Is the DCI 2005 Champion a foregone conclusion?

[glory]

But it is human beings who rate that excellence...and we are fallible because of our own biases.

If I were to ###### your 1996 self, bring you to 2005 and sit you down in front of a practice session with the top 5 corps, and did not identify any of them for you, can you honestly say that your results would follow the "whims" of the judges?

Absolutely. Human beings not only aren't perfect, they disagree on matters of taste and interpretation. That's the case with tics too. Tics are no more the answer than flipping coins would be.

As for 1996 vs. 2005, I think my impressions are no more likely to match the whims of the judges in that case as they are in any single year. That's partly because I'm one person who can't see what many can. It's also because my personal criteria don't necessarily match the ones the judges have been assigned to measure.

And it's also because I'm a pure GE judge who happily gives top prize to the corps which moves me the most. You'll be please to know, Nikk, that I would have given Phantom the top prize in 1991 and 1993 because I LIKED those shows the best. I acknowledge that Star and Cadets were great those years, but I LIKED Phantom best, which just goes to show that I, like all of you, have my own whims. And whims are the one thing I have in common with the judges too!

HH

[MikeD]

Not "tic-ing" IS excellence.  Perhaps this is a generational argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think it's totally generational. I marched from 64-72 and taught and judged from 75-80, plus two DCA shows in 90.

IMO the tic system is as totally subjective as todays system, only it LOOKED more objective.

Listen to a short phrase of drum music...

Was the attack together...Y/N

Was the release together...Y/N

Was there 'fuzz' in the 17-strike roll?...Y/N

Was one of the diddle rudiments crushed?...Y/N

Were the grace notes on a drag paradiddle #1 not distinct?...Y/N

Was there a true grace note on the flam in that flam accent, or was it a flat flam?...Y/N

etc....

Every decision a judge made was subjective.

Plus...once a judge decided an event WAS an error...how bad was it...how many ticks did the error call for in a group tick situation?

Was the tolerance for the judge National Linear? Circuit linear? Something else?

What IS tolerance? It's a subjective decision as to what level of performance in an event constitues an error. Do you want little class 'C' corps to get zeroed out every show? Or do you want the tolerance adjusted to create a real ranking and rating...which after all is the "prime directive" a judge is supposed to follow.

Mike

[ssorrell]

In my opinion, most of time the same champion would be crowned whether you judged with the tick system or the subjective system. The top corps are the cleanest, no matter how they are judged.

[Boof96]

 

As an old timer, drum corps shows today are more imaginative but also “dirtier” at the same time (especially snare lines in general, good Lord!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does anyone else believe drumlines from the 70's are in fact cleaner than modern lines. To my ear drumlines play harder music, play more musically, and are in fact much cleaner than drum lines from the 70's. Anyone else have any thoughts?

[michsta8]

I tend to agree with a partial of both.

reward for excellence, knock off (tic)for errors.

Do corps actually get penalized now for dropped equipment?

if not, why would this at least not work?

[GmenBari78]

In a perfect system, the tic system works because it judges every error correctly. But even in the days of the tic system it was never perfect. First of all, the judge could not possibly watch every single individual for the entire show. So the judge has to sample. Sampling in and of itself introduces errors to the judging because the sample may be taken at a time when there is not as much demand where the judge is sampling, whereas on the other side of the field you have huge errors occurring. Second, one judges determination of what constitutes a "tic" is another judges determination that the event was uniform without error. Because of individual differences between judges we have error introduced in the judging automatically, regardless of the system used.

There is not a way to keep from introducing error into judging, no matter which system is employed. The key to minimizing error is to set down clear judging standards, thoroughly train the judges, and have redundancy in the system so that errors can be caught and stopped. By redundancy I mean backup judges who can double check the judging being done and weigh in on the results themselves.

Just look at the olympics. Skating and gymnastics have almost as many judges per a single event per performer as drum corps has for 135 individuals all doing something different on the field! Is it any wonder that we have poor judging when there is so much going on out there that is simply not noticed? Why not add more judges, more averages across the board for what is viewed? Couldn't this add to better judging? Just a thought, don't know if it could work, but something I wonder about.

[77kingsmensnare]

But it is human beings who rate that excellence...and we are fallible because of our own biases.

If I were to ###### your 1996 self, bring you to 2005 and sit you down in front of a practice session with the top 5 corps, and did not identify any of them for you, can you honestly say that your results would follow the "whims" of the judges?

I don't see why it is a foregone conclusion that Regiment, Madison, or Devils are "second-rate" citizens to Cavaliers and Cadets this year.  The only reason that it is happening is because of trends.  I'm not so sure it would be possible to get a completely objective view at this point...unless Finals judges had been sequestered all summer long.

Frankly, I think Regiment has the hardest horn book I've heard this year, but I know I am in the minority with this opinion, and that -much like Capitol Hill- everyone tends to vote down party lines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do we know if a book is "hard" if we don' "tic" the execution?

[jlhiatt]

Regarding the question posed by the title of this thread, I think DCI finals are getting a little too...predictable? Still, this year has seen some interesting things happen. For one, Santa Clara Vanguard won't likely finish in the top six this year (I predict an 8th or 9th place finish at finals) and Crossmen might not even make finals.

As for tick system vs. build up, I'd like to see a hybrid. I don't think enough emphasis is put on execution. Case in point, 2002 Magic of Orlando. I looked at some still photos that I had taken with my crappy disposable Kodak camera and Magic were pretty dirty visually. And the scores that year were inflated (anyone else agree?). 99?! WTF?!

[Tsar Nikk]

How do we know if a book is "hard" if we don' "tic" the execution?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're kidding me, right?

You don't need to "tic the execution" to know a book is hard. There are lots of factors to consider.

As an example...I can tell that the Hindemith symphony is harder than, say, the Bilik symphony because of variety, technical passages, lyrical passages requiring great balance and blend, tessitura difficulties...I don't need to "tic the execution" to know that.

What you are talking about could be more akin to this: Take the Frank Erickson "Air for Band" and give it to two bands, one a college group, the other a middle school group. Obviously, the middle school group is going to have a lot more problems with it than the college group...but does that really mean it's a difficult piece of music (it's not, by the way...unless, i guess, you're a middle school band :P ).

I'm talking about absolute difficulty, which is one concept, and I think you are talking about relative difficulty, which is another concept, and just as valid. But I don't think it applies in this case, because both Regiment and Madison are world-class corps.

And obviously, I am biased in favour of Regiment, but I have been able to call a spade a spade with them in the past...for example, take some of the years I marched: Star played a much harder book than us in 1991, and we played a harder book than Cavaliers. In 1992, Cadets had a harder book than us, but I think we had a harder book than Cavaliers. In 1993, Star and Cadets both had a harder book than us, and in 1994, so did Cavaliers and Cadets.

(All opinion)

[77kingsmensnare]

I don't think it's totally generational. I marched from 64-72 and taught and judged from 75-80, plus two DCA shows in 90.

IMO the tic system is as totally subjective as todays system, only it LOOKED more objective.

Listen to a short phrase of drum music...

Was the attack together...Y/N

Was the release together...Y/N

Was there 'fuzz' in the 17-strike roll?...Y/N

Was one of the diddle rudiments crushed?...Y/N

Were the grace notes on a drag paradiddle #1 not distinct?...Y/N

Was there a true grace note on the flam in that flam accent, or was it a flat flam?...Y/N

etc....

Every decision a judge made was subjective.

Plus...once a judge decided an event WAS an error...how bad was it...how many ticks did the error call for in a group tick situation?

Was the tolerance for the judge National Linear? Circuit linear? Something else?

What IS tolerance? It's a subjective decision as to what level of performance in an event constitues an error. Do you want little class 'C' corps to get zeroed out every show? Or do you want the tolerance adjusted to create a real ranking and rating...which after all is the "prime directive" a judge is supposed to follow.

Mike

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A tic is a tic is a tic!