Let's Play A Game - You Can Only Go Forward

[flugelswerebugels]

Interactive is the buzz word now. DCI is very "here is the performance and we will tell you about it what to think". Offering an audience more immediate feedback, with judges/commentators talking about shows right after they happen is the way people interact with entertainment now. So, Boston [for instance] performs, then commentators (a mix of various DCI-experienced, famous-and-qualified-performers-etc.) offers some feedback (live at stadium or on the live feed) and perhaps some opportunity for viewers to respond). The feedback loop is too long and formal now. 

Most of this thread (and DCI) if focused on who wins finals. DCI would benefit from making other contests feel also important, and more interactivity can only help.

[cixelsyd]

On 6/9/2019 at 12:04 AM, Jeff Ream said:

the coordinators and caption heads watch for trends. with competition suite, they can go in and listen to a recording from anywhere. if they see a disturbing score, or get a communication from a corps concerning a score/recording, they're doing some research. Listening to the recording. getting feedback from the corps. talking to the judge themselves. 

last year....Boston won Thursday and Friday in guard....but not Saturday. well now, odd? correct? Maybe, not a guard expert. Some people say yes, some people say no. i'm sure the person in charge of the guard sheet asked some questions.

however after that research, if the recording backs up the score as well as the judge can account for their actions, yeah they will get backed up.

Now it could affect end of the year assignments.....but you have seen stuff like this all the time. the year Crown won...percussion was scoring in the 6th range consistently all year when up against everyone. Semis...boom up to 4th, beating corps they lost to all year, and thus creating a far bigger spread against BD than there had been? In fact changing the results from the night before? Think that judge wasn't grilled that night? ( i can't remember the name, but i honestly don't remember it being a name that i have heard of since).

Those are problems right there.  

a.  Who decides what the "trend" is?  Real-world subjective judging of art would not necessarily have one consensus "trend".

b.  "See a disturbing score" is loaded with presumption that ANY score outside the "trend" is "disturbing".  Why is there no presumption that a score outside the trend is a deserved fluctuation in performance or change in design, or (gasp!) a legitimate difference of subjective opinion about art?

c.  Look how non-conforming judges are treated.  Their scores are supposed to be final, but corps have complained, challenged non-conforming judges in critique, and/or protested judges to the point of essentially ending their drum corps judging careers.  And there is a sub-structure of slotting police "judge administration" whose prime directive seems to be stamping out non-conformity.

You have defined the nature of institutional slotting in drum corps.

[HockeyDad]

48 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Those are problems right there.  

a.  Who decides what the "trend" is?  Real-world subjective judging of art would not necessarily have one consensus "trend".

b.  "See a disturbing score" is loaded with presumption that ANY score outside the "trend" is "disturbing".  Why is there no presumption that a score outside the trend is a deserved fluctuation in performance or change in design, or (gasp!) a legitimate difference of subjective opinion about art?

c.  Look how non-conforming judges are treated.  Their scores are supposed to be final, but corps have complained, challenged non-conforming judges in critique, and/or protested judges to the point of essentially ending their drum corps judging careers.  And there is a sub-structure of slotting police "judge administration" whose prime directive seems to be stamping out non-conformity.

You have defined the nature of institutional slotting in drum corps.

Bingo. That’s why the first shows of the year are the most important. That’s the only time judges get a pass. After that someone is outraged that x corps jumped y corps in some caption. Even though, in the next breath, we claim we support the “call it as you see it” model. We go so far as to call for the judge to be removed from the Finals panel. It’s a head shaker. 

[Jeff Ream]

6 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

Those are problems right there.  

a.  Who decides what the "trend" is?  Real-world subjective judging of art would not necessarily have one consensus "trend".

b.  "See a disturbing score" is loaded with presumption that ANY score outside the "trend" is "disturbing".  Why is there no presumption that a score outside the trend is a deserved fluctuation in performance or change in design, or (gasp!) a legitimate difference of subjective opinion about art?

c.  Look how non-conforming judges are treated.  Their scores are supposed to be final, but corps have complained, challenged non-conforming judges in critique, and/or protested judges to the point of essentially ending their drum corps judging careers.  And there is a sub-structure of slotting police "judge administration" whose prime directive seems to be stamping out non-conformity.

You have defined the nature of institutional slotting in drum corps.

says scores go way out of whack for a show? aren't even curious? Hell a 3 tenth drop in some circles on here creates a frenzy. if someone in July has been high box 4, and suddenly one night they high 5 or even high 3....yeah that's to be looked at, even if the corps didn't raise a concern....and odds are corps will raise a concern if the score has a big drop ( who complains if it makes a big jump?)

 

A good caption head is in touch with their team all the time, getting feedback, impressions, seeing if they see trends developing. If a judge for lack of a better sophisticated term, ####s up, why should they get treated with kid gloves? did the tape suck? Not linking what and how? Yeah they should get pulled and get some additional training.  I used to do some training for our circuit....and the key was I didn't care about if you used all the right buzzwords, or where you r numbers ended up....did your commentary match the number you assigned? Was commentary good feedback, not just saying #### for the sake of saying ####?  If you gave good educational feedback, and your numbers matched that, then go to it....and notice what numbers they gave in terms of the actual score mattered....did it match the commentary.

 

Boom, all you need.

 

judge some time...administrate judges some time....you'd understand

[Jeff Ream]

5 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Bingo. That’s why the first shows of the year are the most important. That’s the only time judges get a pass. After that someone is outraged that x corps jumped y corps in some caption. Even though, in the next breath, we claim we support the “call it as you see it” model. We go so far as to call for the judge to be removed from the Finals panel. It’s a head shaker. 

if someone is giving bad feedback, or is gushing on a tape then handing out a 6....yeah they don't deserve a finals gig.

[Stu]

4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

if someone is giving bad feedback, or is gushing on a tape then handing out a 6....yeah they don't deserve a finals gig.

A) there is a case to be made, especially at Finals, where the execution of the top tier is so high, the spread  of the top ensembles is so thin, so subjective, that a gushing review could indeed take less than 1st.

B) The term 'bad' is both subjective and opinionated. It depends on who officially gets to determine what is defined as good and what is defined as bad. For example, in a musical passage by a corps, who gets to determine if tight rolls and razor sharp brass or fat rolls and open dark brass (both have their own unique sound distinction) are bad Music GE for that passage? If one GE judge says the rolls need to be tight with razor bright horns, and the other GE judge says fat and dark, who is giving the bad feedback? Remember, same corps, same passage, same caption being judged.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Stu

[karuna]

Meh.  I understand we all enjoy the competition and agree to "play the game" but the reality is the "numbers" are really just very subjective opinions about what the judges like better.

On the one hand we have "criteria" which (on the face of it) appears to be an objective way to derive a number and assign it to a narrowly defined caption.  Add those numbers together and BOOM! the score is what the score is.  Right?

On the other hand we have "rank and then rate" where we say "well it's really impossible to put down an objective number" so let's get the spreads correct.  "I don't know how good the Blue Devils are but they are 3 tenths behind SCV in my caption".  Because yeah we've defined precisely what a tenth means.  In fact even the best trained judge is reacting to what he likes.  Of course they will state clearly "what I like is excellence!"  But that excellence can mean entirely different things to different people.  

On the gripping hand,  ALL of this comes down to a judge's internal preferences.  Sure we like to say we're objective and that it doesn't matter how we feel about this program or that,  but it's all very much wrapped up in subjective feelings.  And those feelings extend well beyond what's going on with performers on the field that night.  How do I feel about this designer?  How convincing is their pre-season description of their concept?  How does this person feel about me?   What do my peers expect from this program?    It goes ON and ON and ON.   Every sound, spin and movement is being processed through a myriad of subconscious filters shaped by a lifetime of emotional experience.   We aren't objective observers.  Never were.  Never can be.

The judges truly believe in their system and in their training.  They believe they can be objective evaluators.  But they can't, they aren't and we shouldn't really expect them to be.  They believe they can objectively measure percussion or brass or guard or movement.  And that's all it takes to get the ball rolling:  FAITH! 

It's all very confusing because at the end of all this emotional opining, we end up with a recap. NUMBERS! And we instinctively have a deep respect for numbers.  Numbers are real.  Math doesn't lie.  SCIENCE!

But in the end, it truly is what the judges like.

We hope and pray that judges like what we like.  

Edited June 10, 2019 by karuna

[Stu]

6 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

says scores go way out of whack for a show? aren't even curious? Hell a 3 tenth drop in some circles on here creates a frenzy. if someone in July has been high box 4, and suddenly one night they high 5 or even high 3....yeah that's to be looked at, even if the corps didn't raise a concern....and odds are corps will raise a concern if the score has a big drop ( who complains if it makes a big jump?)

 

A good caption head is in touch with their team all the time, getting feedback, impressions, seeing if they see trends developing. If a judge for lack of a better sophisticated term, ####s up, why should they get treated with kid gloves? did the tape suck? Not linking what and how? Yeah they should get pulled and get some additional training.  I used to do some training for our circuit....and the key was I didn't care about if you used all the right buzzwords, or where you r numbers ended up....did your commentary match the number you assigned? Was commentary good feedback, not just saying #### for the sake of saying ####?  If you gave good educational feedback, and your numbers matched that, then go to it....and notice what numbers they gave in terms of the actual score mattered....did it match the commentary.

 

Boom, all you need.

 

judge some time...administrate judges some time....you'd understand

I am a judge. Experienced in two associations including UIL. I have been on crews, and have also put crews together. Been that way since the mid 1990's. So let me tell you a true story (which I think I have also told in another thread a while back).

A few years ago a rather prominent scholastic competition, one looked at as a major Statewide draw, who had used the same judges pool with certified qualified trained judges for decades, wanted fresh eyes and ears. So they contracted judges with extensive experience, but just not within that State.

We were given the sheets in advanced which were Music GE , Music Field, (music judges traded places for finals), Visual GE, Visual Field, (visual judges traded places for finals), Percussion (box prelims and field finals), and Guard (box both prelims and finals), and we were told to apply our own training and experience in order to interpret their sheets. At some point in the past we all had worked with each other, so we were familiar with each other.

By the end of the night we judges were pretty much consistent in scores and rankings with each other. Which was also consistent with our experience and training. But OMG most of the perennial top bands were livid!!!!

We had placed bands in ranking positions never before seen in that competition. While the bands we gave awards to were overjoyed, only a few had ever received top caption awards before; and our top three overall had never been in the top three.

We were not invited back; and the next year the show went back to using the same judges as before.

So, you tell me. With our trained and experienced crew, did we provide bad feedback, bad scoring, and bad ranking? Or was it that our trained and experinced evaluations were just different than what they were accustomed to having for all of those previous years?

Edited June 11, 2019 by Stu

[Stu]

2 hours ago, karuna said:

Meh.  I understand we all enjoy the competition and agree to "play the game" but the reality is the "numbers" are really just very subjective opinions about what the judges like better.

On the one hand we have "criteria" which (on the face of it) appears to be an objective way to derive a number and assign it to a narrowly defined caption.  Add those numbers together and BOOM! the score is what the score is.  Right?

On the other hand we have "rank and then rate" where we say "well it's really impossible to put down an objective number" so let's get the spreads correct.  "I don't know how good the Blue Devils are but they are 3 tenths behind SCV in my caption".  Because yeah we've defined precisely what a tenth means.  In fact even the best trained judge is reacting to what he likes.  Of course they will state clearly "what I like is excellence!"  But that excellence can mean entirely different things to different people.  

On the gripping hand,  ALL of this comes down to a judge's internal preferences.  Sure we like to say we're objective and that it doesn't matter how we feel about this program or that,  but it's all very much wrapped up in subjective feelings.  And those feelings extend well beyond what's going on with performers on the field that night.  How do I feel about this designer?  How convincing is their pre-season description of their concept?  How does this person feel about me?   What do my peers expect from this program?    It goes ON and ON and ON.   Every sound, spin and movement is being processed through a myriad of subconscious filters shaped by a lifetime of emotional experience.   We aren't objective observers.  Never were.  Never can be.

The judges truly believe in their system and in their training.  They believe they can be objective evaluators.  But they can't, they aren't and we shouldn't really expect them to be.  They believe they can objectively measure percussion or brass or guard or movement.  And that's all it takes to get the ball rolling:  FAITH! 

It's all very confusing because at the end of all this emotional opining, we end up with a recap. NUMBERS! And we instinctively have a deep respect for numbers.  Numbers are real.  Math doesn't lie.  SCIENCE!

But in the end, it truly is what the judges like.

We hope and pray that judges like what we like.  

Very very very very true. But if you secure like minded, like experienced, like educated; and put them through the exact same training system; you will get judges who hold extremely close opinions.

Why do you think it is considered as a vile idea to the established folks for someone to suggest bringing in a non drum corps outsider with no university degree, but does have a vast amount of professional experience with Tower of Power or Blood Sweat & Tears?

[Jeff Ream]

6 hours ago, Stu said:

A) there is a case to be made, especially at Finals, where the execution of the top tier is so high, the spread  of the top ensembles is so thin, so subjective, that a gushing review could indeed take less than 1st.

B) The term 'bad' is both subjective and opinionated. It depends on who officially gets to determine what is defined as good and what is defined as bad. For example, in a musical passage by a corps, who gets to determine if tight rolls and razor sharp brass or fat rolls and open dark brass (both have their own unique sound distinction) are bad Music GE for that passage? If one GE judge says the rolls need to be tight with razor bright horns, and the other GE judge says fat and dark, who is giving the bad feedback? Remember, same corps, same passage, same caption being judged.

who determines is who the corps approve to be in those positions.

 

who is giving bad feedback? It depends on how it matches the number, as well as if the staff has an issue with the judge trying to design their show in a spot that doesn't fir the concept. judges shouldn't be redesigning a show. they can point out flaws, but they shouldn't be telling a group who to write it.