Inconsistencies of the Tick System
James Christian
> James,
>
> Nice math, but I fail to see the relevance. Just because the judges were
> getting closer and closer
> in scores doesn't make the system any more accurate in determining the best
> performing percussion
> section.
>
> Mike
The relevance is that it shows that there was a uniform standard, and it was getting
more and more accurate and reliable. It was becoming growing in consistency. It was
a dependable system of judging. As the criteria becomes more exacting and clearly
defined (assuming that the judges have an iota of what they're doing), it promotes
consistency, and ensures that the performers have a better idea of what to expect.
It's true that just because the judges were getting closer and closer in scores
doesn't *necessarily* make the system any more accurate in determining the best
performing percussion section. But surely it is more likely to achieve that goal than
a build-up system in which three different judges can have a 20 point spread on the
same performance. (Granted that this pretty much only happens at marching band & drum
lines shows, as there is only one percussion judge in DCI now, but often these
judges--especially for drum line shows--are affiliated with DCI, so they are used to
the same methods of judging.) And the amazing thing is that no one seems to see
anything wrong with such a huge discrepency in scores!
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
michael davis
Nice math, but I fail to see the relevance. Just because the judges were
getting closer and closer
in scores doesn't make the system any more accurate in determining the best
performing percussion
section.
Mike
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Frank Schoenbach
I think if you look at M&M though, you'll see some huge differences
since the two judges usually were on different sides of the field.
On Tue, 18 May 1999 04:05:30 -0800, mda...@ets.org (michael davis)
wrote:
VKGARRY73
Having drum judges practically paint the sheets on a "novice" drum line,
while holding the sheets behind their backs, smiling and nodding their heads
when a "Top 12" drumline is on the field...all the while, I'm hearing that "Top
12" line ticking left and right from the 20th row.
I'm not saying that the "novice" line didn't deserve to receive the score
they got...just saying that there was inconsistancy within the judging ranks on
how lines were scored, depending on their reputation (Top 12 receiving
preferential treatment.)
If those that would like to see a return to the tick system (me included)
do not keep this inconsistancy in mind, the experiment would fail..and I'd be
issuing the first "F" grade!
VKG
"We are the people our parents warned us about"
Remove "byte-me" from address to respond by e-mail
mike...@my-dejanews.com
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> michael davis wrote:
>
> > James,
> >
> > Nice math, but I fail to see the relevance. Just because the judges
were
> > getting closer and closer
> > in scores doesn't make the system any more accurate in determining
the best
> > performing percussion
> > section.
> >
> > Mike
>
it was getting
> more and more accurate and reliable. It was becoming growing in
consistency.
Actually, what your math proved is that was no need for two judges at
all. If they were that close, then one would be sufficient.
>It was
> a dependable system of judging. As the criteria becomes more exacting
and clearly
> defined (assuming that the judges have an iota of what they're doing),
it promotes
> consistency, and ensures that the performers have a better idea of
what to expect.
>
Criteria may or may not have been 'exacting and clearly defined', but
what they were judging was not the entire definition of 'performance';
there is more to it than just "clean". Buildup, "assuming that the
judges have an iota of what they're doing" (<G>), provides a better
method of assessing the totality of a performance that goes beyond
"playing together".
> It's true that just because the judges were getting closer and closer
in scores
> doesn't *necessarily* make the system any more accurate in determining
the best
> performing percussion section. But surely it is more likely to
achieve that goal than
> a build-up system in which three different judges can have a 20 point
spread on the
> same performance.
I've never seen a single sheet with more than 20 points for one caption.
Are you saying that you've seen one judge give a zero and another a 20
to the same band/corps/drumline on the same caption?
> And the amazing thing is that no one seems to see
> anything wrong with such a huge discrepency in scores!
>
If they were that close together, why not only have one? What's the
point of more than one if you are looking for closeness of scores
between judges on the same caption? From my experience, huge variations
in scores are the exception, not the rule.
Mike
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Frank Schoenbach
.
>
>I've never seen a single sheet with more than 20 points for one caption.
>Are you saying that you've seen one judge give a zero and another a 20
>to the same band/corps/drumline on the same caption?
>
I believe Legion use to have 25 points for everything.
And I have seen one judge give a zero and the other in the low teens
>> And the amazing thing is that no one seems to see
>> anything wrong with such a huge discrepency in scores!
Look at 1964 VFW for example when Garfield made finals with a 31 out
of 30. They didn't catch that until the winter when the score
sheets were "reviewed"
>>
>
>If they were that close together, why not only have one? What's the
>point of more than one if you are looking for closeness of scores
>between judges on the same caption? From my experience, huge variations
>in scores are the exception, not the rule.
Actually in M&M where you had judges on both sides of the field there
were more apt to be big differences, brass also. The reason for
drums being so close might just be that in the tick days, drumlines
didn't move much and both judges just stood together in the same spot
the entire show!
AJLisko
>
>I believe Legion use to have 25 points for everything.
>And I have seen one judge give a zero and the other in the low teens
>
Old school breakdown from the early 60's:
M&M 30pts
Horns 25pts
Drums 25pts
GE 20pts (each caption received 20pts
and the total was divided by 3)
Andy
Sambuca312
FAR better than the abyssmal "pick a corps, pick a score" method that is used
today. No less a drum corps icon than Jim Costello, the founder/director of
the Hawthorne Caballeros has stated that the change from the tick to "pick a
score" (and that the 'package' takes presidence overthe performance; another
DCI mantra) has been a mistake. SAM
Dr. Trumpet
sambu...@aol.com (Sambuca312) wrote:
I have long felt that if DCI could come up with a Criteria Reference that
rewards for both construction (including difficulty) and performance, they
would solve this once and for all. If someones score is clearly out of
line with a tight, clearly written CR, then you have a complaint. As it
is now, you have nothing.
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful
to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C),
a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover
actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
Tom & Karen Peashey
abortion issue is to life... a can't win scenario - in which either right
or wrong... there is too much emotion to convince someone otherwise....
You James, in the past have proven to be very drum corps knowledgeable... I
ask this:
1. Have you ever judged?
2. Have you ever judged ticks?
3. Have you ever chased a judge out from under the stands who was changing
his ticks after a show?
4. Have you ever tried to teach someone how to tick?
5. Have you ever tried to teach someone tolerance and tolerance control?
6. Have you ever screwed up and written a corps off the sheet?
7. Have you ever had a corps come in and ask who was the best marching
corps in the show and answered... you were... (LI Sunrisers) and then had
them hand you the recap where you put them in 4th place.... why? I got
carried away judging an early season performance by a wonderful corps who
played a high velocity, tremendously difficult and exposed program... I
screwed up...
I have done all of the above.... I say "TICK SYSTEM" may it rest in
peace....
Tom Peashey
James Christian wrote in message <374227B9...@hotmail.com>...
>michael davis wrote:
>
>> James,
>>
>> Nice math, but I fail to see the relevance. Just because the judges were
>> getting closer and closer
>> in scores doesn't make the system any more accurate in determining the
best
>> performing percussion
>> section.
>>
>> Mike
>
>The relevance is that it shows that there was a uniform standard, and it
was getting
>more and more accurate and reliable. It was becoming growing in
consistency. It was
>a dependable system of judging. As the criteria becomes more exacting and
clearly
>defined (assuming that the judges have an iota of what they're doing), it
promotes
>consistency, and ensures that the performers have a better idea of what to
expect.
>
>It's true that just because the judges were getting closer and closer in
scores
>doesn't *necessarily* make the system any more accurate in determining the
best
>performing percussion section. But surely it is more likely to achieve
that goal than
>a build-up system in which three different judges can have a 20 point
spread on the
>same performance. (Granted that this pretty much only happens at marching
band & drum
>lines shows, as there is only one percussion judge in DCI now, but often
these
>judges--especially for drum line shows--are affiliated with DCI, so they
are used to
>the same methods of judging.) And the amazing thing is that no one seems
to see
>anything wrong with such a huge discrepency in scores!
>
>Rudimentally yours,
>James Christian
>
Jeff Mitchell
AJLisko wrote:
I will make Andy feel young again.
American Legion rules Nov 15, 1929.
Inspection 15
Cadence 10
Marching Ability 15
Maneuvering 20
Drumming 20
Bugles & Fifes 20
American Legion Rules March 22, 1937
Inspection
10
Cadence
10
M&M
30
Intervals, Distance, Files, and Ranks (10)
In Step and Execution
(10)
Precision and Military Bearing (10)
Drumming
20
Position
(5)
Attack and Execution
(5)
Ensemble, Expression, and Rhythm (5)
Repertorie
(5)
Bugles and
Fifes 20
Position and Execution
(5)
Ensemble and Rhythm
(5)
Attack and Expression
(5)
Repertorie
(5)
General
Effect
10
--
Jeff
Hot can be cool
and cool can be hot
and each can be both.
But hot or cool man,
jazz is jazz.
Louis Armstrong
Visit my drum corps G Bugle webpage at;
http://pages.prodigy.net/jeffmitchell/bugle.html
Steve Spang
I'm gonna dig out my 'ol fife and polish that baby up .........
Steve Spang
mike...@my-dejanews.com
franks@.inxpress.net (Frank Schoenbach) wrote:
> >
> >I've never seen a single sheet with more than 20 points for one
caption.
> >Are you saying that you've seen one judge give a zero and another a
20
> >to the same band/corps/drumline on the same caption?
> >
>
As I said: "I've never seen...". :-)
> And I have seen one judge give a zero and the other in the low teens
>
Was that in marching? As you correctly describe, there was far more
opportunity for large spreads in marching, based on the field placement
of the judges. I believe James was talking about percussion judges (I
think so, anyway).
> >
> >If they were that close together, why not only have one? What's the
> >point of more than one if you are looking for closeness of scores
> >between judges on the same caption? From my experience, huge
variations
> >in scores are the exception, not the rule.
>
> Actually in M&M where you had judges on both sides of the field there
> were more apt to be big differences, brass also.
Agree. Has nothing to do with 'ticks' though. The same spread would be
there if there were two build-up style judges in the same physical
locations.
> The reason for
> drums being so close might just be that in the tick days, drumlines
> didn't move much and both judges just stood together in the same spot
> the entire show!
> >
Oh, I agree, which is why I wondered about James seeing a 20 point
spread between judges, which I assume is on the same caption (otherwise,
why make the comparison at all).
mike...@my-dejanews.com
Jeff Mitchell <JEFFMI...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> American Legion rules Nov 15, 1929.
>
Geez Jeff, you don't look that old!
mike...@my-dejanews.com
"Tom & Karen Peashey" <tpea...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Have you ever judged?
I have, since 76.
> 2. Have you ever judged ticks?
Yes, I have.
> 3. Have you ever chased a judge out from under the stands who was
changing
> his ticks after a show?
No.
> 4. Have you ever tried to teach someone how to tick?
No, thankfully.
> 5. Have you ever tried to teach someone tolerance and tolerance
control?
Yes, but with buildup, not ticks.
> 6. Have you ever screwed up and written a corps off the sheet?
Yes, once, and it's STILL something I regret 20+ years later. It's an
awful feeling to do that to kids who are out there doing their best.
> 7. Have you ever had a corps come in and ask who was the best
marching
> corps in the show and answered... you were... (LI Sunrisers) and
then had
> them hand you the recap where you put them in 4th place.... why? I
got
> carried away judging an early season performance by a wonderful corps
who
> played a high velocity, tremendously difficult and exposed program...
I
> screwed up...
>
I've done similar, in percussion.
> I have done all of the above.... I say "TICK SYSTEM" may it rest in
> peace....
>
> Tom Peashey
>
Agree.
Frank Schoenbach
>In article <3742b39...@news.inxpress.net>,
>
>Was that in marching? As you correctly describe, there was far more
>opportunity for large spreads in marching, based on the field placement
>of the judges. I believe James was talking about percussion judges (I
>think so, anyway).
Actually it was in drums
mobrien000
>Actually, what your math proved is that was no need for two judges at
all. If they were that close, then one would be sufficient.
>
You might be goin' a little off the rails here Mike. Consensus does not
necessarily equal redundancy.
A greater number of judges in each caption can offer a more 'accuruate'
score. Since I do remember instances where the doubled-up judges' execution
scores were at pretty wide variance (two points, at 1/10 per error, I'd
consider a pretty wide variance), it was apparent that the truth lay
somewhere in between the two - which made the performers feel that they'd
been fairly heard.
(A side benefit of the tick system is that it allowed those marching with
small corps to feel like they at least had something of a level playing
field with the DCI contenders - they may have had no chance to beat the big
guys in the GE scores, but they could try like hell to out execute the big
boys, and come close, on occasion.)
Matt
Jet Pi9949
>guys in the GE scores
Some things never change Matt
Terry Doran
mike...@my-dejanews.com
"mobrien000" <mobri...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Mike Davis wrote:
> >Actually, what your math proved is that was no need for two judges at
> all. If they were that close, then one would be sufficient.
> >
>
> You might be goin' a little off the rails here Mike. Consensus does
not
> necessarily equal redundancy.
>
> A greater number of judges in each caption can offer a more
'accuruate'
> score. Since I do remember instances where the doubled-up judges'
execution
> scores were at pretty wide variance (two points, at 1/10 per error,
I'd
> consider a pretty wide variance), it was apparent that the truth lay
> somewhere in between the two - which made the performers feel that
they'd
> been fairly heard.
>
Which is a different point than James was making. His point and
graphic evidence was to show that the scores were drawing ever closer,
with fewer and smaller spreads (though I'm still not sure how that
demonstrates the virtues of ticks). In his scenario, the need for two
judges was less and less important, esp if you were a DCI big-cheese
looking for a way to save a few bucks. I was being a bit flip with that
comment, in that it seemed James was proving something he never intended
to prove. Should have put a :-) on the end of it.
> (A side benefit of the tick system is that it allowed those marching
with
> small corps to feel like they at least had something of a level
playing
> field with the DCI contenders - they may have had no chance to beat
the big
> guys in the GE scores, but they could try like hell to out execute the
big
> boys, and come close, on occasion.)
>
If a small corps truly outplays a div I corps in performance, the same
opportunity exists today. Even if you are right, to me the fact that
ticks don't come close to truly evaluating what 'performance' is, and
the fact that a judge has no way of really ranking and rating by jotting
down ticks, far outweighs any small benefit of the above.
Just MHO, after all.
James Christian
> > The relevance is that it shows that there was a uniform standard, and
> > it was getting
> > more and more accurate and reliable. It was growing in
> > consistency.
>
> Actually, what your math proved is that was no need for two judges at
> all. If they were that close, then one would be sufficient.
I suppose you could argue that and make a fairly convincing case. The only
problem arises when a judge ignores their duty to score as accurately as
he/she can, and scores to favor or disfavor a certain corps. That's why the
Olympics have 10 judges, the highest and lowest scores being dropped. All
of them are usually within a few tenths of a point of each other, but with
that many judges, bias is removed as best as possible.
Granted, just having two judges won't do much to remove bias, but it does
prevent a corps from getting *completely* screwed.
> > It was
> > a dependable system of judging. As the criteria becomes more exacting
> > and clearly
> > defined (assuming that the judges have an iota of what they're doing),
> > it promotes
> > consistency, and ensures that the performers have a better idea of
> > what to expect.
>
> Criteria may or may not have been 'exacting and clearly defined', but
> what they were judging was not the entire definition of 'performance';
I know, the entire 'performance' was divided into three seperate captions
(Execution, Degree of Difficulty, and General Effect), allowing for more
focused judging.
> there is more to it than just "clean". Buildup, "assuming that the
> judges have an iota of what they're doing" (<G>), provides a better
> method of assessing the totality of a performance that goes beyond
> "playing together".
Yay! We get to rehash the exact same argument again! :-)
General Effect is there to judge musicianship, emotion level, musicality,
and other similar attributes of the performance. The Execution is exactly
that--the execution. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Execution judges how clean/dirty the show is. Demand puts that into
balance, ensuring that there is a sufficient level of difficulty to deserve
a high execution score. General Effect realizes that there are other
attributes of the performance other than shear execution and demand, and it
provides for these elements. The emphasis on technical proficiency over
musicianship (2 captions vs. 1; 20 pts vs. 10) is part of drum corps' once
unique sound. Of course, it also has its roots in the military, where
everything is more efficient and not as concerned with making an art
statement.
> > It's true that just because the judges were getting closer and closer
> in scores
> > doesn't *necessarily* make the system any more accurate in determining
> the best
> > performing percussion section. But surely it is more likely to
> achieve that goal than
> > a build-up system in which three different judges can have a 20 point
> spread on the
> > same performance.
>
> I've never seen a single sheet with more than 20 points for one caption.
> Are you saying that you've seen one judge give a zero and another a 20
> to the same band/corps/drumline on the same caption?
Drum lines, bands, and individual contests yes. I remember one band this
past fall that received a 90-something from one judge and a low 70 from
another judge. At 1997 PASIC Individuals, Quincy Wade received a 77 and an
87; Jody Thigpen received an 80 and a 94; Jason Kim received a 61 and a 71;
Benjamin Baertschy received an 82 and a 92; Roger Smith received an 81 and a
92; David Stedronsky received an 82 and a 93; Ross Culberton received a 69
and an 83; James Christian received a 79 and a 90; and Bryan Smith received
a 78 and a 93; Jason Church received a 77 and a 90.
I personally think that individuals contest are much easier to judge than
ensembles or drum lines since there are much fewer factors to contend with.
Perhaps 20 point spreads aren't all that common, but as you can see, 10-15
point spreads are. (Note: The judge that scored the lowest wasn't always
the same; they would often flip-flop from scoring high and low.)
> > And the amazing thing is that no one seems to see
> > anything wrong with such a huge discrepency in scores!
>
> If they were that close together, why not only have one? What's the
> point of more than one if you are looking for closeness of scores
> between judges on the same caption?
To attempt to eliminate any biases (reasons stated above).
> From my experience, huge variations
> in scores are the exception, not the rule.
In DCI, yes (from show to show, scores don't change very much). But also
the judges get to see the scores from the previous night, so it's hard to
say for sure. Band shows, individuals contests, and drum line shows show
the true unreliability of a completely build-up system. Many of these
judges are often DCI judges or instructors. When they all judge the same
show without any previous scores to go on, it's not uncommon to see at least
10 point spreads. The tick system (if no personal biases are allowed) takes
what it's given at each particular show, and you can be fairly confident
that the judges will be pretty close to each other.
The tick system, of course, isn't perfect. It is judged by human beings. A
person is likely to miss a couple of errors or hear something that they
thought was an error when it in fact was not, but it is undeniable that it
gives a better basis of consistency than "30 points for Execution: Write
down a number."
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
James Christian
> I, too, am tiring of this arguing... it is becoming to drum corps what the
> abortion issue is to life... a can't win scenario - in which either right
> or wrong... there is too much emotion to convince someone otherwise....
It appears that way, though I would like to feel that a certain system can
logically be determined to be the best.
> You James, in the past have proven to be very drum corps knowledgeable... I
> ask this:
>
> 1. Have you ever judged?
I have judged at several contests using my own sheets. As far as actually being
hired to judge, no.
> 2. Have you ever judged ticks?
Yes, in the afore mentioned manner.
> 3. Have you ever chased a judge out from under the stands who was changing
> his ticks after a show?
No.
> 4. Have you ever tried to teach someone how to tick?
Yes.
> 5. Have you ever tried to teach someone tolerance and tolerance control?
Yes.
> 6. Have you ever screwed up and written a corps off the sheet?
No, not that I would consider that "screwing up."
> 7. Have you ever had a corps come in and ask who was the best marching
> corps in the show and answered... you were... (LI Sunrisers) and then had
> them hand you the recap where you put them in 4th place.... why? I got
> carried away judging an early season performance by a wonderful corps who
> played a high velocity, tremendously difficult and exposed program... I
> screwed up...
No, at all of the contests I have ever "judged" at, I felt that the results came
out correctly.
James Christian
James Christian
> Was that in marching? As you correctly describe, there was far more
> opportunity for large spreads in marching, based on the field placement
> of the judges. I believe James was talking about percussion judges (I
> think so, anyway).
Yes, I used percussion and not any other captions for just that reason.
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
Tom & Karen Peashey
agree with almost everything you just said here - especially the part about
bringing in outside judges to band shows and getting big discrepancies....
Now, with that hopefully giving me a notch more credibility... let me tell
you the tick system was still much worse.... The number of serious mistakes
was enormous...
Tom Peashey
mobrien000
----------
In article <29013.14121$YU1....@newsr2.twcny.rr.com>, "Tom & Karen
Peashey" <tpea...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> the tick system was still much worse.... The number of serious mistakes
> was enormous...
Keeping in mind that the "tick system" I marched with (74-81) also had
build-up scores for Musical Analysis, Percussion Analysis ("Exposure to
Error", prior to that) and GE, it seemed the old system was well balanced.
The corps who tried difficult things and accomplished them brilliantly got
credit from the build up to match their high execution scores; corps who
tried unusual or unsupportable programs and made a bollocks of 'em with bad
execution got killed twice.
Just like in real life;-)
Matt
mike...@my-dejanews.com
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, what your math proved is that was no need for two judges
at
> > all. If they were that close, then one would be sufficient.
>
> I suppose you could argue that and make a fairly convincing case. The
only
> problem arises when a judge ignores their duty to score as accurately
as
> he/she can, and scores to favor or disfavor a certain corps.
A dishonest judge will hopefully be caught out sooner or later and
given the boot. That's not a major problem; judges on the whole do the
an honest job the very best that they can. What you are REALLY saying is
that there are judges who score a group higher or lower than YOU think
they should, or even higher or lower than most other judges score them.
It doesn't make them dishonest.
>
> Granted, just having two judges won't do much to remove bias, but it
does
> prevent a corps from getting *completely* screwed.
>
But that has nothing to do with ticks versus tapes. I thought the whole
point of your graph was to showe that exactly the opposite was
happening; there was less and less variation in scores. Personaly, I
like more than one judge for the reasons you mention, but I prefer them
to be truly ranking and rating by assigning the numbers in a thoughtful
manner, not merely jotting down ticks. In these days of financial
belt-tightening, I doubt you'll see more judges, though.
> >
>
> > there is more to it than just "clean". Buildup, "assuming that the
> > judges have an iota of what they're doing" (<G>), provides a better
> > method of assessing the totality of a performance that goes beyond
> > "playing together".
>
> Yay! We get to rehash the exact same argument again! :-)
>
Let's not. :-)
I think we should just agree to disagree on what performance is
(admitting, of course, that I'm correct <G>).
>
> Execution judges how clean/dirty the show is. Demand puts that into
> balance, ensuring that there is a sufficient level of difficulty to
deserve
> a high execution score. General Effect realizes that there are other
> attributes of the performance other than shear execution and demand,
and it
> provides for these elements.
I'm not biting!
:-)
> The emphasis on technical proficiency over
> musicianship (2 captions vs. 1; 20 pts vs. 10) is part of drum corps'
once
> unique sound.
Which thankfully has changed (well,just a little nibble).
> >
> > I've never seen a single sheet with more than 20 points for one
caption.
> > Are you saying that you've seen one judge give a zero and another a
20
> > to the same band/corps/drumline on the same caption?
>
> Drum lines, bands, and individual contests yes.
Ah, OK.
I've heard of marching band sheets with 100 points, but the ones I'm
most familiar with are more like the DC sheets. I did judge a concert
band festival last weekend where the sheets were 100 points, but we were
giving out ratings (Superior, Excellent, Good), not placements.
>I remember one band this
> past fall that received a 90-something from one judge and a low 70
from
> another judge.
OK. I'm not sure I'm following what you are getting at here, but how
does this relate to ticks? The shows I'm familiar with that use 100
point sheets are mostly the festival type I mentioned above, even for
MB. Those types of shows are the LEAST likely to use ticks.
> At 1997 PASIC Individuals, Quincy Wade received a 77 and an
> 87; Jody Thigpen received an 80 and a 94; Jason Kim received a 61 and
a 71;
> Benjamin Baertschy received an 82 and a 92; Roger Smith received an 81
and a
> 92; David Stedronsky received an 82 and a 93; Ross Culberton received
a 69
> and an 83; James Christian received a 79 and a 90; and Bryan Smith
received
> a 78 and a 93; Jason Church received a 77 and a 90.
>
Were these gaps consistent? Was one judge running 10 points higher than
the other all the way along (or close to it)? Not that it's a great
thing, but it does happen, and ticks could generate the same
spreads. One judge may be more critical than another and tick more
heavily than another.
> I personally think that individuals contest are much easier to judge
than
> ensembles or drum lines since there are much fewer factors to contend
with.
Not really; each type of show has it's own inherent difficulty factors.
> Perhaps 20 point spreads aren't all that common, but as you can see,
10-15
> point spreads are. (Note: The judge that scored the lowest wasn't
always
> the same; they would often flip-flop from scoring high and low.)
>
Oh, you answer my question above. Maybe in that case the average was the
proper score. I DO like more judges than less; I prefer them to be
making true judgements over mechanical ticking, where they have no idea
how they are ranking and rating as they go along. Cost reality makes
having more and more less and less likely, though. Agaqin, it has
nothing to do with ticks versus tape.
>
> Band shows, individuals contests, and drum line shows show
> the true unreliability of a completely build-up system. Many of these
> judges are often DCI judges or instructors. When they all judge the
same
> show without any previous scores to go on, it's not uncommon to see at
least
> 10 point spreads.
I'm also not sure having dual input and evaluation is a truly bad thing.
Are these band show judges judging the same caption? Or are they overall
100 point sheets covering everything?
> The tick system (if no personal biases are allowed) takes
> what it's given at each particular show, and you can be fairly
confident
> that the judges will be pretty close to each other.
>
Your parenthetical "(if no personal biases are allowed)" applies to BOTH
types of judging, only tape/buildup is a more accurate assessment than
ticks in judging performance.
> The tick system, of course, isn't perfect. It is judged by human
beings. A
> person is likely to miss a couple of errors or hear something that
they
> thought was an error when it in fact was not, but it is undeniable
that it
> gives a better basis of consistency than "30 points for Execution:
Write
> down a number."
>
Well, many of the folks in RAMD who are judges or who have judged (and
have used both ticks and buildup) DO deny the "undeniable". :-)
AJLisko
Mike or James please give a recap of what started the thread? I was born into
the tick system, saw the progression into the PA sub-caption (thank you Eric
Perriloux) and the eventual elimination of ticks into the evaluation system
that is currently used. Last year I began judging Field Percussion for EMBA ,
using their totally objective system, and I'd like to share my thoughts and
experiences, but wonder if this is the correct thread (or off-shoot) to do so.
Anyway, if someone could restate the original position that is being debated,
I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks,
Andy Lisko
St. Raphael's/Bpt. PAL 58-68
NY Skyliners 69-81
Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH]
> Let me shock you with this one my young percussionists tick proponent... I
> agree with almost everything you just said here - especially the part about
> bringing in outside judges to band shows and getting big discrepancies....
>
> Now, with that hopefully giving me a notch more credibility... let me tell
> you the tick system was still much worse.... The number of serious mistakes
> was enormous...
>
Maybe you should explain from your experiences why you say this. In my
experience, 2 years marching under the tick system in top 12 DCI drumlines,
I felt the tick system to be superior to the current buildup. I never felt
cheated.
In fact, the ticks gave something to the players that THEY could focus on.
I would not want to march under a system where improvement was totally
dependent on the staff. That would make me feel like a pawn with no input
for score improvement.
Perhaps if your experience was brass ticks then maybe percussion and brass
judges have different opinions on the tick. I personally have never heard a
drum judge in the tick-era advocate removing the tick, but I can remember
some instructors/staff in percussion promoting removing it.
>
> Tom Peashey
VKGARRY73
> I prefer them to be
>making true judgements over mechanical ticking, where they have no idea
>how they are ranking and rating as they go along.
Mike,
I compare this (and this is stretching the analogy, I admit) to a blind
taste test. If you know it's Pepsi, and you prefer Pepsi, you're going to rate
it higher.
The judges SHOULDN'T be "rating" as they go. This hints of predetermined
placements. If they are simply recording errors, theoretically (ugh!) the
placements should fall into line by themselves.
As I stated in an earlier post, though, I've seen judges that stood back,
clipboards behind their backs, and enjoyed the "performance" while ticks were
flying by. Meanwhile, they had practically gutted a lower ranked corps earlier
in the contest.
Maybe they were tired? Or wore out their pencil?
I don't think we could ever truly eliminate bias, though I prefer to think
that judges evaluate everyone on a level plane. I've just personally witnessed
bias, intentional or not.
VKGARRY73
> I felt the tick system to be superior to the current buildup. I never felt
>cheated.
> In fact, the ticks gave something to the players that THEY could focus on.
I agree, Rick. In fact, we used those tick sheets as a tool to improve
certain areas of the show, as they were keyed to individual songs as performed.
The ticks were never the end-all, just an indicator of areas needing
improvement.
The P/A tape was the one we used for performance, i.e., dynamic control,
musicality, etc. That's what made the system work so well, IMO. Separate judges
focusing on specific areas of the performance.
As Tom stated earlier, "What part of 'Mary Had a Little Lamb" would you
like to play?" Tell me you don't really believe this, Tom! I heard a LOT of
extremely difficult stuff, most of it performed well. The P/A caption allowed
for a balance of writing and execution. Good writing and less than stellar
execution was balanced with the guys who played piddly parts and executed the
heck out of them. There was credit for attempting a more difficult challenge,
and even more for doing it well.
Jedi51977
have any good "dream" judging?
Here's my "fantasy" judge system:
-a two judge, 20 point caption
- one judge uses the "tick" system, taking points off for mistakes and poor
execution
-one judge focuses on writing, content, and buildup
-the 10 point score would be an average of the two scores
Problems? Of course. I guess that there could be HUGE discrepancies in scores
(a 9.8 in execution, and a 7.1 in writing/buildup), and bias, but probably no
more than what there is now.
I guess I'm just looking for the best of both worlds. Any other "fantasies"?
doug
James Christian
> > > Actually, what your math proved is that was no need for two judges
> at
> > > all. If they were that close, then one would be sufficient.
> >
> > I suppose you could argue that and make a fairly convincing case. The
> only
> > problem arises when a judge ignores their duty to score as accurately
> as
> > he/she can, and scores to favor or disfavor a certain corps.
>
> A dishonest judge will hopefully be caught out sooner or later and
> given the boot.
But that judge may not make a habit of it; it may be a one time occurence at
finals. We all read the story of a certain div. II/III corps this past
summer whose tenor player told the judge to "f*** off" at one show this
summer, and the drum placements at finals where questionable. I don't know
if there's any truth to this claim, but I'm sure things like this have
happened in the past. If there was another judge there (under either
system), it might help to eliminate some of this type of stuff.
> That's not a major problem; judges on the whole do the
> an honest job the very best that they can. What you are REALLY saying is
> that there are judges who score a group higher or lower than YOU think
> they should, or even higher or lower than most other judges score them.
> It doesn't make them dishonest.
I honestly did not mean it to be read like that, hence my Olympic analogy.
> > Granted, just having two judges won't do much to remove bias, but it
> does
> > prevent a corps from getting *completely* screwed.
>
> But that has nothing to do with ticks versus tapes.
I didn't say it did. You brought up the issue of having more judges without
specifying the system.
> I thought the whole
> point of your graph was to showe that exactly the opposite was
> happening; there was less and less variation in scores.
You brought up another issue (why have more judges?). And know you're
clouding it when I respond.
> Personaly, I
> like more than one judge for the reasons you mention, but I prefer them
> to be truly ranking and rating by assigning the numbers in a thoughtful
> manner, not merely jotting down ticks. In these days of financial
> belt-tightening, I doubt you'll see more judges, though.
Sad to say, you're probably right on the latter part. On the former part,
we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> I think we should just agree to disagree on what performance is
> (admitting, of course, that I'm correct <G>).
Sure. I'll admit that I'm correct. :-)
> > I remember one band this
> > past fall that received a 90-something from one judge and a low 70
> > from another judge.
>
> OK. I'm not sure I'm following what you are getting at here, but how
> does this relate to ticks?
It relates to build-up, showing that there are often huge discrepancies
since there is nothing to ensure consistency.
> The shows I'm familiar with that use 100
> point sheets are mostly the festival type I mentioned above, even for
> MB. Those types of shows are the LEAST likely to use ticks.
I agree, and there are often huge discrepancies between scores.
> Were these gaps consistent? Was one judge running 10 points higher than
> the other all the way along (or close to it)? Not that it's a great
> thing, but it does happen, and ticks could generate the same
> spreads. One judge may be more critical than another and tick more
> heavily than another.
See below.
> > I personally think that individuals contest are much easier to judge
> than
> > ensembles or drum lines since there are much fewer factors to contend
> with.
>
> Not really; each type of show has it's own inherent difficulty factors.
I meant that individual's contests have fewer factors to contend with.
Sorry for being unclear.
> > Perhaps 20 point spreads aren't all that common, but as you can see,
> 10-15
> > point spreads are. (Note: The judge that scored the lowest wasn't
> always
> > the same; they would often flip-flop from scoring high and low.)
>
> Oh, you answer my question above. Maybe in that case the average was the
> proper score. I DO like more judges than less; I prefer them to be
> making true judgements over mechanical ticking, where they have no idea
> how they are ranking and rating as they go along. Cost reality makes
> having more and more less and less likely, though. Agaqin, it has
> nothing to do with ticks versus tape.
*YOU'RE* the one one who brought up the issue of more vs. few judges. I
never said that *that* issue had anything to do with ticks.
> > Band shows, individuals contests, and drum line shows show
> > the true unreliability of a completely build-up system. Many of these
> > judges are often DCI judges or instructors. When they all judge the
> same
> > show without any previous scores to go on, it's not uncommon to see at
> least
> > 10 point spreads.
>
> I'm also not sure having dual input and evaluation is a truly bad thing.
> Are these band show judges judging the same caption? Or are they overall
> 100 point sheets covering everything?
It depends. Some have a 100 point sheet for just brass or marching, and
some are 100 points for everything.
> only tape/buildup is a more accurate assessment than
> ticks in judging performance.
In what way? I know you say it allows for judging the 'overall
performance', but in doing so, it misses *A LOT* of stuff. Because it tries
to foucs on everything at once, it doesn't take into account many of the
errors; it fails to calculate much of the demand; and general effect doesn't
get the full attention it deserves. I can't believe that you wouldn't at
least agree that more focused judging would be desirable.
> > The tick system, of course, isn't perfect. It is judged by human
> beings. A
> > person is likely to miss a couple of errors or hear something that
> they
> > thought was an error when it in fact was not, but it is undeniable
> that it
> > gives a better basis of consistency than "30 points for Execution:
> Write
> > down a number."
>
> Well, many of the folks in RAMD who are judges or who have judged (and
> have used both ticks and buildup) DO deny the "undeniable". :-)
There are plenty who don't also. (Ken Mazur for one.)
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
James Christian
> I've been trying to follow this thread - but, quite honestly, I'm lost. Could
> Mike or James please give a recap of what started the thread?
A 16+ year long argument over if ticks w/ build up or complete build up is
preferable and/or more reliable. This particular thread was started by me pointing
out that the tick system was growing in consistency in the way it was judged
through the years, but several other issues have risen from this topic, so whatever
you post will probably be relevant.
James Christian
Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH]
Yeah,
My fantasy judging system:
Each section of the corps, Brass, Percussion, Guard, Marching would
have 3 judges each, one judging execution, one focussed on demand,
one on GE. 12 judges, each judging only his/her piece of the pie. Then
maybe we would have better accuracy.
James Christian
> I guess I'm just looking for the best of both worlds. Any other "fantasies"?
2 or 3 judges: 20 points (scores averaged)
10 points Execution (ticks)
10 points Exposure to Error
1 judge: 10 points
General Effect
Of course that's not likely to happen with current financial situations, but they
*could* have a more elaborate judging set up on finals week (not any different
points allotments, but just more judges to ensure accuracy).
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
Tom & Karen Peashey
may have a point that percussion judges were more likely to fondly remember
the tick system....
doesn't mean they really did any better job - especially when I think they
also had a more difficult job caused by a more frequent big size
discrepancies in drum lines... doing those corps with 2 snare, 1 quad and 2
bass drums... now that took creativity to adjust your tolerance correctly
to be sure you ranked and rated correctly... amazingly, it came out right
more often than not...
It's OK... opinions make the world go round...
want to have fun? How about a new thread about removing the drum judges
from the field... their situation is hopeless... they can't possibly do a
good job when 90% of their job is running away from people....
Tom Peashey
Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH] wrote in message
<3745A2CA...@americasm01.nt.com>...
>Tom & Karen Peashey wrote:
>
>> Let me shock you with this one my young percussionists tick proponent...
I
>> agree with almost everything you just said here - especially the part
about
>> bringing in outside judges to band shows and getting big
discrepancies....
>>
>> Now, with that hopefully giving me a notch more credibility... let me
tell
>> you the tick system was still much worse.... The number of serious
mistakes
>> was enormous...
>>
>
> Maybe you should explain from your experiences why you say this. In my
> experience, 2 years marching under the tick system in top 12 DCI
drumlines,
> I felt the tick system to be superior to the current buildup. I never
felt
>cheated.
> In fact, the ticks gave something to the players that THEY could focus
on.
Tom & Karen Peashey
pure tick judging - no tolerance...
I'll show you brass things from the 50's that would knock your socks off
difficulty wise. I'm no drummer but I suspect the snare parts were often
very difficult.... rudiments even...
'61 brigs played a march called "Allies on the March" complete bitch to
play....
No I was not saying we all played "Mary".... quite the contrary....
Tom
VKGARRY73 wrote in message <19990521154944...@ng-cm1.aol.com>...
>Rick wrote:
>
>> I felt the tick system to be superior to the current buildup. I never
felt
>>cheated.
>> In fact, the ticks gave something to the players that THEY could focus
on.
>
Tom & Karen Peashey
been tied up discussing the merits of ticks we've missed discussing the
merits or lack thereof of "total show concept" in GE. What you're
suggesting - I think - is that the 4 (you said 12 judges? I do like giving
guard equal credit - is that what you had in mind?) GE judges would judge
strictly in their caption... THIS WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
Elaborate please
Tom
Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH] wrote in message
<3745D00C...@americasm01.nt.com>...
>Jedi51977 wrote:
>
>> What would the compromise be between these HUGE differences in judging?
Anyone
>> have any good "dream" judging?
>>
>> Here's my "fantasy" judge system:
>>
>> -a two judge, 20 point caption
>> - one judge uses the "tick" system, taking points off for mistakes and
poor
>> execution
>> -one judge focuses on writing, content, and buildup
>> -the 10 point score would be an average of the two scores
>>
>> Problems? Of course. I guess that there could be HUGE discrepancies in
scores
>> (a 9.8 in execution, and a 7.1 in writing/buildup), and bias, but
probably no
>> more than what there is now.
>> I guess I'm just looking for the best of both worlds. Any other
"fantasies"?
>>
Martin McIsaac
> The corps who tried difficult things and accomplished them brilliantly got
> credit from the build up to match their high execution scores; corps who
> tried unusual or unsupportable programs and made a bollocks of 'em with bad
> execution got killed twice.
>
> Just like in real life;-)
>
> Matt
Hear Hear!!!!!!!
Marty "well adjusted even though I marched with ticks" McIsaac
Martin McIsaac
from poor judges versus the tick system itself.
Secondly, with the tick system, surprises were few. As a performer, when
that final gun went off, you knew exactly how many errors your line had
made . I never found my own estimates and the actual score to be off by
more than a couple of degrees.
There was no hiding errors behind personal tastes and buttressed by 90's
"happy-speak."
Marty McIsaac
Tom & Karen Peashey wrote:
>
> Let me shock you with this one my young percussionists tick proponent... I
> agree with almost everything you just said here - especially the part about
> bringing in outside judges to band shows and getting big discrepancies....
>
> Now, with that hopefully giving me a notch more credibility... let me tell
> you the tick system was still much worse.... The number of serious mistakes
> was enormous...
>
> Tom Peashey
mike...@my-dejanews.com
ajl...@aol.com (AJLisko) wrote:
> I've been trying to follow this thread - but, quite honestly, I'm
lost. Could
> Mike or James please give a recap of what started the thread?
James gave you some good scoop on how this started. It's kind of
wandered around all over the place, so feel free to jump in with ANY
contribution. It'll fit in somewhere, I'm sure.
> I was
born into
> the tick system, saw the progression into the PA sub-caption (thank
you Eric
> Perriloux) and the eventual elimination of ticks into the evaluation
system
> that is currently used. Last year I began judging Field Percussion
for EMBA ,
> using their totally objective system, and I'd like to share my
thoughts and
> experiences, but wonder if this is the correct thread (or off-shoot)
to do so.
>
Seems relevant to me. Feel free to chime in!
I pretty much went the same route, starting with marching in the tick
days, and I even judged using ticks in the mid-late 70's. Luckily, those
days are past.
I'm one of the people who started EMBA, back in 79-80, by the way. We
refused for YEARS to have any percussion-only judge, on the theory that
the percussion were no more or less important than the WW or Brass. When
I left in 94 to go on staff with the band I teach, the natives were just
starting to get restless again about creating a percussion caption for a
special award (like DM already had).
Now percussion in EMBA is an optional (up to the host band to hire if
they want), 'special award' kind of thing, like USSBA and others, with
the score not being included in the 100 point total score for the band.
Of course, what you call an 'objective system' James would call
'subjective', as it's a build-up kind of thing, not ticks.
I did a couple of the indoor percussion shows with EMBA this winter,
BTW, including championships.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
"Tom & Karen Peashey" <tpea...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> Rick... you're right - I'm a horn playing visual judge (retired)...
you
> may have a point that percussion judges were more likely to fondly
remember
> the tick system....
>
If I remember the old days correctly, I think that the percussion side
of things was the last to go in abandoning ticks, and fought the change
for along time (staff and judges). I was a local percussion judge doing
mostly GSC, so I had no say myself in the decisions, but I personally
welcomed the idea of using tapes and build-up. I never liked ticks, as I
felt they were an extrememly inaccurate method of deciding the ranking
and rating of the corps at a show.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
vkga...@aol.combyte-me (VKGARRY73) wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> > I prefer them to be
> >making true judgements over mechanical ticking, where they have no
idea
> >how they are ranking and rating as they go along.
>
> I compare this (and this is stretching the analogy, I admit) to a
blind
> taste test. If you know it's Pepsi, and you prefer Pepsi, you're going
to rate
> it higher.
> The judges SHOULDN'T be "rating" as they go. This hints of
predetermined
> placements. If they are simply recording errors, theoretically (ugh!)
the
> placements should fall into line by themselves.
Deciding what is and isn't an error is just as subjective as placing
corps in the rank and rate you feel they belong as they perform. If you
don't trust the judges to be accurate in one style, than you won't in
the other.
Numbers managment isn't easy, but I far prefer comparing performances as
the show progresses, making (hopefully) accurate and conscious decisions
about how groups should place to blindly ticking 'errors', having no
idea if the line performing best is coming out on top, etc....
> As I stated in an earlier post, though, I've seen judges that
stood back,
> clipboards behind their backs, and enjoyed the "performance" while
ticks were
> flying by. Meanwhile, they had practically gutted a lower ranked corps
earlier
> in the contest.
Yep, a poor judging job is a poor job in ANY style.
> Maybe they were tired? Or wore out their pencil?
> I don't think we could ever truly eliminate bias, though I prefer
to think
> that judges evaluate everyone on a level plane. I've just personally
witnessed
> bias, intentional or not.
>
And ticks in no way correct any perceived 'bias' problem.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Mike:
> >
> > A dishonest judge will hopefully be caught out sooner or later and
> > given the boot.
>
> But that judge may not make a habit of it; it may be a one time
occurence at
> finals. We all read the story of a certain div. II/III corps this
past
> summer whose tenor player told the judge to "f*** off" at one show
this
> summer, and the drum placements at finals where questionable. I don't
know
> if there's any truth to this claim, but I'm sure things like this have
> happened in the past. If there was another judge there (under either
> system), it might help to eliminate some of this type of stuff.
>
Well, your own analysis of those years on your graph shows that for at
least the DCI div I corps, that didn't happen at champs. However, I'm
all for as many judges as possible, as it provides a better all around
evaluation experience for the kids performing to have a lot of input. It
probably makes for more accurate scores as well, stasitically speaking,
to have more than a single viewpoint on a caption. This, however, has
nothing to do with ticks versus tape.
> >
> > But that has nothing to do with ticks versus tapes.
>
> I didn't say it did. You brought up the issue of having more judges
without
> specifying the system.
>
It seemed you were trying to use your graph to point up the accuracy of
the tick system, which is why this whole thread went spinning where it
has.
>
> > Personaly, I
> > like more than one judge for the reasons you mention, but I prefer
them
> > to be truly ranking and rating by assigning the numbers in a
thoughtful
> > manner, not merely jotting down ticks. In these days of financial
> > belt-tightening, I doubt you'll see more judges, though.
>
> Sad to say, you're probably right on the latter part. On the former
part,
> we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
Agree.......to disagree.
One thing I do NOT like with the current system is the combination of GE
Brass and Percussion into one caption. I think the idea of an overall
music effect judge is great (or even an overall effect total-show judge,
for that matter), but it should be an added judge, IMO, not the
subtraction of a judge.
>
> > > I remember one band this
> > > past fall that received a 90-something from one judge and a low 70
> > > from another judge.
> >
> > OK. I'm not sure I'm following what you are getting at here, but how
> > does this relate to ticks?
>
> It relates to build-up, showing that there are often huge
discrepancies
> since there is nothing to ensure consistency.
>
There are judging criteria in any circuit to follow, but bad judging is
bad judging, ticks or not.
> > The shows I'm familiar with that use 100
> > point sheets are mostly the festival type I mentioned above, even
for
> > MB. Those types of shows are the LEAST likely to use ticks.
>
> I agree, and there are often huge discrepancies between scores.
>
Using my area that I've been around for 30 years (sheesh!!), many of the
festival-type shows use judges that are not REALLY trained as judges,
but are local college band directors, or the mayors wife, or even
trained judges who are handed a bunch of sheets and told to 'go ye out
and evaluate'. The circuit-type shows that use trained judges are not
normally handing our scores with the huge variations you mention. Of
course, looking at a 100 point sheet, a 70 and an 80 looks like a huge
spread, but on a 20 point caption sheet we're used to seeing, its equal
to a 14 and a 16, a spread not out of the question, though still on the
large side.
> > > Perhaps 20 point spreads aren't all that common, but as you can
see,
> > 10-15
> > > point spreads are.
See above.
>
> > only tape/buildup is a more accurate assessment than
> > ticks in judging performance.
>
> In what way? I know you say it allows for judging the 'overall
> performance', but in doing so, it misses *A LOT* of stuff. Because it
tries
> to foucs on everything at once, it doesn't take into account many of
the
> errors; it fails to calculate much of the demand; and general effect
doesn't
> get the full attention it deserves. I can't believe that you wouldn't
at
> least agree that more focused judging would be desirable.
>
Oh, I still like the idea of performance and effect judges being
separate; there are things you listen for in performance that don't
matter in GE, and vice versa. Your mindset in judging each is very
different. I just like the use of tape/build-up versus ticks.
> >
> > Well, many of the folks in RAMD who are judges or who have judged
(and
> > have used both ticks and buildup) DO deny the "undeniable". :-)
>
> There are plenty who don't also. (Ken Mazur for one.)
>
No comment. :-)
James Christian
> In article <19990521153604...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
> vkga...@aol.combyte-me (VKGARRY73) wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> > > I prefer them to be
> > >making true judgements over mechanical ticking, where they have no
> idea
> > >how they are ranking and rating as they go along.
> >
> > Mike,
> > I compare this (and this is stretching the analogy, I admit) to a
> blind
> > taste test. If you know it's Pepsi, and you prefer Pepsi, you're going
> to rate
> > it higher.
> > The judges SHOULDN'T be "rating" as they go. This hints of
> predetermined
> > placements. If they are simply recording errors, theoretically (ugh!)
> the
> > placements should fall into line by themselves.
>
> Deciding what is and isn't an error is just as subjective as placing
> corps in the rank and rate you feel they belong as they perform. If you
> don't trust the judges to be accurate in one style, than you won't in
> the other.
>
> Numbers managment isn't easy, but I far prefer comparing performances as
> the show progresses, making (hopefully) accurate and conscious decisions
> about how groups should place to blindly ticking 'errors', having no
> idea if the line performing best is coming out on top, etc....
Do you honestly remember every single moment of every show when you write
down the score? Ticks allow the judge to "remember" (a better term would be
"record") *every* single instant of the show relating to execution. You're
correct in stating that ticks alone do not ensure that the best performing
line comes out on top. The *combination* of Execution (ticks), Demand, and
General Effect determines that. As you said, "[i]t probably makes for more
accurate scores as well, statistically speaking, to have more than a single
viewpoint on a caption." Having it split among three categories *ensures*
that there will be at least three different viewpoints provided, each keying
in on different aspects of the performance, as opposed to having a single
"performance" caption (even if it *is* judged by more than one judge).
The system of the late 70's and early 80's probably had the most performance
oriented captions of any system the activity has ever seen. It realized
that there *are* many aspects of a performance, all quite important, that
need to be separately addressed.
> > Maybe they were tired? Or wore out their pencil?
> > I don't think we could ever truly eliminate bias, though I prefer
> to think
> > that judges evaluate everyone on a level plane. I've just personally
> witnessed
> > bias, intentional or not.
>
> And ticks in no way correct any perceived 'bias' problem.
I don't think anyone ever said they would. I believe that the point was
just made that more judges could help to eliminate bias.
James Christian
mike...@my-dejanews.com
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Numbers managment isn't easy, but I far prefer comparing
performances as
> > the show progresses, making (hopefully) accurate and conscious
decisions
> > about how groups should place to blindly ticking 'errors', having no
> > idea if the line performing best is coming out on top, etc....
>
> Do you honestly remember every single moment of every show when you
> write down the score? Ticks allow the judge to "remember" (a better
> term would be "record") *every* single instant of the show relating
> to execution.
Do I remember every attack or release? Of course not; judging
performance is more than a mechanical marking of what I perceive as an
error, assuming I'm in position to hear them. Evaluating the performance
quality in total IS something that a performance judge does. The band
circuits I've been primarily exposed to (USSBA and EMBA) both have a
Music indivdual performance judge on the field and an ensemble
performance judge in the stands/pressbox. In additon, there are Music
Effect judges covering the GE aspects. Performance judges include the
content of the show in their considerations; in EMBA it's clearly
defined as a subcaption, and USSBA it's considered in evaluating the
performance quality (from what I can tell as the asst director of a
participating band-Jeff Mitchell judges USSBA and could be of help
here).
> You're
> correct in stating that ticks alone do not ensure that the best
performing
> line comes out on top. The *combination* of Execution (ticks),
Demand, and
> General Effect determines that. As you said, "[i]t probably makes for
more
> accurate scores as well, statistically speaking, to have more than a
single
> viewpoint on a caption." Having it split among three categories
*ensures*
> that there will be at least three different viewpoints provided, each
keying
> in on different aspects of the performance, as opposed to having a
single
> "performance" caption (even if it *is* judged by more than one judge).
>
Oh, as you can see from the above, I basically agree. Just that I don't
see the need for 'ticks'; evaluating the performance is achieved far
better in using a buildup, IMO. I son't like demand on a separate
caption either; I prefer it be included on the performance caption, as
was even done in the tick era until the late 70's.
>
> I believe that the point was
> just made that more judges could help to eliminate bias.
>
I haven't seen any huge bias problems, but they DO happen on occasion. I
like the idea of more judges, but I prefer more varied captions than
doubling up on a single caption.
James Christian
> Well, your own analysis of those years on your graph shows that for at
> least the DCI div I corps, that didn't happen at champs. However, I'm
> all for as many judges as possible, as it provides a better all around
> evaluation experience for the kids performing to have a lot of input. It
> probably makes for more accurate scores as well, stasitically speaking,
> to have more than a single viewpoint on a caption.
I agree.
> This, however, has nothing to do with ticks versus tape.
I agree there too. I never said it did. You brought up the argument of
more vs. less. The reasons to have more or less judges are the same,
regardless of the system used.
> > > But that has nothing to do with ticks versus tapes.
> >
> > I didn't say it did. You brought up the issue of having more judges
> without
> > specifying the system.
>
> It seemed you were trying to use your graph to point up the accuracy of
> the tick system, which is why this whole thread went spinning where it
> has.
Yes, I was, but you changed the argument to more vs. fewer judges.
> One thing I do NOT like with the current system is the combination of GE
> Brass and Percussion into one caption. I think the idea of an overall
> music effect judge is great (or even an overall effect total-show judge,
> for that matter), but it should be an added judge, IMO, not the
> subtraction of a judge.
I definitely agree there. There aren't very many judges who are *really*
qualified to judge both brass and percussion.
> > > OK. I'm not sure I'm following what you are getting at here, but how
> > > does this relate to ticks?
> >
> > It relates to build-up, showing that there are often huge
> > discrepancies since there is nothing to ensure consistency.
>
> There are judging criteria in any circuit to follow, but bad judging is
> bad judging, ticks or not.
Then I guess the basic argument is: What is the best criteria, and how well
should it be defined? The former half of the argument is apparently
unresolvable, but the latter half is (hopefully) obvious that it is the
benefit to everyone when the criteria is defined as best as possible.
> > > The shows I'm familiar with that use 100
> > > point sheets are mostly the festival type I mentioned above, even
> for
> > > MB. Those types of shows are the LEAST likely to use ticks.
> >
> > I agree, and there are often huge discrepancies between scores.
>
> Using my area that I've been around for 30 years (sheesh!!), many of the
> festival-type shows use judges that are not REALLY trained as judges,
> but are local college band directors, or the mayors wife, or even
> trained judges who are handed a bunch of sheets and told to 'go ye out
> and evaluate'.
Well, I guess it's a bit different in Texas. For drum line shows and the
bigger marching shows, they usually try to get drum corps affiliated
judges. There are sometimes college band directors, but not as many as
there are drum corps folk.
> The circuit-type shows that use trained judges are not
> normally handing our scores with the huge variations you mention. Of
> course, looking at a 100 point sheet, a 70 and an 80 looks like a huge
> spread, but on a 20 point caption sheet we're used to seeing, its equal
> to a 14 and a 16, a spread not out of the question, though still on the
> large side.
That's true, though as my graph shows the judges always averaged out to be
less than a point away from each other. That's not to say that there wasn't
ever a 2 point spread, but there were many more 0-.3 point spreads.
It would be interesting to take two DCI perc judges (using the current
sheets) and have two judges scoring demand and execution (using ticks) and
have them judge the same show. It would be interesting to see which set was
closer.
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
James Christian
> > Do you honestly remember every single moment of every show when you
> > write down the score? Ticks allow the judge to "remember" (a better
> > term would be "record") *every* single instant of the show relating
> > to execution.
>
> Do I remember every attack or release? Of course not; judging
> performance is more than a mechanical marking of what I perceive as an
> error, assuming I'm in position to hear them.
Yes, but when the two performances are *really* close, just one or two of
those attacks/releases might be the difference in determining who was best.
Build-up judges still have to decide that, but ticks just allow the judge to
remember who truly DID have the least errors.
Your argument: "judging performance is more than a mechanical marking of
what I perceive as an error." I agree. But what if two lines come out,
both play equally demanding shows, and both have a lot of energy and
musicality. Both play their shows flawlessly, except the second has one bad
attack on a 15 stroke roll. The first one wins, right? If you were using a
build-up sheet, do you really think you'd remember the difference? Ticks
record all of that, and it often did depend on who had one or two less
errors to determine the winner.
> Evaluating the performance
> quality in total IS something that a performance judge does.
Yes, but execution plays a role in the performance. So does the demand. So
does the general effect (military bearing, showmanship, musicality, etc.).
The system of the late 70's and early 80's focused on many different
aspects, where the "performance" caption is a combination of them all,
resulting in a less focused, and therefore less reliable, system. You have
already stated that you're in favor of more judges. Why are you not in
favor of more captions and/or more focused judging?
> Oh, as you can see from the above, I basically agree. Just that I don't
> see the need for 'ticks'; evaluating the performance is achieved far
> better in using a buildup, IMO.
How about just evaluating the execution? There is usually a subcaption for
execution on the build-up sheets. To use my earlier analogy, if Drum Line A
and Drum Line B come out and play absolutely flawless shows, except Drum
Line B has one fuzzed roll, can you remember that when writing down the
execution score? Seems like you're leaving an awful lot up to chance.
> I son't like demand on a separate
> caption either; I prefer it be included on the performance caption, as
> was even done in the tick era until the late 70's.
You "son't"? :-) I think it helps to balance it out better. It prevents
people from winning by playing "Mary Had a Little Lamb".
> > I believe that the point was
> > just made that more judges could help to eliminate bias.
>
> I haven't seen any huge bias problems, but they DO happen on occasion. I
> like the idea of more judges, but I prefer more varied captions than
> doubling up on a single caption.
Then why do you prefer having two judges score execution & demand, as
opposed to two separate judges for each?
James Christian
mike...@my-deja.com
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Do I remember every attack or release? Of course not; judging
> > performance is more than a mechanical marking of what I perceive as
an
> > error, assuming I'm in position to hear them.
>
> Yes, but when the two performances are *really* close, just one or two
of
> those attacks/releases might be the difference in determining who was
best.
> Build-up judges still have to decide that, but ticks just allow the
judge to
> remember who truly DID have the least errors.
>
Only what they were in position to hear, and only what they felt was a
tickable error. As there is more to evaluating 'performance' than what
can be contained on a tick sheet, I prefer the conscious decision of
rank and rate to the old system.
> Your argument: "judging performance is more than a mechanical marking
of
> what I perceive as an error." I agree. But what if two lines come
out,
> both play equally demanding shows, and both have a lot of energy and
> musicality. Both play their shows flawlessly, except the second has
one bad
> attack on a 15 stroke roll. The first one wins, right? If you were
using a
> build-up sheet, do you really think you'd remember the difference?
If they were that close, and that good, and the attack was that bad on
the one roll, I would remember it. However, there are other things to
consider in making a decision as to the better performance between two
corps, as we've said, so a single bad attack on a single roll is never
gong to be the ONLY factor (unless it was REALLL bad <G>).
>
> > Evaluating the performance
> > quality in total IS something that a performance judge does.
>
> Yes, but execution plays a role in the performance.
Yes, it does, and the performance judge is evaluating and commenting on
the mechanics as well as the rest of the performance criteria.
>So does the demand.
Yes, again correct. The demand of the show plays a role in evaluating
the performance in many judging systems (I'm not a DCI judge, so I'm not
sure about how DCI views performance).
>So does the general effect (military bearing, showmanship, musicality,
etc.).
No. GE has nothing to do with evaluating the performance. Here is where
your understanding of what buildup covers falls apart. Performance
judges don't look for the effectivness of a particular phrase; they
evaluate how well it was played, including things like
attack/release/uniform phrasing/sonority/intonation and other things
that make up the performance. The showmanship kind of thing and how
effective a particular phrase was in generating a musical idea is on the
GE sheet, not the performance sheet.
> The system of the late 70's and early 80's focused on many different
> aspects, where the "performance" caption is a combination of them all,
> resulting in a less focused, and therefore less reliable, system. You
have
> already stated that you're in favor of more judges. Why are you not
in
> favor of more captions and/or more focused judging?
>
I like more captions. I would rather see one performance judge in the
stands and another on the field, if there were to be two. I like the
idea of including the content/demand on the performance caption, as
opposed to it's own sheet; performance should (and I'm not sure if it is
in DCI) be a factor of how well a group plays as realted to how
demanding their show is, IMO. Just as in diving, for example, a
comparison often made here. The max score achievable on a particular
dive is based on the performance of the diver as well as the difficulty
level of the dive itself. A diver can't max out if the dive is rated as
an easier dive. Translating that to the DC/MB idiom, it means that a
performance mark has included in it the performance of the show as it
relates to the demand placed on the players.
> > Oh, as you can see from the above, I basically agree. Just that I
don't
> > see the need for 'ticks'; evaluating the performance is achieved far
> > better in using a buildup, IMO.
>
> How about just evaluating the execution? There is usually a
subcaption for
> execution on the build-up sheets. To use my earlier analogy, if Drum
Line A
> and Drum Line B come out and play absolutely flawless shows, except
Drum
> Line B has one fuzzed roll, can you remember that when writing down
the
> execution score? Seems like you're leaving an awful lot up to chance.
>
No, not really. See the above for how I view performance.
> > I son't like demand on a separate
> > caption either; I prefer it be included on the performance caption,
as
> > was even done in the tick era until the late 70's.
>
> You "son't"? :-)
Pppfffftttt (Bronx cheer) :-)
> I think it helps to balance it out better. It
prevents people from winning by playing "Mary Had a Little Lamb".
>
Actually, combining them prevents this.
> > > I believe that the point was
> > > just made that more judges could help to eliminate bias.
> >
> > I haven't seen any huge bias problems, but they DO happen on
occasion. I
> > like the idea of more judges, but I prefer more varied captions than
> > doubling up on a single caption.
>
> Then why do you prefer having two judges score execution & demand, as
> opposed to two separate judges for each?
>
It's a matter of personal philosophy, I guess. I would rather see a
field performance and an ensemble performance judge, if there were to be
another judge added.
I'd also like to see a guard performance judge and separate brass and
percussion GE judges, with an additional Overall-GE judge, if I were
king of the forest.
mike...@my-deja.com
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There are judging criteria in any circuit to follow, but bad judging
is
> > bad judging, ticks or not.
>
how well
> should it be defined? The former half of the argument is apparently
> unresolvable, but the latter half is (hopefully) obvious that it is
the
> benefit to everyone when the criteria is defined as best as possible.
>
The band I teach has been involved in two circuits, one with more
loosely defined criteria (USSBA) and one with more definite criteria
(EMBA, where I have judged since I helped start the circuit in 1979).
We've been successful in both, yet I find the USSBA-way to be scary at
times, as you never know what's going to happen from week-to-week. On
the other hand, the final results have usually been pretty
accurate, and all the criteria in the world won't help if the judges
don't follow them, as happens at times in EMBA.
> >
> > Using my area that I've been around for 30 years (sheesh!!), many of
the
> > festival-type shows use judges that are not REALLY trained as
judges,
> > but are local college band directors, or the mayors wife, or even
> > trained judges who are handed a bunch of sheets and told to 'go ye
out
> > and evaluate'.
>
> Well, I guess it's a bit different in Texas. For drum line shows and
the
> bigger marching shows, they usually try to get drum corps affiliated
> judges. There are sometimes college band directors, but not as many
as
> there are drum corps folk.
>
That's why I differentiated festival-type from circuit-type shows.
In the northeast, circuit shows normally have judges who are trained in
either DC or MB doing the judging. Festivals are one-off shows that a
school runs "just because"; they provide the less competitive bands a
place to perform and get some sort of evaluation (usually a
Gold/Silver/Bronze kind of thing). The judges you find there are
pot-luck, anything from DCI to the mayor's wife, depending on the
hosting band director. NJ Music Educators Association doesn't have a
state run competitive show; they run an unjudged festival once a season.
The circuits (USSBA/EMBA) are all state-independent and include bands
from many states.
>
> It would be interesting to take two DCI perc judges (using the current
> sheets) and have two judges scoring demand and execution (using ticks)
and
> have them judge the same show. It would be interesting to see which
set was
> closer.
>
It would be interesting, but I'm not sure how relevant that
comparison would be, however it comes out.
James Christian
> Only what they were in position to hear, and only what they felt was a
> tickable error.
That's true with either system. The judge is only going to comment on
things they can hear and that they feel are errors. The tick system just
allows the judge to keep track of them better.
> As there is more to evaluating 'performance' than what
> can be contained on a tick sheet, I prefer the conscious decision of
> rank and rate to the old system.
If general effect were to be understood as the general effect of the
PERFORMANCE, the tick system would *still* evaluate the performance, just by
three different judges, each with their own seperate focus.
> > > Evaluating the performance
> > > quality in total IS something that a performance judge does.
> >
> > Yes, but execution plays a role in the performance.
>
> Yes, it does, and the performance judge is evaluating and commenting on
> the mechanics as well as the rest of the performance criteria.
Which results in a less accurate account of what is really happening.
Breaking up the elements of a performance, as you've already stated, ensures
a more accurate and more focused judging.
> > So does the general effect (military bearing, showmanship, musicality,
> > etc.).
>
> No. GE has nothing to do with evaluating the performance. Here is where
> your understanding of what buildup covers falls apart. Performance
> judges don't look for the effectivness of a particular phrase; they
> evaluate how well it was played, including things like
> attack/release/uniform phrasing/sonority/intonation and other things
> that make up the performance. The showmanship kind of thing and how
> effective a particular phrase was in generating a musical idea is on the
> GE sheet, not the performance sheet.
THAT I disagree with. I don't care how it IS judged or how it WAS judged in
the past. All of the the points should reflect the performers' abilities in
some form or fashion. Awarding points for how "appropriate" or "effective"
a certain passage is written is awarding the adults, not the kids.
Here's a question I posed a few months back that was never answered:
Subject: Re: Is Drum Corps unique?
Date: 1999/03/11
Mike Davis: they [ticks] can't really provide any method to evaluate the
performance of phrasing and dynamics and stuff like that.
Me: That's what General Effect is.
Mike Davis: There is your basic misunderstanding, something often shared by
staff at meetings as well, from the band shows I've judged. The effect
generated is NOT the same as the performance.
Me: So it G.E. is supposed to judge the adults? Why? They're not the ones
competiting. It's supposed to be about the kids.
******
I would dare say that General Effect is not the same as the performance
itself, but it should be the general effect OF the performance, not the
general effect of the composition.
> > I think it helps to balance it out better. It
> > prevents people from winning by playing "Mary Had a Little Lamb".
>
> Actually, combining them prevents this.
Actually, the mere existence of a Demand caption (regardless of if it is
shared or its own seperate sheet) prevents this.
> I'd also like to see a guard performance judge and separate brass and
> percussion GE judges, with an additional Overall-GE judge, if I were
> king of the forest.
I'd definitely like to see the the GE captions split up again and a guard
judge.
James Christian
VKGARRY73
valid in context of the whole discussion....
Mike wrote as an analagous example:
> Just as in diving, for example, a
>comparison often made here. The max score achievable on a particular
>dive is based on the performance of the diver as well as the difficulty
>level of the dive itself. A diver can't max out if the dive is rated as
>an easier dive.
Keep in mind that you have several judges evaluating ONE DIVER AT A TIME! Also,
there is a set list of difficulty values placed on each dive. Does this mean
that DCI would have to assign, say in the percussion area, a list of values on
each rudiment? And if the judge has to identify each of those rudiments in
order to weight them properly, isn't that MUCH more difficult than TICKING?!?!?
I realize that this is stretching the debate considerably, but I hope you get
my drift.
Apples and oranges, IMO
VKG
PS Great thread, though. It seems that everone is discussing pros and cons,
and avoiding the personal attack. Good job, RAMDers!
mike...@my-deja.com
vkga...@aol.combyte-me (VKGARRY73) wrote:
> Knowing full well were kinda drifting here, I think the following is
still
> valid in context of the whole discussion....
>
> Mike wrote as an analagous example:
>
> >comparison often made here. The max score achievable on a particular
> >dive is based on the performance of the diver as well as the
difficulty
> >level of the dive itself. A diver can't max out if the dive is rated
as
> >an easier dive.
>
TIME! Also,
> there is a set list of difficulty values placed on each dive. Does
this mean
> that DCI would have to assign, say in the percussion area, a list of
values on
> each rudiment?
No, the point was meant to be (though obviously wasn't taken as such) on
a wider scale. Not as specific as that. I meant that in general, the
demand in the show should be a factor of the performance score. Now, how
much the content affects the mark is something to ponder, and isn't
something you can delineate in a hard and fast manner; that's why you
need good judges that you can trust to do the job. If you don't have
them, than ANY system is going to break down.
Mike
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
mike...@my-deja.com
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Only what they were in position to hear, and only what they felt was
a
> > tickable error.
>
> things they can hear and that they feel are errors. The tick system
just
> allows the judge to keep track of them better.
>
> > can be contained on a tick sheet, I prefer the conscious decision of
> > rank and rate to the old system.
>
> PERFORMANCE, the tick system would *still* evaluate the performance,
just by
> three different judges, each with their own seperate focus.
>
> > > > quality in total IS something that a performance judge does.
> > >
> > > Yes, but execution plays a role in the performance.
> >
> > Yes, it does, and the performance judge is evaluating and commenting
on
> > the mechanics as well as the rest of the performance criteria.
>
> Breaking up the elements of a performance, as you've already stated,
ensures
> a more accurate and more focused judging.
>
musicality,
> > > etc.).
> >
> > No. GE has nothing to do with evaluating the performance. Here is
where
> > your understanding of what buildup covers falls apart. Performance
> > judges don't look for the effectivness of a particular phrase; they
> > evaluate how well it was played, including things like
> > attack/release/uniform phrasing/sonority/intonation and other things
> > that make up the performance. The showmanship kind of thing and how
> > effective a particular phrase was in generating a musical idea is on
the
> > GE sheet, not the performance sheet.
>
> > > prevents people from winning by playing "Mary Had a Little Lamb".
> >
> > Actually, combining them prevents this.
>
is
> shared or its own seperate sheet) prevents this.
>
and
> > percussion GE judges, with an additional Overall-GE judge, if I were
> > king of the forest.
>
guard
> judge.
>
> James Christian
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
mike...@my-deja.com
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> That's true with either system. The judge is only going to comment on
> things they can hear and that they feel are errors. The tick system
just
> allows the judge to keep track of them better.
>
Not really, but let's agree to disagree on this one, as we'll keep going
back and forth ad nauseum forever with this.
>
> > > Yes, but execution plays a role in the performance.
> >
> > Yes, it does, and the performance judge is evaluating and commenting
on
> > the mechanics as well as the rest of the performance criteria.
>
> Which results in a less accurate account of what is really happening.
> Breaking up the elements of a performance, as you've already stated,
ensures
> a more accurate and more focused judging.
>
Separating out performance and effect IS a good idea, but then further
dividing things as you suggest is not, IMO. I'd rather see an ensemble
performance judge as well as a field judge, both evaluating the more
technical levels of demand and performance on and individual and
ensemble level, than a separate demand judge. That, IMO, is too narrow a
focus. DCA used to have that sort of thing (and they might today, for
all I know). I did a show on PA in the early 90's, and one (the Barnum
Festival) on GE. The PA caption could pretty easily be merged into the
performance caption and that judge be given an ensemble sheet, if that
is something desirable to the powers-that-be. having lived under that
approach since 1980 in MB, I find it a good approach. You get the
nitty-gritty indivudal performance stuf, as well as the overall ensemble
performance stuff. Just MHO, of course.
>
> > No. GE has nothing to do with evaluating the performance. Here is
where
> > your understanding of what buildup covers falls apart. Performance
> > judges don't look for the effectivness of a particular phrase; they
> > evaluate how well it was played, including things like
> > attack/release/uniform phrasing/sonority/intonation and other things
> > that make up the performance. The showmanship kind of thing and how
> > effective a particular phrase was in generating a musical idea is on
the
> > GE sheet, not the performance sheet.
>
> THAT I disagree with. I don't care how it IS judged or how it WAS
judged in
> the past. All of the the points should reflect the performers'
abilities in
> some form or fashion. Awarding points for how "appropriate" or
"effective"
> a certain passage is written is awarding the adults, not the kids.
>
No, not completely. There is a place for the written show to receive
some credit, of course. The main thrust of GE, however, is how effective
the performance of the show is, not just the fact that it's written to
do this or that. How well the performers communicate whatever the
arranger intended is what GE is primariy about. Not merely what the
arranger wrote. That IS a component, but not the main one. The show may
not be played cleanly from a performance perspective, and suffer in that
caption, yet the corps may still communicate the desired effects at a
high level. The two aspects are not the same thing.
Don't forget, demand is ALSO rewarding the arranger's book, not the
performance. In theory, you could take a written score and assign it a
demand mark, regardless of how the performers play the show. Of course,
in reality the performance plays a role in demand as well, in the
ability to play the score well enough for the judge to tell exactly what
is being played.
> Here's a question I posed a few months back that was never answered:
>
> Subject: Re: Is Drum Corps unique?
> Date: 1999/03/11
>
> Mike Davis: they [ticks] can't really provide any method to evaluate
the
> performance of phrasing and dynamics and stuff like that.
>
> Me: That's what General Effect is.
>
> Mike Davis: There is your basic misunderstanding, something often
shared by
> staff at meetings as well, from the band shows I've judged. The effect
> generated is NOT the same as the performance.
>
> Me: So it G.E. is supposed to judge the adults? Why? They're not
the ones
> competiting. It's supposed to be about the kids.
>
> ******
>
See above.
> I would dare say that General Effect is not the same as the
performance
> itself, but it should be the general effect OF the performance, not
the
> general effect of the composition.
>
That's what it primarily IS, unless DCI has changed the way GE is
evaluated over the years.
Mike
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
RobbSi
something you can delineate in a hard and fast manner; that's why you need good
judges that you can trust to do the job. If you don't have them, than ANY
system is going to break down.>>
My preference for the tick is based on a few factors:
1: I'm a drummer. Ticks are an inherent nature of the beast.
2: Ticks existed during my glory days (I sill have scars ;-)
3: Ticks are still a good measure of a line's understanding of musical
elements like heights,quality of sound, interpretation, control and stamina.
4: During the post tick years -- I recall as recently as 1990 -- field judges
continued to note execution erros as "ticks in kind" on the judge's tape.
4: To this day, modern drumlines still place A LOT of emphasis on exacting,
percussive elements like attack / body / release. (Drum techs squatting in
front of their lines, pointing to the fuzz, and, of course, cutting for the
leaks while old schoolers, has-beens and wannabes kneel behind those techs with
fingers-in- ears to is as common in 1999 as it was in 1981)
Yes, ticks are mistakes. However, I view the tick as a marker that helps a
line refine a perfect performance. Eliminating errors helps the build-up
portion of the sheet. Today, judges might say "this section isn't working
dynamically," or this section in hard to read." A tick by any other name...
Bucks at 75 bpm executed perfectly will earn a 50% at best, moreover, they're
no fun. Gotta have something worth cleaning.
Do I like think a tick should decide a show? If two lines have equally
strong books, then yes (1980 should have been a tie in drums).
I know a majority of modern instructors were raised on the tick. But what
percentage of modern DCI judges really understand that type of evaluation
system?
I'm curious to know the opinions of Johnson, Hardimon and Thurston on this
issue (Float's I'm familiar w/). Do those guys think ticks are completely
useless or has the build-up system been adopted to accomodate inexperienced
judges who can't judge the tick.?
Has marching band and drum corps design become so similar that it's easier to
adopt a easier ajudication system that accomodates the marketability of
services offered by drum and bugle corps designers and judges who have to KISS
for the masses?
If corps could secure judges with the experience and understanding of icons
like Goodhardt, Blair, and Poole, maybe the tick would be a useful tool in
2000.
-- Robb Sirat
NARD and IARP enthusiast
mike...@my-deja.com
rob...@aol.com (RobbSi) wrote:
> <<Now, how much the content affects the mark is something to ponder,
and isn't
> something you can delineate in a hard and fast manner; that's why you
need good
> judges that you can trust to do the job. If you don't have them, than
ANY
> system is going to break down.>>
>
> My preference for the tick is based on a few factors:
>
> 1: I'm a drummer. Ticks are an inherent nature of the beast.
>
So am I, yet I don't agree in total, as you can tell.
> 2: Ticks existed during my glory days (I sill have scars ;-)
>
As do I, as a performer, instructor, AND judge in the 70's.
> 3: Ticks are still a good measure of a line's understanding of
musical
> elements like heights,quality of sound, interpretation, control and
stamina.
>
Buildup measures that just as well, plus the other elements of
performance that ticks are not able to cover, IMO.
> 4: During the post tick years -- I recall as recently as 1990 --
field judges
> continued to note execution erros as "ticks in kind" on the judge's
tape.
>
Sure, I've heard that. Heck, I've probably done it. Most of what I've
judged has been bands since the early 80's, so maybe that's why I come
from that side of things naturally at this point. I still prefer
commenting on the performance of the line, and as an instructor I
prefer hearing a Ralph Hardimon comment on the performance of our line
to merely counting up ticks. I find it more educational for our students
to hear judges like Ralph or Dennis DeLucia to merely seeing a tick
sheet with baldly marked errors.
> 4: To this day, modern drumlines still place A LOT of emphasis on
exacting,
> percussive elements like attack / body / release. (Drum techs
squatting in
> front of their lines, pointing to the fuzz, and, of course, cutting
for the
> leaks while old schoolers, has-beens and wannabes kneel behind those
techs with
> fingers-in- ears to is as common in 1999 as it was in 1981)
>
For sure!
> Yes, ticks are mistakes. However, I view the tick as a marker that
helps a
> line refine a perfect performance. Eliminating errors helps the
build-up
> portion of the sheet. Today, judges might say "this section isn't
working
> dynamically," or this section in hard to read." A tick by any other
name...
>
In the case of the above, it gives the insructor a good idea of what
isn't working in the EXACT place it doesn't work, and maybe
even WHY it isn't working. Not just a by-the-numbers recording of what
the judge decides are errors.
> Bucks at 75 bpm executed perfectly will earn a 50% at best, moreover,
they're
> no fun. Gotta have something worth cleaning.
>
For sure!
> Do I like think a tick should decide a show? If two lines have
equally
> strong books, then yes (1980 should have been a tie in drums).
>
Phrasing it as: do I believe the best performing line should win, all
other things being equal, yes, I agree. :-)
> I know a majority of modern instructors were raised on the tick. But
what
> percentage of modern DCI judges really understand that type of
evaluation system?
>
Why do they have to? It's not part of their world anymore.
> I'm curious to know the opinions of Johnson, Hardimon and Thurston on
> this issue
Would be interesting to know. Or Tom Aungst and Neil Laravee (sp), for
that matter. Or what Dennis thinks of the current system.
> Do those guys think ticks are completely
> useless or has the build-up system been adopted to accomodate
>inexperienced judges who can't judge the tick.?
>
I don't see it as a negative; I see it more a positive movement forward
(obviously <G>). After all, when it WAS adopted (and the drummers were
the last to go, kicking and screaming, if memory serves) the current
crop of judges (at the time) were all tick-experienced people, so I
don't see it as something put in to allow less-experienced judges to
judge.
> Has marching band and drum corps design become so similar that it's
> easier to adopt a easier ajudication system that accomodates the
> marketability of services offered by drum and bugle corps designers
> and judges who have to KISS for the masses?
>
I see it as less simple than ticks, as the judge has to not only
determine what the errors are, but had better to be able to coment on at
least causes and in some cases solutions. Plus, today's shows are a lot
more complex than the past (again, my opinion); you'd need a
judges-sheet the size of a bed-sheet to contain all the different
elements.
> If corps could secure judges with the experience and understanding of
> icons like Goodhardt, Blair, and Poole, maybe the tick would be a >
> useful tool in 2000.
>
The current folks seem to do OK, from the ones I've come into contact
with, mostly in the band idiom, of course.
IMO, a good judge would be able to work under either system, only the
current system is a better one.
Dennis Morris
I believe that your example actually demonstrates the weakness of the
"tick". In that situation you have left the important decision of ranking
to a short moment in time--one mistake. Woudn't it seem much more
appropriate to consider the quality of the performance which was actually
achieved?
When really strong units competed under the tick system the difference
between top groups might be say --nine ticks vs. eleven. With eleven and
one half minutes of otherwise excellent playing a group might have easily
1000 "exposures" Under ticks these 1000 correct efforts are unrewarded .
Under the current system both error and excellence are considered.
Your example is a bit flawed. I can't imagine a judge who would forget
the only error of an otherwise perfect show. One error vs. none is a slam
dunk -but 9 vs.11 the number become meaningless unless vocabulary is
considered . It is extremely rare that books are equal in vocabulary --
Forgetting the demands of physical placement or movement. The Tick is only
an isolated component of the elements of performance excellence-We all know
the story of the blind men and the elephant. That is the view that ticks
provide.
Dennis Morris
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:374C5FA4...@hotmail.com...
> mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> Your argument: "judging performance is more than a mechanical marking of
> what I perceive as an error." I agree. But what if two lines come out,
> both play equally demanding shows, and both have a lot of energy and
> musicality. Both play their shows flawlessly, except the second has one
bad
> attack on a 15 stroke roll. The first one wins, right? If you were using
a
Tom & Karen Peashey
takes a lawyer to articulate better....
however, shame on you for using the word vocabulary on ramd... Now, you'll
have to explain it...
Oh well... guess you learned your lessons well (and I thought you were
sleeping through all those clinics)
Tom Peashey
Dennis Morris wrote in message <374f2...@news2.lightlink.com>...
James Christian
Dennis Morris wrote:
> James
> I believe that your example actually demonstrates the weakness of the
> "tick". In that situation you have left the important decision of ranking
> to a short moment in time--one mistake. Woudn't it seem much more
> appropriate to consider the quality of the performance which was actually
> achieved?
Ticking judges the quality of the execution, and in my opinion, much more
accurately than the "pick a number" system.
> When really strong units competed under the tick system the difference
> between top groups might be say --nine ticks vs. eleven. With eleven and
> one half minutes of otherwise excellent playing a group might have easily
> 1000 "exposures" Under ticks these 1000 correct efforts are unrewarded .
That's simply not true. Demand captions awarded the excellence of the
performers' talent. General Effect awarded the excellence of the performance
(emotion, showmanship, musicality, etc.).
> Under the current system both error and excellence are considered.
Actually, it seems that the current system promotes the "they can do no wrong"
philosophy. The tick system had tear down captions (execution) and build up
captions (demand & general effect). Seems fairly balanced to me. The current
system only awards "excellence" (if you want to call it that) and doesn't do a
good job of recording errors.
> Your example is a bit flawed. I can't imagine a judge who would forget
> the only error of an otherwise perfect show.
If a minor error occured, especially if it was towards the beginning, it could
quite conceivably be overlooked.
> One error vs. none is a slam
> dunk -but 9 vs.11 the number become meaningless unless vocabulary is
> considered . It is extremely rare that books are equal in vocabulary --
> Forgetting the demands of physical placement or movement.
There WAS a Demand caption under the tick system that accounted for all of this.
> The Tick is only
> an isolated component of the elements of performance excellence
Yes, it provides for more focussed judging.
> We all know
> the story of the blind men and the elephant. That is the view that ticks
> provide.
The tick system judged ALL components of the show: Execution, Demand, and
General Effect (which includes all of the musical attributes of a show). The
above analogy is flawed. The blind men felt the elephant and only understood
one small part of it. The tick system saw the entire picture, but each judge
analyzed it from a different perspective, allowing for every aspect of the
performance to be judged as in depth as possible.
James Christian
James Christian
> > 3: Ticks are still a good measure of a line's understanding of
> musical
> > elements like heights,quality of sound, interpretation, control and
> stamina.
>
> Buildup measures that just as well, plus the other elements of
> performance that ticks are not able to cover, IMO.
The ticks themselves don't, but the other captions do, allowing for more
focussed judging.
> > 4: During the post tick years -- I recall as recently as 1990 --
> field judges
> > continued to note execution erros as "ticks in kind" on the judge's
> tape.
>
> Sure, I've heard that. Heck, I've probably done it. Most of what I've
> judged has been bands since the early 80's, so maybe that's why I come
> from that side of things naturally at this point. I still prefer
> commenting on the performance of the line, and as an instructor I
> prefer hearing a Ralph Hardimon comment on the performance of our line
> to merely counting up ticks. I find it more educational for our students
> to hear judges like Ralph or Dennis DeLucia to merely seeing a tick
> sheet with baldly marked errors.
The difference is that you want this to be an educational experience, while
most tick proponents want this to be taken as a serious competition.
(Hardimon or DeLucia could also be GE judges, so you could still hear their
tape comments.)
> > Yes, ticks are mistakes. However, I view the tick as a marker that
> helps a
> > line refine a perfect performance. Eliminating errors helps the
> build-up
> > portion of the sheet. Today, judges might say "this section isn't
> working
> > dynamically," or this section in hard to read." A tick by any other
> name...
>
> In the case of the above, it gives the insructor a good idea of what
> isn't working in the EXACT place it doesn't work, and maybe
> even WHY it isn't working. Not just a by-the-numbers recording of what
> the judge decides are errors.
So are you trying to simply provide guidance or are you actually trying to
create an exacting, near perfect, and constantly refined system?
> > Bucks at 75 bpm executed perfectly will earn a 50% at best, moreover,
> they're
> > no fun. Gotta have something worth cleaning.
Like buzz rolls and five minute tacets... :-)
> > I know a majority of modern instructors were raised on the tick. But
> what
> > percentage of modern DCI judges really understand that type of
> evaluation system?
>
> Why do they have to? It's not part of their world anymore.
If they can't recognize all of the errors in the show, then they have no
business being on the field. Judging field music requires a very critical
ear that can recognize the slightest deviation from perfection.
> I don't see it as a negative; I see it more a positive movement forward
> (obviously <G>). After all, when it WAS adopted (and the drummers were
> the last to go, kicking and screaming, if memory serves) the current
> crop of judges (at the time) were all tick-experienced people, so I
> don't see it as something put in to allow less-experienced judges to
> judge.
It DID allow for a shorter training period. From what I understand (someone
please correct me if I'm wrong), it took several years to become a judge
under the tick system.
> > Has marching band and drum corps design become so similar that it's
> > easier to adopt a easier ajudication system that accomodates the
> > marketability of services offered by drum and bugle corps designers
> > and judges who have to KISS for the masses?
>
> I see it as less simple than ticks, as the judge has to not only
> determine what the errors are, but had better to be able to coment on at
> least causes and in some cases solutions. Plus, today's shows are a lot
> more complex than the past (again, my opinion);
I agree. Note that more complexity does not necessarily equate to more
difficulty.
> you'd need a
> judges-sheet the size of a bed-sheet to contain all the different
> elements.
Not a judging sheet, just a rule book. If you look at Olympics rule books,
many of the "subjective" events (such as figure skating, gymnastics, etc.)
are thicker than dictionaries. As a result from years of extensive research
and experience, they have clear, defined, and well honed criteria in an
effort to eliminate as many subjective elements as possible.
James
James Christian
> > That's true with either system. The judge is only going to comment on
> > things they can hear and that they feel are errors. The tick system
> > just allows the judge to keep track of them better.
>
> Not really, but let's agree to disagree on this one, as we'll keep going
> back and forth ad nauseum forever with this.
Agree...to disagree, that is. :-)
<snip of viewpoint on Demand & Execution being on separate sheets>
> Just MHO, of course.
Let's agree to disagree on this also.
> > THAT I disagree with. I don't care how it IS judged or how it WAS
> judged in
> > the past. All of the the points should reflect the performers'
> abilities in
> > some form or fashion. Awarding points for how "appropriate" or
> "effective"
> > a certain passage is written is awarding the adults, not the kids.
>
> No, not completely. There is a place for the written show to receive
> some credit, of course.
Why? Why give the designers or arrangers any points? They're not the ones
competing.
Of course the written show WILL effect the kids' ability to put emotion into
the performance, but as far as actually having a section to judge the
musical appropriateness of a passage is just plain wrong.
> The main thrust of GE, however, is how effective
> the performance of the show is, not just the fact that it's written to
> do this or that. How well the performers communicate whatever the
> arranger intended is what GE is primariy about.
That's exactly what I've been saying for the past 6 months! I don't
understand why you've said that GE isn't what I've said. It is the effect
of the performance.
> Not merely what the
> arranger wrote. That IS a component, but not the main one.
Why is it a component at all?
> The show may
> not be played cleanly from a performance perspective, and suffer in that
> caption, yet the corps may still communicate the desired effects at a
> high level. The two aspects are not the same thing.
Yes, definitely.
> Don't forget, demand is ALSO rewarding the arranger's book, not the
> performance.
But it IS a reflection of the performers' abilities.
> In theory, you could take a written score and assign it a
> demand mark, regardless of how the performers play the show. Of course,
> in reality the performance plays a role in demand as well, in the
> ability to play the score well enough for the judge to tell exactly what
> is being played.
True. That's why I prefer to think of it as "exposure to error" vs.
"demand". The drill can also play a role; if the drum line is in a position
where the judge can't get to them, it is less exposed. Also, if the tenor
players use softer mallets or the snares use brushes, they aren't as
exposed.
> > I would dare say that General Effect is not the same as the
> performance
> > itself, but it should be the general effect OF the performance, not
> the
> > general effect of the composition.
>
> That's what it primarily IS, unless DCI has changed the way GE is
> evaluated over the years.
Good...I guess. Now I'm confused. I don't understand what we disagree
upon.
James
mike...@my-deja.com
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > THAT I disagree with. I don't care how it IS judged or how it WAS
> > judged in
> > > the past. All of the the points should reflect the performers'
> > abilities in
> > > some form or fashion. Awarding points for how "appropriate" or
> > "effective"
> > > a certain passage is written is awarding the adults, not the kids.
> >
> > No, not completely. There is a place for the written show to receive
> > some credit, of course.
>
ones
> competing.
>
Part of the musical presentation is the book being performed, be it
percussion, brass, or choreography. It's there, and it's been given some
weight forever, in demand (content, exposure, whatever) and effect. It's
not the primary factor in any of the captions, but the show itself DOES
have at least a BIT of inpact on the bottom line score the corps
receives.
>
> > The main thrust of GE, however, is how effective
> > the performance of the show is, not just the fact that it's written
to
> > do this or that. How well the performers communicate whatever the
> > arranger intended is what GE is primariy about.
>
> That's exactly what I've been saying for the past 6 months! I don't
> understand why you've said that GE isn't what I've said. It is the
effect
> of the performance.
>
But not the exectution of the performance (unless it's so badly played
the effects aren't communicated, of course). You tend to mush effect and
performance together in some of your comments.
> > Not merely what the
> > arranger wrote. That IS a component, but not the main one.
>
> Why is it a component at all?
>
Part of what the audience sees and hears IS the book, so it should and
is given SOME weight in determining the score.
>
> > In theory, you could take a written score and assign it a
> > demand mark, regardless of how the performers play the show. Of
course,
> > in reality the performance plays a role in demand as well, in the
> > ability to play the score well enough for the judge to tell exactly
what
> > is being played.
>
> True. That's why I prefer to think of it as "exposure to error" vs.
> "demand". The drill can also play a role; if the drum line is in a
position
> where the judge can't get to them, it is less exposed. Also, if the
tenor
> players use softer mallets or the snares use brushes, they aren't as
> exposed.
>
Of course, if the snares are demonstrating good brush technique, you
could credit them for showing a wider range of skills, therefore
INCREASING their score.
> > > I would dare say that General Effect is not the same as the
> > performance
> > > itself, but it should be the general effect OF the performance,
not
> > the
> > > general effect of the composition.
> >
> > That's what it primarily IS, unless DCI has changed the way GE is
> > evaluated over the years.
>
> Good...I guess. Now I'm confused. I don't understand what we
disagree
> upon.
>
We'll find SOMETHING, I'm sure. :-)
mike...@my-deja.com
> > musical
> > > elements like heights,quality of sound, interpretation, control
and
> > stamina.
> >
> > Buildup measures that just as well, plus the other elements of
> > performance that ticks are not able to cover, IMO.
>
more
> focussed judging.
>
But the ticks are the LEAST important aspect of performance (he said,
ducking quickly).
> >
> > Sure, I've heard that. Heck, I've probably done it. Most of what
I've
> > judged has been bands since the early 80's, so maybe that's why I
come
> > from that side of things naturally at this point. I still prefer
> > commenting on the performance of the line, and as an instructor I
> > prefer hearing a Ralph Hardimon comment on the performance of our
line
> > to merely counting up ticks. I find it more educational for our
students
> > to hear judges like Ralph or Dennis DeLucia to merely seeing a tick
> > sheet with baldly marked errors.
>
> The difference is that you want this to be an educational experience,
while
> most tick proponents want this to be taken as a serious competition.
>
Under buildup, it's both.
>
> > > Yes, ticks are mistakes. However, I view the tick as a marker
that
> > helps a
> > > line refine a perfect performance. Eliminating errors helps the
> > build-up
> > > portion of the sheet. Today, judges might say "this section isn't
> > working
> > > dynamically," or this section in hard to read." A tick by any
other
> > name...
> >
> > In the case of the above, it gives the insructor a good idea of what
> > isn't working in the EXACT place it doesn't work, and maybe
> > even WHY it isn't working. Not just a by-the-numbers recording of
what
> > the judge decides are errors.
>
> So are you trying to simply provide guidance or are you actually
trying to
> create an exacting, near perfect, and constantly refined system?
>
Since I am a proponent of buildup, I'm for the creation of "an exacting,
near perfect, and constantly refined system". :-)
> > > I know a majority of modern instructors were raised on the tick.
But
> > what
> > > percentage of modern DCI judges really understand that type of
> > evaluation system?
> >
> > Why do they have to? It's not part of their world anymore.
>
> If they can't recognize all of the errors in the show, then they have
no
> business being on the field. Judging field music requires a very
critical
> ear that can recognize the slightest deviation from perfection.
>
But knowledge of the tick system isn't the only way that you achieve
that. As ticks aren't, thanfully, part of the DC world anymore, knowing
the tick system is irrelevant. Being able to detect problems, and how to
comment on them, and how to rank and rate the performances are the
important elements to know.
mike...@my-deja.com
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dennis Morris wrote:
>
> > James
> > I believe that your example actually demonstrates the weakness
of the
> > "tick". In that situation you have left the important decision of
ranking
> > to a short moment in time--one mistake. Woudn't it seem much more
> > appropriate to consider the quality of the performance which was
actually
> > achieved?
>
> Ticking judges the quality of the execution, and in my opinion, much
more
> accurately than the "pick a number" system.
>
Performance, as has been stated, is MORE than execution.
> > When really strong units competed under the tick system the
difference
> > between top groups might be say --nine ticks vs. eleven. With
eleven and
> > one half minutes of otherwise excellent playing a group might have
easily
> > 1000 "exposures" Under ticks these 1000 correct efforts are
unrewarded .
>
> That's simply not true. Demand captions awarded the excellence of the
> performers' talent.
No, THAT is simply not true. Demand rewards the difficulty of the book
being attempted, and is primarily a writer's award, NOT a performers
award. If I had a dollar for every instructor who came into a meeting
complaining about how difficult his book was versus the other guy...
:-)
> > Under the current system both error and excellence are considered.
>
> Actually, it seems that the current system promotes the "they can do
no wrong"
> philosophy. The tick system had tear down captions (execution) and
build up
> captions (demand & general effect). Seems fairly balanced to me. The
current
> system only awards "excellence" (if you want to call it that) and
doesn't do a
> good job of recording errors.
>
But 'recording errors' is the least important aspect of performance. Who
cares? Ranking and rating the groups the perform the best incorporates
the errors as well as the other aspects of performance that buildup
allows (and I don't mean effect).
> > Your example is a bit flawed. I can't imagine a judge who would
forget
> > the only error of an otherwise perfect show.
>
> If a minor error occured, especially if it was towards the beginning,
it could
> quite conceivably be overlooked.
>
If it was forgotten, it was totally irrelevant.
>
> > The Tick is only
> > an isolated component of the elements of performance excellence
>
> Yes, it provides for more focussed judging.
>
And ignores all the other aspects that make up the 'performance'.
Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH]
>
> > If a minor error occured, especially if it was towards the beginning,
> it could
> > quite conceivably be overlooked.
> >
>
> If it was forgotten, it was totally irrelevant.
Not true. Humans forget. When I interviewed with various companies upon
graduation, a fellow student gave me a bit of advice he read from a
how-to-interview book. If your interview
is early, your interview is scheduled to be in the first half, do something
outrageous that
will make the interviewer remember you. Studies have shown that those
chosen
for jobs are predominately selected from the latter half of the
interviewers because those
that interview remember better the most recent. What outrageous thing did I
do? I stood on
a chair and sang, and when the interviewer asked what I was doing I said,
"Making it so
you'll remember me." I got hired.
In a comparison, mistakes should never be discounted as "irrelevant",
because someone
somewhere will feel cheated, and rightfully feel that the judge was less
than competent.
>
> >
> > > The Tick is only
> > > an isolated component of the elements of performance excellence
> >
> > Yes, it provides for more focussed judging.
> >
>
> And ignores all the other aspects that make up the 'performance'.
If a scoring system was 100% based on ticks I'd agree, but I don't think
there's ever been
a 100% tick system implemented in dc. By asserting the above you're
making an erroneous
statement. The tick, or execution portion, is a piece of
a larger, more complete judging equation. As other people have attested,
the tick system
is an equalizer, allowing smaller corps to compete in that caption
against the bigger boys.
What's that old saying about, God created man and Colt made them equal.
Man created
drum corps, ticks make them equal.
mike...@my-deja.com
"Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH]" <rbec...@americasm01.nt.com>
wrote:
> mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > > If a minor error occured, especially if it was towards the
beginning,
> > it could
> > > quite conceivably be overlooked.
> > >
> >
> > If it was forgotten, it was totally irrelevant.
>
> discounted as "irrelevant", because someone somewhere will feel
> cheated, and rightfully feel that the judge was less than competent.
>
Yes, true. The mistake you make is that you equate evaluating the
performance with counting "ticks". Errors are a single component of
performance; they the ONLY component of a tick-based sheet.
> >
> > >
> > > > The Tick is only
> > > > an isolated component of the elements of performance excellence
> > >
> > > Yes, it provides for more focussed judging.
> > >
> >
> > And ignores all the other aspects that make up the 'performance'.
>
> If a scoring system was 100% based on ticks I'd agree, but I don't
think
> there's ever been
> a 100% tick system implemented in dc. By asserting the above you're
> making an erroneous
> statement.
No, 'performance' is more than counting errors, which is ALL ticks can
do, at best. Evaluating a performance involves more than that, even at
field level.
> The tick, or execution portion, is a piece of
> a larger, more complete judging equation.
No, it's an archaic, incomplete measuremment of the least important part
of a performance.
> What's that old saying about, God created man and Colt made them
> equal. Man created drum corps, ticks make them equal.
>
If a smaller corps/band has an equal performance level, than they
should receive the credit they are due. Size has no impact on
performance, except where a larger group can actually hide people less
capable. Suppose you are judging a caption that has a demand/content
caption, for example, or that at least considers it as part of the
evaluation. Two groups play EXACTLY the same chart, one with 90 players
and one with 30. Other things being equal (e.g. visual demand on the
performers), who deserves a higher demand consideration? The 30 piece
group, as the demand on each individual performer is greater than with
the 90, where at any given spot a player can cut out without being
noticed.
When it comes to performance judging, the mere size of the group should
have no negative impact on the score. Ticks don't make any difference
here.
Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH]
>
> > Not true. ...snip... In a comparison, mistakes should never be
> > discounted as "irrelevant", because someone somewhere will feel
> > cheated, and rightfully feel that the judge was less than competent.
> >
>
> Yes, true. The mistake you make is that you equate evaluating the
> performance with counting "ticks". Errors are a single component of
> performance; they the ONLY component of a tick-based sheet.
No mistake made. Ticks were a caption, not the overall judgement.
You say so yourself, they were a single component, but you talk as
if ticks were the ONLY component. I never evaluated a performance
solely on ticks, but to not have them leaves way too much subjectivity
in the system. What is wrong with having a system that has buildup
and teardown? Nothing, if a performer wants as much critique as
possible.
>
>
>
<snip>
>
>
> No, 'performance' is more than counting errors, which is ALL ticks can
> do, at best. Evaluating a performance involves more than that, even at
> field level.
>
No, in the old days ticks were, as you said, one component. There's
nothing
wrong with one person scoring ticks, one person evaluating demand, and a
third
comparing GE.
>
> > The tick, or execution portion, is a piece of
> > a larger, more complete judging equation.
>
> No, it's an archaic, incomplete measuremment of the least important part
> of a performance.
I hope when you call it archaic you mean that it's no longer used.
The tick system was a MORE complete system than today's judging
because it was present on top of the other captions. Seems the captions
today are missing it, that makes today's scoring INCOMPLETE.
>
>
> > What's that old saying about, God created man and Colt made them
> > equal. Man created drum corps, ticks make them equal.
> >
>
> If a smaller corps/band has an equal performance level, than they
> should receive the credit they are due. Size has no impact on
> performance, except where a larger group can actually hide people less
> capable. Suppose you are judging a caption that has a demand/content
> caption, for example, or that at least considers it as part of the
> evaluation. Two groups play EXACTLY the same chart, one with 90 players
> and one with 30. Other things being equal (e.g. visual demand on the
> performers), who deserves a higher demand consideration? The 30 piece
> group, as the demand on each individual performer is greater than with
> the 90, where at any given spot a player can cut out without being
> noticed.
I think your example is missing way too many variables for me to make
that
call. Are they dynamically equivalent? Are you considering precision? One
snare
drummer has an easier demand than 10, if the parts are the same.
>
>
> When it comes to performance judging, the mere size of the group should
> have no negative impact on the score. Ticks don't make any difference
> here.
But it does, and anyone who doesn't think so is fooling themselves. Why
are
Div II and Div III judged by different standards than the Open class
boys? If
you don't believe they are look at the scores.
Daniel D. Reeves
judging is more objective than the other is a losing
battle. Any and all judging systems that incorporate human
beings are inherently subjective. Every human judge brings
to the tally sheets his/her own predispositions,
prejudices, likes, dislikes, eyesight, hearing, background,
understanding of the activity, personal baggage,
distractions, etc. Some are also accompanied by their own
sense of fair play, even though that sense can be misguided
at times.
Most of us believe that the judges are doing their best. I
believe they are. But, like the corps they judge, none of
them have yet scored 100.
Judging systems are objective. Even today's judging sheets
cite specific criteria, just as previous ones did. It's
the understanding of that criteria that's in question.
While the "true meaning" of today's judging criteria may be
more hazy compared to previous years, consider the
following:
No M&M judge in the 70s had time to run up to a line with a
ruler and measure the relative distance from the tip of the
toes to the kneecap of someone's mark time succinctly.
From a distance, he/she would make an educated guess based
on his/her previous EXPERIENCE. Given a videotape of the
1975 DCI Championships, some experts, and a slow motion
VCR, many of us could tick all top 12 down under 60 points
if we scrutinize closely enough.
A bad release by a brass player may go completely unnoticed
by one judge, but ticked by another. Same can be said of
drums....especially drums, considering how loose the heads
were tuned. You'd have to have a very, very well trained
ear and be right next to the battery to pick up all of the
tick-able nuances of 70s marching percussion.
I'm sure anyone who marched in the 70s can point out a
number of competitions whose judging results stumped
audience, performer, and instructor alike.
The tick system also did not reward demand. The Blue
Devils (God bless them, they've got a great hornline) found
winning championships was easier if they refined the "park
and bark" style of show design, eliminating M&M demand so
they could score higher.
Overall, I believe the judging system is pretty good. My
biggest complaint with it is that 1/4th to 1/3rd of the
corps (the color guard) doesn't have their own performance
caption. Something should be done to rectify that.
Daniel D. Reeves
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Tom & Karen Peashey
mike...@my-deja.com
>
> >
> > > Not true. ...snip... In a comparison, mistakes should never be
> > > discounted as "irrelevant", because someone somewhere will feel
> > > cheated, and rightfully feel that the judge was less than
competent.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, true. The mistake you make is that you equate evaluating the
> > performance with counting "ticks". Errors are a single component of
> > performance; they the ONLY component of a tick-based sheet.
>
> No mistake made. Ticks were a caption, not the overall judgement.
In evaluating the performance, the tick was the only component in the
tick era. Demand is totally separate, as is GE.
> You say so yourself, they were a single component, but you talk as
> if ticks were the ONLY component. I never evaluated a performance
> solely on ticks, but to not have them leaves way too much
subjectivity
> in the system.
Ticks are just as subjective as buildup, only less accurate in assessing
the total performance, as only a portion of the performance is being
evaluated.
> What is wrong with having a system that has buildup
> and teardown? Nothing, if a performer wants as much critique as
> possible.
>
You get as much (or more) critique with buildup as with ticks, and it's
more valuable as a learning tool than ticks to boot.
> >
> > No, 'performance' is more than counting errors, which is ALL ticks
can
> > do, at best. Evaluating a performance involves more than that, even
at
> > field level.
> >
>
> No, in the old days ticks were, as you said, one component. There's
> nothing
> wrong with one person scoring ticks, one person evaluating demand,
and a
> third
> comparing GE.
>
Substitute 'evaluating performance' for 'scoring ticks' and I agree,
though I prefer a field performance, ensemble performance, and GE type
of setup, myself.
> >
> > > The tick, or execution portion, is a piece of
> > > a larger, more complete judging equation.
> >
> > No, it's an archaic, incomplete measuremment of the least important
part
> > of a performance.
>
> I hope when you call it archaic you mean that it's no longer used.
> The tick system was a MORE complete system than today's judging
> because it was present on top of the other captions. Seems the
captions
> today are missing it, that makes today's scoring INCOMPLETE.
>
They've gone beyond counting ticks to a better approach where the
performance is evaluated in total, including those things that might not
be able to show up as a tick.
> >
> > If a smaller corps/band has an equal performance level, than they
> > should receive the credit they are due. Size has no impact on
> > performance, except where a larger group can actually hide people
less
> > capable. Suppose you are judging a caption that has a demand/content
> > caption, for example, or that at least considers it as part of the
> > evaluation. Two groups play EXACTLY the same chart, one with 90
players
> > and one with 30. Other things being equal (e.g. visual demand on the
> > performers), who deserves a higher demand consideration? The 30
piece
> > group, as the demand on each individual performer is greater than
with
> > the 90, where at any given spot a player can cut out without being
> > noticed.
>
> I think your example is missing way too many variables for me to
make
> that
> call. Are they dynamically equivalent? Are you considering
precision? One
> snare
> drummer has an easier demand than 10, if the parts are the same.
>
I said 'all other things being equal' in the hypothetical situation. The
basic point is that in performance evaluation, a smaller group should
not be adversely affected merely due to size. In fact, the demand placed
on an individual performer in a smaller group is greater than a larger,
esp in the winds.
> >
> >
> > When it comes to performance judging, the mere size of the group
should
> > have no negative impact on the score. Ticks don't make any
difference
> > here.
>
> But it does, and anyone who doesn't think so is fooling themselves.
> Why are
> Div II and Div III judged by different standards than the Open class
> boys? If
> you don't believe they are look at the scores.
>
>
In those cases, there are quality issues as well as quantity issues, I
would guess, but I'm not a DCI judge. It appears that every division has
it's own standards to meet to achieve a certain score, so that a
cross-division comparison is not possible. It was that way 30 years ago
as well, between classes 'C', 'B', and 'A'. The tolerances were
different, so that you weren't giving out zero's, one's, and two's all
the time in the lower classifications.
Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH]
objective. Relative terms are subjective. Mistakes are not subjective.
True, humans may err and miss a mistake or think one happened when
it didn't, but A.) using more than one execution judge helped eliminate
the highs/lows with an average, and B.) a more experienced judge had
less of a problem identifying mistakes. Thus you could conclude that
your objectivity could improve depending on the judges' experience
level. Same thing goes for umpires at baseball games. Watch a peewee
league and count the number of mistakes the ump will make that you
see, then count the mistakes a professional ump makes. You probably
will be hard pressed to find any. Judgement mistakes do happen, but that's not
because of any inherent subjectivity; it's because the judges lack a
certain experience level.
Demand was counted in the tick days, so I don't know why you claim
it wasn't.
Any system that uses subjective criteria, words like pretty, colorful,
musical, balanced, etc, is a flawed system, because everyone has
different opinions as to what constitutes each.
The goal of every judging system should be to quantify the criteria as
objectively as possible. Otherwise, why judge? A subjective system
leaves competitors constanting trying to guess how to improve, or
at the worse, trying to figure out how to please each judge.
Musicians steadfastly resist quantifying their art, as if doing so will
subtract from the "beauty". But if judging is to mean anything then
efforts should be undertaken to understand what makes something
"beautiful", quantify it, categorize it, use it as criteria.
Daniel D. Reeves wrote:
Sure, but then they had one shot at judging.
>
>
> A bad release by a brass player may go completely unnoticed
> by one judge, but ticked by another. Same can be said of
> drums....especially drums, considering how loose the heads
> were tuned. You'd have to have a very, very well trained
> ear and be right next to the battery to pick up all of the
> tick-able nuances of 70s marching percussion.
The percussion judges I remember in the early 80's were very
good at hearing mistakes. Rarely did we disagree with a judge
about a bad attack or fuzz. It happened once or twice, but I
don't remember it being as bad as you paint it.
>
>
> I'm sure anyone who marched in the 70s can point out a
> number of competitions whose judging results stumped
> audience, performer, and instructor alike.
>
In my 2 years I can't think of any.
>
> The tick system also did not reward demand. The Blue
> Devils (God bless them, they've got a great hornline) found
> winning championships was easier if they refined the "park
> and bark" style of show design, eliminating M&M demand so
> they could score higher.
>
> Overall, I believe the judging system is pretty good. My
> biggest complaint with it is that 1/4th to 1/3rd of the
> corps (the color guard) doesn't have their own performance
> caption. Something should be done to rectify that.
That I'll agree with. I don't understand the philosophy of
not judging such a huge portion of the corps.
>
Daniel D. Reeves
Once again I have to explain this. Anything that can be
measured is objective. Relative terms are subjective.
Mistakes are not subjective.
-->You had me until that last statement, Rick. The
interpretation of what is or is not a mistake IS
subjective. All evaluation in drum corps must be done in
real time, without breaks. Judges must think on their
feet, therefore the application of standards when things
are happening quickly in front of you requires the
application of judgement calls. People have to quickly
think about whether or not someone made a mistake, tally it
or not, and refocus their energies into the performance.
This leaves a lot to human error. Therefore any judging
system becomes subjective once human beings are thrown into
the mix.
True, humans may err and miss a mistake or think one
happened when it didn't, but A.) using more than one
execution judge helped eliminate the highs/lows with an
average,
-->This would bear more weight with me if I saw examples of
competitions other than DCI Championships, where the "cream
of the crop" were on duty. One judge could still be very
right, one very wrong.
and B.) a more experienced judge had less of a problem
identifying mistakes. Thus you could conclude that your
objectivity could improve depending on the judges'
experience level. Same thing goes for umpires at baseball
games. Watch a peewee league and count the number of
mistakes the ump will make that you see, then count the
mistakes a professional ump makes. You probably will be
hard pressed to find any.
-->I'll buy that.
Judgement mistakes do happen, but that's not because of any
inherent subjectivity; it's because the judges lack a
certain experience level.
-->We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. There is
no such thing as being completely devoid of prejudice and
predispositions. I really wish we had robots covering
performance captions, but we don't. All judges come with
their own set of baggage and it affects judging on a
subconscious level. Of course, I have no way to prove it.
I just rely on my knowledge of human nature on this one.
Demand was counted in the tick days, so I don't know why
you claim it wasn't.
-->Yes, I'm familiar with the demand caption from the 70s.
I know it was counted. But not to the same extent that it
is today. The tick system punished corps who did harder
shows. Ask any director who has experienced both systems.
Any system that uses subjective criteria, words like
pretty, colorful, musical, balanced, etc, is a flawed
system, because everyone has different opinions as to what
constitutes each.
-->I agree that the wording needs some work. Today's
system is by no means perfect, but I believe it is largely
accurate. Opinions are also applied to objective criteria
or not. What I think is a frack, you may think is
perfectly acceptable.
The goal of every judging system should be to quantify the
criteria as objectively as possible. Otherwise, why judge?
A subjective system leaves competitors constanting trying
to guess how to improve, or at the worse, trying to figure
out how to please each judge.
-->Agreed. With some reworking, criteria in the current
judging system could be better. The Madison Scouts during
the late 70s were completely confused by the judges, so
much so that they rewrote one of their shows in the middle
of the season.
Musicians steadfastly resist quantifying their art, as if
doing so will subtract from the "beauty". But if judging is
to mean anything then efforts should be undertaken to
understand what makes something "beautiful", quantify it,
categorize it, use it as criteria.
-->While some of today's judging system may be too wide and
open-ended, judging with a tick system is too narrow. We
can better quantify the current system by changing the
verbage on the sheets, but we still need to let educated
people give numbers based on a more comprehensive
evaluation of a given performance caption, rather than just
judge on mistakes.
Jeff Mitchell
Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH] wrote:
> Once again I have to explain this. Anything that can be measured is
> objective. Relative terms are subjective. Mistakes are not subjective.
Then tell me how early, using exact time, an attack has to occur to be a tick. How
far, in inches, does someone need to stray to cause an interval error? Define
mistakes in measureable terms given a scientific standard unit, inches, seconds,
etc... and convince me they are objective. How well defined were the criteria for
ticks?
> True, humans may err and miss a mistake or think one happened when
> it didn't, but A.) using more than one execution judge helped eliminate
> the highs/lows with an average, and B.) a more experienced judge had
> less of a problem identifying mistakes. Thus you could conclude that
> your objectivity could improve depending on the judges' experience
> level.
If all errors are not ticks, then one needs to improve their subjectivity to
determine what mistakes should be counted. That was the key to judging execution.
To subjectively know what to tick.
> Same thing goes for umpires at baseball games. Watch a peewee
> league and count the number of mistakes the ump will make that you
> see, then count the mistakes a professional ump makes. You probably
> will be hard pressed to find any. Judgement mistakes do happen, but that's not
> because of any inherent subjectivity; it's because the judges lack a
> certain experience level.
The same analogy could be applied to football and basketball officials who make
many subjective calls. They say holding could be called on every play in the NFL.
How does the ref know when holding is holding and when it isn't? Sounds subjective
to me.
> Demand was counted in the tick days, so I don't know why you claim
> it wasn't.
>
Demand has been considered since the beginning of the activity. One needs to
understand what is being performed before any judgement can be rendered.
> Any system that uses subjective criteria, words like pretty, colorful,
> musical, balanced, etc, is a flawed system, because everyone has
> different opinions as to what constitutes each.
We have a centuries long tradition of Western Music in which all DCI brass and
percussion judges have received a minimum of a bachelors degree in music. This
commonality allows us to have to develop a consensus regarding what we regard as
criteria. We have a fairly lengthy tradition in drum corps of how to apply the
standards.
If anything, we receive complaints that judges all have similar opinions.
> The goal of every judging system should be to quantify the criteria as
> objectively as possible.
Why should this be so? Music is an intellectual and emotion experience. To
objectify it, one might miss the revelance of the performance. Why do we listen to
certain composers and ignore others? What makes their music great beyond that of
their peers? What makes certain performers great? Can we objectively evaluate this
by saying they didn't tick?
> Otherwise, why judge? A subjective system
> leaves competitors constanting trying to guess how to improve, or
> at the worse, trying to figure out how to please each judge.
>
This hasn't been voiced by any of the instructors. There is no shortage of
commentary to improve performance. Nor do corps wonder what to do in rehearsal.
Most corps have a vision of what they are looking to achieve on the field and
don't need to heavily rely on the judging community for advice. Besides, how did
75 ticks convey to a corps how to improve, beyond don't screwup.
> Musicians steadfastly resist quantifying their art, as if doing so will
> subtract from the "beauty". But if judging is to mean anything then
> efforts should be undertaken to understand what makes something
> "beautiful", quantify it, categorize it, use it as criteria.
>
Agreed. Although it is much easier to point out the issue than to come up with the
right words.
We had a president nicknamed Tricky Dick, maybe you can be Ticky Rick. ;-)
Have a great summer,
--
Jeff, DCI-AD Brass Caption Head
DCI Judge 1979-1999
Hot can be cool
and cool can be hot
and each can be both.
But hot or cool man,
jazz is jazz.
Louis Armstrong
Visit my drum corps G Bugle webpage at;
http://pages.prodigy.net/jeffmitchell/bugle.html
Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH]
Daniel D. Reeves wrote:
> Mr. Rick Beckham wrote:
>
> Once again I have to explain this. Anything that can be
> measured is objective. Relative terms are subjective.
> Mistakes are not subjective.
>
> -->You had me until that last statement, Rick. The
> interpretation of what is or is not a mistake IS
> subjective.
I disagree. A mistake is a mistake. The fact that a human being
can or cannot distinquish what is/isn't a mistake does not
change that fact. It is still objective. And for the Mike Davis's in
the world that will reply, "A mistake to you may not be a mistake
to me", let me say this, each type of mistake can be quantified
beforehand. That's why you should have criteria.
> Therefore any judging
> system becomes subjective once human beings are thrown into
> the mix.
>
Not true. Subjective is allowing judges to justify their score based
on flowery words and not on a system of measurement.
>
>
>
> -->This would bear more weight with me if I saw examples of
> competitions other than DCI Championships, where the "cream
> of the crop" were on duty. One judge could still be very
> right, one very wrong.
True, but we measure bad judges on whether they are inconsistent.
And inconsistency can occur in any judging system, but is more
likely to happen in a system that is more subjective in nature.
>
>
>
>
> -->We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. There is
> no such thing as being completely devoid of prejudice and
> predispositions. I really wish we had robots covering
> performance captions, but we don't. All judges come with
> their own set of baggage and it affects judging on a
> subconscious level. Of course, I have no way to prove it.
> I just rely on my knowledge of human nature on this one.
I don't wish for robots judging, because the human element
makes it special. It allows for people to improve themselves,
to come to understand what it is that they are judging, to help
write the criteria, to appreciate the sport they are judging. Robots
can't do that. Bias will always exist. It's not necessarily a given
that we should strive to eliminate bias or prejudice. But judges
should justify the score jotted down, and at least part of the
justification should be objective.
>
>
> Demand was counted in the tick days, so I don't know why
> you claim it wasn't.
>
> -->Yes, I'm familiar with the demand caption from the 70s.
> I know it was counted. But not to the same extent that it
> is today. The tick system punished corps who did harder
> shows. Ask any director who has experienced both systems.
We should be able to find a happy medium. I'm not comfortable
with sloppy shows winning. I also think the demand of what's
being played nowadays is vastly overrated. Is seems after 1984
(Orwellian?) the demand of the marching has figured predominately
into the demand of the playing, and I think this is a travesty.
>
> -->While some of today's judging system may be too wide and
> open-ended, judging with a tick system is too narrow. We
> can better quantify the current system by changing the
> verbage on the sheets, but we still need to let educated
> people give numbers based on a more comprehensive
> evaluation of a given performance caption, rather than just
There's that word "just". I don't ever remember being judged
"just" on ticks.
>
> judge on mistakes.
>
>
Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH]
Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH] wrote:
>
> > Once again I have to explain this. Anything that can be measured is
> > objective. Relative terms are subjective. Mistakes are not subjective.
>
> Then tell me how early, using exact time, an attack has to occur to be a tick.
Using straight notes, if a tempo is 160, anything before and after the beat is
off. Do you agree? If grace notes are played, look for anyone not in sync.
A person who flinched is pretty obvious, at least from a percussion standpoint.
Perhaps judging ticks on the brass side is more difficult than the percussion
side, hence the outcry from brass judges over the displeasure of marking
ticks. Mayhaps ticks should not be judged in the brass caption. I still feel
it should be measured in percussion and marching.
> How
> far, in inches, does someone need to stray to cause an interval error?
Asymmetric drill? Who fucking knows? This is why judging symmetrical
drill makes more sense than judging asymm. drill. You can't judge smoke.
>
>
> If all errors are not ticks, then one needs to improve their subjectivity to
> determine what mistakes should be counted. That was the key to judging execution.
> To subjectively know what to tick.
You can't teach subjectivity. That's why it's subjective.
>
>
> The same analogy could be applied to football and basketball officials who make
> many subjective calls. They say holding could be called on every play in the NFL.
> How does the ref know when holding is holding and when it isn't? Sounds subjective
> to me.
>
If it's as subjective as you claim it's a useless caption. Obviously, logically,
the fact
that many coaches are NOT complaining about holding calls when holding didn't
happen
should tell you that it can be quantified. That many CAN agree what constitutes
holding.
You and I will probably never agree on how many notes are too many, or what
preference
of mallet to use on a suspended cymbal, but I bet we could agree on what and what
isn't
holding.
>
>
>
> Demand has been considered since the beginning of the activity. One needs to
> understand what is being performed before any judgement can be rendered.
>
Agreed. That's why I think DCI is making a mistake dwindling the judges,
using one judge to judge multiple captions. Each caption should have a
judge who understands what it is they're judging.
>
> > Any system that uses subjective criteria, words like pretty, colorful,
> > musical, balanced, etc, is a flawed system, because everyone has
> > different opinions as to what constitutes each.
>
> We have a centuries long tradition of Western Music in which all DCI brass and
> percussion judges have received a minimum of a bachelors degree in music.
I don't believe this is true. I remember dc percussion judges whose only experience
was dc, they did not have degrees in music, but the ones I remember where much
better field percussion judges than the college percussion cats who refused to
admit
field music is a different animal than indoor musicstuff.
> > The goal of every judging system should be to quantify the criteria as
> > objectively as possible.
>
> Why should this be so? Music is an intellectual and emotion experience.
Because you are judging. Competitions are not sit-in lovefests, where everyone
sways to the harmony. It is a competition, where skills are measured.
> To
> objectify it, one might miss the revelance of the performance.
Then DCI needs to make up it's mind if dc is a competition or a night out with PBS.
Beg pardon, but I couldn't give a flying shit about the significance of large chess
pieces moving on the field, or the symbolism of climbing poles in the middle of the
field. I go to watch a competition. I want to see drumlines fighting for the title,
not
"emoting". I wish someone would make up their minds; if dc is about the performance
then get rid of the judges. The problem is, people cannot reconcile competition
with
"art".
>
>
> Agreed. Although it is much easier to point out the issue than to come up with the
> right words.
>
No question that it won't be difficult.
>
> We had a president nicknamed Tricky Dick, maybe you can be Ticky Rick. ;-)
And you Judgey Jeff.
>
>
> Have a great summer,
Same to you. Hope to see you this year at DCA.
mike...@my-deja.com
"Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH]" <rbec...@americasm01.nt.com>
wrote:
> I've snipped some stuff.
>
> Daniel D. Reeves wrote:
>
> >
> > Once again I have to explain this. Anything that can be
> > measured is objective. Relative terms are subjective.
> > Mistakes are not subjective.
> >
> > interpretation of what is or is not a mistake IS
> > subjective.
>
> I disagree. A mistake is a mistake. The fact that a human being
> can or cannot distinquish what is/isn't a mistake does not
> change that fact. It is still objective. And for the Mike Davis's in
> the world that will reply, "A mistake to you may not be a mistake
> to me", let me say this, each type of mistake can be quantified
> beforehand. That's why you should have criteria.
>
It's impossible to quantify every possible error on every potential
percussion instrument for every instance. Also, how does the demand
affect the error? Some judging systems incorporate demand into the
evaluation of the performance; it's up to the adjudicator to determine
if section X was an error, based at least partially on the demand of
that section. It IS subjective in nature, from start to finish, as it
has always been, ticks or not. Having as well-defined a set of criteria
as is feasible is a great idea; there comes a point though, that it is
up to the expertise of the judges to decide how well each group meets
the stated criteria.
> > Therefore any judging
> > system becomes subjective once human beings are thrown into
> > the mix.
> >
>
> Not true. Subjective is allowing judges to justify their score based
> on flowery words and not on a system of measurement.
>
The use of the term 'flowery words' immediately shows your
anti-adjudicator bias. Hopefully judges are providing
performance-related words during their evalation of a show. If not, THAT
is what you fix.
snipped the rest
HYMELAND
line hits their drums or a hornline attacks a note it would be a mistake
because it is impossible for two or more people to do ANYTHING at EXACTLY the
same instant.It is therefore the job of the judges to decide what is or is not
an error.Subjective;YES;but it is whether it is a tick system or not.However it
does work,in 30 years of involvement in this activity I have NEVER disagreed
(Here come the flames) with the outcome of a Nationals,I may not have liked the
outcome,but I did agree that the corps were "ranked"properly.Ranking is after
all the only thing that really counts,rating is basically irrelevant,who really
cares how many points so and so got as long as they won.Enjoy the season and
may the best corp win.....again. Larry Hyme
Michael Cahill
mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The use of the term 'flowery words' immediately shows your
> anti-adjudicator bias.
I go away for less than two months, come back, skim through RAMD and you're
still errantly labeling folks using the same old unsupported "anti" this
and that Mike.
I was "anti-orchestra", "anti-music education", "anti-music educators",
"anti-band", "anti-bandkids", with a bias for each. I hated every group
mentioned according to you.
Oddly these "labels" came right after I questioned whether you had a bias.
A question you wisely ignored repeatedly.
The bottom line is that you can't defend yourself with your own words or
tactics.
Which means in my book you are one of, if not the most, unoriginal
individuals I've ever seen when it comes to forming a rebuttal. And since
you can't defend yourself with logic, you resort to "labels" that were once
attributed to you.
You should have been a politician Mike - seriously.
In these ever changing times it's good to know that you'll NEVER change.
BTW, the statement above is an ad homenim attack - attack the individual
(Rick) with an unsupported claim (he has an "anti- adjudicator bias") in
order to avoid debating the point (merits/drawbacks of the tick system).
Now Rick has to defend himself instead of his ideas, and the original point
is forgotten. That's chicken-s**t debating tactic 101 used by people who
can't debate the points.
As far as the original point goes - remember it Mike? - interesting
observation I've had while reading the entire thread.
James puts together a well researched, well worded opinion that the tick
system was more consistent and backs it up with graphs to prove it. That's
pretty impressive for an 18 year old. He's not talking out his ass, he's
taken numbers, analyzed them, and formulated a well thought out position on
the topic.
What happens? Tom Peashy (a judge) and Mike Davis (a former/current
part-time judge) tear into him like a wrestling tag team. Ignoring the data
and completely ignoring and dismissing the opinion James is putting forth,
they both gang up on him.
With what? Ad homenim attacks questioning his lack of experience as a judge
instead of discussing his point. That pissed me off to be honest. Did more
to prove James' point than anything he could have rebutted with. He says
somthing accurate about the tick vs. build-up and the judges rush to knock
him down and shut him up. I mean how dare a kid assert that the tick system
had a merit - consistency.
Instead of finding a debate with "adults" he's jumped on by these fine two
judges and told he's way too young to even have an opinion. Well done guys
- you've improved my opinion of your judicial brethren tenfold with that
little exercise.
That's my "anti-adjudicator" bias Mike, which you and Tom have done nothing
to counter, and everything to support by essentially telling an 18 year old
kid to "blow off".
Well done gentlemen.
Kudos to Jeff Mitchell for his presence here, and his consistent replies
which are well thought out, fair, and accurate. Maybe you and Tom can take
lessons from him Mike.
I doubt you'll bother.
Cheers
Michael Cahill
mike...@my-deja.com
mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The use of the term 'flowery words' immediately shows your
> > anti-adjudicator bias.
>
> I go away for less than two months, come back, skim through RAMD and
you're
> still errantly labeling folks using the same old unsupported "anti"
this
> and that Mike.
>
Nice to see you back, and still pulling out single quotes out of
dozens to bash with. I'm sorry, but when a person uses a term like
'flowery' in describing comments, it DOES show a bias against that type
of judging, IMO.
snip of whining irrelevant commentary
>
> BTW, the statement above is an ad homenim attack - attack the
individual
> (Rick) with an unsupported claim (he has an "anti- adjudicator bias")
in
> order to avoid debating the point (merits/drawbacks of the tick
system).
Those points were debated over and over in the thread. HE used the term
'flowery words' which crossed the line in the discussion and was an
attack on the individuals judging, not the system of ticks versus
buildup.
> Now Rick has to defend himself instead of his ideas, and the original
point
> is forgotten. That's chicken-s**t debating tactic 101 used by people
who
> can't debate the points.
>
Again, the points were debated many times in the thread. Not being
around, you choose to ignore that fact.
> As far as the original point goes - remember it Mike? - interesting
> observation I've had while reading the entire thread.
>
> James puts together a well researched, well worded opinion that the
tick
> system was more consistent and backs it up with graphs to prove it.
That's
> pretty impressive for an 18 year old. He's not talking out his ass,
he's
> taken numbers, analyzed them, and formulated a well thought out
position on
> the topic.
>
And I, and others, responded to him. NOT as you claim with attacks, but
with reasoned arguments.
> What happens? Tom Peashy (a judge) and Mike Davis (a former/current
> part-time judge) tear into him like a wrestling tag team. Ignoring the
data
> and completely ignoring and dismissing the opinion James is putting
forth,
> they both gang up on him.
>
Ignored? Not at all. You haven't read the entire thread, I see. 'tear
into him (James) like a wrestling tag team'? Again, not at all. I gave
my reasons why the current approach, while not perfect, is better that
the old days, as did Tom and others. James does a great job on his own;
we happen to disagree on certain topics.
> With what? Ad homenim attacks questioning his lack of experience as a
judge
> instead of discussing his point. That pissed me off to be honest. Did
more
> to prove James' point than anything he could have rebutted with.
How does you getting PO'd do "more to prove James' point than anything
he could have rebutted with"? Was his experieince questioned? Sure. It's
a valid part of the equation. He certainly wasn't dismissed due to a
lack of experience, but it comes into play when discussing the issues.
He's entitled to his own opinion, as are others, experience or not.
> He says somthing accurate about the tick vs. build-up and the judges
> rush to knock him down and shut him up. I mean how dare a kid assert
> that the tick system had a merit - consistency.
>
He wasn't 'shut up'. Others, incuding me, have a different viewpoint.
Whether his points are accurate or not is up to what you believe is the
better approach.
> Instead of finding a debate with "adults" he's jumped on by these fine
two
> judges and told he's way too young to even have an opinion.
Who EVER said that?
> Well done guys - you've improved my opinion of your judicial brethren
> tenfold with that little exercise.
>
> That's my "anti-adjudicator" bias Mike, which you and Tom have done
nothing
> to counter, and everything to support by essentially telling an 18
year old
> kid to "blow off".
>
> Well done gentlemen.
>
Thank you. Any time I can get you PO'd I consider it a good day.
mike...@my-deja.com
mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> As far as the original point goes - remember it Mike? - interesting
> observation I've had while reading the entire thread.
>
> James puts together a well researched, well worded opinion that the
tick
> system was more consistent and backs it up with graphs to prove it.
That's
> pretty impressive for an 18 year old. He's not talking out his ass,
he's
> taken numbers, analyzed them, and formulated a well thought out
position on
> the topic.
>
> part-time judge) tear into him like a wrestling tag team. Ignoring the
data
> and completely ignoring and dismissing the opinion James is putting
forth,
> they both gang up on him.
>
judge
> instead of discussing his point.
I've done some looking back at the thread; I've checked every post I
made in response to a post by James. Below is about 75% or so of the
things I said to him. Maybe you'll find something else I wrote that fits
your accusation, but I didn't find anything. James' quotes have the ">"
in front; mine have either none or two (">>").
########################################################################
#######
James,
Nice math, but I fail to see the relevance. Just because the
judges were getting closer and closer
in scores doesn't make the system any more accurate in
determining the best performing percussion
section.
Mike
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> The relevance is that it shows that there was a uniform standard, and
it was getting
> more and more accurate and reliable. It was becoming growing in
consistency.
Actually, what your math proved is that was no need for two
judges at all. If they were that close, then one would be sufficient
>As the criteria becomes more exacting and clearly
> defined (assuming that the judges have an iota of what they're doing),
it promotes
> consistency, and ensures that the performers have a better idea of
what to expect.
>
Criteria may or may not have been 'exacting and clearly defined',
but what they were judging was not the entire definition of
'performance'; there is more to it than just "clean". Buildup,
"assuming that the judges have an iota of what they're doing"
(<G>), provides a better method of assessing the totality of a
performance that goes beyond "playing together".
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, as you can see from the above, I basically agree. Just that I
don't see the need for 'ticks'; evaluating the performance is
achieved far better in using a buildup, IMO. I son't like demand on
a separate caption either; I prefer it be included on the
performance caption, as was even done in the tick era until the
late 70's.
>
> I believe that the point was
> just made that more judges could help to eliminate bias.
>
I haven't seen any huge bias problems, but they DO happen on
occasion. I like the idea of more judges, but I prefer more varied
captions than doubling up on a single caption.
-------------------------------------------
If they were that close, and that good, and the attack was that
bad on the one roll, I would remember it. However, there are other
things to consider in making a decision as to the better
performance between two corps, as we've said, so a single bad
attack on a single roll is never gong to be the ONLY factor
(unless it was REALLL bad <G>).
>
> > Evaluating the performance
> > quality in total IS something that a performance judge does.
>
> Yes, but execution plays a role in the performance.
Yes, it does, and the performance judge is evaluating and
commenting on the mechanics as well as the rest of the
performance criteria.
>So does the demand.
Yes, again correct. The demand of the show plays a role in
evaluating the performance in many judging systems (I'm not a
DCI judge, so I'm not sure about how DCI views performance).
>So does the general effect (military bearing, showmanship,
musicality, etc.).
No. GE has nothing to do with evaluating the performance. Here
is where your understanding of what buildup covers falls apart.
Performance judges don't look for the effectivness of a particular
phrase; they evaluate how well it was played, including things
like attack/release/uniform phrasing/sonority/intonation and other
things that make up the performance. The showmanship kind of
thing and how effective a particular phrase was in generating a
musical idea is on the GE sheet, not the performance sheet.
> The system of the late 70's and early 80's focused on many different
> aspects, where the "performance" caption is a combination of them all,
> resulting in a less focused, and therefore less reliable, system. You
> have already stated that you're in favor of more judges. Why are you
> not in favor of more captions and/or more focused judging?
>
I like more captions. I would rather see one performance judge in
the stands and another on the field, if there were to be two. I like
the idea of including the content/demand on the performance
caption, as opposed to it's own sheet; performance should (and I'm
not sure if it is in DCI) be a factor of how well a group plays as
realted to how
demanding their show is, IMO.
>
> How about just evaluating the execution? There is usually a
subcaption for
> execution on the build-up sheets. To use my earlier analogy, if Drum
Line A
> and Drum Line B come out and play absolutely flawless shows, except
Drum
> Line B has one fuzzed roll, can you remember that when writing down
the
> execution score? Seems like you're leaving an awful lot up to chance.
>
No, not really. See the above for how I view performance.
> I think it helps to balance it out better. It prevents people from
winning by playing "Mary Had a Little
> Lamb".
>
Actually, combining them prevents this.
>
> Then why do you prefer having two judges score execution & demand,
as
> opposed to two separate judges for each?
>
It's a matter of personal philosophy, I guess. I would rather see a
field performance and an ensemble performance judge, if there
were to be another judge added.
I'd also like to see a guard performance judge and separate brass
and percussion GE judges, with an additional Overall-GE judge, if
I were king of the forest.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Breaking up the elements of a performance, as you've already stated,
ensures
> a more accurate and more focused judging.
>
Separating out performance and effect IS a good idea, but then
further dividing things as you suggest is not, IMO. I'd rather see
an ensemble performance judge as well as a field judge, both
evaluating the more technical levels of demand and performance
on and individual and ensemble level, than a separate demand
judge. That, IMO, is too narrow a focus. DCA used to have that
sort of thing (and they might today, for all I know). I did a show on
PA in the early 90's, and one (the Barnum Festival) on GE. The
PA caption could pretty easily be merged into the performance
caption and that judge be given an ensemble sheet, if that is
something desirable to the powers-that-be. having lived under that
approach since 1980 in MB, I find it a good approach. You get
the nitty-gritty indivudal performance stuf, as well as the overall
ensemble performance stuff. Just MHO, of course.
------------------------------------------------------
>Awarding points for how "appropriate" or "effective"
> a certain passage is written is awarding the adults, not the kids.
>
No, not completely. There is a place for the written show to
receive some credit, of course. The main thrust of GE, however,
is how effective the performance of the show is, not just the fact
that it's written to do this or that. How well the performers
communicate whatever the arranger intended is what GE is
primariy about. Not merely what the arranger wrote. That IS a
component, but not the main one. The show may not be played
cleanly from a performance perspective, and suffer in that
caption, yet the corps may still communicate the desired effects
at a high level. The two aspects are not the same thing.
Don't forget, demand is ALSO rewarding the arranger's book, not
the performance. In theory, you could take a written score and
assign it a demand mark, regardless of how the performers play
the show. Of course, in reality the performance plays a role in
demand as well, in the ability to play the score well enough for
the judge to tell exactly what is being played.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Why? Why give the designers or arrangers any points? They're not the
ones
> competing.
>
Part of the musical presentation is the book being performed, be
it percussion, brass, or choreography. It's there, and it's been
given some weight forever, in demand (content, exposure,
whatever) and effect. It's not the primary factor in any of the
captions, but the show itself DOES have at least a BIT of inpact
on the bottom line score the corps receives.
> That's exactly what I've been saying for the past 6 months! I don't
> understand why you've said that GE isn't what I've said. It is the
effect
> of the performance.
>
But not the exectution of the performance (unless it's so badly
played the effects aren't communicated, of course). You tend to
mush effect and performance together in some of your
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>The only
> problem arises when a judge ignores their duty to score as accurately
as
> he/she can, and scores to favor or disfavor a certain corps.
A dishonest judge will hopefully be caught out sooner or later and
given the boot. That's not a major problem; judges on the whole
do the an honest job the very best that they can. What you are
REALLY saying is that there are judges who score a group
higher or lower than YOU think they should, or even higher or
lower than most other judges score them. It doesn't make them
dishonest.
> Granted, just having two judges won't do much to remove bias, but it
does
> prevent a corps from getting *completely* screwed.
>
But that has nothing to do with ticks versus tapes. I thought the
whole point of your graph was to showe that exactly the opposite was
happening; there was less and less variation in scores.
Personaly, I like more than one judge for the reasons you
mention, but I prefer them to be truly ranking and rating by
assigning the numbers in a thoughtful manner, not merely jotting
down ticks. In these days of financial belt-tightening, I doubt
you'll see more judges, though.
> Perhaps 20 point spreads aren't all that common, but as you can see,
10-15
> point spreads are. (Note: The judge that scored the lowest wasn't
always
> the same; they would often flip-flop from scoring high and low.)
>
Oh, you answer my question above. Maybe in that case the
average was the proper score. I DO like more judges than less; I
prefer them to be making true judgements over mechanical
ticking, where they have no idea how they are ranking and rating
as they go along. Cost reality makes having more and more less
and less likely, though. Agaqin, it has nothing to do with ticks
versus tape.
> The tick system (if no personal biases are allowed) takes
> what it's given at each particular show, and you can be fairly
confident
> that the judges will be pretty close to each other.
>
Your parenthetical "(if no personal biases are allowed)" applies to
BOTH types of judging, only tape/buildup is a more accurate
assessment than ticks in judging performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> it is undeniable that it (ticks:MD)
> gives a better basis of consistency than "30 points for Execution:
Write
> down a number."
>
Well, many of the folks in RAMD who are judges or who have
judged (and have used both ticks and buildup) DO deny the
"undeniable". :-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The difference is that you want this to be an educational experience,
while
> most tick proponents want this to be taken as a serious competition.
>
Under buildup, it's both.
> So are you trying to simply provide guidance or are you actually
trying to
> create an exacting, near perfect, and constantly refined system?
>
Since I am a proponent of buildup, I'm for the creation of "an
exacting, near perfect, and constantly refined system". :-)
> Judging field music requires a very critical
> ear that can recognize the slightest deviation from perfection.
>
But knowledge of the tick system isn't the only way that you
achieve that. As ticks aren't, thanfully, part of the DC world
anymore, knowing the tick system is irrelevant. Being able to
detect problems, and how to comment on them, and how to rank
and rate the performances are the important elements to know.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ticking judges the quality of the execution, and in my opinion, much
more
> accurately than the "pick a number" system.
>
Performance, as has been stated, is MORE than execution.
>
> That's simply not true. Demand captions awarded the excellence of the
> performers' talent.
No, THAT is simply not true. Demand rewards the difficulty of the
book being attempted, and is primarily a writer's award, NOT a
performers award. If I had a dollar for every instructor who came
into a meeting complaining about how difficult his book was
versus the other guy... :-)
>The current
> system only awards "excellence" (if you want to call it that) and
doesn't do a
> good job of recording errors.
>
But 'recording errors' is the least important aspect of
performance. Who cares? Ranking and rating the groups the
perform the best incorporates the errors as well as the other
aspects of performance that buildup allows (and I don't mean
effect).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>I don't know if there's any truth to this
> claim (cheated placement: MD)), but I'm sure things like this have
> happened in the past. If there was another judge there (under either
> system), it might help to eliminate some of this type of stuff.
>
Well, your own analysis of those years on your graph shows that
for at least the DCI div I corps, that didn't happen at champs.
However, I'm all for as many judges as possible, as it provides a
better all around evaluation experience for the kids performing to
have a lot of input. It probably makes for more accurate scores
as well, stasitically speaking, to have more than a single
viewpoint on a caption. This, however, has nothing to do with
ticks versus tape.
> > But that has nothing to do with ticks versus tapes.
>
> I didn't say it did. You brought up the issue of having more judges
without
> specifying the system.
>
It seemed you were trying to use your graph to point up the
accuracy of the tick system, which is why this whole thread went
spinning where it has.
>Because it tries
> to foucs on everything at once, it doesn't take into account many of
the
> errors; it fails to calculate much of the demand; and general effect
doesn't
> get the full attention it deserves. I can't believe that you wouldn't
at
> least agree that more focused judging would be desirable.
>
Oh, I still like the idea of performance and effect judges being
separate; there are things you listen for in performance that don't
matter in GE, and vice versa. Your mindset in judging each is
very different. I just like the use of tape/build-up versus ticks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
########################################################################
###### END of quotes
James does a great job of defending his POV; I don't think I ever
implied or stated otherwise; I happen to disagree with his approach on
this topic and responded in what I thought was a respectful manner. How
you turned what I wrote into a personal attack on him is beyond me.
mike...@my-deja.com
>
> > The use of the term 'flowery words' immediately shows your
> > anti-adjudicator bias.
>
> I go away for less than two months, come back, skim through RAMD and
you're
> still errantly labeling folks using the same old unsupported "anti"
this
> and that Mike.
>
Here I go again. I went thru every response I made to Rick; they're
pasted in below. You picked out ONE quote made in reply to his OWN
derogatory post about judges and use that to weave this entire web of BS
that I'm attacking him and James?
Rick has the single '>'; I have none or two.
########################################################################
> Not true. ...snip... In a comparison, mistakes should never be
> discounted as "irrelevant", because someone somewhere will feel
> cheated, and rightfully feel that the judge was less than competent.
>
Yes, true. The mistake you make is that you equate evaluating
the performance with counting "ticks". Errors are a single
component of performance; they the ONLY component of a
tick-based sheet.
> If a scoring system was 100% based on ticks I'd agree, but I don't
think
> there's ever been
> a 100% tick system implemented in dc. By asserting the above you're
> making an erroneous
> statement.
No, 'performance' is more than counting errors, which is ALL
ticks can do, at best. Evaluating a performance involves more
than that, even at field level.
> The tick, or execution portion, is a piece of
> a larger, more complete judging equation.
No, it's an archaic, incomplete measuremment of the least
important part of a performance.
> What's that old saying about, God created man and Colt made them
> equal. Man created drum corps, ticks make them equal.
>
If a smaller corps/band has an equal performance level, than they
should receive the credit they are due. Size has no impact on
performance, except where a larger group can actually hide
people less capable. Suppose you are judging a caption that has
a demand/content caption, for example, or that at least considers
it as part of the evaluation. Two groups play EXACTLY the same
chart, one with 90 players and one with 30. Other things being
equal (e.g. visual demand on the performers), who deserves a
higher demand consideration? The 30 piece group, as the
demand on each individual performer is greater than with the 90,
where at any given spot a player can cut out without being
noticed.
When it comes to performance judging, the mere size of the
group should have no negative impact on the score. Ticks don't
make any difference here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Yes, true. The mistake you make is that you equate evaluating the
> > performance with counting "ticks". Errors are a single component of
> > performance; they the ONLY component of a tick-based sheet.
>
> No mistake made. Ticks were a caption, not the overall judgement.
In evaluating the performance, the tick was the only component
in the tick era. Demand is totally separate, as is GE.
> You say so yourself, they were a single component, but you talk as
> if ticks were the ONLY component. I never evaluated a performance
> solely on ticks, but to not have them leaves way too much
subjectivity
> in the system.
Ticks are just as subjective as buildup, only less accurate in
assessing the total performance, as only a portion of the
performance is being evaluated.
> What is wrong with having a system that has buildup
> and teardown? Nothing, if a performer wants as much critique as
> possible.
You get as much (or more) critique with buildup as with ticks,
and it's more valuable as a learning tool than ticks to boot.
> No, in the old days ticks were, as you said, one component. There's
> nothing
> wrong with one person scoring ticks, one person evaluating demand,
and a
> third comparing GE.
>
Substitute 'evaluating performance' for 'scoring ticks' and I agree,
though I prefer a field performance, ensemble performance,
and
GE type of setup, myself.
> I hope when you call it archaic you mean that it's no longer used.
> The tick system was a MORE complete system than today's judging
> because it was present on top of the other captions. Seems the
captions
> today are missing it, that makes today's scoring INCOMPLETE.
>
They've gone beyond counting ticks to a better approach where
the performance is evaluated in total, including those things
that
might not be able to show up as a tick.
> I think your example is missing way too many variables for me to make
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> I disagree. A mistake is a mistake. The fact that a human being
> can or cannot distinquish what is/isn't a mistake does not
> change that fact. It is still objective. And for the Mike Davis's in
> the world that will reply, "A mistake to you may not be a mistake
> to me", let me say this, each type of mistake can be quantified
> beforehand. That's why you should have criteria.
>
It's impossible to quantify every possible error on every potential
percussion instrument for every instance. Also, how does the
demand affect the error? Some judging systems incorporate
demand into the evaluation of the performance; it's up to the
adjudicator to determine if section X was an error, based at least
partially on the demand of that section. It IS subjective in nature,
from start to finish, as it has always been, ticks or not. Having as
well-defined a set of criteria as is feasible is a great idea; there
comes a point though, that it is up to the expertise of the judges
to decide how well each group meets the stated criteria.
>
> Not true. Subjective is allowing judges to justify their score based
> on flowery words and not on a system of measurement.
>
The use of the term 'flowery words' immediately shows your
anti-adjudicator bias. Hopefully judges are providing
performance-related words during their evalation of a show. If not,
THAT is what you fix.
########################################################################
Michael Cahill
mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
In article <3760260B...@mindspring.com>,
mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > I go away for less than two months, come back, skim through RAMD and you're
> > still errantly labeling folks using the same old unsupported "anti" this
> > and that Mike.
> >
> Nice to see you back, and still pulling out single quotes out of
>dozens to bash with.
If the quote fits, I pull it.
What I've written constitutes bashing but labeling Rick "anti-adjudicator" is what?
A friendly pat on the back?
You have an interesting dictionary.
> > I'm sorry, but when a person uses a term like
> > 'flowery' in describing comments, it DOES show a bias against that type
> > of judging, IMO.
Whoa - that's not what you said Mike. You said he was "ANTI-ADJUDICATOR" - you
didn't
qualify the TYPE of judging at all. Too late to cover up that little mess now
Herr Spin Doctor.
Your EXACT phrase:
> > The use of the term 'flowery words' immediately shows your
> > anti-adjudicator bias.
According to you, Rick is against any an all adjudicators. Overstatement?
snip of whining irrelevant commentary
Because it chronicles your chronically bad habit of labeling people "anti" this
and that
without an ounce of proof. It's all "bashing", whining, etc.
Not surprised you snipped it, you never responded to it in over 80 some posts.
But I digress.
> > BTW, the statement above is an ad homenim attack - attack the individual
> > (Rick) with an unsupported claim (he has an "anti- adjudicator bias") in
> > order to avoid debating the point (merits/drawbacks of the tick system).
Those points were debated over and over in the thread.
I know, I read all of them.
> > HE used the term 'flowery words' which crossed the line in the discussion and was an
> > attack on the individuals judging, not the system of ticks versus buildup.
Mike, you're doing it again - you sound like a kid in a playground "I didn't do
it, he did".
"Flowery words" is a description of the type of commentary used by some judges
with the
new system. I've heard it often in the last decade on tapes from both DCI
contests as well as
WGI indoor line contests. Flowery words like "Can this section be a little more
cantable, if I
can use that word", a direct quote from a well known percussion judge which you
can access
and hear on a web site. If you're interested I'll post the URL.
I NEVER heard anything like that to the current degree on either Execution
tapes, or PA tapes
before the new system arrived. And I heard a lot of tapes. And IMO that's what
Rick is
talking about. The tick system was about identifying errors and fixing them, the
new system
is about the musical performance not execution. So the "flowery words" that
people use in
describing or critiquing music are in use. Read the NY Times music reviews and
you'll
understand what I'm talking about.
The point is, Rick's comment is fair - an assessment of the commentary that the
new system
uses and produces and is in NO WAY a personal attack on any one judge or group
of them.
Your response to being called on this is your standard "I didn't do anything,
the other guy did
and I'm just defending his 'bashing' judges". So until you can differentiate,
it's all going to be
an attack, isn't it?
BTW, the OED definition of "flowery"
- b) (of literary style, manner of speech, etc.) High-flown, ornate
My guess is you're inserting some allusion to homosexuality where there is none?
Otherwise
your problem with "flowery" makes no sense at all.
How Rick can "attack" judges and have an "anti-adjudicator" bias simply because
he has
labeled some of their comments unnecessarily ornate is COMPLETELY beyond me.
> > Again, the points were debated many times in the thread. Not being
> > around, you choose to ignore that fact.
Thanks to the beauty of newsgroups, I could choose to go back through the entire
thread and
read all the responses REGARDLESS of my "being around".
Which I did. I've read them all, and saved quotes relative to the discussion.
What I saw was Rick making serious points for the tick system and defending them
quite well.
So your ad hominem attack made perfect sense. Attack the individual and label
him
anti-judges because you couldn't refute what he was saying. Pick out "flowery"
and attack it
and Rick instead of debating the points - ad hominem attack move 101.
BTW, you've added another above - instead of debating the current point (your ad
hominem
attack on Rick), you launch yet another ad hominem attack - claiming I have NO
knowledge of
the debate. Not a smart move Mike .
But I digress.
> > As far as the original point goes - remember it Mike? - interesting
> > observation I've had while reading the entire thread.
Here I SAY I've read the entire thread, but you ignore it to make your ad
hominem attack. If
you're going to do this Mike, cover your tracks.
> > James puts together a well researched, well worded opinion that the tick
> > system was more consistent and backs it up with graphs to prove it. That's
> > pretty impressive for an 18 year old. He's not talking out his ass, he's
> > taken numbers, analyzed them, and formulated a well thought out position on
> > the topic.
>
>And I, and others, responded to him. NOT as you claim with attacks, but
>with reasoned arguments.
You and Tom Peashy jumped on the ad hominem wagon almost immediately, deriding
his lack
of experience judging instead of debating his graphed out point. I have the
posts, do you want
them?
> > What happens? Tom Peashy (a judge) and Mike Davis (a former/current
> > part-time judge) tear into him like a wrestling tag team. Ignoring the data
> > and completely ignoring and dismissing the opinion James is putting forth,
> > they both gang up on him.
>
> Ignored? Not at all. You haven't read the entire thread, I see.
In the first two responses, you both write him off. Do I need to post them Mike?
> 'tear into him (James) like a wrestling tag team'? Again, not at all.
Tag team. In the first two responses you and Tom posted. Do you need to see them?
> I gave my reasons why the current approach, while not perfect, is better that
> the old days, as did Tom and others. James does a great job on his own;
> we happen to disagree on certain topics.
AND you both wrote him off for not having the same amount of experience that the
two of
you do. That's the ad hominem attack Mike.
> > With what? Ad homenim attacks questioning his lack of experience as a judge
> > instead of discussing his point. That pissed me off to be honest. Did more
> > to prove James' point than anything he could have rebutted with.
>
> How does you getting PO'd do "more to prove James' point than anything
> he could have rebutted with"?
No no no, the fact that you two leapt to discredit him via his lack of
experience showed me
he had hit a nerve, he had scored a direct hit on the U.S.S. "Build-Up" and was
now being
attacked personally for a lack of experience because the good ship was taking on water.
The fact that both of you stooped to it pissed me off.
> Was his experieince questioned? Sure. It's a valid part of the equation.
Why does he have to have judging experience to notice a move towards consistency
in the
tick system?
Explain that to me Mike.
Why does he have to be a judge with years of experience to see that the graphs
of the
numbers showed a growing consistency in the tick system night to night, judge to judge?
Write out the "equation" and show me where X = experience.
> He certainly wasn't dismissed due to a
> lack of experience, but it comes into play when discussing the issues.
That's quite simply a lie.
Read Tom's first post in the thread which in 7 points asks James what his
experience is, and
your bandwagon response right after it. Both are nothing more than two judges
saying
"We've judged, you haven't, your point is therefore not valid".
Ad hominem.
> He's entitled to his own opinion, as are others, experience or not.
No, he's only entitled to a valid opinion if he was a judge like you and Tom and
had used the
tick system. Otherwise his opinion (Backed by COLOR graphs) is meaningless.
The bottom line is this - you and Tom are as best I can tell so enamored of the
build up
system that :
a) It can't be spoken of disparagingly
b) In order to keep it in place, the tick system can have NO POSITIVE aspects,
not even
consistency proven by graphs of the numbers - i.e. hard data.
Anything to the contrary of either of these points is met with ad hominem attacks.
> He wasn't 'shut up'.
No, because he pressed on, despite his "lack of experience".
> Others, incuding me, have a different viewpoint.
The two in question are you and Tom Peashy. Not "others". Tom's basic position
was that
James shouldn't talk about it because he never used the tick system. You backed
him on the "Do you have this much experience" seven question post.
Now don't get me wrong, James was baked about some things here and there. But
there was
no reason for the ad hominem attacks - those amount to a good old boy network
protecting
the status quo.
> Whether his points are accurate or not is up to what you believe is the
> better approach.
No, whether his points are accurate have NOTHING to do with what I personally
believe.
And here is the fundamental flaw in the way you view debates.
The points are accurate based on whether they fit the reality and hard data the
two systems have
produced. This isn't about "belief" - it's about logic. You FEEL the build up
system is better
because you FELT bad that you wrote some lines off the sheet, and FEEL that it
is a better
way to judge performance.
Feeling doesn't work in determining an accurate objective judging system, as
they are the
most SUBJECTIVE reaction to a situation.
> > Instead of finding a debate with "adults" he's jumped on by these fine two
> > judges and told he's way too young to even have an opinion.
>
> Who EVER said that?
----------------------------
:: Subject :Re: Inconsistencies of the Tick System
:: Date:1999/05/20
:: Author:Tom & Karen Peashey <tpea...@rochester.rr.com>
::
:: Let me shock you with this one my young percussionists tick proponent... I
agree with
:: almost everything you just said here - especially the part about bringing in
outside judges
:: to band shows and getting big discrepancies....
::
:: Now, with that hopefully giving me a notch more credibility... let me tell
you the tick
:: system was still much worse.... The number of serious
:: mistakes was enormous...
::
:: Tom Peashey
-----------------------------
Let me tell you my YOUNG opponent, the tick system was much worse. So that
settles that.
Does that work Mike, or do you need more?
Remember you aren't the only person involved in this.
> > Well done guys - you've improved my opinion of your judicial brethren
> > tenfold with that little exercise.
> >
> > That's my "anti-adjudicator" bias Mike, which you and Tom have done nothing
> > to counter, and everything to support by essentially telling an 18 year old
> > kid to "blow off".
> >
> > Well done gentlemen.
>
>
> Thank you. Any time I can get you PO'd I consider it a good day.
Wouldn't expect anything but sarcasm from you Mike. That way you don't have to
deal with
your error.
Cheers
Michael Cahill
BTW, thanks for the wishing me well on my health. I do keep the discussion
separate from the
individual as best I can.
Michael Cahill
mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I've done some looking back at the thread; I've checked every post I
> made in response to a post by James. Below is about 75% or so of the
> things I said to him. Maybe you'll find something else I wrote that fits
> your accusation, but I didn't find anything.
Why is that not surprising.
Check the other 25% - i.e. the first four or five posts in the thread.
Cheers
Michael Cahill
Michael Cahill
Three messages before I've even replied once.
Must have hit a nerve.
I'm impressed with the breadth of your re-posts, but not with what you
chose to include.
How do you find the time at work to do this?
mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3760260B...@mindspring.com>,
> mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > The use of the term 'flowery words' immediately shows your
> > > anti-adjudicator bias.
> >
> > I go away for less than two months, come back, skim through RAMD and
> > you're still errantly labeling folks using the same old unsupported "anti"
> > this and that Mike.
>
> Here I go again. I went thru every response I made to Rick; they're
> pasted in below. You picked out ONE quote made in reply to his OWN
> derogatory post about judges and use that to weave this entire web of BS
> that I'm attacking him and James?
That one quote, combined with your first two responses to James is all I
need Mike.
Cheers
Michael Cahill
James Christian
few days.
mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > THAT I disagree with. I don't care how it IS judged or how it WAS
> > > judged in
> > > > the past. All of the the points should reflect the performers'
> > > abilities in
> > > > some form or fashion. Awarding points for how "appropriate" or
> > > "effective"
> > > > a certain passage is written is awarding the adults, not the kids.
> > >
> > > No, not completely. There is a place for the written show to receive
> > > some credit, of course.
> >
> > Why? Why give the designers or arrangers any points? They're not the
> > ones competing.
>
> Part of the musical presentation is the book being performed, be it
> percussion, brass, or choreography. It's there, and it's been given some
> weight forever, in demand (content, exposure, whatever) and effect. It's
> not the primary factor in any of the captions, but the show itself DOES
> have at least a BIT of inpact on the bottom line score the corps
> receives.
I personally don't think that the composition or design should be on the
sheets at all. Don't get me wrong, it WILL affect the performers' ability
to generate effect and put their best foot forward, but actually assigning
points to it on the sheets changes the focus from the performers to the
staff.
> > > The main thrust of GE, however, is how effective
> > > the performance of the show is, not just the fact that it's written to
>
> > > do this or that. How well the performers communicate whatever the
> > > arranger intended is what GE is primariy about.
> >
> > That's exactly what I've been saying for the past 6 months! I don't
> > understand why you've said that GE isn't what I've said. It is the
> > effect of the performance.
>
> But not the exectution of the performance (unless it's so badly played
> the effects aren't communicated, of course). You tend to mush effect and
> performance together in some of your comments.
As you just stated above, "The main thrust of GE, however, is how effective
the performance of the show is..." So why wouldn't effect & performance go
hand in hand? Every caption on the sheet SHOULD be associated with the
performance. Otherwise, the kids are no longer the ones competing.
> > > Not merely what the
> > > arranger wrote. That IS a component, but not the main one.
> >
> > Why is it a component at all?
>
> Part of what the audience sees and hears IS the book, so it should and
> is given SOME weight in determining the score.
What the audience sees it the performance of the book, not the book itself.
Again, I'm trying not to say this in misconstruable terms. The written show
WILL affect the performers' abilites to emote energy, execute well, and
present an entertaining show. When the actual drill design or the
appropriateness of the percussion score in relation to the brass is judged,
the kids are no longer the competitors.
****************
Okay, a question: You've stated that general effect is different than the
performance, that splitting the performance judging among three main
captions--Execution, Demand, and General Effect (regardless of if they're on
shared or split sheets)--doesn't cover all aspects of the performance. What
is it EXACTLY that it doesn't take into account? What other aspects are
there?
James Christian
James Christian
> > The ticks themselves don't, but the other captions do, allowing for
> > more focussed judging.
>
> But the ticks are the LEAST important aspect of performance (he said,
> ducking quickly).
Execution is the LEAST important aspect? So a group that is 100% "musical"
(just for the sake of argument), yet executes at 0%, should receive a higher
score than a group who has the captions two reversed, all other things being
equal?
> > The difference is that you want this to be an educational experience,
> while
> > most tick proponents want this to be taken as a serious competition.
>
> Under buildup, it's both.
I think it's fair to say that it can be both under either system. It just
depends on which is the more important goal.
> > So are you trying to simply provide guidance or are you actually
> trying to
> > create an exacting, near perfect, and constantly refined system?
>
> Since I am a proponent of buildup, I'm for the creation of "an exacting,
> near perfect, and constantly refined system". :-)
That's good. What about the build-up system is constantly being refined?
The system seems to have stayed stagnant for years. In the tick days, they
would add criteria for new situations that would arise each year (i.e. the
addition of keyboards, the use of various mallets/brushes, etc.)
> > If they can't recognize all of the errors in the show, then they have no
>
> > business being on the field. Judging field music requires a very
> > critical ear that can recognize the slightest deviation from
> perfection.
>
> But knowledge of the tick system isn't the only way that you achieve
> that. As ticks aren't, thanfully, part of the DC world anymore, knowing
> the tick system is irrelevant. Being able to detect problems, and how to
> comment on them, and how to rank and rate the performances are the
> important elements to know.
It's nice if they can do that (which they would hopefully be able to), but
their primary goal is to give the most accurate depiction of how the unit
performed in numerical form.
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
James Christian
mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Dennis Morris wrote:
> >
> > > James
> > > I believe that your example actually demonstrates the weakness
> of the
> > > "tick". In that situation you have left the important decision of
> ranking
> > > to a short moment in time--one mistake. Woudn't it seem much more
> > > appropriate to consider the quality of the performance which was
> actually
> > > achieved?
> >
> > Ticking judges the quality of the execution, and in my opinion, much
> more
> > accurately than the "pick a number" system.
>
> Performance, as has been stated, is MORE than execution.
I agree. Execution is merely a caption. It's not the only aspect of the
performance judged under the tick system. The execution SHOULD be accounted
for, along with the other things.
> > > When really strong units competed under the tick system the
> difference
> > > between top groups might be say --nine ticks vs. eleven. With
> eleven and
> > > one half minutes of otherwise excellent playing a group might have
> easily
> > > 1000 "exposures" Under ticks these 1000 correct efforts are
> unrewarded .
> >
> > That's simply not true. Demand captions awarded the excellence of the
> > performers' talent.
>
> No, THAT is simply not true. Demand rewards the difficulty of the book
> being attempted, and is primarily a writer's award, NOT a performers
> award. If I had a dollar for every instructor who came into a meeting
> complaining about how difficult his book was versus the other guy...
> :-)
Yes, but you have to have the players who can actually perform the parts.
Demand is a depiction of the players' skills. If it is thought of as a
writer's award, it's being approached wrong.
> > > Under the current system both error and excellence are considered.
> >
> > Actually, it seems that the current system promotes the "they can do
> no wrong"
> > philosophy. The tick system had tear down captions (execution) and
> build up
> > captions (demand & general effect). Seems fairly balanced to me. The
> > current system only awards "excellence" (if you want to call it that)
> and
> > doesn't do a good job of recording errors.
>
> But 'recording errors' is the least important aspect of performance. Who
> cares? Ranking and rating the groups the perform the best incorporates
> the errors as well as the other aspects of performance that buildup
> allows (and I don't mean effect).
Who CARES!? Hopefully any performer that has any desire to improve
his/herself. If I or my competitor were sloppy, I would want it reflected
in the score.
> > > The Tick is only
> > > an isolated component of the elements of performance excellence
> >
> > Yes, it provides for more focussed judging.
> >
>
> And ignores all the other aspects that make up the 'performance'.
What EXACTLY does it ignore? Musicality, showmanship, energy level,
sensitivity, etc. are ALL covered under general effect. I can't think of a
single thing that is ignored under the tick system.
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
Michael Cahill
James Christian wrote:
>
> mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > But the ticks are the LEAST important aspect of performance (he said,
> > ducking quickly).
>
> Execution is the LEAST important aspect?
That's the answer you're going to get from most all the proponents of
the build up system James. Execution doesn't matter - musicality (which
is an errant term to use) is essentially the only important aspect of
performance in drum corps these days.
> > Since I am a proponent of buildup, I'm for the creation of "an exacting,
> > near perfect, and constantly refined system". :-)
Too bad that system isn't Build up Mike. Read the back of the sheets,
far from "exacting, near perfect" definitions for what constitutes
musicality in specific instances.
If anyone has them lying around, please post the criteria listed for
each box on the back of the sheet. You'll find plenty of gray area.
Mike, you probably have the sheets right?
Mike Davis:
> As ticks aren't, thanfully, part of the DC world anymore, knowing
> > the tick system is irrelevant.
Here's the gist James. What happened, "thankfully" according to Mike?
(I'll leave brass and guard to someone with experience in those fields)
Both a majority of judges and instructors in the percussion caption
decided that execution should go first? Why? Many reasons, the main ones
being a newfound interest in "musicality" which was in direct
correlation to the number of music majors moving into instructional and
judicial positions in the activity.
Music degreed instruction took a steep climb during the 80's,
particularly the mid to later years. Hence the misnomer "musicality",
the concert hall variety of it, becomes king. Why? Because the new
instructors and judges coming up the ranks were trained primarily in the
concert hall. They weren't the mom and pop variety who had learned their
music in drum corps of the 50's - 70's.
The "musicality" drum corps already had was ignored. This hypocrisy in
the use of "musicality" is one of the largest I can think of and a pet
peeve of mine.
Unfortunately, in order to usher in the "new musicality" the old had to
be overthrown and done away with according to the proponents of the new.
A coup in any country is a good analogy - out with the old regime, in
with the new.
Execution, the tick, and demand go out with the bath water. Not because
they are inherently inferior to an inherently superior build up system,
but because they didn't fit the knowledge and instruction that had come
from the concert side of percussion. It's all a simple matter of one
value system largely replacing another.
According to the crowd that changed it, and many of build up's current
proponents, the tick and execution were relics of the VFW days of drum
corps. They had (have) no place in modern judging or any "true" or
"valid" understanding of music. That's why Mike and other say that
execution is the least important aspect. Not surprisingly this this has
resulted in a logical drop (in general) in both execution of books and
individual technique, along with a complete change in arranging styles
which now largely suit the concert hall ideals of percussion.
Is the new system all bad? Of course not. It has it's pluses - namely
bringing more importance to musicality. The point is that the old system
is not, and was not the nightmare it is still made out to be. Neither is
better on it's own, just different.
My personal opinion is that any system should incorporate both execution
and musicality. If anyone cares to notice, the system in the early 80's
HAD both execution and percussion analysis. If I had to place importance
of one over the other while still keeping both on the sheet, I would
side with execution based on the history of the idiom, the
instrumentation, and the nature of the performance venue.
What I see in this thread is you and others making valid points on the
values of the tick system, and then invariably opponents of the tick
system (nay, those who helped usher in the build up system) jump in and
condemn it as though it were the musical equivalent of 1950's communism.
I highly doubt you'll have any luck pointing out it's good points to
these men. They are deaf by choice - and are largely incapable of
dealing with the concept that the tick system is not inferior, just
different, and that both have positives and negatives that cancel each
other out.
The chance of seeing both accounted for on the sheets in the near future
is highly unlikely. They believe it's "too hard" to train judges to
critique in both manners - build up AND execution - and what's the
point when execution is the "least important" aspect of performance.
I would be interested in seeing how many current judges could fairly
adjudicate using an execution sheet - i.e. their skills in this area
have atrophied due to lack of use. I doubt you'd get many takers.
Just my .02 cents.
Cheers
Michael Cahill
mike...@my-deja.com
mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
> mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
In article <37616946...@mindspring.com>,
mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
> What I've written constitutes bashing but labeling Rick
"anti-adjudicator" is what?
> A friendly pat on the back?
>
> You have an interesting dictionary.
>
> > > I'm sorry, but when a person uses a term like
> > > 'flowery' in describing comments, it DOES show a bias against that
type
> > > of judging, IMO.
>
> Whoa - that's not what you said Mike. You said he was
"ANTI-ADJUDICATOR" - you
> didn't
> qualify the TYPE of judging at all. Too late to cover up that little
mess now
> Herr Spin Doctor.
>
> Your EXACT phrase:
>
> > > The use of the term 'flowery words' immediately shows your
> > > anti-adjudicator bias.
>
> According to you, Rick is against any an all adjudicators.
Overstatement?
>
Here is Rick's sentence:
"Subjective is allowing judges to justify their score based on
flowery words and not on a system of measurement."
Nowhere is he crediting in a positive way how judges judge, or any good
things about particular judges, so IMO he's demonstrating a general bias
against the system and those who participate in it.
>
> Those points were debated over and over in the thread.
>
> I know, I read all of them.
>
> > > HE used the term 'flowery words' which crossed the line in the
discussion and was an
> > > attack on the individuals judging, not the system of ticks versus
buildup.
>
> Mike, you're doing it again - you sound like a kid in a playground "I
didn't do
> it, he did".
>
> "Flowery words" is a description of the type of commentary used by
some judges
> with the
> new system. I've heard it often in the last decade on tapes from both
DCI
> contests as well as
> WGI indoor line contests. Flowery words like "Can this section be a
little more
> cantable, if I
> can use that word", a direct quote from a well known percussion judge
which you
> can access
> and hear on a web site. If you're interested I'll post the URL.
>
So? Because they use valid musical terminology is is 'flowery'? Yes,
some go way overboard with purple prose, but Rick made no distinctions;
he attacked the whole system and those in it. I don't find the quote you
posted as 'flowery' at all; it's a valid term (assuming the music WAS
trying to be cantabile, that is).
snip...
>
> The point is, Rick's comment is fair - an assessment of the commentary
that the
> new system
> uses and produces and is in NO WAY a personal attack on any one judge
or group
> of them.
>
Sure it is. You happen to agree with him, so to you it's NOT an attack.
I disagree, so I see it as an attack on those who do the judging as well
as the system. Did he say something like "Some judges go over the top in
prodviding excessively verbose tape comments"? No, he said "Subjective
is allowing judges to justify their score based on flowery words and
not on a system of measurement." Not one word that limits it in any way;
it's judges and the system in general.
>
> BTW, the OED definition of "flowery"
>
> - b) (of literary style, manner of speech, etc.) High-flown, ornate
>
> My guess is you're inserting some allusion to homosexuality where
there is none?
> Otherwise
> your problem with "flowery" makes no sense at all.
>
Say what? Where did you drag THAT guess from? When you combine "Flowery
words" with "not on a system of measurement" it demonstrates to me a
disdain for the current system and those who use it. Evan after it was
shown that the old system was JUST as subjective.
> How Rick can "attack" judges and have an "anti-adjudicator" bias
simply because
> he has
> labeled some of their comments unnecessarily ornate is COMPLETELY
beyond me.
>
He didn't label "some of their comments"; nowhere was there any limiting
factor in what he wrote.
snip....
>
> What I saw was Rick making serious points for the tick system and
defending them
> quite well.
Until he crossed the line with that comment.
...snip...
>
> Here I SAY I've read the entire thread, but you ignore it to make your
ad
> hominem attack. If
> you're going to do this Mike, cover your tracks.
>
Well, your obvious lack of knowledge about the 99.9999% of the thread
didn't make it apear to ME that you read the whole thing.
...snip...
> >
> >And I, and others, responded to him. NOT as you claim with attacks,
but
> >with reasoned arguments.
>
> You and Tom Peashy jumped on the ad hominem wagon almost immediately,
deriding
> his lack
> of experience judging instead of debating his graphed out point. I
have the
> posts, do you want
> them?
>
Sure, I'd love to see where I attacked James.
snip...
>
> > 'tear into him (James) like a wrestling tag team'? Again, not at
all.
>
> Tag team. In the first two responses you and Tom posted. Do you need
to see them?
>
Yes, I guess so, as I can't seem to find any attack-dog like posts
regarding James.
snip...
>
> No no no, the fact that you two leapt to discredit him via his lack of
> experience showed me
> he had hit a nerve, he had scored a direct hit on the U.S.S.
"Build-Up" and was
> now being
> attacked personally for a lack of experience because the good ship was
taking on water.
>
> The fact that both of you stooped to it pissed me off.
>
> > Was his experieince questioned? Sure. It's a valid part of the
equation.
>
> Why does he have to have judging experience to notice a move towards
consistency
> in the
> tick system?
>
> Explain that to me Mike.
>
His experience level comes into play in discussing which is better as he
has never participated in either. Doesn't mean he can't have a POV; I
dobn't think I ever said or intimated anything like that. Do I credit it
as much as people who have experienced both systems as performers,
instructors, and adjudicators? No, I don't, but it doesn't mean I
dismiss him out of hand. I tried to respond, I thought, to his position
with MY position. I don't see where I attacked him.
> Why does he have to be a judge with years of experience to see that
the graphs
> of the
> numbers showed a growing consistency in the tick system night to
night, judge to judge?
>
> Write out the "equation" and show me where X = experience.
>
His position in general on ticks versus buildup is what I question, not
his graph. His graph actually showed a valid reason for DCI to
eliminate one of the field judges, as the scores were so close the use
of two folks became redundant. I'd rather they assigned the judge to
another percussion caption and not eliminated the position, but that's
more $$$ than sense.
> > He certainly wasn't dismissed due to a
> > lack of experience, but it comes into play when discussing the
issues.
>
> That's quite simply a lie.
>
> Read Tom's first post in the thread which in 7 points asks James what
his
> experience is, and
> your bandwagon response right after it. Both are nothing more than two
judges
> saying
> "We've judged, you haven't, your point is therefore not valid".
>
Which post is that; I've read through them and haven't seen where I
dismiss him out of hand.
>
> > He's entitled to his own opinion, as are others, experience or not.
>
> No, he's only entitled to a valid opinion if he was a judge like you
and Tom and
> had used the
> tick system. Otherwise his opinion (Backed by COLOR graphs) is
meaningless.
>
Never said or implied that.
> The bottom line is this - you and Tom are as best I can tell so
enamored of the
> build up
> system that :
>
> a) It can't be spoken of disparagingly
Anyone can speak of it however they want; I'll feel free to respond if I
feel like it, as that is what the newsgroup IS.
> b) In order to keep it in place, the tick system can have NO POSITIVE
aspects,
> not even
> consistency proven by graphs of the numbers - i.e. hard data.
>
Again, where did I say it wasn't consistent? Actually, the consistency
became so high that it was possible to eliminate the 2nd execution
judge totally. That person became more valuable on another caption.
Unfortunately, DCI has chosen to shrink the panel more than they should,
IMO.
snip...
> > Others, incuding me, have a different viewpoint.
>
> The two in question are you and Tom Peashy. Not "others". Tom's basic
position
> was that
> James shouldn't talk about it because he never used the tick system.
You backed
> him on the "Do you have this much experience" seven question post.
>
There are more proponents of the buildup system than Tom and I here.
snip...
>
> > Whether his points are accurate or not is up to what you believe is
the
> > better approach.
>
> No, whether his points are accurate have NOTHING to do with what I
personally
> believe.
>
> And here is the fundamental flaw in the way you view debates.
>
This isn't the Harvard debate club; it's RAMD where OPINIONS are
exchanged.
snip...
Where did I attack James? And really, I don't see that as an attack on
James by Tom, though I'll leave it up to him to defend himself. James is
18; he's young. It's a fact.
snip...
> >
> >
> > Thank you. Any time I can get you PO'd I consider it a good day.
>
> Wouldn't expect anything but sarcasm from you Mike. That way you don't
have to
> deal with
> your error.
>
Didn't make one.
>
> BTW, thanks for the wishing me well on my health. I do keep the
discussion
> separate from the
> individual as best I can.
>
You're welcome.
Mike
mike...@my-deja.com
mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Three messages before I've even replied once.
>
> Must have hit a nerve.
>
Yes, invalid attacks can do that to a person. I decided to take the time
to refute your totally invalid personal attack on me.
> I'm impressed with the breadth of your re-posts, but not with what you
> chose to include.
>
Really? What I included in the third post is everything I wrote in
response to Rick. The 2nd post has most of what I wrote to James. So
what's missing?
Mike
mike...@my-deja.com
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > The ticks themselves don't, but the other captions do, allowing
for
> > > more focussed judging.
> >
said,
> > ducking quickly).
>
"musical"
> (just for the sake of argument), yet executes at 0%, should receive a
higher
> score than a group who has the captions two reversed, all other things
being
> equal?
>
that the other aspects (though not top be passed over) of the
performance.
> > > The difference is that you want this to be an educational
experience,
> > while
> > > most tick proponents want this to be taken as a serious
competition.
> >
> > Under buildup, it's both.
>
> I think it's fair to say that it can be both under either system. It
just
> depends on which is the more important goal.
>
True. I find having a tape available that comments on the plusses and
minuses of a performance a better learning tool than the old count-up-
the-ticks system.
> > > So are you trying to simply provide guidance or are you actually
> > trying to
> > > create an exacting, near perfect, and constantly refined system?
> >
> > Since I am a proponent of buildup, I'm for the creation of "an
exacting,
> > near perfect, and constantly refined system". :-)
>
> That's good. What about the build-up system is constantly being
refined?
> The system seems to have stayed stagnant for years. In the tick days,
they
> would add criteria for new situations that would arise each year (i.e.
the
> addition of keyboards, the use of various mallets/brushes, etc.)
>
I'm not a DCI judge, but aren't there Rules Congresses to modify and
refine the judging sheets and criteria? Under ticks, I don't remember
any special modifications to the sheets for timpani and mallet
additions, though there may have been some.
> > > If they can't recognize all of the errors in the show, then they
have no
> >
> > > business being on the field. Judging field music requires a very
> > > critical ear that can recognize the slightest deviation from
> > perfection.
> >
> > But knowledge of the tick system isn't the only way that you achieve
> > that. As ticks aren't, thanfully, part of the DC world anymore,
knowing
> > the tick system is irrelevant. Being able to detect problems, and
how to
> > comment on them, and how to rank and rate the performances are the
> > important elements to know.
>
> It's nice if they can do that (which they would hopefully be able to),
but
> their primary goal is to give the most accurate depiction of how the
unit
> performed in numerical form.
>
Yes, the FIRST priority of a judge is still to rank (the position) and
rate (the spread). The tape had better provide support for the
placements and numbers being assigned.
It's more accurate to rank and rate when you are assigning the numbers
on purpose, not merely adding up ticks that may or may not be a true
picture of how well the group performs. A musical performance IS more
than the execution of attacks and releases (and I don't mean GE).
mike...@my-deja.com
mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> That's the answer you're going to get from most all the proponents of
> the build up system James. Execution doesn't matter - musicality
(which
> is an errant term to use) is essentially the only important aspect of
> performance in drum corps these days.
>
How do you get to "?doesn't matter" from "Least important"? Doesn't say
"Not important"; it says "least important". Yes, the music should be
cleanly played, and commented on when it's not. But A poor attack or A
bad release are not as important in the overall scheme than the oter
aspects of performance.
> Both a majority of judges and instructors in the percussion caption
> decided that execution should go first?
Actually, the percussion folks were the LAST to go to build-up. They
didn't want to go that route, if memory serves.
Snippage of the usual MC "it was best in the 80's and the influx of
music majors has destroyed DC today" stuff ....
>
> I highly doubt you'll have any luck pointing out it's good points to
> these men. They are deaf by choice - and are largely incapable of
> dealing with the concept that the tick system is not inferior, just
> different, and that both have positives and negatives that cancel each
> other out.
>
Because those who favor build-up see it as a superior system, and not
merely 'different'.
mike...@my-deja.com
mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
> mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I've done some looking back at the thread; I've checked every post I
> > made in response to a post by James. Below is about 75% or so of the
> > things I said to him. Maybe you'll find something else I wrote that
fits
> > your accusation, but I didn't find anything.
>
>
> Check the other 25% - i.e. the first four or five posts in the thread.
>
I did, and there is nothing there that REMOTELY looks like an 'attack'
on James.
Beckham, Rick [RICH2:2L24-M:EXCH]
> Here is Rick's sentence:
>
> "Subjective is allowing judges to justify their score based on
> flowery words and not on a system of measurement."
>
> Nowhere is he crediting in a positive way how judges judge,
Nor am I bashing with negativity. Sounds like the statement
dirtied your rose-colored glasses for a brief moment. Do you
disagree with the comment? Or, did you shoot from the hip
when your knee jerked?
> or any good
> things about particular judges, so IMO he's demonstrating a general bias
> against the system and those who participate in it.
Mike, everytime you percieve a criticism you pounce. Your years
of teaching high school has given you a thin skin. Kids are not
incredibly fragile. I remember people like you who felt it necessary
to protect the corps members from criticism by denouncing any
article/review in any of the then drum corps publications (1980-81)
that projected a less than rosy view of the world. This is naive, and
I get particularly incensed by those that "knows what's best". As
a free thinking individual I want to know the elements of my performance
that doesn't strike a chord with the audience, or any other viewer.
It won't break me, it will make me fix those things that aren't
working. That was one of the reasons I marched corps; I wanted
a judge that came on the field looking for the "bugs". Believe me,
in 1981 there were a few bando judges, people who never marched corps,
judging us, and we grew to hate their tapes, because they talked as
if we had a perfect flawless show. At first we thought, "Hey, this is
great, this guy with a Ph.D in percussion really really likes us", and
then we found out he talked that way to every drumline. Never ever
identifying the problem areas, only trying to boast our self-esteem
by sweet talking us to an early diabetes death.
Michael Cahill
mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Here is Rick's sentence:
>
> "Subjective is allowing judges to justify their score based on
> flowery words and not on a system of measurement."
>
> Nowhere is he crediting in a positive way how judges judge, or any good
> things about particular judges,
Correct - he is in this post pointing out the negative side of the
subjective system. That's his whole point. Why would he point out the
positive - you and Tom have done that in spades nearly ignoring any
pitfalls the new system has.
> so IMO he's demonstrating a general bias
> against the system and those who participate in it.
So, since he didn't include, in that ONE sentence, any positive points
about the build up system he is ANTI-ADJUDICATORS? That's simply
asinine. Some of these same judges used the tick system. Rick likes the
tick system. See Mike - this is about the systems, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL
JUDGES. Again you fail to differentiate.
You simply can't bear to see or admit that this system has faults, just
as the human judges who use it do. So instead of acknowledging this
simple fact - that ANY person or system ANYWHERE in the entire WORLD has
BOTH positive and negative points, you label Rick ANTI-ADJUDICATORS.
Now you've added "those who participate in it" which includes members by
definition. You really can't go farther in overstating your point. It is
at a ridiculous level now.
What really happened is Rick dared to speak negatively about the system
in use and the commentary that system produces, and you overreacted in
the typical manner you do ANY time something remotely negative is said
about ANY judge, or the current system. I.E. you took it personally and
clouded the issue.
Snip to Actual example of Flowery words in use:
[What we missed in Mike's snip is my explanation of how he attacks
people with ad hominems, and how that's a really low rent move in a
debate. In fact, any reference to his use of these, or his bad habit of
labeling people "anti-___" have all mysteriously been snipped from his
response. Care to comment on that Mike? . . . didn't think so. Anyway .
. .]
> > Flowery words like "Can this section be a little more cantabile, if I
> > can use that word", a direct quote from a well known percussion judge
> > which you can access and hear on a web site. If you're interested
> > I'll post the URL.
> So?
So that's a "flowery word" that had no place in the analysis of a
marching percussion ensemble. Cantabile means "in a smooth SINGING
style". That doesn't apply to an indoor drumline Mike - the word should
have been LEGATO. The judge knew it, that's why he said "if I can use
that word".
> Because they use valid musical terminology is is 'flowery'?
How is it "valid musical terminology". Is it "valid" because it comes
from the concert hall? Is it "valid" because it's Italian? What makes a
term "valid"?
More importantly, how, without even hearing the context of the usage can
you automatically label it "valid"?
It was actually musical terminology applied incorrectly, thereby making
it an invalid use of the word.
> Yes, some go way overboard with purple prose,
Which was Rick's point Mike.
> but Rick made no distinctions;
Exactly. He didn't say ALL or FOUR or TEN judges do it. He simply said
the new system allows them to do so if they choose. Period. YOU errantly
assumed all.
Couldn't you have asked or told him to qualify his remark before LEAPING
to labeling him anti-adjudicators because of his supposed bias?
> he attacked the whole system and those in it.
No Mike, he said the system allows this to happen.
Here's his sentence - let's break it down:
> >"Subjective is allowing judges to justify their score based on
> > flowery words and not on a system of measurement."
Subjective [vs. something LESS subjective (ticks)] is allowing judges
[no specific individual, just judges in general] to justify their score
based on flowery words [such as "cantabile"] and not a system of
measurement [ticks].
That's a fair statement Mike. Build up allows judges to use opinions of
what words mean in a given box as a basis for a score. Ticks rely on the
opinion of what constitutes an error in execution. Of the two the former
has a great deal more gray area. Neither is OBJECTIVE, but what
constitutes a tick is LESS subjective than what constitutes "cantabile",
"legato", etc. in a given score.
In short, build up is SAFER for the judge. If questioned, it's all just
a matter of his opinion. Unlike ticks, which you can hear on the tape
and point to in critique, you can't plead "WE WERE WAYYYY CANTABILE"
while holding up the recorder, can you?
Not if you begin to understand that word.
> I don't find the quote you posted as 'flowery' at all;
Of course you don't, you'd probably use it on a tape.
> it's a valid term (assuming the music WAS trying to be cantabile, that is).
Again, validity is relative to context, and in this context it's rather
clearly an INVALID use of the word. And it proves Rick's point EXACTLY.
In this instance credit was not awarded because a judge thought a
section should be more cantabile, a term that is inappropriate in
regards to this ensemble. My guess is you and some other judges will
counter with "It WAS appropriate". According to whom? Other judges. It's
a kangaroo court. The line looses points based on an incorrect use of
musical terminology which if appealed will be turned down based on OTHER
judges opinions.
BTW, why would a judge assume that a section should be cantabile or
legato? He didn't have the score in front of him. Without it he's
working blind. Who is he to tell a composer that a given section SHOULD
be smooth?
> snip...
>
> > The point is, Rick's comment is fair - an assessment of the commentary
> > that the new system uses and produces and is in NO WAY a personal
> > attack on any one judge or group of them.
>
> Sure it is.
No Mike, it really isn't.
> You happen to agree with him, so to you it's NOT an attack.
No Mike, even if I didn't agree with him, it would still not be an
ATTACK on judges. On the system and the commentary it produces? YES. On
the judges, no.
We covered this last time. I don't assume ATTACK if someone disagrees
with me.
Unfortunately you can't separate the judges from the system so a
negative comment about the system is an "attack" on every judge involved.
> I disagree, so I see it as an attack on those who do the judging as well
> as the system.
You "see" this as an attack on the judges because you are incapable of
separating them from the system. The judges AREN'T the system, and the
system isn't the judges. You've repeatedly said this very thing - that
the system is created by the corps, NOT THE JUDGES, so why would you
lump them together now? Irrational.
> Did he say something like "Some judges go over the top in
> prodviding excessively verbose tape comments"?
That wasn't his point. His point was that they use "flowery words" like
cantabile to justify the score they give.
> No, he said "Subjective is allowing judges to justify their score based on
> flowery words and not on a system of measurement."
And we covered this already.
> Not one word that limits it in any way;
Not one word that includes all judges either.
> it's judges and the system in general.
He makes NO MENTION of how many do it - not one, not all. That is left
to you to overstate or understate or better yet, QUESTION. You didn't
ask for clarification, you condemned him as anti-judges with a bias
against them. That's asinine based on this one sentence.
> > My guess is you're inserting some allusion to homosexuality where
> > there is none? Otherwise your problem with "flowery" makes no sense at all.
>
> Say what? Where did you drag THAT guess from?
It's the only possible "affront" that could garner the condemnation you
lobbed at Rick. Nothing else makes sense.
> When you combine "Flowery
> words" with "not on a system of measurement" it demonstrates to me a
> disdain for the current system and those who use it.
Where is the word "judge" in your demonstration above? It's not there.
Why? Because Rick's comment is directed against the system, not the
judges.
> Evan after it was shown that the old system was JUST as subjective.
WHERE was it "shown" that the old system was JUST as subjective? Was
there a vote, a paper, scientific data that backed it up? Or are you
just talking about ten or so posts saying it was just as subjective?
This inquiring mind would love to know. I hope you aren't referring to
this thread as there is nothing on either side that makes that case a
sound one.
> He didn't label "some of their comments"; nowhere was there any limiting
> factor in what he wrote.
Mike, NOWHERE did he say ALL the comments were flowery. You're the one
assuming that's what he meant, but it SIMPLY ISN'T IN HIS WORDS. You
can't assume he meant all just because he didn't say one or ten.
> > What I saw was Rick making serious points for the tick system
> > and defending them quite well.
>
> Until he crossed the line with that comment.
What "line" did he cross?
> > Here I SAY I've read the entire thread, but you ignore it to make your ad
> > hominem attack. If you're going to do this Mike, cover your tracks.
>
> Well, your obvious lack of knowledge about the 99.9999% of the thread
> didn't make it apear to ME that you read the whole thing.
Where's my "obvious" lack of knowledge? I bet it's in the same spot
Rick's anti-judges bias is - i.e. nowhere as both are piss poor
concoctions on your part because you're loosing points in the
discussion. That would be why it didn't "appear" to you, it was never there.
> ...snip...
> > >And I, and others, responded to him. NOT as you claim with attacks, but
> > >with reasoned arguments.
> >
> > You and Tom Peashy jumped on the ad hominem wagon almost immediately,
> > deriding his lack of experience judging instead of debating his graphed out
> > point. I have the posts, do you want them?
>
> Sure, I'd love to see where I attacked James.
Here's where you DERIDED his research because you ignored or failed to
grasp the POINT of it [more consistency, not fewer judges or accuracy in
determining the best performing section]
=================================
Subject: Re: Inconsistencies of the Tick System
Date:1999/05/18
Author:michael davis <mda...@ets.org>
James,
Nice math, but I fail to see the relevance. Just because the judges were
getting closer and closer in scores doesn't make the system any more
accurate in determining the best performing percussion section.
Mike
=================================
And here's where you joined Tom Peashy in showing us your breadth of
experience over the "young" James, my comments in brackets [],
=================================
Subject: Re: Inconsistencies of the Tick System
Date:1999/05/20
Author:mike_dav <mike...@my-dejanews.com>
In article <efB03.13479$YU1....@newsr2.twcny.rr.com>,
"Tom & Karen Peashey" <tpea...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> 1. Have you ever judged?
I have, since 76.
[Ahh, both judges are now holding forth. Hush non-judge James]
> 2. Have you ever judged ticks?
Yes, I have.
[Bully for the both of you. So has James.]
> 3. Have you ever chased a judge out from under the stands who was changing
> his ticks after a show?
No.
[See with build up, you don't have true accountability, just your
opinion so no need to change the score, they've been slotted ahead of time]
> 4. Have you ever tried to teach someone how to tick?
No, thankfully.
[Right, because it's difficult to move around the field and develop a
tolerance for what constitutes an error. Have you guys ever tried to
teach someone how to have an opinion of what constitutes CANTABILE?]
> 5. Have you ever tried to teach someone tolerance and tolerance control?
Yes, but with buildup, not ticks.
[Ahh, the difficult part of judging using ticks. Judging from Tom's
response, it's SO HARD the tick system should rest in peace.]
> 6. Have you ever screwed up and written a corps off the sheet?
Yes, once, and it's STILL something I regret 20+ years later. It's an
awful feeling to do that to kids who are out there doing their best.
[Here's the biggest point IMO for why you guys don't like ticks. You
messed up once or possibly RIGHTLY wrote a line off the sheet and STILL
FEEL bad about TWENTY YEARS LATER? Call the kids in the lines, I'm sure
they stopped caring a week after it happened. BTW, how do you KNOW it
was there best? Maybe they really didn't give a damn and deserved a low
score. No, that's just silly, all the kids are ALWAYS doing their best,
right Mike?]
> 7. Have you ever had a corps come in and ask who was the best marching
> corps in the show and answered... you were... (LI Sunrisers) and then had
> them hand you the recap where you put them in 4th place.... why? I got
> carried away judging an early season performance by a wonderful corps who
> played a high velocity, tremendously difficult and exposed program... I
> screwed up...
>
I've done similar, in percussion.
[Accountability. Whoops, I say you're the best line, but I AGAIN made an
error and you can call me on it with ticks. With build up I can say you
were the best AT WHAT YOU DO, but the other guys were better with their
LEGATO OSTINATO section so I HAD to pop them a number.]
> I have done all of the above.... I say "TICK SYSTEM" may it rest in
> peace....
>
> Tom Peashey
>
Agree.
Mike
[There you go James. Two judges said it, now drop it. You don't have the
experience they do, so take your little graph and run along like a good
little 18 year old. They don't care that the tick system was more
CONSISTENT night to night in scoring, they're just going to obfuscate
the issues and question your experience if you try to make a point.]
=========================
-snip-
Now here's Mike on why you have to have experience as a judge on the
field to understand a graph:
> His experience level comes into play in discussing which is better as he
> has never participated in either.
His point was that the tick system was more consistent in terms of
scoring night to night, judge to judge. This was PROVEN by graphs that
compared the scores. His original point had NOTHING TO DO with which was
better overall, just which was more consistent.
> Doesn't mean he can't have a POV;
That's big of you.
> I dobn't think I ever said or intimated anything like that.
Read your first response again Mike.
> Do I credit it as much as people who have experienced both systems as
> performers, instructors, and adjudicators? No, I don't,
What does any of that have to do with reading a graph and seeing more
consistency in the numbers from the tick system?
> but it doesn't mean I dismiss him out of hand.
Here's your first response to his post - the one with the graph . . .
--------------------
> James,
>
> Nice math, but I fail to see the relevance.
---------------------
Looks like a dismissal out of hand to me.
> I tried to respond, I thought, to his position
> with MY position. I don't see where I attacked him.
You IGNORED his position, made up the garbage about getting rid of a
judge, then claimed HE was the one confusing the issue. Eventually you
claimed HE came up with the FEWER JUDGES idea, when you had. THEN you
jumped in with Tom on the experience BS to undermine James' points about
the graphs.
In short, you twisted so much you forgot where you started out. I'd post
the individual lines but:
A) It's a highly confusing dialogue, in large part because you kept twisting
B) You'd ignore it anyway because you can't be wrong, ever, about anything.
> His position in general on ticks versus buildup is what I question, not
> his graph.
That is a lie. Your response was, and I QUOTE:
"Nice math, but I fail to see the relevance".
> His graph actually showed a valid reason for DCI to
> eliminate one of the field judges, as the scores were so close the use
> of two folks became redundant.
Now AGAIN you attempt to cloud the point. James' point was always that
the tick system WAS MORE CONSISTENT FROM JUDGE TO JUDGE, NIGHT TO NIGHT.
This crap about getting rid of a judge is irrelevant to James' original
point. We can discuss this in another post. THE POINT HERE IS THAT THE
TICK SYSTEM WAS MORE CONSISTENT THAN THE BUILD UP SYSTEM.
Sorry for the caps, but you keep missing a simple point.
> > Read Tom's first post in the thread which in 7 points asks James what his
> > experience is, and your bandwagon response right after it. Both are nothin
> > more than two judges saying "We've judged, you haven't, your point is
> > therefore not valid".
>
> Which post is that;
The first Tom Peashy post, and your response to it. You said you went
through ALL your posts so why is it you can't seem to recall THIS one?
> I've read through them and haven't seen where I
> dismiss him out of hand.
That's the first one Mike. The one I've posted TWICE in this response. I
really can't continue with this point if you're just going to ignore the
posts that prove it like an ostrich with it's head in the sand. I'll
just consider that point taken by me.
-snip
An aside = I have NEVER seen you say you were wrong Mike. Not once in
over two years on this NG. You must be a nightmare to deal with in
critique if someone thinks you made a mistake.
> > The bottom line is this - you and Tom are as best I can tell so
> > enamored of the build up system that :
> >
> > a) It can't be spoken of disparagingly
>
> Anyone can speak of it however they want; I'll feel free to respond if I
> feel like it, as that is what the newsgroup IS.
Free speech isn't my point Mike. My point is that you can't handle ONE
negative comment about the current system or off you go labeling those
who say it "inexperienced" or "anti-judge". Circle up the wagons Mike,
somebody dared to say the current system has problems too, it's AN ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > b) In order to keep it in place, the tick system can have NO POSITIVE
> > aspects, not even consistency proven by graphs of the numbers -
> > i.e. hard data.
>
> Again, where did I say it wasn't consistent?
AGAIN, that would be in your FIRST response, which I've now mentioned
FIVE times. The one where you said
"Nice math, but I fail to see the relevance".
> Actually, the consistency became so high that it was possible to eliminate the
> 2nd execution judge totally. That person became more valuable on another
> caption. Unfortunately, DCI has chosen to shrink the panel more than they
> should, IMO.
Mike, you're a liar, or you have no short term memory. You never said
that until right now. You ignored the consistency point ALL ALONG:
======================================
Subject: Re: Inconsistencies of the Tick System
Date:1999/05/19
Author:mike_dav <mike...@my-dejanews.com>
In article <374227B9...@hotmail.com>,
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> michael davis wrote:
> > James,
> > Nice math, but I fail to see the relevance. Just because the judges were
> > getting closer and closer in scores doesn't make the system any more
> > accurate in determining the best
> > performing percussion section.
> > Mike
[now James RE-EXPLAINS HIS POINT about the data and graphs because Mike
ignored it or didn't get it the first time]
> The relevance is that it shows that there was a uniform standard, and
>it was getting more and more accurate and reliable.
> It was becoming growing in consistency.
[Bad english, but there's the point. The tick system was uniform and
reliable in regards to consistency of scores between nights and judges.
THAT IS HIS POINT. Now Mike ignores it and changes the subject]
Actually, what your math proved is that was no need for two judges at
all. If they were that close, then one would be sufficient.
=====================================
Now you're suddenly on the consistency bandwagon? BS! This is why I
don't like you sometimes Mike. Because you lie. You can't admit you're
wrong, or that you made a mistake so you lie about what you said or
meant even when your posts PROVE what you said and meant. You change the
subject, or you claim the other person is against you, the system, the
judges, etc. In the end it's all just a lie of one form or another. That
gets mighty old.
> There are more proponents of the buildup system than Tom and I here.
But only you and Tom felt the need to tag team James when he made a good point.
You again:
> This isn't the Harvard debate club; it's RAMD where OPINIONS are
> exchanged.
And your opinions have FUNDAMENTAL flaws in them which is why I counter
them. Doesn't have to be Harvard to be corrected, does it? Is RAMD
someplace where you can talk out your ass and it really doesn't matter
because it isn't Harvard?
> snip...
>
> Where did I attack James?
I've told you five times now.
> And really, I don't see that as an attack on James by Tom,
Well if YOU don't see it that way then obviously YOU'RE right because
YOU'RE always right and whatever way YOU see something is THE WAY it is.
Rick ATTACKED the judges . . . you didn't DERIDE James . . . Tom didn't
DERIDE James because he's young . . . all because MIKE DAVIS says so.
It must be wonderful to always be right . . . to never make an error.
> though I'll leave it up to him to defend himself. James is
> 18; he's young. It's a fact.
So 18 year olds can't read graphs?
> > Wouldn't expect anything but sarcasm from you Mike.
> > That way you don't have to deal with your error.
>
> Didn't make one.
Of course you didn't. You're Mike Davis, infallible, un-erring, never wrong.
The fact that you're a part time judge is completely frightening. The
judge who can't be wrong. Now that's a disco party.
Cheers
Michael Cahill
[nowhere near as correct in any form as the esteemed Mr. Davis. Just ask him.]
Michael Cahill
mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <37616A7B...@mindspring.com>,
> mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > I've done some looking back at the thread; I've checked every post I
> > > made in response to a post by James. Below is about 75% or so of the
> > > things I said to him. Maybe you'll find something else I wrote that fits
> > > your accusation, but I didn't find anything.
> >
> > Why is that not surprising.
> >
> > Check the other 25% - i.e. the first four or five posts in the thread.
>
> I did, and there is nothing there that REMOTELY looks like an 'attack'
> on James.
Well if Mike Davis says so, that's the way it is. He's a judge you know,
so he knows these things. Rick "attacked" ALL JUDGES EVERYWHERE, but
Mike just disagreed with James. Gosh, how could I have been so wrong. If
only I could be more like Mike.
In fact, the only time he EVER made a mistake is the one time he thought
he was wrong.
Cheers Mike
MC
Michael Cahill
mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <37616B4C...@mindspring.com>,
> mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > Three messages before I've even replied once.
> >
> > Must have hit a nerve.
> >
>
> Yes, invalid attacks can do that to a person. I decided to take the time
> to refute your totally invalid personal attack on me.
Ah, sorry. Where's the rebuttal? I saw you ignore 25% of the posts that
proved my point, like you always do, and when presented with them I
watched you decide that you weren't to blame like you always do. Anyone
who claims you've made a mistake is guilty of a "totally invalid
personal attack" on you, aren't they Mike?
Invalid attacks? Hmmmmm.
Like ad hominem attacks Mike? Like "You're too young to have a valid POV
on the tick system James"? Or "You're anti-adjudicators Rick Beckham"?
> > I'm impressed with the breadth of your re-posts, but not with what you
> > chose to include.
>
> Really? What I included in the third post is everything I wrote in
> response to Rick.
Right, that's not it.
> The 2nd post has most of what I wrote to James. So what's missing?
There it is. The "most" part Mike. Isn't it funny how you LEFT OUT the
EXACT posts I used to prove my point. NUTTY!!!!!!
Must have been a coincidence.
MC
Michael Cahill
mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
Hey everyone, hush. Mike Davis, judge extrodinare, is holding forth on
what is important in performing.
What's that?
I fail to see how it matters that he's at best a part time judge with NO
DCI experience, and only spotty work in the recent past. This is Mike
Davis we're talking about, so hush up and listen - he's right every time
and his methods are "superior" to any you can remember or think of.
Here he goes:
> No, the 'ticks', e.g. attacks and releases, are, IMO, less important
> that the other aspects (though not top be passed over) of the
> performance.
See, ticks aren't any old error like you and everyone else thought they
were. They're ONLY attacks and releases.
See . . . you thought ticks included quality of sound errors and
problems with the BODY of the phrase. Silly rabbits. Mike Davis will fix
you for sure!
> True. I find having a tape available that comments on the plusses and
> minuses of a performance a better learning tool than the old count-up-
> the-ticks system.
Especially when ticks are ONLY attack and release problems. That would
be pretty boring, wouldn't it kids?
> I'm not a DCI judge,
See, he knows he's not a DCI judge.
> but aren't there Rules Congresses to modify and
> refine the judging sheets and criteria?
Uhmmm . . . I sure did think he'd know the answer to this one - after
all, he knows EVERYTHING about judging. Must have been a trick question.
> Under ticks, I don't remember
> any special modifications to the sheets for timpani and mallet
> additions, though there may have been some.
Pfffft. Ticks were only for attacks and releases anyway. Who cares?
> Yes, the FIRST priority of a judge is still to rank (the position) and
> rate (the spread). The tape had better provide support for the
> placements and numbers being assigned.
Hmmm, now this is just me thinking and I'm no Mike Davis, but wouldn't
ranking and spread under execution be determined by the line a heck of a
lot more than it is these days? I mean essentially the judge these days
picks a number that he thinks is good instead of listening and deducting
for errors.
> It's more accurate to rank and rate when you are assigning the numbers
> on purpose, not merely adding up ticks that may or may not be a true
> picture of how well the group performs.
See, I knew I was wrong. Mike says it's more accurate when the judge
assigns the numbers on purpose instead of randomly writing down ticks
whenever you feel like it. That's what they used to do kids, just
scribble whenever they felt like it. Back then NO ONE could decide what
was an error so they just scribbled ALL the time. Good think ticks ONLY
covered attacks and releases or the scores would have been WAYYYYYYY lower.
> A musical performance IS more
> than the execution of attacks and releases (and I don't mean GE).
Man, he sure is a smart dude about judging things, aint he?
Cheers
Michael Cahill
Michael Cahill
mike...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <3761C78B...@mindspring.com>,
> mca...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > That's the answer you're going to get from most all the proponents of
> > the build up system James. Execution doesn't matter - musicality (which
> > is an errant term to use) is essentially the only important aspect of
> > performance in drum corps these days.
> >
>
> How do you get to "?doesn't matter" from "Least important"?
I just figured that's what you guys mean. You all say it so often, how
execution is really unimportant. Unimportant means it don't matter.
Least that's what my dicshunairy sez.
> Doesn't say "Not important"; it says "least important".
So wait, now it's important, but it's the least important thing?
Man, you guys confuse me with all them different words.
> Yes, the music should be cleanly played, and commented on when it's not.
Wait, now it SHOULD be cleanly played. Well that sounds like a BASIC
requirement, not the LEAST IMPORTANT thing.
> But A poor attack or A bad release are not as important in the overall scheme
> than the oter aspects of performance.
Right, I keep forgetting that ticks ONLY mean bad attacks and releases.
Thanks for reminding me Judge Davis. How come you ain't on th' DCI tour
buddy? They's missin' one smart dude in a green shirt ifn you ask me.
> > Both a majority of judges and instructors in the percussion caption
> > decided that execution should go first?
>
> Actually, the percussion folks were the LAST to go to build-up. They
> didn't want to go that route, if memory serves.
Which is why I said I'd leave brass and guard to someone else so your
point don't make no sense Big Mike. Heh! You tried to trick me there
buddy. But I ain't as dumb as I spell.
> Snippage of the usual MC "it was best in the 80's and the influx of
> music majors has destroyed DC today" stuff ....
Didn't see no "destroyed" in my last response. Jest that there wuz both
exeycution and build up on the sheets before 84. And that them music
majors didn't like exeycution so much cause they didn't learn it in no
book in college so's they changed it to make it real pretty like with
all them things they's learned in the book colleges.
But if Mike says that's all I was sayin, well he's right and I'm wrong
cause Mike Davis ain't never made a mistake or spoken out his ass or
misconstrued NOTHIN' his entire life folks.
> > I highly doubt you'll have any luck pointing out it's good points to
> > these men. They are deaf by choice - and are largely incapable of
> > dealing with the concept that the tick system is not inferior, just
> > different, and that both have positives and negatives that cancel each
> > other out.
> >
>
> Because those who favor build-up see it as a superior system, and not
> merely 'different'.
Thank you sir. You prove my point that you are all deaf and ignorant of
anything outside that which you hold "superior" which includes judging
systems and styles of music. Even though "different" can be plainly
outlined in ANY comparison on the earth. Even though you personally are
quite fond of saying "Everything is GREAT", your words here speak your
true mind.
No, no. Build up is the ONE TRUE SUPERIOR THING ON THE EARTH. I'm sure
you speak for all proponents of build up everywhere when you say this.
Perhaps you guys could form a psuedo-skinhead Build Up Alliance to tout
the superiority of your system to the rest of us who see value in the
clearly INFERIOR tick/build up system. Maybe set up camps for us to
attend to indoctrinate us in the patently better system of evaluation.
Please, have pity on us and consider it Mike. A line is a terrible thing
to waste.
> Mike
Hey Mike, since you're so smart and know everythin bout drum judging,
how come you didn't answer these questions last time. I shore would like
an answer big buddy. You was saying how you was for "exacting, near
perfect" judgin systems. Then I wrote:
> Too bad that system isn't Build up Mike. Read the back of the sheets,
> far from "exacting, near perfect" definitions for what constitutes
> musicality in specific instances.
>
> If anyone has them lying around, please post the criteria listed for
> each box on the back of the sheet. You'll find plenty of gray area.
> Mike, you probably have the sheets right?
Cheers
MC
Martin McIsaac
better as he
POV; I
dobn't think I ever said or intimated anything like that. Do I
credit it
as much as people who have experienced both systems as
performers,
I
dismiss him out of hand. I tried to respond, I thought, to his
position
with MY position. I don't see where I attacked him.
It's a damn good thing that there are NO RAMD rules stating that
frequent posters MUST attend at least one or two DRUM CORPS shows a
year.....
Marty McIsaac