Adjudication 101: Straight from DCI

[Michael Boo]

Who then, decides the direction in which judging changes and what is acceptable change and what is not?

The voting member directors.

[Michael Boo]

This seems like a logical question.

It is a logical question. I just don't have the answer.

[Michael Boo]

So the voting members are all the Corps directors in DCI that approves changes?

Yes.

[Michael Boo]

show this thread, which revolves around the intellectual, aesthetic, and technical aspects of marching band shows to any non-fan (so 99% of the world), and they'll be like

I suspect that over 99% of the world's population has no idea we exist. Heck, 1% of the population of Indianapolis is about 8,850. I don't know if that many in town even know who we are.

[Michael Boo]

Duplicate post.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Michael Boo

[cixelsyd]

What stood out to me:

"There are three parts to GE: the intellectual, the aesthetic, and the emotional"

There are really only two - gut effect and geek effect. But by creating a distinction between aesthetic and intellectual, geek effect is weighted double. No wonder fans are left scratching their heads at what judges find "effective".

[corpsband]

There are really only two - gut effect and geek effect. But by creating a distinction between aesthetic and intellectual, geek effect is weighted double. No wonder fans are left scratching their heads at what judges find "effective".

imo there's really only one: does it acquire and maintain your attention. this is often expressed as "it works" or in the negative "that just doesn't work"

intellectual, aesthetic, emotional -- all of these things are related. beauty elicits emotion and can fascinate.

your two (gut = feel, geek = think) is an equally good division.

but in the end the effect works (grabs you and doesn't let go) or doesn't (hot dog time).

[jsd]

imo there's really only one: does it acquire and maintain your attention. this is often expressed as "it works" or in the negative "that just doesn't work"

intellectual, aesthetic, emotional -- all of these things are related. beauty elicits emotion and can fascinate.

your two (gut = feel, geek = think) is an equally good division.

but in the end the effect works (grabs you and doesn't let go) or doesn't (hot dog time).

Agreed...but with a "but".

I have seen my share of "hot dog shows", especially as a designer when we could not figure out why we were losing to specific corps (like the one who opened with Holsinger and segued into Tool). Their aesthetic approach did not appeal to me, and I could not watch them after a few viewings. Hot dog time.

But...

If I am judging GE, I owe it to the corps on the field to put away my likes and dislikes and take their program in from their intent and design, and do so in a way that is following the current trends in ALL artistic disciplines. If I am honestly viewing them according to the sheets, I cannot, in good conscience, relegate what they do from a programmatic standpoint based on my "gut" or my "geek". I have to consider all the design factors placed in the show and weigh that as the sum of the parts AND the whole, simultaneously. Period. If I don't, I am not doing my job. And, I believe this is what makes being a GE judge in the modern DCI era such a difficult job.

I can react to my "gut". Example? Madison in '88. Let it be known that I was fifteen at the time, had friends in BD that year (one of my best friends was a young whipper snapper tenor player by the name of Vern Johnson), and watched them practice regularly at Mars, as well as seeing all of their local shows. I thought for sure that the grey uniforms, white cologuard dresses, and "That Old Black Mgaic" were unassailable. Granted, that was a season in which DCI decided to go all wonky with releasing scores durin finals week (sound familiar, anyone???), but it did not change the fact that I thought BD would win, hands down. Dear Lord, they were undefeated all season.

And yet...

And yet. Madison, finals week, owned it. Camp Randall Stadium, home crowd, and freaking "Malagueña". Holy cow. That's my gut.

Intellectually? BD should have won in '88 (and '96, but that is a conspiracy for another thread and time). Geek points? Check. Aesthetic appeal? Check. Power and precision? Check.

But, if I was judging GE that week? I honestly would give the nod to Madison. Was it a better show, aesthetically? I am not so sure. Would my gut have won out that week? Probably.

Edited July 29, 2016 by jsd

[cfirwin3]

I read this. I am exactly 0% closer to understanding what GE is.

My hypothesis remains: no one actually knows.

When you watch a show... how do you feel (not in your heart alone, but also in your head)?

That's GE.

And that is what the article says, in not so few words.

This isn't really a problem, in that corps and fans alike submit to the judging system as the authority on who is greatest. If you don't believe me, see all of the prediction threads and the manner in which fans argue their cases on the merits of scoring history.

Edit:

Perhaps the reason why some of our fans are dissatisfied with the article is that they are looking for an admission of simplicity... but instead they are getting a word salad that SEEMS to apply a complex covert strategy to GE that fails on the level of plain language honesty.

Edited July 29, 2016 by cfirwin3

[cfirwin3]

imo there's really only one: does it acquire and maintain your attention. this is often expressed as "it works" or in the negative "that just doesn't work"

intellectual, aesthetic, emotional -- all of these things are related. beauty elicits emotion and can fascinate.

your two (gut = feel, geek = think) is an equally good division.

but in the end the effect works (grabs you and doesn't let go) or doesn't (hot dog time).

Head = think, intellectual

Heart = feeling, emotion

Gut = convictions, aesthetic (form) it's where the head and the heart merge.

But these are distinctly separate. I don't think the article is wrong in its assertions... it's just frustrating in its lack of straightforwardness.