variables makes it more complex. Simple math.

No doubt.

Oh, more complex for sure. But not an impossible task...and it is nothing new for these judges who have been judging corps and bands for years.

Also agree.

If one were to tell me that those judging brass and percussion for DCI in the past 10 years were non-band, non-orchestra musicians/educators who were only taught to judge G Bugles or Bb/F bell-front brass, then I'd say two things:

1. We've hired the wrong people

2. Yes, they are going to be challenged by all the voices, instruments used in modern DCI

However, most of the folks judging percussion and brass have extensive experience in band, jazz, orchestra, and all kinds of chamber ensembles. They are music-school educated, have a lot of experience with the colors, timbres, balances, and blends of the modern orchestra, band, or any marching group that chooses to use those colors -- including the use of electronics and voice. BOA has been doing it for years, and many of those judges are also doing DCI. Concert ensembles and orchestra have been using voice, rhythm section with electric bass, and more for years. Many of these traditional ensembles are using more synth as well.

My experience with those who judge is this:

• It's fairly objective when it comes to articulation, pitch, tone matching and balance within the section, timing, tonal control, etc.
• It's much more subjective when it comes to overall balance, blend, style, feel, stylistic expressions, exposing the melodic line, phrase shaping, etc.

If I'm on the field I can't get a great sense of the subjective stuff, but I can really dig into the objective stuff. If I'm in the stands, at least mid-way up and center, I can dig into the subjective stuff and I can comment on the objective stuff, but I will not get the most accurate read on the objective issues.

However, if there is only 1 music person, then no doubt you'd prefer to be in the stands. From that vantage point I can definitely judge both objective and subjective issues, but a loud pit with lots of electronics will cloud my ability to dig into the micro details like articulation, timing, tonal control, tone matching within the section, etc. I can make a decent read on it, but I can get way more into detail if I'm on the field for the objective details.

So that's the challenge for the music judge. No doubt we will see much different numbers at shows with full panels vs those with 1 music person or 1 judge for all of GE. But in general a good judge should be able to get the placement right, even if they're a little off on their numbers. In the long run, as DCI continues to become more competitive, especially with all these amazing groups between the 10 and 20 slots, I believe they need to do what they can to have full panels at most shows. And full recaps should be a must. Why take such an exciting thing away from the fans?

Edited July 5, 2016 by jwillis35

[fsthnds]

I have no idea what goes on behind closed doors, nor what level of support ( or frustration ) judges might have with any of this.

If judges didn't make a stink when DCI implemented the new policy of withdrawal of the availability of recaps to the judges... and on the official DCI press release given reason of..... " to limit the potential for judge bias ", then I would imagine these DCI judges wouldn't go public with a " rebellion " on this either. Just imagine the DCI judges reaction when they were collectively told as a group : " look, you just might have judge bias " and" one of the things we are going to do about it is to punitively disallow you to have access to recaps that you've had at your disposal as judges since 1972 " . Whoa, if thats not a slap at the current DCI judges, then what is ? BUT.. did we hear any public Judges " rebellion " on this ? No. But common sense should tell us that no self respecting DCI judge could possibly be privately liking this new policy implementation imposed upon them with this either.... nor the explanation given by DCI for the need for its implementation as well.

Why would judges complain? Now they don't have to deal with all the comments on the internet about their BIASES/FAVORITISM toward certain corps.

After talking to a couple of judges I know, they are still getting other judges numbers at different shows from their fellow judges and even "friends" on the corps staffs. In fact a show recently had scores that dropped 5-10 points from earlier shows, and the next night the same judges were "told" their scores were too low the night before and there was an average of 4-5 point increase the next night with the same panel. I cannot believe all these corps put in overnight changes to get that big of a bump.

JUDGES AND CO-ORDINATORS TALK TO EACH OTHER all the time (in the hotel, to and from the show, e-mails etc.,etc, and even during the shows)!

[BRASSO]

After talking to a couple of judges I know, they are still getting other judges numbers at different shows from their fellow judges and even "friends" on the corps staffs. In fact a show recently had scores that dropped 5-10 points from earlier shows, and the next night the same judges were "told" their scores were too low the night before and there was an average of 4-5 point increase the next night with the same panel. I cannot believe all these corps put in overnight changes to get that big of a bump.

JUDGES AND CO-ORDINATORS TALK TO EACH OTHER all the time (in the hotel, to and from the show, e-mails etc.,etc, and even during the shows)!

Of course... there is no surprise here with this either. Judges talk to one another all the time. We had a discussion about this very thing earlier before the season started... we chuckled at this idea that the judges will not have access to recaps, or not know within 24-48 hours if their scores needed " to be adjusted " ,not to what the corps were doing, but to what their colleagues were scoring at other shows. You are correct that Corps scores dropped between 5-10 points from one show to the next... then " magically" improved 4-5 points within 24 hours at the next show ( did I not tell people here about the coming volatility of the scores this season here on DCP ? ). The judges will soon ( 24 hours or so ) all get the recaps from their fellow colleague judges. They all take care of one another. The fans ? We'll get the recaps in September, when we're already thinking about 2017 by then. DCI 's secret recap policy won't effect the judges in the least. But it will effect the Corps that won't know from nite to nite what scores are real and which are " adjusted ". And it will effect the fans who really miss the transparency that the recaps provided to the score analysis. Finally, DCI ( and some dcp'ers ) still think you can properly and effectively judge a Drum & Bugle Corps competition without a brass judge... or without a percussion judge.... or without a guard judge... or some combination loss of these.... and that the scores are meaningful between full and halfazz sized panels when we have this ridiculousness. But many of us that have been around the block once or twice, know that its ludicrous to think it can properly be done this way. And we won't be silenced when the sheer stupidity of the exercise should not be swept under the rug, or because others choose to simply remain quiet on such a wacky set up, especially when these marchers deserve much better than this from the adults currently in charge. There's no nobility in this, imo.

Edited July 5, 2016 by BRASSO

[BillH]

I am surprised this variability in instrumentation is considered "new". Cadets are playing horn for less than 20 seconds. Their trombone usage lasts closer to a minute. The rest of the show is on their traditional instruments. Cavies and Blue Coats use of trombone only spans small portions of their shows as well.

Going back to the 70's and 80's you had variations in mid-voices between French Horn bugles (Phantom, can't remember who else), mellophones, BD's Meehaphones, and flugel horns. On the low side you had variations in baritone only and bari-euph lines, tromboniums used by Madison and I believe 27, and a wide variety in bores and receiver sizes in the low brass. In addition, you had some corps (Crossmen) using concert (F) tubas, converted with longer slides to G versions which were vastly smaller than King K-90s. Massive timbral difference there.

Plus, variations on valve-rotor, two-piston and three-piston brass, which would have a larger impact on timbre due to the need for higher writing to accommodate chromatic pitches on the two-valve, that could be played lower on three-valves. The only thing really new is the mix of the electronics and reinforcement/replacement of brass ensemble sound from samples/synths. I think you have a much stronger argument about assessing Blue Coats brass last year, as I don't recall hearing them raw and unprocessed at any point. This year however, that seems less true for them.

Sometimes I am shocked at our ability to overthink things. Whether I hear the Berlin Philharmonic playing with rotorary-valve trumpets or Chicago using piston valves, I can still tell if it is good playing. I would expect an experienced adjudicator to be able to assess quality of playing, regardless of instrumentation. Or is the claim here that all Ott awards are invalid, as I doubt DCI has ever had a year where everyone used exactly the same equipment.

[Cappybara]

I am surprised this variability in instrumentation is considered "new". Cadets are playing horn for less than 20 seconds. Their trombone usage lasts closer to a minute. The rest of the show is on their traditional instruments. Cavies and Blue Coats use of trombone only spans small portions of their shows as well.

Going back to the 70's and 80's you had variations in mid-voices between French Horn bugles (Phantom, can't remember who else), mellophones, BD's Meehaphones, and flugel horns. On the low side you had variations in baritone only and bari-euph lines, tromboniums used by Madison and I believe 27, and a wide variety in bores and receiver sizes in the low brass. In addition, you had some corps (Crossmen) using concert (F) tubas, converted with longer slides to G versions which were vastly smaller than King K-90s. Massive timbral difference there.

Plus, variations on valve-rotor, two-piston and three-piston brass, which would have a larger impact on timbre due to the need for higher writing to accommodate chromatic pitches on the two-valve, that could be played lower on three-valves. The only thing really new is the mix of the electronics and reinforcement/replacement of brass ensemble sound from samples/synths. I think you have a much stronger argument about assessing Blue Coats brass last year, as I don't recall hearing them raw and unprocessed at any point. This year however, that seems less true for them.

Sometimes I am shocked at our ability to overthink things. Whether I hear the Berlin Philharmonic playing with rotorary-valve trumpets or Chicago using piston valves, I can still tell if it is good playing. I would expect an experienced adjudicator to be able to assess quality of playing, regardless of instrumentation. Or is the claim here that all Ott awards are invalid, as I doubt DCI has ever had a year where everyone used exactly the same equipment.

Well said

[George Dixon]

The end.

This thread has ended.