DCA PERC RULES REVIEW

[sarnia sam]

the problem here is your tic may not be my tic...so in essence, it's really subjective anyway

Jeff I've never understood that arguement regardless of who is making it.

My position on tics; if you can't tell the third snare in on the right just tic'd the left hand 32nd diddle following the attack in the roll that just flew by - stop judging.

If you can't tell the right hand end tenor drummer flammed the double stop - get out of judging.

If you can't tell the basses on the end of the form are lagging tempo (and maybe should evaluate who they listen to in that section of music ) - put down the pencil and stop judging.

In other words, tics are tics and trying to say - well... maybe not, is baloney. Poor judges make that argument to justify their continued existance on a judging panel. They always have.

And to those who say tics are not a positive aspect. Well, getting less tics that the other corps was a lways a positive experience from where I was drumming.

Regards,

John Swartz

[Jeff]

In other words, tics are tics and trying to say - well... maybe not, is baloney. Poor judges make that argument to justify their continued existance on a judging panel. They always have.

Regards,

John Swartz

John,

It appears that the tick system has been romanticized over the years since it's discontinuation. All ticks were errors, but not all errors were ticks. Most who profess otherwise never had the joy of venturing onto the field with a pencil in hand and others at the ready for when the point wore down. Instructors and performers frequently saw this as a black and white, absolute, objective measure for the presence or absence of error. Meaning if we didn't get ticked, we didn't make a mistake. However that was not the case in actual judging practice. Many errors were deemed minor and unworthy of ticks. Some called them tickettes.

This is clearly defined in the judging manuals of that era. In order to judge even one show, you needed to demonstrate this in field trials as well as oral and written examinations to get a judging card. It was defined as tolerance, meaning the setting a consistent point at which a tick was awarded. If one was to tick every audible, discernable deviance from uniformity, assuming you have good to great ears, they would total in the hundreds for every corps. Thus a judge needed to have a consistent point at which to levy the deduction. This I state because my pencil has spewed thousands of ticks over the years prior to 1983.

Ticking was much like a policeman using radar. If the limit is 65, he won't write a ticket until a certain speed. 66 is OK, 72 is iffy and 81 will bring on the red lights. So you can exceed the speed limit to a point and not be ticketed. The same applied to judging practices in the tick era.

This really brings back some great memories for me and is an interesting discussion.

Jeff

Edited September 17, 2006 by Jeff

[Jeff Ream]

Jeff I've never understood that arguement regardless of who is making it.

My position on tics; if you can't tell the third snare in on the right just tic'd the left hand 32nd diddle following the attack in the roll that just flew by - stop judging.

If you can't tell the right hand end tenor drummer flammed the double stop - get out of judging.

If you can't tell the basses on the end of the form are lagging tempo (and maybe should evaluate who they listen to in that section of music ) - put down the pencil and stop judging.

In other words, tics are tics and trying to say - well... maybe not, is baloney. Poor judges make that argument to justify their continued existance on a judging panel. They always have.

And to those who say tics are not a positive aspect. Well, getting less tics that the other corps was a lways a positive experience from where I was drumming.

Regards,

John Swartz

sure you point out easy things.

however, an example from the 70's.

i believe in 75, it was Sky versus the Rebels all year for drums in DCA. Sky tuned loose, and in turn, while sometimes one judge cut em slack on stuff that sounded fuzzy, another judge wouldn;t. it sounded fuzzy to him, and as such, tuning scheme or not, it was dirt.

however, the Rebels tuned tight...the guy who cut Sky slack was all over the Rebels for the tiniest fuzz.

so depending on which guy judged is who won.

finals night, the guy who wouldnt cut Sky slack judged...Rebels won.

see one guy thought it was a tick...another guy thought well, it;s the tuning, so it's all good.

which is why when you look at old recaps where you have two guys on the field, you could have wild fluctuations in the scores.

[Storkysr]

THIS IS VERY LONG...PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK................

Bio:

I have been playing percussion in drum corps since 1962, 17 years of which have been with DCA “Senior” field corps. I have been an instructor, technician and caption head at several competitive levels. I also was a percussion judge with the NYAA Judges Association in the seventies and had an opportunity to adjudicate virtually all of the top DCA and DCI corps of that era. For much of that time our “bible” was the 1974 DCI “Blue Book”.

Following an absence from 1998 to 2001, I became involved with DCA I&E Percussion Ensembles. I was instrumental as a director, composer, instructor and performer with the New York Percussion Department (NYPD) who won the Championship in 2002 and 2004. In 2005 I was hired as a snare technician with a DCA corps. This was an excellent opportunity for me to be involved with the development of young percussionists, including my son who has played snare in the corps for the past two years.

I was soon dismayed at the ambiguities in the judging sheets and rules. Although the changes made to the percussion rules were apparently done for the sake of simplifying the judging process, I believe that this was accomplished at the price of coherence and clarity. In fact, only four sparsely written pages are devoted to explanations and definitions in the Rule Book. I have also heard that the change to the current system was undertaken for financial reasons by eliminating one of the field judges. The system proposed here is equally amenable to a two judge compliment. I would suggest that if an additional judge were incorporated, he should be used in the box. It seems to me that it would be more useful to obtain the averages for those captions that are most subjective.

Conceptual Problems with the Current System-Uniformity:

Page 50 of the current DCA rules book the espouses that the basis of all judging is to be “Uniformity” yet methods of accreditation and ranking for it’s achievement are well hidden among the four major sub captions. Uniformity (or execution as we used to call it), as it applies to a section (snares, tenors, etc) is theoretically a “digital” event (either a mistake is present or it isn’t-no in between). It is generally clear to all when something is dirty from an audible/mechanical standpoint. The best way to represent a digital event as a function of either time or offender is with a data point (a “TIC”). A series of data points (the performance) is combined to form a linear function. There is no art and very little interpretation required for adjudication in this manner and the result is a clear and unambiguous depiction of where and when a mistake occurred. This makes it easier to address and subsequently correct.

The problem of inconsistency of mistake detection remains as a result of the physical location of the judge relative to the offending section and variability in the different judge’s “tolerance of error” (nothing is perfect). However, these problems also exist with any other type of adjudication system and are currently compounded by nebulous definitions of musicality, artistic expression, style and musical taste. I believe that these areas should be addressed separately. Uniformity (the HOW) should be more clearly distinguished from the other musical considerations (the WHAT). This is done most effectively by means of a demerit, or “TIC” system. Yes, this system has it’s problems but far fewer, in my opinion, than the system that is currently used for the evaluation of “Uniformity”-which, I agree, should be the basis for all judging.

The most common reason for reluctance to adapt the “TIC” system that I have heard from the judging community is that it is a form of punishment, not reward. WOW! Welcome to the real world! Life isn’t about constant reward and neither should be a realistic adjudication system. Another argument used against the "TIC" system is that it limits creativity . This is not an inherent problem with this method of execution analysis but merely has to do with the recognition and appropriate weighting of "DEMAND" caption relative to execution. IMHO demand should be considered not only as a specific sub-caption, but should also be evaluated as part of the EFFECT caption, thereby providing further incentive for difficulty and creativity.

Proposed Changes:

The proposed changes are intended to increase quality and technical achievement by clarifying the definitions of these goals and providing accountable tabulations to track the progress of their improvement.

The major differences in this proposed system from the current system are :

1. A “tic”system will be used for battery execution analysis. This is done to provide accountability and understanding as to what actual mistakes or trends are present.

2. Battery Demand will be more heavily weighted and it’s definition clarified. This is done to promote creativity and provide incentive for percussion sections to advance in skill level.

3. Battery technique will be more heavily weighted and it’s definition clarified. This is done to enhance development of a musical technique.

The above three sub-captions will all carry a numeric value and will be adjudicated by the Field Judge.

4. The Front Ensemble, including effect and execution will be adjudicated from the box. This will allow the field judge to concentrate on the battery without the need to attempt equitable “sampling” of the pit. It also allows the judge to better understand how well the pit interacts with the battery and brass.

5. Overall Percussion General Effect will also be adjudicated from the box and will be more clearly defined to produce understanding of the measures that need be taken for a percussion section to excel in this sub-caption.

Note 1: Battery is defined as the marching percussion section normally composed of snares, multi-tenors, basses and (sometimes) cymbals. Any other legal percussion instrument that marches on the field during the performance would be considered a part of the battery as well. If the battery or a portion thereof occasionally plays in the pit area, either on battery or pit instruments, they will be judged by the field judge and not by the ‘box” judge.

Front Ensemble is defined as those (legal) percussion instruments that are stationed in the “pit” area or are stationary on any other area of the field during the performance. This section is normally composed of mallet keyboards, tympani, stationary toms and drum sets, chimes, hand-held effects instruments, etc.

Here's a basic format proposal:

1. BATTERY PERFORMANCE Judge Located ON THE FIELD- 40points

A) Battery Execution - 20 points - TIC system

B) Battery Demand - 15 points - build

C) Battery technique - 5 points - build

Explanation of Sub-Captions:

A) Battery Execution: This sub-caption is based on intra and inter-section uniformity. A 0.1 point deduction (“tic”) will be noted for the following infractions:

• Non uniform execution within a section (intra-section) due to rhythmic or stylistic interpretation differences. These mistakes shall be identified on the sheets by section (snare, tenor, bass, cymbals, inter-section s-t, inter-section t-b, etc.) and on the tape under one of the following: taps, flams, diddles, double stroke rolls, drags, single stroke rolls, compound rolls, compound rudiments, hybrid rudiments, inter- section tempo distortion and inter-section clarity (uniformity when attempting the same musical responsibility in two or more sections simultaneously).

• When a “section” is comprised of only one individual the execution adjudication is accomplished as for an individual competition with the addition of consideration to inter-sectional responsibilities.

B) Battery Demand: This sub-caption is defined as all elements that contribute to the difficulty of a performance. The following elements are to be considered and credited a maximum of five points each:

• Musical Complexity (5.0-build): A measure of the degree of dexterity and intricacy. Consider flams, inverts, ruffs, control of crescendos and decrescendos (shaping) difficult visuals, 32nd note singlet or diddle passages, triple stroke rolls, single sticking, compound rudiments, drum to drum splits (tenors and bass), etc.

• Mental Demand (5.0- build): Includes credit given for timing (such as an “exposed” attack such as tutti or section attacks following unsupported section tacits), unusual time signatures, syncopation, accent patterns, tempo changes or phrasing that requires a high degree of mental focus.

• Physical demand (5.0-build): A measure of how physically taxing the musical repertoire is. Consider speed (tempo and # of beats per unit time) and endurance (including tacit abuse). The increased demand required to march while playing is considered here.

C) Battery Technique: This sub-caption is defined as the quality of sound produced as a function of appropriate and uniform implement grip and stroke control. Consider selection of appropriate playing zones on the instrument, uniformity of stick heights and angles and sound volumes produced by individuals within a section. Note that this is not an assessment of the suitability of any particular style but of the uniformity of the chosen technique as it applies to the considerations mentioned.

NOTE 2: The on-field adjudicator would assess the battery. He would wear a headset type mic. and note the section and rudiment/phrase of the discrepancy on the tape. He would keep track of tics either by marking on the sheet (hands are free and there is no need to actually search for columns for diddles ,drags, rolls, etc. It would be a good cross-check, however, if he were to mark the tic under the appropriate instrument-s, t, b, c) or by a mechanical clicker.

2. PERCUSSION EFFECT and FRONT ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCE (50 points) These captions are currently a work in progress. Note that the Front Ensemble would be judged exclusively from the box as previously explained. Weighting of these captions would be something like this:

A) Pit (execution, demand, technique) - 15 points -build

B) Coordination (pit to battery, perc to brass) - 10 points - build

C) Percussion Effectiveness (GE) - 25 points - build

The numbers would have to be normalized to total 30 by adding the two captions and dividing by 3. Of course all the sub captions would have to be clearly defined but this is a start. All opinions are still welcome. This is a rough draft. FLAMES?, Comments? WtS 9/22/06 NOTE: This post does not necessarily reflect the positions of any organization that I am affiliated with.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Storkysr

[Storkysr]

sorry, double post

Edited September 22, 2006 by Storkysr

[zarblap]

I'm all for execution tics being brought back into judging, just as long as they can keep judges like Wormy, from the past off the field(you got a tick almost every time a drum was touched and many lines got written right off the sheets)

Edited September 24, 2006 by zarblap

[TastyWaves]

sure you point out easy things.

however, an example from the 70's.

i believe in 75, it was Sky versus the Rebels all year for drums in DCA. Sky tuned loose, and in turn, while sometimes one judge cut em slack on stuff that sounded fuzzy, another judge wouldn;t. it sounded fuzzy to him, and as such, tuning scheme or not, it was dirt.

however, the Rebels tuned tight...the guy who cut Sky slack was all over the Rebels for the tiniest fuzz.

so depending on which guy judged is who won.

finals night, the guy who wouldnt cut Sky slack judged...Rebels won.

see one guy thought it was a tick...another guy thought well, it;s the tuning, so it's all good.

which is why when you look at old recaps where you have two guys on the field, you could have wild fluctuations in the scores.

Not to mention that in todays visual age, the judge doesnt have the benefit of being able to stand there and count ticks. You gotta be runnin with the battery if your talkin about evaluating the leg line out on the field. even in a "park and play" situation, any intelligent listener should know that alot of things sound dirty if your way out of position. For example, if 9 snares, 4 quads, and 5 bass drums are playing a unison passage from a long diagonal, and your positioned in front of the snareline, its not gonna sound good. If you dont know that, you shoudl stop judging. Also, if your a judge who only evaluates snarelines (like so many out there do) you should put the pencil down and stop judging.

Not to mention the whole other half of the score which is the front ensemble. They dont just play unison passages, so unless you know the written book your not gonna know where the tics are.

[OHS_Bucs53]

Not to mention that in todays visual age, the judge doesnt have the benefit of being able to stand there and count ticks. You gotta be runnin with the battery if your talkin about evaluating the leg line out on the field. even in a "park and play" situation, any intelligent listener should know that alot of things sound dirty if your way out of position. For example, if 9 snares, 4 quads, and 5 bass drums are playing a unison passage from a long diagonal, and your positioned in front of the snareline, its not gonna sound good. If you dont know that, you shoudl stop judging. Also, if your a judge who only evaluates snarelines (like so many out there do) you should put the pencil down and stop judging.

Not to mention the whole other half of the score which is the front ensemble. They dont just play unison passages, so unless you know the written book your not gonna know where the tics are.

Not 'ticks' per se...PERFORMANCE ERRORS !

This is quite simple: The judge carries a 'counter clicker' ! This frees his eyes from having to look down at a sheet and put down a mark while getting run over by the hornline !

You will have the taped commentary (as we do now) and a 'number' determined by the amount of errors that occured. Much better to have a number that you can SUBTRACT than to have a number based on criteria that most judges don't pay attention to anyways !

I've seen some of our TOP DCA lines have bad nights where the sound was so wide you could drive an equipment truck through it, but the scores CONTINUED to go up ! Does anyone but me see a problem with this ?

Not only this, but can anyone answer me "when the last time the judges had a clinic" ? It used to be that if you wanted to judge...you had to be at the spring clinic. This (at the very least) got the judges together to talk about and exchange ideas as to what's happening in the world of percussion !

Rick Rogers, Jr.

[Jeff Ream]

so Rick, if line a is clean and plays jesus come to me in 16th note tap rolls, they should be do better than line b playing all kinds oif stuff with some dirt but not a lot?

sorry but you have to give some credit for book.

[Storkysr]

so Rick, if line a is clean and plays jesus come to me in 16th note tap rolls, they should be do better than line b playing all kinds oif stuff with some dirt but not a lot?

sorry but you have to give some credit for book.

1. BATTERY PERFORMANCE Judge Located ON THE FIELD- 40points

A) Battery Execution - 20 points - TIC system

Battery Demand - 15 points - build

C) Battery technique - 5 points - build