What would you think if...

[garfield]

5 hours ago, One n Done said:

Well....  It’s finals week and in a day this discussion has generated 30 pages.  Trust me, those within the activity are aware of what happens on DCP.  If nothing else, it definitely provides some “entertainment”.

Change a rule?  Yeah, no.  If some earnest discussion here helps brings about questions and dialogue within the member corps about audio engineering...probably a good thing.  This discussion has had its share of the expected snark and defensiveness one would expect.  But, there has also been decent, respectful, well reasoned, and even technical talking points exchanged.  Which is great.  You are the consumer.  They listen, but don’t always respond as quickly or in the manner as some would like.

I realize you're not taking yourself too seriously here, but I have to comment.  If these corps are paying "big bucks" to sound engineers to run equipment that costs tens- or hundreds-of-thousands, I'm pretty confident in stating that they're not interested one iota in the opinions of any "amateur" audio engineering professional here or on any other social site.

They don't listen, and they won't respond at all or in any manner other than what they believe is best for their individual MM's and corps.

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by garfield

[BozzlyB]

On 8/5/2019 at 8:50 PM, One n Done said:

If you note the absence of field mics and manner of “conducting” it’s sorta obvious. Hypothetically speaking.

Maybe 3 groups can afford the “hypothetical” scenarios posited.  They compete against a majority that cannot.  Again, thoughts?

One simple question. Does it break the rules?

[MarimbaManiac]

13 minutes ago, garfield said:

The above is exactly why the discussion of "parity" must continue.  For as long as "Effect" is judged based on the output from these technical toys, or quality of blend, or timing of players to improve performance, and all the other "benefits" being discussed here, and while at the same time there is a wealth disparity in what corps are capable of spending on such "enhancements" for the benefit of a score (and with it recognition, sponsorship, recruiting, acclaim, and demand), then we don't really have competition among corps.  Instead, we have a bunch of disparate groups putting on performances that are, by the definition of those commenting in favor here, somehow less-balanced, less-nuanced, less-blended, less-all-those-things and is, therefore, "less" than those able to spend without limit.

I don't care how much a drum corps is worth in their 990s (and, as most know, I applaud the "wealthy" corps - I don't vilify them), but to be an actual competition among participants using equal equipment, the activity needs to place a limit on what can be spent on A&E and the engineers running them, and on the amount spent on props.  Would anyone send any "Major League" baseball team out to contend using pee-wee gloves, wiffle balls, and plastic bats against, say, the Yankees?

I can hear the outcry already:  "Oh, the CREATIVITY that would be lost!".  Bull.

 

So?...be better at fundraising. 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by MarimbaManiac

[cfirwin3]

8 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

bravo.

 

and for all of the hand wringing....you actually think DCI is going to read DCP and change a rule because of it?

Do "I" think that?  Or was that a rhetorical question?

Obviously, I don't think DCP is significant to anyone but fans of the activity... for the purposes of what fans do.

[garfield]

2 hours ago, Fred Windish said:

This is probably the best discussion I’ve ever followed on DCP.  THIS is what makes Drum Corps Planet the only place I visit for knowledge of the art. Can’t imagine Facebook, Twitter,  Reddit, and whatever else out there can come close to the education available here.  If individual corps staff, judges, and circuit officials are not visiting here regularly . . .  . they SHOULD be !

Obviously, some very knowledgeable, reputable people participating . 

As a non-musician, I can’t relate to some of the specific terms but have now been convinced the emergence of electronics is being done for all the right reasons, with legitimate concern for making our product sound better for more members of the in-person audience That’s been paramount to me through the years.  

 

Fred, I know you're no rookie in the activity but, even as a non-musician, you've been around enough to know that this statement isn't true.  In fact, I would contend under existing judging rules, it CAN'T be true.

First, what part of the judge's score on existing sheets rewards a corps for the "applause meter" of the audience?  And, if it's legitimately adjudicated at all, what weight in the overall score does it have in the final score?

"Thunderous Goo" originally described the reverberation effect of A&E in The Oil Can and, it got so bad with the intro of A&E that DCI stopped selling seats in the upper sections of the stadium.  Has the Goo gotten any better because A&E today better aligns the wave forms of existential reality for 11 minutes while a corps is playing?  I say, No, it hasn't.  It's still thunderous Goo reverbing and echoing around the tin can called LOS.  The amps are still at 11 or 12 no matter if it's brown notes or screaming sops or quads on boxes.

The "V" in design programming is still alive and well, this year and now, and for all coming years until the judges are moved out of the box.  And until then, the design decisions, all of them, are made for only the people judging the show, not the fans in the stands.

 

[MarimbaManiac]

To take this further, should there be a limit spent on horns and drums? Is it fair that the top tier groups receive brand new equipment every year at a deep discount, or are able to sell them and buy new equipment at the end of the season while lower tier groups have to deal with older equipment that need constant repair?

Should there be a limit on how much can be spent on housing and rehearsal facilities? Is it fair that BD gets to rehearse in LOS while lower tier groups are in less optimal conditions? Is it fair that some corps can be housed in hotels or dorms while other corps are on gym floors?

Should there be a limit placed on uniforms? Is it fair that some corps have reciprocal deals with companies that allow them to have new uniforms every year tailored to their shows while others have to recycle for a few seasons?

Should there be a limit placed on how much corps can pay designers? Is it fair that a handful of corps can afford to have the best artists in the field working an entire year on a specially tailored product while other corps have to share designers that might have lots of clients and don't have as much time to dedicate to them?

Get a grip. The corps fundraise to the best of their ability, and then spend that money on things that will help them be more competitive in the activity. Some are better than that at others, and it's not appropriate to put artificial limitations on that because not everyone is able to keep up.

Don't get bitter, just get better. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by MarimbaManiac

[cfirwin3]

29 minutes ago, garfield said:

Fred, I know you're no rookie in the activity but, even as a non-musician, you've been around enough to know that this statement isn't true.  In fact, I would contend under existing judging rules, it CAN'T be true.

First, what part of the judge's score on existing sheets rewards a corps for the "applause meter" of the audience?  And, if it's legitimately adjudicated at all, what weight in the overall score does it have in the final score?

"Thunderous Goo" originally described the reverberation effect of A&E in The Oil Can and, it got so bad with the intro of A&E that DCI stopped selling seats in the upper sections of the stadium.  Has the Goo gotten any better because A&E today better aligns the wave forms of existential reality for 11 minutes while a corps is playing?  I say, No, it hasn't.  It's still thunderous Goo reverbing and echoing around the tin can called LOS.  The amps are still at 11 or 12 no matter if it's brown notes or screaming sops or quads on boxes.

The "V" in design programming is still alive and well, this year and now, and for all coming years until the judges are moved out of the box.  And until then, the design decisions, all of them, are made for only the people judging the show, not the fans in the stands.

 

I don't disagree with the absence of specificity and direct ties to the "audience" in the adjudicative guidance documentation.

But the guidance documentation does vaguely reference elements of communication with respect to consistency and effectiveness...

This raises more questions than answers if one's opinion is that the judge is to be inconsiderate of the spectators.  Now one would have to answer the questions:

-To what receiving party (if not the audience at large) are the elements of communication to be assigned?  Where is THAT spelled out in the guidance documentation?

-If the receiving party is exclusively the adjudicator, and if they are NOT a member of the audience, then what defines the communicative criteria of the judging community to establish inter-rater reliability?

-If a lack of audience reference means that they are not considered, then what direction is given that defines the hardware needs of a corps in order to compete?

While there may be a lack of specificity to establish doubt that adjudication serves the interests of the audience... one also must recognise that the same lack of information prevents concluding uniform adjudicative isolation FROM the audience.

Personally, I know that when I am observed and rated as a teacher, my adjudicator is observing communication between myself and my audience (students).  Most of this is determined through evident initiatives on my part... and some of it is determined through student response (via engagement or direct response).

This type of adjudication model is logical... common sense. In fact, due to the lack of further definition that excludes the audience and a lack of specificity that defines the adjudicator's perspective as being separate... The only way to 'conclude' a different agenda for the adjudicator, requires the application of conspiracy.

[cixelsyd]

9 hours ago, MarimbaManiac said:

This is just not supported by fact in any way shape or form. You know what happens when you turn down a system while the ensemble plays the same volume? THE COLOR AND TIMBRE CHANGES.

Which is also true when a hornline goes from pianissimo to fortissimo.

[Fred Windish]

garfield,

I previously asked actual  in-person audience members to state if their "outside the twenties" listening experience is being made better. So far, no has replied. Maybe that's because those who post here are those who occupy the center seats. Ha!

The sound engineers express (in words and video) improving the experience for more of the audience is a major goal. I do believe that, and maybe, most are failing to achieve this. Then, the matter of each member playing the instruments properly (like the pit stuff) also makes sense, I think.

A big impediment to my understanding is how I, at this point in life, consume the product. That would be almost entirely through Flo. Even when younger and more active, I mostly stood field level and center. Crowds are not my "thing" any more, nor is enjoying all this from any single vantage point (stadium seat).

I certainly agree with you, the introduction of electronics has been, and remains 'rocky,' to say the least !

Wonderful discussion. Thanks!

 

[garfield]

38 minutes ago, MarimbaManiac said:

So?...be better at fundraising. 

 

Oh, God.  Absolutely not.  That's a sure ticket to death.

To your argument of "make more money to spend on A&E", yes, of course, and the sooner the corps figure out how to compete without dependence on fundraising the more solid will be the foundation of that corps and the entire activity.

But, is telling the less-wealthy corps to "spend more" the only correct answer when judging is "tilted" in favor of the profligate spenders?

Wouldn't a "Design Spending Limit" solve the financial arms race and simply shift creativity from unbridled spending to being, well, creative in still winning with a spending cap?