George Dixon Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 As "Adjudication 101", this is a pretty poor article, I'm sorry to say. If anything, it seems directed at people who already know pretty well what the judges do. For instance, take a look at this description: "The Visual Proficiency judge zooms in and out on performers, but from the periphery of the field. They look at small groups and individuals, but try to not focus on any particular person. This is the judge that used to be referred to as Field Visual, and earlier, Marching and Maneuvering." This doesn't say what the judge is "zoom[ing] in and out" for. When they "look at small groups and individuals", what is it they want to see? Only people who've been around the activity long enough to remember "Field Visual" or "Marching and Maneuvering", and thus remember what judges would those titles used to do, could take anything specific away from this passage. zooming - as in "running in to take a close look" and then "running back out again to get an overall perspective" the judge "zooms" in and out I'm certain that's what they mean!!! Hahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurassic Lancer Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) Perhaps the worst article I have ever read on adjudication -- ever. Good grief, no discussion on the "what" vs. the "how." This isn't 101, it isn't even advanced placement. It is remedial at best. I honestly don't know who this was written for .. it fails as a discussion for the newbie and the hardened DCPer and all those in between. Dreadful. Edited July 27, 2016 by Jurassic Lancer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 As "Adjudication 101", this is a pretty poor article, I'm sorry to say. If anything, it seems directed at people who already know pretty well what the judges do. ... I had titled the article, "Explaining the roles of each judge." My editor put in the "Adjudication 101" title. I worked with what I was given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Perhaps the worst article I have ever read on adjudication -- ever. Good grief, no discussion on the "what" vs. the "how." This isn't 101, it isn't even advanced placement. It is remedial at best. I honestly don't know who this was written for .. it fails as a discussion for the newbie and the hardened DCPer and all those in between. Dreadful. Sorry it didn't work for you. The article came from an extensive interview with the person charged with speaking about the topic. These aren't my words, but I believe it will be useful for many. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 That's why that sentence mentions its done from the periphery of the field. It's the term the person I interviewed used. zooming - as in "running in to take a close look" and then "running back out again to get an overall perspective" the judge "zooms" in and out I'm certain that's what they mean!!! Hahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 I had titled the article, "Explaining the roles of each judge." My editor put in the "Adjudication 101" title. I worked with what I was given. Fair enough; I should have noted that editors as often as not select the headlines. And since we all know you're almost always an excellent and informative writer, I'm quite ready to chalk up the problems with this particular piece, a most rare lapse, to editorial mishandling as well: for starters, they should have asked you for a longer piece, and, I would say, given you clearer instructions on the purpose of the article. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurassic Lancer Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) Sorry it didn't work for you. The article came from an extensive interview with the person charged with speaking about the topic. These aren't my words, but I believe it will be useful for many. My apologies, Mr. Boo for having such a visceral reaction. You do a marvelous job as a DCI journalist. I was hoping for a little more meat, but that's just me. As N. E. Brigand also noted, the title, chosen by your editor led me to believe the article was going to be something it was not. Edited July 28, 2016 by Jurassic Lancer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcorpsfever Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) "Responsibilities: One of the GE judges has a music background and the other has a visual background, but each utilizes the same judging sheet because they are effectively judging the entire show... GE judges must be the most experienced, most knowledgeable..." ------------------------------------ WAIT A MINUTE!!!! "GE judges must be THE MOST EXPERIENCED, MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE", yet one is expert in music but NOT visual, while the other is expert in visual but NOT music????? With a weighted score in GE, why wouldn't DCI want judges that have backgrounds in both? No wonder why scoing has become so volatile! Edited July 28, 2016 by drumcorpsfever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 "Responsibilities: One of the GE judges has a music background and the other has a visual background, but each utilizes the same judging sheet because they are effectively judging the entire show... GE judges must be the most experienced, most knowledgeable..." ------------------------------------ WAIT A MINUTE!!!! "GE judges must be THE MOST EXPERIENCED, MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE", yet one is expert in music but NOT visual, while the other is expert in visual but NOT music????? With a weighted score in GE, why wouldn't DCI want judges that have backgrounds in both? No wonder why scoing has become so volatile! With respect, they've done the best they can to find judges with exposure in both, but for decades, judges (including GE judges), specialized in one or another. We have some very fine judges (I'll use Nola Jones as an example) who grew up in both the musical and visual world. The judges who have long judged one or the other are receiving training to react to both music and visual...such as how well the visual expresses the music and vice-versa. I expect that as time goes on, the upcoming crop of GE judges will come from both worlds because it will become increasingly difficult to judge the future GE captions with a single emphasis in one's background and training. In essence, the GE judge is being asked to respond to the effectiveness and emotional presentation much like we as audience members do. Despite having a percussion background, I respond more to brass books and drill, though I appreciate percussion. Unless someone is really focused on a particularly element, they tend to look at the entire show to achieve the most satisfaction. But I think most would agree that many GE judges, for now, haven't grown up in both the musical and visual world, and so, for now, it's important to have one GE judge with a visual emphasis and background and one judge with a musical emphasis and background. And that way, things can balance themselves out. Judging is an art and a science, but it's always changing, just as the activity is changing. The best judges always run a little bit scared, continually seeking out additional training and understanding of the various elements of the activity so that they don't fall behind. Only a judge convinced they already know everything would be ineffective in the rapidly changing world of drum corps. For the record, I haven't met any judges I felt believed they already knew it all. I know music judges that are now attending modern dance events and visual judges attending symphonic orchestra concerts because they know they need to step up their understanding of the complete show to remain viable as a judge. The show designers putting together today's shows don't care that a judge might not understand something in the show; they only care that they're giving the members of their corps the best product and experience they can. They're well aware that when they think they've got things figured out, someone with another corps has changed the rules by coming up with something new and innovative. The only thing about drum corps that isn't changing is our love for it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted July 28, 2016 Author Share Posted July 28, 2016 I wasn't meaning to trash DCI, or the individuals who wrote this. DCI and its member corps should absolutely dictate their own guidelines for what constitutes achievement. I just find the whole thing silly is all. 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.