Interesting Hopblog quote from today

[Liam]

Who from DCI or the judging community specifically did you ask?

Missing my point. I'm sure I'm not being clear enough.

This started (and sorry for taking this thread off-course !!!) by someone asking how narration/etc was scored. I responded by saying (or trying to say!!!) that the community at large doesn't know and that this was a direct result (my opinion) of the rules making process (shlocky was the term I used).

My point is not that I can't get an answer even though I talked to a specific judge or DCI official. My point is that the community at large (fans) shouldn't have to go to those lengths to understand the judging criteria of the activity they are spending money on. This was a fairly major rule change, so I just think that DCI should have been (and should be to this day!!!) more open and out-front with the impacts to shows/scoring etc.

[glory]

How many of you who are complaining about the lack of clear criteria on the use of voice really want that to be a specific component of a judging caption?

I ask because it's an important question in the current "build-up" judging scheme. If it's a specific component, then a judge can credit it's specific success (as opposed to "ticking" it's failure). That being the case, corps without voice might find themselves at a competitive disadvantage because when all things are otherwise equal, they get no credit for voice while others do.

Say, for instance, that voice is a specific component in the GE category and that corps A, corps B and corp C are otherwise in a dead heat in all other aspects of GE. But A used voice moderately well, B used it poorly, and C didn't use it at all. Wouldn't a judge be obliged to grant A (which used voice moderately well) some additional incremental point while neither adding nor subtracting from B (poor voice) and C (no voice)?

The way I see it, codifying the judging of voice means granting a competitive advantage to those who use it over those who don't. I prefer the current regime where GE judges are free to give credit where it's due and only when it's due.

HH

[Liam]

This is an excellent point, glory. (And I'm not sure what I WANT, I just would like to understand what is being done, and what I'm paying for :) )

And if they were going to add a seperat classification as you posit, I would expect (hope for?) an impact analysis and debate to prevent unintended consequences like you lay out. Look, again, DCI can do whatever they want -- I just wish that it were all handled a little more openly and professionally, that's all.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Liam

[2000Cadet]

http://hopsblog2.livejournal.com/

And I have to say...

...this is really nothing new. GH may not have had any internet blogs back when I marched to post his thoughts on the show. But he has usually had his hand in the cookie jar and considered the fact that there may need to be changes made during the course of the season. I don't understand why this is such a newsflash other than the fact he posted it on his blog.

Nevertheless, it seems that GH can never get any credit for anything. He posts something like this, people don't buy it and think he is being selfserving or arrogant. This is nothing new. This will always happen as long as he is the Director of The Cadets. People are going to argue back-and-forth their views and thoughts of how evil a man they think he is. I don't know if a lot of you have been able to listen to one of his speeches he gives to the kids through the course of the season, but I think a lot of people who have marched in The Cadets will agree with me that GH is not as arrogant as the majority of the people on this forum may think.

In the end, (at least I can speak for myself) most of the kids who march learn a very valuable lesson from this man. He brings a lot to the organization and to DCI. This is not to say there are not other directors who do the same, but I only know Mr. Hopkins so I can only speak about him. I think GH deserves a lot of respect for the things he has done for the activity, The Cadets drum and bugle corps and the lives he has helped to enrich throughout his 25 years of service to this activity. All in all, I have MUCH respect for Mr. Hopkins for what he has brought to the table. You all are entitled to belittle him, bash The Cadets or whatever you choose to do. I will always respect the man for what he has done, even if there are some shows I don't like.

And yes, you all may call me a Cadet borg, but frankly, I really don't care. It's a privilege to be associated with such an organization.

And to the quote in my signature...

[MikeD]

Agreed. I'm just saying that DCI shouldn't be surprised if people are turned off by this and maybe go away. I understand that I may be the only one who feels this way, and if the market decides otherwise, then so be it. I have a hunch, though, that there is an undercurrent of some level around this.

Outside of posts in forums like this, what do you base your hunch on? Personally, I don't think the average show attendee really thinks a lot about the details of judging.

I get the overall evaluation of the sound, but too many times we've seen somewhat severe braekdowns, interference, etc that affects the overall quality of a show, that is seemingly not represented in the scores. Sure other factors may be at play, but this is where I think DCI owes an explanation to the fans since it is a new rule and is still being ironed out in many respects.

That's the part I don't get...they need to make sure whatever they do judging-wise is known by those impacted...the judges and corps. Outside of that, it doesn't really matter, IMO.

When corps added sound reflectors to the drums it didn't require a special rule or public notice of how sound reflectors would be judged. I see amps the same way. Since they are not a new family of instruments why would there be some sort of "special" rule? Their impact on the sound would be evaluated, good or bad. I also think that people in these forums who are anti-amp think that any issue with a performance should be 'hit' far more than it really will be hit, score-wise.

[Liam]

Nevertheless, it seems that GH can never get any credit for anything. He posts something like this, people don't buy it and think he is being selfserving or arrogant. This is nothing new. This will always happen as long as he is the Director of The Cadets. People are going to argue back-and-forth their views and thoughts of how evil a man they think he is.

As I've said before -- I'm waiting for the thread that starts:

"I saw Hopkins the other day, and he was standing there BREATHING IN AND OUT!!!! Like he owns the place or something!!!!"

[2000Cadet]

As I've said before -- I'm waiting for the thread that starts:

"I saw Hopkins the other day, and he was standing there BREATHING IN AND OUT!!!! Like he owns the place or something!!!!"

And this has to do with what?

[ScribeToo]

Interesting. I didn't decide to read this thread until today but I had a related conversation with a good friend of mine last night about this kind of thing.

We were talking about (of course) the differences between the Cadets and the Cavaliers -- since he's primarily been a Cadets fan and I've been primarily a Cavaliers fan since we've known each other.

I pointed out that the Cavaliers seem to have their science down to:

Write a simple, easily readable show the guys can get under their feet quickly and then increase the difficulty, add and tweak as the season goes on until you have the show you want ... like a sculptor molds out of clay.

He pointed out that the Cadets seem to have their science down to:

Write an incredibly difficult show with everything you want or could imagine in there, see what works and what doesn't and chip away at it until you have the show you want ... like a sculptor carves out of marble.

Both "sciences" work for the corps who use them.. it was just interesting the mirror image of their apparent processes.

Stef

[Jazzycat1]

And this has to do with what?

Exactly <**>

Edited June 27, 2007 by Jazzycat1

[Liam]

Outside of posts in forums like this, what do you base your hunch on? Personally, I don't think the average show attendee really thinks a lot about the details of judging.

That's the part I don't get...they need to make sure whatever they do judging-wise is known by those impacted...the judges and corps. Outside of that, it doesn't really matter, IMO.

When corps added sound reflectors to the drums it didn't require a special rule or public notice of how sound reflectors would be judged. I see amps the same way. Since they are not a new family of instruments why would there be some sort of "special" rule? Their impact on the sound would be evaluated, good or bad. I also think that people in these forums who are anti-amp think that any issue with a performance should be 'hit' far more than it really will be hit, score-wise.

Okay, so this is getting a little deeper into the specifics of this rule than I intended since I was originally trying to make a point about the rules-making process itself ... (which was, admittedly, way off topic to begin with, so I have no one to blame but myself!!! :P ) ...

but...

I get what you're saying about amps (and the drum reflectors, et al), just being the same sound and all. But what about narration? There are specific criteria for intonation, pitch, etc related to horns. So are there similar criteria for diction, pronunciation, etc. for speech? I don't know if there is or there isn't but isn't that my point? If a rule change is going to affect how the activity might be judged then I think that the paying customer should have a better understanding than we currently do. I disagree to an extent that only the judges and corps should be privy. We're funding this activity. We are the ticket-buying public. And we are being asked to accept the Champion that the judges select. So therefore, imo, we're not out of line in wanting to know the details of how that Champion was chosen.