boilerman_05 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I'm not sure I understand... does this mean that if one number is higher than another, it indicates total potential? In other words, it sounds like you have a repotoire score, basically a judgment of how much a judge likes the show the director picked, and then the other number is assigned based on some gauge of how well the kids are performing based on the rep?The problem is that if the director picks a turd, and the kids "polish" the turd, they should be rewarded accordingly... what you're saying is that all shows are limited in the showmanship category based on repotoire. It seems counterintuitive, since showmanship should not be a complete corrolary. For example, a group should be able to go out and play the holy #### out of a Celine Dion show. The director should still be tarred and feathered, but that shouldn't affect the potential of the showmanship score. Right? It's an opportunity to take demand into account. If the criteria were all about performance, everyone would just design an easy show that will be cleaned in no time. With the demand element, there is incentive to create a harder, more diverse show, that requires the performers to show the variety of their skils. If you don't, you will get killed in the rep category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 Therefore Repotoire >= Showmanship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boilerman_05 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 No. Showmanship can be higher than Repotoire, but it is not a good sign. If that is the case, then there are design issues that need to be taken care of. The Rep score is not some sort of celing that can not be passed. Ideally, I like to see the two numbers exactly the same at the end of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) That's the point, Boiler. Why are the two numbers related? If one number is higher than another, it's indicative of a problem? The two score sheet should be independent. You should, in theory, be worried about how each number relates *to its box scale*, not how they relate to one another. If they relate to one another, why wouldn't you have a system where you put down a number, and then assign a +/- related to that number using a second criteria? It sounds like this is what you expect, yet that's not how it is designed to work, right? Edited July 17, 2006 by drumcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 In a more general sense... should the two numbers a judge have be related? Is it impossible to humanly define them differently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boilerman_05 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 That's the point, Boiler. Why are the two numbers related? If one number is higher than another, it's indicative of a problem? They aren't related. They are two different scores given to give staff a better idea of what needs to be fixed.The two score sheet should be independent. You should, in theory, be worried about how each number relates *to its box scale*, not how they relate to one another. Yes. You should be concerned about that too. But the difference between the numbers gives you even more information.If they relate to one another, why wouldn't you have a system where you put down a number, and then assign a +/- related to that number using a second criteria? It sounds like this is what you expect, yet that's not how it is designed to work, right? My only answer to that would be because it's easier to do it the way it's done. A +/- system would make it harder to add up the scores (imho). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 How can the difference between numbers be important, but the numbers aren't related? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boilerman_05 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I think we are using different definitions of "related." I'm saying that they aren't correlated. They are "related" in the sense that you can look at both numbers together and get information out of what one looks like in relation to the other one. But one doesn't necessarily depend on the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted July 18, 2006 Author Share Posted July 18, 2006 Another night, another two shows, another complete correlation in every corps' score for GE and Visual. Doesn't anyone else think this is at least a potential problem? Again -- there were 10 of 16 categories where every corps scored equal or less in one category than the other, as shown in the first post. All 4 GE, all 6 Visual. All 6 Music categories were generally evenly distributed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 All this talk prompts another question. If "repertoire" is just evaluating content, why are repertoire scores so low early in the season? No one manages 8.0 out of 10 in "repertoire" in their first show. I realize shows change over the course of the season, but not that much. This is like saying that the drill Cavaliers marched in June wasn't even a top-12-caliber drill design, or the music Phantom Regiment played in June wasn't finalist-caliber in content. I suspect it isn't that simple, but I'd have to see the verbage on the sheets to get a better understanding.... 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.