The "balanced" scoring system

[drumcat]

feel free to splain...

[Schickmeister]

51%-59%?

[Matt_S]

I listen to drum corps most in the offseason, but that has everything to do with the convenience of a CD or MP3, versus that of a DVD. I much prefer to watch a DVD when I have the chances, but when you're driving, shopping for groceries, or out running, audio is the best that you can do.

I prefer a 50/50 split, but given the chance I would actually vote for the rule change Jeff Fiedler proposed this year. I would like to see overall effect be judged, because more and more corps are working toward creating complete and integrated shows. Listen to the Music GE judge last year, he praised several corps for what they were doing musically, on top of the demands placed on them visually. A field show is designed to be seen and heared silmultaneously, and the very best shows manage to pair the two together such that the whole is greater than just the sum of music and visual.

I reject the idea that music and/or visual should be able to stand on their own. My philosophy is that the music and visual should each benefit the other. Judging a corps' horn book by just listening to the audio of a show strikes me as silly, just as silly as judging a visual design with the DVD on mute. No one ever experiences a live show this way, they experience both music and visual as one. It's the total package that counts, and the corps that are best at combining both music and visual into one effect should score the highest.

[ravedodger]

Being a musician, I believe that the music should be able to stand alone, so I voted heavy on the music side.

I also voted that I listen to drum corps most in the off-season, although this is not actually true. I listen to drum corps equally throughout the year.

I should also note that I have a sizeable collection of drum corps music (all CD's: 72-91 & 06 top 12 and 92-05 top 21 or 24 and a ton of others) and the complete Legacy Collection of DVD's. I have the opportunity to listen and watch equally, but I don't. In fact, a lot the the DVD's are still in the wrapper.

Edited February 23, 2007 by ravedodger

[marshamello]

I don't know if a simple x% music, y% visual (no matter what the breakdown) will really change things. While it is supposed to be 50/50 now, I'd say there is a LOT more visual influence in the Music GE score then there is music influence in the Visual GE score.

More importantly than the music/visual breakdown is the GE/execution breakdown. THAT's where I think the most positive change in the scoring system could be made. I think execution needs to get a much larger percentage of the total score than it does today. Plus I think that execution has to include a much larger reward for the diffulty aspect.

One of the major violators of this I feel is color guard judging. Just look at how much time The Cavies' guard did nothing but pass rifles onto the field, sit on the sideline while three members stretched the box shape the corps was in, etc. this past year. The total content of their show resulted in a significantly less total amount of difficulty than any other top eight corps so how did they score so high? The simple answer is that they got beaucoup points for the GE they added to the show. But most of those GE points were already given under the Visual GE score and should NOT have made such a significant impact on their guard score. I feel that the same happens way too much in the Music GE score, with too much influence on the emotions the judge feels from the visual influencing their scores for music GE.

I still think the music GE judges should all be blindfolded!!!

[drumcat]

51%-59%?

It's what was between 60+ and 50/50. Sorry.

[eightyonepointthree]

I still think the music GE judges should all be blindfolded!!!

That makes NO sense. The entire idea of GE is coordination between music and visual. Buzz words you hear on tapes are "I can see what I hear" and "I can hear what I see". To be blindfolded would be silly.

[rut-roh]

One of the major violators of this I feel is color guard judging. Just look at how much time The Cavies' guard did nothing but pass rifles onto the field, sit on the sideline while three members stretched the box shape the corps was in, etc. this past year.

You might want to go back and check that video again. The entire color guard was actually on the field as part of the drill with the rest of the corps during the "elastic" section, which lasted about 30 seconds. They did minimal work at that point, yes, but I can think of other color guards that didn't offer much in terms of demand and "guard work" contribution for similar lengths of time in their shows. No different than when a corps features a soloist guard member or small ensemble. It's not totally uncommon. Besides, the focus of the show at that moment was not the color guard, and instead was a full-corps audio/visual effect moment. One that was pretty neat, actually. People complain that some guards just throw work in there for the sake of having work. In this instance, the Cavaliers chose not to do that and instead focused on a full-corps thing instead. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

ALSO, while the rifles were doing that one-by-one transition from the sideline......what I considered to be a unique and perfectly theme-appropriate way of transitioning their equipment........the sabres were already in the drill being a featured visual element, so it's not as if nothing was happening with the guard while they got those rifles. Again, look at the entire eleven minutes. You'll see plenty of contribution, plenty of demand, plenty of execution.

In general, I think it's more fair to NOT isolate ten seconds here, five seconds there, and then try to encapsulate an entire performance out of it. It's like drumming. People will go nuts about a three second long portion of the show where the snares sounded bad and conclude "that drumline stinks." They throw out the other eleven minutes, no matter how good it was, because of three seconds. It's ridiculous to me.

Case in point: 2005 Cadets. Not my favorite show, for sure. But what a drumline! A common criticism was during the drum solo when some kids picked up mics and started drumspeaking. The most common complaint was "they were more interested in speaking into a microphone than drumming." That show had more than enough notes in it percussively speaking than most shows could dream of. Did those people not hear the insane amount of notes (and the quality with which those notes were played) immediately before AND after that relatively small portion of drumspeak? It's as if they hold it against that drumline to try and lessen how great they actually were...and they were GREAT. Look at the whole product. At the end of the day, when it comes to these corps finishing in the top 5, we're talking about varying degrees of excellence. They're all pretty dang good!

[drumcat]

Case in point: 2005 Cadets. Not my favorite show, for sure. But what a drumline! A common criticism was during the drum solo when some kids picked up mics and started drumspeaking. The most common complaint was "they were more interested in speaking into a microphone than drumming." That show had more than enough notes in it percussively speaking than most shows could dream of. Did those people not hear the insane amount of notes (and the quality with which those notes were played) immediately before AND after that relatively small portion of drumspeak? It's as if they hold it against that drumline to try and lessen how great they actually were...and they were GREAT. Look at the whole product. At the end of the day, when it comes to these corps finishing in the top 5, we're talking about varying degrees of excellence. They're all pretty dang good!

I think you'll find that everyone thought so highly of that drumline that they wish the audience wasn't "shorted" with drumspeak, and that they actually had played during that period. I've never heard of anyone bagging on the drumming as sub-par. Those who didn't like the drumspeak didn't like it, but I don't think anyone says "the drumline sucks" because that was their part. Quite the contrary; we wish they'd have played more!

[marshamello]

Then why have seperate music and visual GE scores? Just have one integrated GE score - but give it less weight than the two combined. Whether it happens today or not, I think Music GE should primarily be about the emotion, message and story that the music portrays and how well the corps gets that across.

Maybe there should be three GE scores? One for visual that's just about the impact of the drill/guard, one that's just music about the emotions/story of the music, and one for integration that covers the "I see the music", "I heard the drill" aspects.

Giving benefit to "I see the music" and "I hear the drill" in today's scoring system ends up giving double the effect of the integration of the two with less impact from each individually (and becomes more about your drill writer than music selection) . This is one of the main reasons for today's less emotionally impactful shows that get the audience out of their seats less often then the past when seen live and sound sort of lacking when listened to on CDs later (like most of The Cavies' shows of the past seven year IMHO).