The GE Conundrum

[drumcat]

The GE Conundrum

Why fans and judges don't see the same thing

I was thinking quite a bit about why I overreacted to Mike Boo's post yesterday regarding the Honda Bowl, and I think I have a better understanding about what the disconnect is. I've been a judge (edit: not for DCI), and a fan for even longer than that of course, and I plan on treading in some gray areas. Put your waders on, as this may get murky.

I believe that fans and judges have different conceptions of what General Effect is. I think they're both right, both wrong, and that because of this difference, fans end up with disillusionment. General Effect as a category deals with the part of a drum corps show that is judged for its construct, not its execution. We have 60 points for execution of the show, and 40 points separated for this ethereal idea of generalist thought. Most fans and judges agree on the 60 points. A kid does a show, and they're judged by box content to determine the degree of excellence. Whether it's a tick, a box, a build-up, or whatever system is in place, we all understand excellence and generally agree on its use. Knowing that it can be subject to what a judge observes on a given night, we all as fans concede that a) judges know their craft, b) judges are as good as anyone at catching errors, and c) judges try hard to be impartial. So for the rest of this essay, I'm going to leave those 60 execution points out of the conversation. Let's talk about the other 40.

General Effect is the umbrella category for the two largest point totals for a corps' 100 points. There are 20 for Visual Effect, 20 for Musical Effect. You may recall a recent rule proposal for an Overall Effect, broadening these two scores into covering anything. I'll even state that it wouldn't matter. What I see is that judges, by rule, observe something different in GE than what most fans consider "GE".

It is within my experience to know that most fans look at GE as the concept of likability, "it", the "right stuff", or specifically, the level of emotional connection between the performers, the show concept, and the fans. In the murky explanation, it could be called the "entertainment value" of a show. Essentially, it's most often defined as how well Joe Fan Liked It.

Green Shirts on the other hand do not find GE to be a sense of entertainment, no matter how they may construe the definition of the category. I'd submit to you that becoming impartial, striving towards not playing favorites, actually prevents emotional attachment. You could liken it to a mom with her kids, and not choosing a favorite. You don't want to pick a favorite.

I must admit at this point that I have, in my experience, only judged execution categories. I have not actually ever judged GE. So I say this drawing a few conclusions that I have not had to personally go through, but I feel with some confidence there may be a point here.

What's a GE judge to judge if they can't emotionally attach themselves? They judge cohesion. They judge whether the concept a particular corps is doing comes through. They judge whether a musical phrase matches the visual interpretation on the field. They judge whether the sound projects, the horns are high, and the rifles are together. On and on, they judge anything that comes their way. This is impartial judging. The General Effect category mostly demands this type of associative adjudication. It is a number about how well the show is constructed, and how well the performers bring the show concepts to the audience.

With those two different ideas, it's no wonder judges and fans tend to not see eye to eye. Nowhere in the concept of judging GE do you see emotional connection. You don't see personal likes and dislikes. So sure, someone could say that a particular show tugged at a judge, but the idea of impartiality creates inertia for a judge to try and judge against the show, and to leave personal feelings out of the equation. They have to, as this is what being impartial demands.

As an example, let's just say that the ME judge hated The Godfather. The judge's parents made him watch it as a kid and it scarred the judge forever. Maybe the judge did a film school dissertation and knows it really, really well. For whatever reason, the ME is predisposed to hating The Godfather and anything having to do with the movie, mobsters, whatever. Then what? You judge based on how well the corps brings out the show concept vis a vis the writing and theme, as well as the other delineated items above.

This is the problem! What fans see in shows, and how they are determined under the examination of judging are different. Fundamentally different, in fact. A judge can look at a show that s/he hates, and judge it based on criteria. A fan can still dislike it, and a judge can dislike a show that s/he scores well in GE.

I won't say there's an answer, but I wonder if I'm accurately describing the emotional difference between fans and GE as it's judged. What do you think? Do fans have a different idea of what GE is than judges? Is it systematic? Is it fairer this way? What do you think?

Edited March 2, 2007 by drumcat

[Hrothgar15]

Like I said (before I was bombarded with hundreds of posts flaming me), audience reaction should factor into general effect. Quality of arrangements (hint: this is not subjective), emotional connection, VOLUME, power...should all factor in to GE.

[LAMystreaux]

Like I said (before I was bombarded with hundreds of posts flaming me), audience reaction should factor into general effect. Quality of arrangements (hint: this is not subjective), emotional connection, VOLUME, power...should all factor in to GE.

As soon as you can figure out how to judge audience reaction, let us know.

Hint. . .it would never work (well, that is).

[chris ncsu]

Well thought out post.

I still think there's no way to even REMOTELY judge audience reaction...whether its subtle like anxious and uncomfortable (Star 93? BK 2006?), or loud but contained clapping (mostly on the polite side? or is it?), or lotsa cheering (is it a home show?)...ya know?

[Hrothgar15]

As soon as you can figure out how to judge audience reaction, let us know.

Hint. . .it would never work (well, that is).

I never said I knew a way to measure it. What I do know, however, is that there is a clear distinction between the audience reaction of, say, Cadets 2000 and Blue Knights 2006. It is something that can be ranked and ordered against the other competing corps. How, I have no idea.

[liebot]

Quality of arrangements (hint: this is not subjective)

You couldn't be more wrong.

[GGarrett]

any competition of any sort should always be won by the competitor who performs whatever it is the best, with fewest mistakes

or fastest, farthest and with the best game... not by how much the crowd likes them.

It's fine to have a fan favorite and for the fans to express that, but the competition (ice skating, dancing, drum & bugle corps, golf...)

should not be influenced by that.

[drumcat]

I never said I knew a way to measure it. What I do know, however, is that there is a clear distinction between the audience reaction of, say, Cadets 2000 and Blue Knights 2006. It is something that can be ranked and ordered against the other competing corps. How, I have no idea.

How can you say there's a clear distinction of something that's impossible to measure?

[Hrothgar15]

You couldn't be more wrong.

Ever heard of music theory?

[chris ncsu]

I never said I knew a way to measure it. What I do know, however, is that there is a clear distinction between the audience reaction of, say, Cadets 2000 and Blue Knights 2006. It is something that can be ranked and ordered against the other competing corps. How, I have no idea.

What if the goal of BK 2006 was to make you angry or uncomfortable or tense or anxious...then for many they got what they wanted, and that kind of crowd reaction is just as valid and 'worthy' as Cadets 2000.