What would you think if...

[cfirwin3]

9 hours ago, FTNK said:

The competitive parity argument is silly. In the 80s Cadets (and others) worked out how to do (write, teach, clean) fast, flowing drill and the marching technique to make it good. I don't see why pushing the activity that way is OK but innovating with electronics/sound design isn't.

In the last 5-15 years, Bluecoats have led the way in

Quality and integration of props

Section writing for tubas

Show-wear

Use of electronics and mics

Entertainment, arguably

Thank you very much, you have a very nice drum corps.

And they play and march at the top of the heap.

There is not a 'fixed space' that requires the removal of some assets to make way for others.

You can't win without also being 'competitively' the best... without contending at playing and marching.

[Prtzdle]

Perhaps this is a bad comparison, but a decade ago NASCAR was pulling in new fans by the thousands and some of the long times fans didn't like the direction. The governing body made changes to "even the playing field" which was basically a way to help the less funded teams stay competitive. I don't follow as much as I did, but now they struggle to sell out the biggest event, Daytona 500. 

On the same concept, I hope DCI, if they want to entertain so called rules changes when it comes to each corps individual financial situations, treads lightly and thoughtfully!! 

We have seen some 1st time finalists in recent years. I think everyone can agree there are a couple other corps on the verge of that very accomplishment. In the same time we have seen some long time finalists corps slipping out. Is this because they can't get funding or haven't employed the proper strategy?? 

 

Edit to say that this has been an intriguing topic, even if my post is slightly strayed from the OP

Edited August 7, 2019 by Prtzdle

[garfield]

10 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said:

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.

"...absence of specificity..." , and "...vague references...", and, of course "I don't disagree..."  (so we can stop there, right? )

You're right: it does raise more questions that need addressed in the sheets.  I guarantee you that, if the emphasis on A&E or props are less pronounced in placement, the corps would limit their uses to ways that actually improve placement.  Occam and Pavlov simplicity, really.

And, in all of your (interesting) talk of communication adjudication...  If you're teaching a student and your adjudicator is judging your use of the same tools that all of your peers are using  -- or not because your school can't afford those tools, and you have to spend more of your teaching time raising funds to buy some or any tools just to "compete" (for your job, for state funds, whatever)...  You see where I'm going.  It's not a level playing field in which to "judge" anything.  Same here in the use of these "tools" of the drum corps trade.  That said, the teacher's interaction with the student is not the same dynamic here; the corps are not teachers, per se and the judges are not judging the interaction between the teacher and the student, per your own admission.  They're judging the use of the tools and the professional credentials of those charges with making them run well, not the show's impact on the audience.

 

[OldSnareDrummer]

13 minutes ago, Prtzdle said:

On the same concept, I hope DCI, if they want to entertain so called rules changes when it comes to each corps individual financial situations, treads lightly and thoughtfully!! 

 

Agreed. That sort of structure in the drum corps world would be one slippery slope, I think. 

 

[garfield]

18 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said:

And they play and march at the top of the heap.

There is not a 'fixed space' that requires the removal of some assets to make way for others.

You can't win without also being 'competitively' the best... without contending at playing and marching.

...and how does one corps become "competitively" the best when the rubric used is the "favorable effects" of spending thousands it doesn't have on the tools that enhance the design and, hence, their score?

Apparently, "competitively the best" includes, nay requires, entry into the arms race.

 

[Cappybara]

9 hours ago, FTNK said:

The competitive parity argument is silly. In the 80s Cadets (and others) worked out how to do (write, teach, clean) fast, flowing drill and the marching technique to make it good. I don't see why pushing the activity that way is OK but innovating with electronics/sound design isn't.

In the last 5-15 years, Bluecoats have led the way in

Quality and integration of props

Section writing for tubas

Show-wear

Use of electronics and mics

Entertainment, arguably

Thank you very much, you have a very nice drum corps.

One costs money. 

[MarimbaManiac]

33 minutes ago, garfield said:

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?

  

 

...but what is exactly the point of this? To level the playing field based on an arbitrary number so as not to upset those that can't keep up? Limit the product's potential because there are a few that don't want to take their products in the same direction?

PASS

The programs being produced today are some of the most dazzling and impressive spectacles that have ever been fielded in this activity, and that is good for everyone involved, corps and audiences alike. It's not just because of the money, but because that money is being paired with brilliant designers that are given the means to think outside the box, and members that are being trained to be playing and moving machines. The props and technology facilitate that, and to put an arbitrary cap on the possibilities based some misguided attempt at parity will severely limit the quality of the products moving forward. 

"But corps did it for many years without tech/props/etc"

Yes, and those shows were a snooze compared to what's being put on the field today. If DCI today looked like it did in the 70's I personally would have no interest, and I'm sure most people who have grown up in a world with technology and advanced sound design being as ubiquitous as it is now would agree. 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by MarimbaManiac

[garfield]

31 minutes ago, Prtzdle said:

Perhaps this is a bad comparison, but a decade ago NASCAR was pulling in new fans by the thousands and some of the long times fans didn't like the direction. The governing body made changes to "even the playing field" which was basically a way to help the less funded teams stay competitive. I don't follow as much as I did, but now they struggle to sell out the biggest event, Daytona 500. 

On the same concept, I hope DCI, if they want to entertain so called rules changes when it comes to each corps individual financial situations, treads lightly and thoughtfully!! 

We have seen some 1st time finalists in recent years. I think everyone can agree there are a couple other corps on the verge of that very accomplishment. In the same time we have seen some long time finalists corps slipping out. Is this because they can't get funding or haven't employed the proper strategy?? 

 

Edit to say that this has been an intriguing topic, even if my post is slightly strayed from the OP

I would contend that much of NASCAR's current problems are driven by factors outside their sport more than these decisions from within. 

And, the bright, white line between your examples is that NASCAR is for-big-profit while DCI is Not-For-Profit and each drum corps is non-profit. 

And the NASCAR winner crosses the line first without so much as an whiff of subjectivity in how he/she did it.  Not true in summer band.

And drum corps is kids.

And don't they place severe limits on the cars themselves (i.e. the teams and the tools the teams can use) like fuel tanks, safety equipment, restrictor plates, downdraft (spoiler) angles...  I know you know (I was a long time fan, too) that the list of restrictions on NASCAR even back in its heyday were severe.  Yet, somehow, the teams using the same tools and restrictions all ended up in different places across the finish line.

Same here, could be.

Edited August 7, 2019 by garfield

[Cappybara]

1 hour ago, karuna said:

Interesting that the advocates for ultra-amplification try to turn the argument to "we just help the audience hear you" instead of addressing the true driver of this technological debacle:  visual designers wanted it.  Why?  Because it "frees" them from the requirements of proper staging.  No one wants to talk about that.  Instead it's "reinforce" this and "audience benefit" that which is all a bunch of misdirection.  Some visual designers have lofty aspirations to go "beyond drum corps" and create some pseudo-stage production.  

But reality hits that hard in the face.  

Stage productions have (wait for it) a real stage.

They have lighting.  They have a curtain.  They have an actual sound system tuned to the venue.  They have a real "off stage".  They have an entire professional crew to handle props, lighting, sound.  

The list is endless.  

But a handful of designers aspire to the stage. 

On a football field.  

And they don't want to do "drill" because that's just not done on a stage.  Therefore they want the "freedom" to place musicians wherever they like on the gridiron  

It's absurd.   Blast! worked because it had all those things.  It's painfully obvious some productions we see don't.  And a lot of Broadway reviewers still slammed Blast!  even with all those advantages.  

"It's the Bluecoats" sort of works but in fact the music completely carries this production (all hail Rarick and Thrower)   .   If you really examine the sheets carefully the show falls flat on it's face visually.  Don't get me wrong -- it's entertaining and I like the show.  But it's really not being judged properly on a set of visual sheets designed for drill.  Nevertheless a handful of designers have convinced the judging community to creatively interpret the criteria to credit it visually.

It's not about sound.  And it's not about brass. And it's not about sound reinforcement.  It's all about a few old guys who are in love with broadway and think they can bring it to a football field.  And don't you dare tell them they can't!

But in the process they've destroyed one of the most unique and difficult aspects of creating a drum corps show: environmental challenges.  It took amazing skill on both the visual designer's part and brass instructors part to get brass instruments separated by 70 yards to play together.   Now the sound engineers do it.  Drum corps used to be the performers playing their instruments.  Now it's playing stagehand, pushing a prop, and listening to a click track.  Is that REALLY where we want the activity to go?  I know I don't.  

Amplification has its place. The front ensemble certainly needed it.   And I can understand there are moments when soloists perhaps need it.   And I don't mind synths or electronic instruments.  I don't want to return to bugles and marching bells.  

But it's already gone far beyond that.  80 brass players certainly don't need amplification of the full ensemble!  It's downright silly.   

DCI needs to rethink this now.  Because it's just going to keep getting sillier and sillier.  

</rant>

Beautifully written. And what happens when the judges decide that this proper staging is fine and possibly even superior to traditional staging? Wait a corps consistently sitting around #15 cant afford to do that? Sucks for them!

[Cappybara]

1 hour 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.