Sign in to follow this  
DrumScorps

North Canton, OH - Saturday, June 22, 2019

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, phd-student-TTU said:

IMHO, their music book ranges somewhere between elevator music and a college marching band halftime show. Standing around on boxes instead of marching isn’t helping. 

I'm gonna leave this right here:

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cfirwin3 said:

Objectivity is not defined by finite math.

Define "Objective"

The use of the words Objective and Subjective as it relates to placing a score or rank within competition would be:

Objective evaluation: ascribing score or rank based on factual and directly measurable information without filtering through personal experience or interpretation.

Subjective evaluatuon: ascribing scores and ranking through observation utilizing interpretation and perception which is impacted by personal experience, interpretation, and training.

Here are some competetive examples:

Drag racing; the fastest time from point a to point b wins; objective determinitation of winner.

Ice Dancing: scores ascribed by visual observation from a panal of judges based on set criteria and trained intrpretation; subjective determination of winner.

Hockey: the team which puts more pucks in the opponent's goal wins; objective determination of winner.

National Cheerleading: scores ascribed by visual observation from a panal of judges based on set criteria and trained intrpretation; subjective determination of winner.

Baseball: the team which has most runners rounding the bases to touch home plate wins; objective determination of winner.

Marching arts: scores ascribed by visual observation from a panal of judges based on set criteria and trained intrpretation; subjective determination of winner.

Note: while ascribed penalties can be at times subjective, they rarely if ever impact the final winners and losers within objectivly scored competitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stu said:

The use of the words Objective and Subjective as it relates to placing a score or rank within competition would be:

Objective evaluation: ascribing score or rank based on factual and directly measurable information without filtering through personal experience or interpretation.

Subjective evaluatuon: ascribing scores and ranking through observation utilizing interpretation and perception which is impacted by personal experience, interpretation, and training.

Here are some competetive examples:

Drag racing; the fastest time from point a to point b wins; objective determinitation of winner.

Ice Dancing: scores ascribed by visual observation from a panal of judges based on set criteria and trained intrpretation; subjective determination of winner.

Hockey: the team which puts more pucks in the opponent's goal wins; objective determination of winner.

National Cheerleading: scores ascribed by visual observation from a panal of judges based on set criteria and trained intrpretation; subjective determination of winner.

Baseball: the team which has most runners rounding the bases to touch home plate wins; objective determination of winner.

Marching arts: scores ascribed by visual observation from a panal of judges based on set criteria and trained intrpretation; subjective determination of winner.

Note: while ascribed penalties can be at times subjective, they rarely if ever impact the final winners and losers within objectivly scored competitions.

You are tring to import set criteria and training into your definition.  That's a hang up, because training and set criteria set a reference for measure that is external to the observer.  This is a source of impartiality (which lacks compatibility with subjectivity).

You can't draw a line for someone else, teach them abou it's location, ask them to reference objects around that line and and then say that the line is a subjective manifestation of their opinion.

Training is a line. Performing arts adjudication in proficiency has a reference point.  Just saying that these things are 'subjective' doesn't make it so (like calling a blue sky 'pink').  They aren't in the definition of the word.  To the contrary, these things represent impartiality and equitable fairness... which according to Merriam-Webster is objectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cfirwin3 said:

You are tring to import set criteria and training into your definition.  That's a hang up, because training and set criteria set a reference for measure that is external to the observer.  This is a source of impartiality (which lacks compatibility with subjectivity).

You can't draw a line for someone else, teach them abou it's location, ask them to reference objects around that line and and then say that the line is a subjective manifestation of their opinion.

Training is a line. Performing arts adjudication in proficiency has a reference point.  Just saying that these things are 'subjective' doesn't make it so (like calling a blue sky 'pink').  They aren't in the definition of the word.  To the contrary, these things represent impartiality and equitable fairness... which according to Merriam-Webster is objectivity.

There are many definitions of the word Can. Depending on the context it is a verb or a noun.

Same contextual use applies to other words like Objective. And you are crowbaring in a definition relating to physical objects which is out of context. Yes we are looking at objects, but that does not mean the same as objective evaluation which is evaluation of shear cold hard facts which are directly measurable.

Yes there are criteria within the GE rubrics; and yes we are looking at objects. But the terms and descriptors in the GE rubrics are not factual constructs in which the objects can be directly measured like the drag racing, hockey, and baseball examples. The objects here are observed, and interpritation judgement is placed on the artistic design; that makes the outcome purely and utterly subjective.

You can train people on the same interpretation, you can trial run them to make sure they apply the same interpretation to the objects in which they are observing; but that only yields consistent subjective opinion, not factual objective outcome.

Edited by Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Stu said:

There are many definitions of the word Can. Depending on the context it is a verb or a noun.

Same contextual use applies to other words like Objective. And you are crowbaring in a definition relating to physical objects which is out of context. Yes we are looking at objects, but that does not mean the same as objective evaluation which is evaluation of shear cold hard facts which are directly measurable.

The criteria in the GE sheets only consist of terms which are completely and utterly open to observational interpritation. Which is purely and utterly subjective. You can train people on the same interpretation, you can trial run them to make sure they apply the same interpretation; but that only yields consistent subjective opinion, not factual objective outcome.

Again, we are not speaking of brass intonation, feet placement, uniform rotation of rifle spin, and all of the items on the side of execution. But we are addressing the art of general effect communication within artistic design; all of which are based strictly on interpritation and opinion.

Yes there are criteria within the GE rubrics; and yes we are looking at objects. But the terms and descriptors in the rubrics are not factual constructs in which the objects can be directly measured like the drag racing, hockey, and baseball examples. The objects here are observed, and interpritation judgement is placed on the artistic design; that makes the outcome purely and utterly subjective.

 

Back to the source of the discussion (adjudicated slotting), we are indeed talking about "brass intonation, feet placement, uniform rotation of rifle spin, and all of the items on the side of execution".  These issues are the bulk of the sheet.  Likewise, among GE, when training yields a consistent interpretation across raters... it approaches objectivity because the consistency reflects a narrow, criteria-based set of conclusions that transcends raw aesthetic perception.  The only other way to explain inter-rater reliability apart from the influence of training is to point to conspiracy of some kind.

Don't forget that the original thesis is not that GE is subjective but that drumcorps adjudication is fully subjective and that the early subjective reads determine the seasonal outcomes.  That thesis ignores truths that you have come to recognize in the course of discussion.

Edited by cfirwin3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said:

Back to the source if the discussion adjudicated slotting, we are indeed talking about "brass intonation, feet placement, uniform rotation of rifle spin, and all of the items on the side of execution"  these issues are the bulk of the sheet.  Likewise, among GE, when training yields a consistent interpretation across raters... it approaches objectivity because the consistency reflects a narrow, criteria-based set of conclusions that transcends raw aesthetic perception.  The only other way to explain inter-rater reliability apart from the influence of training is to point to conspiracy of some kind.

Don't forget that the original thesis is not that GE is subjective but that drumcorps adjudication is fully subjective and that the early subjective reads determine the seasonal outcomes.  That thesis ignores truths that you have come to recognize in the course of discussion.

Please do not confuse subjective with arbitrary.  Yes the early reads are subjective, but they are not arbitrary. And the early reads will liely be consistent with the late interprations. Not because of cause and effect. But because of unified training of interpritaton.

Now if intonation is evaluated by an oscilloscope that would be objective evaluation. The moment it is evaluated solely by a human ear, live on the fly, it becomes subjective due to the imperfections of the person who is observing.

Same held true back in the tick system days. At what point does something become an error? At what point does an apple, while being consumed, become an apple core? Human evaluation in that manner is always subjective. So how is that minimized?

Both the Harry Conick Jr. Band Brass and the Chicago Symphony Brass can play the music of Duke Ellington very well. You can train judges that the dark open trumpet sound of the Chicago Symphony Brass is the desired interpretation for adjudicating purposes; but that does not make it objective; nor does it make the HCJ Brass sound bad. It only creates a unified subjective evaluation for adjudication.

Edited by Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stu said:

The moment it is evaluated solely by a human ear, live on the fly, it becomes subjective due to the imperfections of the person who is observing.

Wouldn't that be true of calling a runner out or safe at first base?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, skevinp said:

Wouldn't that be true of calling a runner out or safe at first base?

And sliding in at home with a tag. But the subjectivity is minimized in the MLB by the instant replay rule. And please note that DCI does bill itself as the Major League.

Also while calling balls and strikes is subjective, the actual scoring takes place the moment a runner touches home. The scoring itself is objective.

Edited by Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Stu said:

If intonation is evaluated by an oscilloscope that would be objective evaluation. The moment it is evaluated solely by a human ear, live on the fly, it becomes subjective due to the imperfections of the person who is observing.

Same held true back in the tick system days. At what point does something become an error? At what point does an apple, while being consumed, become an apple core? Human evaluation in that manner is always subjective.

Both the Harry Conick Jr. Band Brass and the Chicago Symphony Brass can play the music of Duke Ellington very well. You can train judges that the dark open trumpet sound of the Chicago Symphony Brass is the desired interpretation for adjudicating purposes; but that does not make it objective; nor does it make the HCJ Brass sound bad. It only creates a unified subjective evaluation for adjudication.

The idea that a machine analysis is objective due to its finite measurement of small increments is the minimum threshold of objectivity is nonsense.  The threshold of objectivity is a policy by which rating happens.  The measurements of the oscilloscope are a human construct... so by your definition, even a machine measurement can't be objective.  It doesn't work that way, but you have convinced yourself of it, I suppose.

For your analogy on HCJ vs CSB, the moment that a standard of interpretation has been set to follow, then the adjudication becomes objective.  It doesn't matter if the standard is arbitrary or subjective in its formation... objectivity is created because the standard is known by the parties and contractually accepted.

Round and round we go.

Edited by cfirwin3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stu said:

Minimized in the MLB by the instant replay rule. And please note that DCI does bill itself as the Major League.

Which it won't truly be until directors can kick dust on the judges.  😄

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.