DCI Judging - YT Video by Funliner Productions

[jwillis35]

On 8/8/2023 at 11:36 PM, ContraFart said:

That doesn't make sense to me. You can go out and play a few major chords with perfect balance and sonority and get the maximum achievement from minimum content.

I thought the entire reason they went to a content/achievement system was to discourage designing content under the level of the corps so you can't go out with a simple show and win. 

This might be what some think but no a corps could not score a max 10 in achievement when their content is a 5. Take brass. If a corps is judged to have a content score of 7.1 and their achievement is 6.8, the judge will not reward the corps with a content score of 5 with an achievement score of 8. Both content and achievement are weighted to things like demand, musicality, performance and competitive rank. 

Example: 

Corps A performs - they are ok but the brass book is easy and they are playing it fairly well. Judge may assign CONT 4.5 and ACHV 4.3.

The judge is essentially saying you are playing your book close to the level of demand/musicianship (or lack of). Some may think "well why isn't the ACHV score closer to a 9.0?" The content is too easy for a 9.0+ in ACHV. The best that corps could do in ACHV is maybe a 4.7 or 4.8, and that would likely be closer to end of season -- providing their CONT score was still 4.5. This is where Box 1-5 come into play. If your CONT is somewhere in Box 2 (very easy side) then your max ACHV score will be weighted to that Box 2 as well as to the competing corps around you that are in a similar Box in terms of demand/content. 

Here the judge is saying you are matching or exceeding the performance of a fairly easy book. But...keep in mind that matching or exceeding does not mean perfect, and just playing the notes does not mean it is musical.

More importantly because there has to be competitive balance you just can't give an easy book a 9.5 or better in ACHV. That is reserved for corps who demonstrate much higher demand in content/musicality as related to their performance. So these things are boxed off. 

If you want your ACHV scores in brass to potentially get into the 9.0+ range then you need your CONT score to be in the 9.0+ range...or at least an 8.8 to 8.9. Most brass lines never get there. Those that do are able to raise the level of both CONT and ACHV by having a very demanding book that will be shaped musically through the season. The demand may be there from day one, but the musical shaping of the book changes and that usually ramps up the CONT number. 

 

[jsd]

1 hour ago, Sideways said:

We’ll stop when he stops it.

Stop doing what? Being a phenomenal judge and justifying his numbers at every turn? 

It's not like he is throwing out numbers that don't align with the rest of the panel. He's not an "outlier". 

[jsd]

2 hours ago, jwillis35 said:

This might be what some think but no a corps could not score a max 10 in achievement when their content is a 5. Take brass. If a corps is judged to have a content score of 7.1 and their achievement is 6.8, the judge will not reward the corps with a content score of 5 with an achievement score of 8. Both content and achievement are weighted to things like demand, musicality, performance and competitive rank. 

Example: 

Corps A performs - they are ok but the brass book is easy and they are playing it fairly well. Judge may assign CONT 4.5 and ACHV 4.3.

The judge is essentially saying you are playing your book close to the level of demand/musicianship (or lack of). Some may think "well why isn't the ACHV score closer to a 9.0?" The content is too easy for a 9.0+ in ACHV. The best that corps could do in ACHV is maybe a 4.7 or 4.8, and that would likely be closer to end of season -- providing their CONT score was still 4.5. This is where Box 1-5 come into play. If your CONT is somewhere in Box 2 (very easy side) then your max ACHV score will be weighted to that Box 2 as well as to the competing corps around you that are in a similar Box in terms of demand/content. 

Here the judge is saying you are matching or exceeding the performance of a fairly easy book. But...keep in mind that matching or exceeding does not mean perfect, and just playing the notes does not mean it is musical.

More importantly because there has to be competitive balance you just can't give an easy book a 9.5 or better in ACHV. That is reserved for corps who demonstrate much higher demand in content/musicality as related to their performance. So these things are boxed off. 

If you want your ACHV scores in brass to potentially get into the 9.0+ range then you need your CONT score to be in the 9.0+ range...or at least an 8.8 to 8.9. Most brass lines never get there. Those that do are able to raise the level of both CONT and ACHV by having a very demanding book that will be shaped musically through the season. The demand may be there from day one, but the musical shaping of the book changes and that usually ramps up the CONT number. 

 

Freaking spot on. 

And, to those who say that this is all "subjective", let me remind you that the elements of art and principles of design have been with us forever, and are guideposts for the individuals who adjudicate this activity we love. 

Put it this way: which is easier to "achieve"? The performance of a Travis Scott song or a performance of Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto? In the context of drum corps, which should receive the higher number if both are achieved at the maximum level?

[ContraFart]

3 hours ago, jwillis35 said:

This might be what some think but no a corps could not score a max 10 in achievement when their content is a 5. Take brass. If a corps is judged to have a content score of 7.1 and their achievement is 6.8, the judge will not reward the corps with a content score of 5 with an achievement score of 8. Both content and achievement are weighted to things like demand, musicality, performance and competitive rank. 

Example: 

Corps A performs - they are ok but the brass book is easy and they are playing it fairly well. Judge may assign CONT 4.5 and ACHV 4.3.

The judge is essentially saying you are playing your book close to the level of demand/musicianship (or lack of). Some may think "well why isn't the ACHV score closer to a 9.0?" The content is too easy for a 9.0+ in ACHV. The best that corps could do in ACHV is maybe a 4.7 or 4.8, and that would likely be closer to end of season -- providing their CONT score was still 4.5. This is where Box 1-5 come into play. If your CONT is somewhere in Box 2 (very easy side) then your max ACHV score will be weighted to that Box 2 as well as to the competing corps around you that are in a similar Box in terms of demand/content. 

Here the judge is saying you are matching or exceeding the performance of a fairly easy book. But...keep in mind that matching or exceeding does not mean perfect, and just playing the notes does not mean it is musical.

More importantly because there has to be competitive balance you just can't give an easy book a 9.5 or better in ACHV. That is reserved for corps who demonstrate much higher demand in content/musicality as related to their performance. So these things are boxed off. 

If you want your ACHV scores in brass to potentially get into the 9.0+ range then you need your CONT score to be in the 9.0+ range...or at least an 8.8 to 8.9. Most brass lines never get there. Those that do are able to raise the level of both CONT and ACHV by having a very demanding book that will be shaped musically through the season. The demand may be there from day one, but the musical shaping of the book changes and that usually ramps up the CONT number. 

 

I 100% understand what you are saying, but I just do not think that it creates the most straightforward logic for separating the concept of content and achievement. If the content and achievement numbers are interconnected, then why have them as separate concepts? Why not have the score combined and make content a rubric defined by box levels? (Which is what limiting achievement scores to the content score sort of already is) To me all this does is creates enough ambiguity to just throw your hands up in the air and just say its all subjective anyways. 

I understand scoring art is hard. Especially in drum corps where there are no objective markers that can be directly compared. At the same time, I do not think blind faith in the judges is warranted either since humans make mistakes. Professional sports umpires and referees make mistakes all the time and they are the best of the best. I just read that an MLB umpire has missed over 1000 balls and strike calls in the past 2 years. I do not think judges act in bad faith, but I don't want to be called stupid when I vehemently disagree with the outcome they produce, which in specific instances I have. 

Every time a judge in DCI is questioned, we are reminded of their limitations. They can only be in one place at a time or they might not be listening or watching for the same things as you are, etc. This is why I believe transparency, especially in the form of judges tapes would help both provide confidence in the outcome and education to those like me who really want to know. 

[ContraFart]

1 hour ago, jsd said:

Freaking spot on. 

And, to those who say that this is all "subjective", let me remind you that the elements of art and principles of design have been with us forever, and are guideposts for the individuals who adjudicate this activity we love. 

Put it this way: which is easier to "achieve"? The performance of a Travis Scott song or a performance of Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto? In the context of drum corps, which should receive the higher number if both are achieved at the maximum level?

You are only talking about design, and if design is what its judges most rather than the complexity and difficulty of the performance, then what control do the kids really have?

I think content should consider demand most and as most things in drum corps, that is subjective. For example, is the new drill at the end of BDs show more difficult then the spatial and timing demand then the Bluecoats play BUMP!? (I know apples and oranges one example is visual and the other is musical)

My point is, that drum corps does not have objective performance markers like other artistic competitions such as figure skating, which is why it is far more subjective than objective. 

[Jeff Ream]

7 hours ago, ContraFart said:

You are only talking about design, and if design is what its judges most rather than the complexity and difficulty of the performance, then what control do the kids really have?

I think content should consider demand most and as most things in drum corps, that is subjective. For example, is the new drill at the end of BDs show more difficult then the spatial and timing demand then the Bluecoats play BUMP!? (I know apples and oranges one example is visual and the other is musical)

My point is, that drum corps does not have objective performance markers like other artistic competitions such as figure skating, which is why it is far more subjective than objective. 

Figure skating is still subjective as hell

[ContraFart]

22 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

Figure skating is still subjective as hell

But you can objectively compare difficulty by the elements in the show. 

[Jeff Ream]

12 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

But you can objectively compare difficulty by the elements in the show. 

can you? every skill has variations there too. 

[ContraFart]

12 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

can you? every skill has variations there too. 

You can differentiate difficulty in figure skating far more than in drum corps. 

You are getting away from my point.

[Cappybara]

On 8/9/2023 at 7:51 AM, Sideways said:

Then there is the Chumley rule…

Tonight just proved the “Chumley rule” is some made up BS