Are judges now trying to lessen the impact of General Effect?

[MotoSurfBass]

17 minutes ago, exitmusic said:

Impossible to answer, because no one in the audience knows what GE is.

FTFY

[MikeRapp]

Just now, Cappybara said:

From what I've heard, yes judges will comment on what they think is or isn't working, but they avoid giving suggestions on how something can be improved

Thanks for educating me, I appreciate it.

[MotoSurfBass]

2 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

From what I've heard, yes judges will comment on what they think is or isn't working, but they avoid giving suggestions on how something can be improved

Yep, judges will tell you which parts are effective, and which aren't working. It's up to the staff to figure out how to make those changes.

[ftwdrummer]

24 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

But "effect" to the judges is very different from "effect" to the audience. 

I highly suggest you listen to this video judging the brilliant Cadets 2013 show on GE Music and see the types of things the judge comments on. I think that a lot of the stuff that is commented on is not something an audience member would necessarily be "emotionally" moved by (btw, nothing in the word "effect" implies some sort of emotional movement)

 

Possibly useful/interesting for reference: Allison put this show first on the night this was recorded, 0.1 ahead of Crown, so it's not like he was gushing over something he put in fourth or fifth (which has been rumored to happen).

He put Crown 0.2 up at Prelims (on the same caption) later that week, so he wasn't necessarily biased all season, either. (According to fromthepressbox, which doesn't give the Rep/Perf breakdown; otherwise, I'd list those, too.)

Fantastic find, Cappy!

[BRASSO]

21 minutes ago, pudding said:

General Effect, as I mentioned in a different thread, should be completely divested from the reactions of either the audience or the judges. Instead, what the judges should be looking for is clarity in the show with respect to the design intent of the show designers and the cohesiveness of that intent. In this way, the "ideal" product can be evaluated (repertoire), and the success of the performers in communicating that ideal can be evaluated (performance). 

To use my old analogy, imagine a restaurant. The head chef designs a dish (the show design). This dish can be beautifully composed, or it can be a clashing mess. This is something that the food critic evaluates, completely independently of whether they personally enjoyed the dish or not (some foods just don't go together); this is the repertoire column. Meanwhile, the cooks in the kitchen may do an excellent job recreating that dish, or they may make a mistake during plating and ruin the intended presentation; this is the performance column. A good food critic will be able to tell what a well-designed and well-executed dish looks like, as well as a well-designed but poorly-executed dish, a poorly-designed but well-executed dish, and a poorly-designed and poorly-executed dish. 

The food critic is not the only person dining in the restaurant. All of the other patrons constitute the audience. While the food critic may or may not enjoy the meal for technical reasons, the everyday restaurant-goers may love the dish for whatever reasons they have; perhaps shark-and-parsley stew is an old family tradition. However, the normal diners' reactions should not have any bearing on the food critic's review, nor should the food critic's review have any bearing on the diners' experiences. 

Hopefully this post illustrates what I feel General Effect should be. Even if a judge doesn't personally enjoy a show, they should still be able to examine the show for clarity of design intent and cohesiveness of message. As far as audience experience, love what you love and don't love what you don't love, but don't expect the judges to reflect your opinions. 

 GE is what the DCI Corps themselves say it is.. All proposed changes in the configuration/ interpretation of the captions, come from the Corps themselves as suggestions, and they can not become the judging criterion without the final approval on the part of the Corps in votes. Oftentimes, the proposed changes in the judging captions comes to the Judges attention first, then the DCI Judges Advisory works on that, comes up with the changes, then submits this to the DCI Corps for rejection, or approval. Corps then design their shows based upon the sheets they have ok'ed.

Edited July 22, 2017 by BRASSO

[saxfreq1128]

4 hours ago, BRASSO said:

 2 of these 4 shows did NOT have " massive crowd appeal" with live audiences during the seasons they were performed however. I don't see much value in revisionist DCI history. The largest, most " massive crowd appeal " for a DCI Champion of recent years was Phantom Regiment in 2008, Carolina Crown in 2013, Bluecoats in 2016 ( recent years ), and SCV in '89,  Garfield Cadets ( '84),  Cavaliers 2006 ( " The Machine " ) are some others that immediately come to mind.

You didn't prove Felliniesque et al lacked massive crowd appeal; you simply listed shows that had even BIGGER appeal. But that's not what I'm talking about. 

On the spectrum of highest degrees of appeal + highest degrees of innovation, Star 93, Cavs 02, Cadets 05, and BD 14 are still on top, for me. That's not revisionist history. 

Edited July 22, 2017 by saxfreq1128

[BoaDci]

Response to title: hopefully

[exitmusic]

4 hours ago, MotoSurfBass said:

FTFY

Fine: What is General Effect?

Bonus Question: If General Effect depends on how well the show is designed, why are we making competitive decisions that are completely out of the control of the performers on the field?

[henry7184]

53 minutes ago, saxfreq1128 said:

You didn't prove Felliniesque et al lacked massive crowd appeal; you simply listed shows that had even BIGGER appeal. But that's not what I'm talking about. 

On the spectrum of highest degrees of appeal + highest degrees of innovation, Star 93, Cavs 02, Cadets 05, and BD 14 are still on top, for me. That's not revisionist history. 

Absolutely not revisionist history. I would add Garfield '83 to this, '84 Garfield. But you are right, it's not revisionist history. GE isn't based at all on crowd appeal and shouldn't be. If it were, we'd see nearly 22 identical world class shows and who wants that?

[henry7184]

16 minutes ago, exitmusic said:

Fine: What is General Effect?

Bonus Question: If General Effect depends on how well the show is designed, why are we making competitive decisions that are completely out of the control of the performers on the field?

It's not out of control of the members on the field. It's not just about design it's about how effective the members deliver that design also, which is why the top corps win GE. If it didn't have anything to do with execution, you could have seen Academy win GE last year, for example.