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

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, Stu said:

In your opnion they performed the hell out of it. In your opinion it matched what the sheet interprition should be. And with other groups in your opinion they did not perform the he## out of it. Yes you pulled that from your training and experience; and that should be respected. But it was still your subjective opinion nonetheless.

I know professionally trained musicians, and also trained in a judging system, who would also likely have a vastly different opinion than yours. Does that make your opinion correct, and theirs wrong? Does that make their opinion correct, and yours wrong? Nope to both questions. It is all a matter of whose training and whose experience is evaluating at that particular moment.

I proposed moving forward with something new as per request of the original poster. You pretty much called it crap because what I suggested did not fit into your notion, your opinion, that the current established training and experience is the only viable system.

You knocked Wynton, a pro with vast symphonic, concert, jazz, blues, experience as not being competent enough to evaluate music GE without your same training on proper sheet interpretation. Think about that. It is a 'this is my apple cart' type opinion where he should be trained to think and evaluate just like you. Well I say reverse it. He and other pros should interp the sheets and train you to think and evaluate like him. Have the judges conform to a more professional opinion of music GE as opposed to academic. That change in subjective opinion of the sheets is what really has your shorts in a wad.

performed the hell out of it meant they met the criteria on the sheet i was working. Liking it had nothing to do with it. did it match what the descriptors for the top box are on the sheet? Sure did. others also gave it high marks....i believe one of the top 5 highest scores in our circuit's history. 

if you judge the sheet in front of you, and apply the criteria on the sheet, placement may not be spot on top to bottom, nor will the numbers line up exactly, but good is good and will be rewarded. Even with sheets doubled on panels you see that. 

For years a group i taught that lost in Dayton by .025 had me mad. But with time and reflection.....the rankings matched up and down. the math differed. hence the difference in score, and the whole panel was doubled. We either won the sheet from both or were 2nd, same at the subs....but they didn't all give exact numbers and the tabulator called the show, not one judge.

And no I didn't knock Winston. I knocked the thought of bringing in someone with no knowledge of what drum corps is and being told to rank and rate with zero training on the criteria required in the current system. I'm sorry reading comprehension failed you again

[E3D]

use cello's 

[cixelsyd]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

no I don't judge there. I do however know people there, and I'm not afraid to reach out and ask questions. I ask DCA folks questions. I ask WGI folks questions. Administrators and working judges alike. Even people with corps. 

and everything told me to me has been the same from all segments and lines up with what I've typed.

Institutional slotting is not unique to DCI, then.  If drum corps leaves any legacy to all the other marching arts, that is not the one I would have picked.

Quote

And with the advent of the most recent sheets plus the Cesario stuff so many mock, we've never seen this much shifting, top to bottom, in decades as we have since probably about 2013.

What?  The only increasing shifting I have seen since 2013 from DCI judges was to avoid collisions with field performers.

[E3D]

1 minute ago, cixelsyd said:

Institutional slotting is not unique to DCI, then.  If drum corps leaves any legacy to all the other marching arts, that is not the one I would have picked.

What?  The only increasing shifting I have seen since 2013 from DCI judges was to avoid collisions with field performers.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT. 

 

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

performed the hell out of it meant they met the criteria on the sheet i was working. Liking it had nothing to do with it. did it match what the descriptors for the top box are on the sheet? Sure did. others also gave it high marks....i believe one of the top 5 highest scores in our circuit's history. 

if you judge the sheet in front of you, and apply the criteria on the sheet, placement may not be spot on top to bottom, nor will the numbers line up exactly, but good is good and will be rewarded. Even with sheets doubled on panels you see that. 

For years a group i taught that lost in Dayton by .025 had me mad. But with time and reflection.....the rankings matched up and down. the math differed. hence the difference in score, and the whole panel was doubled. We either won the sheet from both or were 2nd, same at the subs....but they didn't all give exact numbers and the tabulator called the show, not one judge.

And no I didn't knock Winston. I knocked the thought of bringing in someone with no knowledge of what drum corps is and being told to rank and rate with zero training on the criteria required in the current system. I'm sorry reading comprehension failed you again

The words on the sheet are the words on the sheet. That is true. However, the sheet does not judge. You do. And it is your interpretation of the words on the sheet based off of your education, your training, and your experience which evaluates, scores, rates, and ranks performances. Due to your education, training, and experience, your interpretation and opinions have merit and value. But there is no way around the fact that your interpretation is 100% purely subjective opinion.

Moreover, two extremely educated, extremely trained, and extremely experienced people can come up with two vastly different interpretations of the same document. All you need to do is look at the Constitution and the Supreme Court to realize it is true. (Please note that was not designed to be taken as political, but only used to show that two extremely qualified people can come to vastly different interpretations of the exact same document).

Observation based on interpritation is always subjective opinion not objective. And there is no way around it. You just want your established defined subjective interpretation opinion to stay intact.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Stu

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, Stu said:

The words on the sheet are the words on the sheet. That is true. However, the sheet does not judge. You do. And it is your interpretation of the words on the sheet based off of your education, your training, and your experience which evaluates, scores, rates, and ranks performances. Due to your education, training, and experience, your interpretation and opinions have merit and value. But there is no way around the fact that your interpretation is 100% purely subjective opinion.

Moreover, two extremely educated, extremely trained, and extremely experienced people can come up with two vastly different interpretations of the same document. All you need to do is look at the Constitution and the Supreme Court to realize it is true. (Please note that was not designed to be taken as political, but only used to show that two extremely qualified people can come to vastly different interpretations of the exact same document).

Observation based on interpritation is always subjective opinion not objective. And there is no way around it. You just want your established defined subjective interpretation opinion to stay intact.

you're right all knowing, i bow to your wisdom.

 

(PS you're full of it, but this way is easier)

[Stu]

5 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

sure. I'll let you go with that.

 

The sponsor of the show, the hosting band director, the tabulators, etc were all fine with our evaluations. They told that to us directly just prior to scores being announced. They appreciated new professional eyes and ears evaluating the programs. But the sponsor contacted us a few weeks later, apologized profusely, and said the perennial bands who were not placed in the top three were not going to return unless the previous judges were also returning.

Now you might want to say they were all lying to us that night to be polite. He## you probably will accuse me of lying now. However, I really do not care.  I am still good friends with the sponsor, and have written a few shows for the host band. So go ahead and be your snarky self. I should have expected it.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Stu

[Stu]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

you're right all knowing, i bow to your wisdom.

 

(PS you're full of it, but this way is easier)

Having a trumpt player play an A into an oscilloscope, measuring the wave to see how close it is to 440 without wavering, is an objective evaluation. So please infom us how your sheet interprative observation is objective, not the sheet itself, but how your application was objective.

[HockeyDad]

This kinda hurts to admit, but I’m thinking I lining up with Stu’s thinking on this. It’s subjective. No matter how hard you try to inject objectivity into it. You can’t avoid it. In the end, the placements are opinions. 

[Stu]

31 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

This kinda hurts to admit, but I’m thinking I lining up with Stu’s thinking on this. It’s subjective. No matter how hard you try to inject objectivity into it. You can’t avoid it. In the end, the placements are opinions. 

Try some smooth bourbon. The amount you will need in order to relieve the pain will depend on your degree of agreement. 😏