JimF-LowBari Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said: Why are you on this issue of antiquated scoring minutiae? What purpose does it serve and what are you trying to demonstrate? I didn't define the proportions because I don't recall them any better than you do and it has zero relevance here. It's trivial. Well I’m trying to understand what you are saying but when I ask questions you get your back up in the air. You posted that positive scoring preceded application of the negative. Having studied dc history this makes no sense. The issue here is trying to have a discussion to understand each other better. Edited August 8, 2019 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfirwin3 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, JimF-LowBari said: Well I’m trying to understand what you are saying but when I ask questions you get your back up in the air. You posted the positive scoring preceded application of the negative. Having studied dc history this makes no sense. The issue here is trying to have a discussion to understand each other better. For what purpose are we discussing the proportions of positive and negative point value in the scoring system prior to 1984? I can't converse with you if you keep withholding your intent and resign the 'discussion' (if that's what this is) to asking me trivia. - We started with a discussion on the ethics of using amplification within the rules that exist (which is a strange discussion to have IMO). - We kicked that topic around and discussed the purpose of using electronics in the first place. A number of straw men were errected in all directions while other solid points were erroneously labeled as straw men. - We seemed to settle on a distaste for an assumed lack of penalty being given for electronic failures. I then pointed out that we don't operate on a penalty system and point value isn't generally withheld for individual mishaps or unusual occurrences... judges are looking at broader issues of execution and achievement. More straw men were errected... absurd scenarios were put forward (just another day at the DCP office). Part of that discussion settled on a desire not to punish small occurrences, but only the big ones (especially dealing with electronics)... Although the definition of what that looks like couldn't possibly be determined (which actually amounts to a general reversal in argument for at least one person). I again stated that drumcorps don't show up to be punished (which is true... not since before 1984-ish). -Then I said something that really seemed to trigger some folks. I said that the tick system was replaced due to its "irrelevance" and "inadequacy" given the vision of drumcorps at that time (and ever since, by the way). I was bombarded with accusations of supplanting my opinion with the facts. Which is strange... because those are the reasons why the system was disbanded. Some of you even pointed to the unverified subjectivity of defining errors. Somehow I then got into a game of '20 questions' with you about the elements that constituted the old system... But I have yet to see where you are going with that and what point you are ultimately making. I don't know why it is important to define tabulation order in dealing with positive and negative (which was the problem side of the system) values. What is the end of this line? If I knew where you were going, then I could turn my proverbial 'thought-mobile' in the same direction as yours. But so far as I can see... - Some just don't like the addition of electricity to the activity. The only electricity that they want is emotional and aesthetic (I totally respect that, because the position is aware that it is preferential). - Some are indifferent to the change (that's me). They feel that music can be idiomatic and incorporate nontraditional elements (as is the case with all other idioms) and they are fine with that. They also feel that using technology to expand capability (not ABILITY) is as fine for drumcorps as it is for any other idiom that it is used. - Some feel that these elements are a must... because they 'fix' things. I can't wrap my head around that one... but it seems like an attempt to articulate the previous position. But... the argument painted itself into a corner by positing that technology integration is somehow necessary for quality purposes (rather than artistic). - Some people want a tick system. They especially want it applied to electronic failure. They probably have an "I told you so!" Moment in mind and they feel validated by that. The trouble with this is that the adjudication system isn't compatible with that desire for reasons that apparently are my opinion today (yet magically transported to the early 80's for the drumcorps rules congress to adopt). Next up... We will go through a lengthy discussion where everyone clarifies their position. Another day on DCP. Edited August 8, 2019 by cfirwin3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Good grief... thought I covered in my last post.... you have posted that the build up system PRECEDED (can’t use italics on the cell phone) the tic system. I have never read that there was a pure build up scoring system before the tic system started. sooooo... I either misunderstand your post or you know something I don’t. The “intent” is either understand what you are saying or learn something new. No hidden motive, no call to change current scoring.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 12 hours ago, MikeD said: Can a brass line that is not micced generate a quality of sound equal to one that is being micced and adjusted? Judges judge the sound produced. If a brass line using miccs sounds better due to the electronic elements Marimba has been talking about, that line should be rewarded. It is not HOW the sound is produced that matters; it is WHAT sound is produced, On the other side, a brass line that uses miccs poorly to create their sound should score lower, based on the sound that is being evaluated. If a brass line does sound as good unmicced as one that is micced, they should be on a par, score-wise. The tools are used to generate the sound, which is all a brass judge should be concerned about evaluating. How naive. What happens in reality is that a device not traditionally allowed in the activity is lobbied for as an "option". The rule change only passes with the understanding that the new expense is really just an "option". Not long after passage, judges (some of whom are paid endorsers for the manufacturers of the new device) suddenly decide, as a community, that the new "option" is the preferred sound. Corps who use it get additional credit over corps who do not. This forces every competitive corps to adopt the device. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PamahoNow Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: How naive. What happens in reality is that a device not traditionally allowed in the activity is lobbied for as an "option". The rule change only passes with the understanding that the new expense is really just an "option". Not long after passage, judges (some of whom are paid endorsers for the manufacturers of the new device) suddenly decide, as a community, that the new "option" is the preferred sound. Corps who use it get additional credit over corps who do not. This forces every competitive corps to adopt the device. You mean the Bb horns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn426 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Man you guys had quite a night... Must be the night before Prelims.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, PamahoNow said: You mean the Bb horns? And contras in the 60s... and valves in the 30s... and.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfirwin3 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 25 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Good grief... thought I covered in my last post.... you have posted that the build up system PRECEDED (can’t use italics on the cell phone) the tic system. I have never read that there was a pure build up scoring system before the tic system started. sooooo... I either misunderstand your post or you know something I don’t. The “intent” is either understand what you are saying or learn something new. No hidden motive, no call to change current scoring.... I thought I clarified that several responses ago. Preceded meaning they were tabulating value (+ first) against deficit (- second). Not meaning that there was some other form of system predating the last. Do you have an application for this to the original discussion, or is it just an offshoot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said: Preceded meaning they were tabulating value (+ first) against deficit (- second). Not meaning that there was some other form of system predating the last. There is my confusion as this was not the way it was done in my day.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftwdrummer Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 ok, let's go to a much more clear example and get slightly more on track. Suppose that there was a corps that featured a soloist for half the show--carrying the entire melody for the bulk of that period, etc. Say it's a guitarist--something like Southwind last year. Now let's suppose that something happened to said guitar in transit--maybe it got left at the rehearsal site, maybe it got Kurt-Russell-in-Hateful-Eight-ed, maybe it made a left turn in Albuquerque. Regardless, no ability for the guitar to be used. Let's further assume that the corps had not planned for the possibility that the solos wouldn't be there, and thus for that night half the show was just accompaniment--just chords and counter-melody, and the music didn't really make a lick of sense because you didn't know what was supposed to be the motivating figure for half the show. I don't see how a judge can reward them for content that isn't actually there. I don't see how a judge can reward them for achieving something that they didn't achieve because it wasn't attempted. If you're going to judge the shows on performance, judge the actual shows on the actual night, not what the judge knows is "supposed" to be happening there. If the melody figure of a thing is missing for half the show on one night and wasn't the night before, there should be a discernible difference in score. If you're going to use electronics, prepare for the eventuality that things go wrong and design with backup plans in mind, and don't let the kids hang out to dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.