2 Major Mistakes in Garfield 1987 Championship Performance
Shane Connor
anyone ever noticed a soprano player falling down? Also one tenor kept
going in one direction in spite of the fact that the rest of the
drumline changed directions? Almost the whole snare line had to
compensate for his mistake. See if you can find them. I'll give you a
hint... the soprano player was toward the bottom of the screen (front
of field) & the drumline was backfield. You won't believe your eyes!!
What a championship performance... he he he...
DRUMLAW80
1987. The DCI result I would argue about is 1988.
- Lee Rudnicki
GEORGE 82
...amen!
Stacy Williams
>
> >The DCI result I would argue about is 1988.
>
> ...amen!
Shane Connor
like that in a performance is a lot of mistakes. Let alone in a "finals"
performance. I marched 1988 Garfield & actually met the girl that fell. We
joked about it. And no, I would not have wanted that to happen to me. In the 6
years that I marched, I never fell. However, in 1988, a girl (squeeker was her
nickname) fell during a performance & 7 other soprano players had to jump over
her as we were all in a straight line back marching bells front to the
audience. Luckily, we could see what was happening so that we could
adjust... Scary!!!
Vkdm8687 wrote:
> >You won't believe your eyes!!
> >What a championship performance... he he he...
>
> Hey hey hey hey....
>
> If YOU were the soprano player (or his mother), you wouldn't want that to be
> said would you?? I mean, yes, funny...but ouch!
>
> In 1987, I think their drum line got a perfect 30 on the sheet, right? Was
> just curious as a side note question...and yes, I WILL review my tapes at
> home....never saw it...
>
> Ryan H. Turner--Man w/NOOO life whatsover!
> MARCHING BAND, D&B CORPS, WINTER GUARD FAN!!
> Former Velvet Knight DM 1986 and 1987
> Show Design Consultant/Visual Consultant
> 911/Fire Dept Communications Dispatcher...and a partridge in a pear tree!!!
Shane Connor
Vkdm8687
Stuart R Miyasato
Garfield was good that year, but IMO not good enough to deserve perfect
10s with BD still to perform. I don't know how many times I've said this,
and no one has ever replied with anything that would make me change my
mind. What I do know is this -- Tom Float's BD drumline had taken the
previous four high percussion awards. Why did the judges count them out
before they even took the field? The best the drumline could do was get
perfect 10s, even if they blew Garfield off the field.
Sorry, it's a big peeve of mine. Almost up there with those who feel the
rifle drop cost Phantom Regiment the title in 1978. (Hi Whitney! I'm
still alive!) :-)
Still got to hand it to Garfield in '87. The disappearing/reappearing
company front still amazes me!
-- Stuart
VKGARRY73
>Garfield was good that year, but IMO not good enough to deserve perfect
>10s with BD still to perform. I don't know how many times I've said this,
>and no one has ever replied with anything that would make me change my
>mind. What I do know is this -- Tom Float's BD drumline had taken the
>previous four high percussion awards. Why did the judges count them out
>before they even took the field? The best the drumline could do was get
>perfect 10s, even if they blew Garfield off the field.
>
>
I agree, Stuart. I think a "perfect score" is theoretical. Perfect? I could
find lots of errors. That's a fundamental flaw in the "subjective" scoring
system. It rewards impossible results.
VKG
"We are the people our parents warned us about"
Remove "byte-me" from address to respond by e-mail
Jason Lowe
Miyasato) wrote in RAMD.
Stuart, where have you been?! :)
Jason Lowe
DSoreff
Was Squeeker the girl who didn't make the color guard and would fill in
spots on the drill when people were sick/injured? Or was she the incredilbly
cute and short girl who came from the Bluecoats the previous year?
David Soreff
Garfield Pit 88
Stuart R Miyasato
Hey Jason! I've been in lurk mode, as usual. Don't have much time to
post these days. But there are certain topics that I'll respond to. This
is probably the biggie amongst them. :-)
Have fun marching this summer!
<lurk mode=on>,
-- Stuart
Jason Lowe
Miyasato) wrote:
>Hey Jason! I've been in lurk mode, as usual. Don't have much time to
>post these days. But there are certain topics that I'll respond to. This
>is probably the biggie amongst them. :-)
Ahh, okay. :) I still liked SCV that year though! I still enjoy your
tape too. :)
>Have fun marching this summer!
This proves you HAVE been lurking. ;-) Thanks!
><lurk mode=on>,
>-- Stuart
Jason
Americanos mello '99
Shane Connor
could just not fill. She wasn't that great of marcher, or player, but we had to
fill the hole.
Dave & Susan Ratliff
show and had to play for a while with only one mallet. Anyone else hear
this or is it another of thoses famous "corps legends"?
Dave
alle...@box-a.nih.gov
I'm sure about that story, but on a related note...
At the Montreal show in 1987, our #5 bass drummer (Mookie)
wiped-out on a pothole in the middle of the field about 1/2-way
through the show, breaking the thingamajig on the harness that
holds the drum up. He marched the rest of the show holding the
drum up with his left hand, and playing everything with the
other. It was hard to see it happening while I was marching,
but the drum staff was just incredulous that he was able to do it.
-Chuck Allerson
Garfield Cadets '87,'88
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
DCI Chump
>anyone ever noticed a soprano player falling down? Also one tenor kept
>going in one direction in spite of the fact that the rest of the
>drumline changed directions?
OK...I have watched my tapes a jillion times...please tell me WHERE in the show
these things occured.
Cheers, thanks a lot.
DCI Chump
>
>...amen!
>
I think 1988 was a win by default. Garfield was a snooze (a drum effect judge
said that to me once); BD's visual show was paced like snail-sex (use your
imagination); SCV's hornline was AWFUL (for a top-4 corps). That left Madison,
who seemed to have more consistency in their performance (although it was MUCH
better in semi's). Not being a Scouts fan, I conceded their victory anyway ---
in semi's. I think there were 2 others in teh stadium who were not surprised ;)
Cheers, thanks a lot.
DCI Chump
>10s with BD still to perform.
I agree...it was a risk...esp. since BD got a 9.9 on the field in semi's...
HOWEVER:
SCV held all 3 top drum scores in finals (prior to GAR/BD performing): GE: 9.7;
FLD: 9.7; ENS: 9.8 Now... let's only look at field drums: what if SCV had a
9.4...Garfield could have (POSSIBLY) been awarded a 9.9...BD then a 9.3. "We'd"
be arguing their 0.5 spread (12 yrs later). It's all relative...ranking AND
rating. All 3 judges had the marbles to go w/ their guts ni capping the score
before BD...but they judge ALL summer...knowing BD was NOT NEARLY at 1986
caliber. Yes, there is "pre-judging", but if the 9 (now 7) judges were
sequestered all season just to get an impartial finals score, half the time,
they just wouldn't get what these corps are doing!
Cheers, thanks a lot.
Richard
S Muncy100
>who seemed to have more consistency in their performance (although it was
>MUCH
>better in semi's).
>>
conspicuous places at finals.
Paul Muncy
Stuart R Miyasato
DCI Chump <dcic...@aol.com> wrote:
>Yes, there is "pre-judging", but if the 9 (now 7) judges were
>sequestered all season just to get an impartial finals score, half the time,
>they just wouldn't get what these corps are doing!
Yeah, I can see that. And it's for this reason ("pre-judging" in the
build-up scoring system) that I would gladly embrace the return of the
tick system in some form. But we know that's not going to happen. I'll
probably still get flamed for saying it, though. :-)
-- Stuart
Tom & Karen Peashey
system - only worse... I give up... I guess you had to be there ticking to
appreciate it... or worse... trying to teach somebody how to tick...
control tolerance... and still properly rank, rate and evaluate without
writing someone off the sheet...
Tom Peashey, retired judge
Stuart R Miyasato wrote in message <7go3ud$8...@rocinante.Stanford.EDU>...
Stuart R Miyasato
>You people will never get it... the problems were the same in the tick
>system - only worse... I give up... I guess you had to be there ticking to
>appreciate it... or worse... trying to teach somebody how to tick...
>control tolerance... and still properly rank, rate and evaluate without
>writing someone off the sheet...
See? I knew there had to be a response. :-)
Yes, I'm aware of the problems under the tick system. Jeff Mitchell has
outlined them quite nicely for us. But I dare say we have the problem in
the opposite direction under the build-up system. Where the tick system
might go too far and write a corps of the sheets, the build-up system has
too much slotting allocated to it. And it completely breaks down when a
corps has a truly outstanding or terrible show. See 1989 finals for an
example. SCV gets a 98.8? Whatever. (And I *love* SCV and that show.)
The scoring failed due to problems in slotting in the early corps that
night. And I still have yet to hear a good argument for Garfield getting
perfect 10s in 1987. The judges had a feeling? Still, what if BD whupped
Garfield's collective asses in percussion? It's a total breakdown of the
system. (And I still maintain that Garfield did not have a 0.5 point
advantage over SCV in percussion that show. That's a huge gap. I sure
haven't heard differences in execution that would justify that gap in the
score from any of the recordings I've heard.) Maybe, just maybe, the tick
system might have distinguished the differences in execution a bit better
that evening in Madison.
This discussion over the judging systems has been rehashed so many times
it's scary. We're not going to resolve any of it here. I still say one
build-up judge and one tick judge in the musical execution categories
(brass and percussion) would be great to see, but DCI can't afford it.
Such is life.
-- Stuart
DCI Chump
>conspicuous places at finals.
Hence, their 3rd place (tie) finish in percussion performance.
Remember..Garfield's drumline basically BLEW in 1984... brass and visual (and
GE!) overcame to win them the championship.
Cheers, thanks a lot.
DCI Chump
>advantage over SCV in percussion that show. That's a huge gap. I sure
>haven't heard differences in execution that would justify that gap in the
>score from any of the recordings I've heard.)
I read this thusly: A listener can be an effective judge just as well as a
judge in the drumline's face.
Cheers, thanks a lot.
Canuck
think it is. First of all it's one persons opinion. Second it's in relation to
other groups. Well I gave this group a 9.5 but this group is better so I
should give them a mmmmmmmmmmmmm 9.7 . As you can see in a way it's like
throwing darts. You know what area you want to pick from so you randomly pick
from there. This is why it's important that you find reward in what you do and
not the option of others (green shirts)
Canuck
mike...@my-dejanews.com
>
This IS RAMD after all. :-)
>
> I still say one
> build-up judge and one tick judge in the musical execution categories
> (brass and percussion) would be great to see, but DCI can't afford it.
Well, you are certrainly free to 'say' whatever you want. However, it would be
silly to go back to ticks, IMO.
And maybe DCI can't afford it, but even if they could hopefully they wouldn't
do it. Ticks are a terribly inaccurate way of deciding which group is 'best'
on whatever caption you are judging.
Mike
Stuart R Miyasato
Granted. :-) It does help that I have a copy of Nathan Beck's tape from
the SCV performance. He taped a walkman to his snare carrier and recorded
the whole show, so I've listened to that show "close up" a number of
times. It definitely wasn't what I'd call dirty...
I'm just waiting to see if Lee Rudnicki pipes in at all here, since he
marched in SCV that year and also marched Garfield the year before.
-- Stuart
Steve Sorrell
>
>Granted. :-) It does help that I have a copy of Nathan Beck's tape from
>the SCV performance. He taped a walkman to his snare carrier and recorded
>the whole show, so I've listened to that show "close up" a number of
>times. It definitely wasn't what I'd call dirty...
A walkman taped to a snare carrier? Oh well, that by far is the best vantage
point to listen to the percussion ensemble, isn't it? (sarcasm off)
Steve
Stuart R Miyasato
>In article <7gpp6r$a...@rocinante.Stanford.EDU>, miya...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stuart R Miyasato) wrote:
>>
>>Granted. :-) It does help that I have a copy of Nathan Beck's tape from
>>the SCV performance. He taped a walkman to his snare carrier and recorded
>>the whole show, so I've listened to that show "close up" a number of
>>times. It definitely wasn't what I'd call dirty...
>
>A walkman taped to a snare carrier? Oh well, that by far is the best vantage
>point to listen to the percussion ensemble, isn't it? (sarcasm off)
It's a better vantage point than listening to the DCI audio, isn't it?
:-)
-- Stuart
Stuart R Miyasato
<mike...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <7gp0kv$9...@rocinante.Stanford.EDU>,
>>
>
>This IS RAMD after all. :-)
Indeed. :-) It's also one reason I don't post here very often anymore.
It's nearly impossible to have a quality conversation here these days.
But I sometimes take a break from lurking to give it a shot anymore. I
think I've posted more in the last three days than I have in about the
past three years!
>> I still say one
>> build-up judge and one tick judge in the musical execution categories
>> (brass and percussion) would be great to see, but DCI can't afford it.
>
>Well, you are certrainly free to 'say' whatever you want. However, it would be
>silly to go back to ticks, IMO.
>
>And maybe DCI can't afford it, but even if they could hopefully they wouldn't
>do it. Ticks are a terribly inaccurate way of deciding which group is 'best'
>on whatever caption you are judging.
Yes, I know you and Jeff are big on never going back to ticks. But if we
have to stick with the build-up system, shouldn't there be some basic
rules of thumb such as "never give a perfect score in a caption while
another corps is still waiting to perform"? I still haven't heard one
good reason why anyone should be awarded a perfect score unless they are
the last corps performing. Or do you think it's right that in '87 BD was
rightfully skipped over because they were performing last, not because
they had the top score in semis, but because they were defending champs?
I will avoid the whole "demand versus execution" thread that's been beaten
to death too many times here. Be happy. :-)
-- Stuart
mike...@my-dejanews.com
miya...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stuart R Miyasato) wrote:
>
> Yes, I know you and Jeff are big on never going back to ticks. But if we
> have to stick with the build-up system, shouldn't there be some basic
> rules of thumb such as "never give a perfect score in a caption while
> another corps is still waiting to perform"?
Personally, I feel it's up to the judge to assign the score he/she feels
appropriate. Hopefully, they don't end up stacking perfect scores like cords
of wood by the fireplace by giving them out too early to performances that
don't deserve it, but that's what training is for. Could a disaster like that
happen? Sure, but I'd run the risk before creating rules for this or that
special instance. The job is to rank and rate, and if a bunch of perfects are
given out the judge is NOT doing either job. However, it may be that the next
to last, or third to last show IS the best show and deserving of the perfect
score on that particular caption; I'd like the judge to be free to assign it
at that point.
>I still haven't heard one
> good reason why anyone should be awarded a perfect score unless they are
> the last corps performing.
What if the next-to-last WAS the best? I'd hate to see order of performance
guiding scores more than quality of performance.
> I will avoid the whole "demand versus execution" thread that's been beaten
> to death too many times here.
And there was great joy in RAMD-land. :-)
> Be happy. :-)
>
Don't worry. :-)
Stuart R Miyasato
>In article <7gq0it$a...@rocinante.Stanford.EDU>,
> miya...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stuart R Miyasato) wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I know you and Jeff are big on never going back to ticks. But if we
>> have to stick with the build-up system, shouldn't there be some basic
>> rules of thumb such as "never give a perfect score in a caption while
>> another corps is still waiting to perform"?
>
>Personally, I feel it's up to the judge to assign the score he/she feels
>appropriate. Hopefully, they don't end up stacking perfect scores like cords
>of wood by the fireplace by giving them out too early to performances that
>don't deserve it, but that's what training is for. Could a disaster like that
>happen? Sure, but I'd run the risk before creating rules for this or that
>special instance. The job is to rank and rate, and if a bunch of perfects are
>given out the judge is NOT doing either job. However, it may be that the next
>to last, or third to last show IS the best show and deserving of the perfect
>score on that particular caption; I'd like the judge to be free to assign it
>at that point.
Even though the judge at that point has no clue that the next corps to go
on could have a "more perfect" show? Okay, I'll defer to the experience
of a judge. Still seems to me using a 9.9 at that point would be
preferable, and if no one gets a 10, that's okay because it's all relative
anyway.
>>I still haven't heard one
>> good reason why anyone should be awarded a perfect score unless they are
>> the last corps performing.
>
>What if the next-to-last WAS the best? I'd hate to see order of performance
>guiding scores more than quality of performance.
Then you judge on a 9.9 scale instead of a 10. What difference does it
make if #1 and #2 are 10.0 and 9.9 vs. 9.9 and 9.8? It's all relative
under a subjective scale, right? I just have a problem with writing a
corps off before they have a chance to perform. What do you tell the
staff of that corps when they see the recaps? "Corps X was much better
than you guys -- you never would have been able to beat them."
>> I will avoid the whole "demand versus execution" thread that's been beaten
>> to death too many times here.
>
>And there was great joy in RAMD-land. :-)
And I'll do my part to keep RAMD a happy place. Back to lurking for me!
:-) (Well, once this thread dies. I'm sure there will be a flame before
it does.) But thanks for keeping this discussion civil! Seems to be a
rarity these days on this group...
-- Stuart
Steve Sorrell
>Steve Sorrell <ssor...@NOSPAM.knology.net> writes:
> (Stuart R Miyasato) wrote:
>>>
>>>Granted. :-) It does help that I have a copy of Nathan Beck's tape from
>>>the SCV performance. He taped a walkman to his snare carrier and recorded
>>>the whole show, so I've listened to that show "close up" a number of
>>>times. It definitely wasn't what I'd call dirty...
>>
>>A walkman taped to a snare carrier? Oh well, that by far is the best vantage
>>point to listen to the percussion ensemble, isn't it? (sarcasm off)
>
>It's a better vantage point than listening to the DCI audio, isn't it?
Maybe by your standards. No, the DCI audio is not the best recording one
might could make of a performance, but it sure as hell is better than a tape
made on a Walkman that is taped to a snare player. How can that tape possibly
reflect the ensemble that is spread over 20 yards or so? How can those two or
three snares that are closest to the recorder not drown out the pit, basses,
or quads? Tell me how you can manipulate the physics of sound and direction
to support that. Or better yet, never mind. You'll try to have the last
word anyway. You can have it.
Steve
>:-)
>
>-- Stuart
Jeff Mitchell
Stuart R Miyasato wrote:
> Yes, I know you and Jeff are big on never going back to ticks. But if we
> have to stick with the build-up system, shouldn't there be some basic
> rules of thumb such as "never give a perfect score in a caption while
> another corps is still waiting to perform"? I still haven't heard one
> good reason why anyone should be awarded a perfect score unless they are
> the last corps performing. Or do you think it's right that in '87 BD was
> rightfully skipped over because they were performing last, not because
> they had the top score in semis, but because they were defending champs?
The controversy around 10.0's began in 1975 when the 3 GE judges handed out 8 of
them at Finals in Philly. Madison and SCV both had 3 each, 27th 2. Now if the
Muchacho had been there, if would have been more. It was decreed that only the last
competing corps could receive a maximum score, although this was not a rule, just a
guideline. All went along smoothly until 1987 when the Cadets received 3 10's in
percussion with the Blue Devils waiting to perform. The controversy was alive once
again..
I haven't followed this thread, but I think you've all missed the point. The Cadets
edged SCV by .1, so the issue wasn't Blue Devils denied an opportunity to win
drums. Had the guidelines from 1976 been followed and 9.9's awarded, SCV won have
been 1987 DCI champions by two tenths. BTW, BD had a 19.0 in percussion and 9.2 in
Perc. Effect for FYI. If only one judge had went 9.9, SCV would have been
co-champion.
In all my years of judging, only once has some received the maximum score from my
stingy pen. That was 1993 Star in GE Brass.
> I will avoid the whole "demand versus execution" thread that's been beaten
> to death too many times here. Be happy. :-)
>
Shhh....
--
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
S Muncy100
>Remember..Garfield's drumline basically BLEW in 1984... brass and visual (and
>GE!) overcame to win them the championship.
>>
placements were for that year?
Paul Muncy
mike...@my-dejanews.com
> >guiding scores more than quality of performance.
>
> Then you judge on a 9.9 scale instead of a 10. What difference does it
> make if #1 and #2 are 10.0 and 9.9 vs. 9.9 and 9.8? It's all relative
> under a subjective scale, right? I just have a problem with writing a
> corps off before they have a chance to perform. What do you tell the
> staff of that corps when they see the recaps? "Corps X was much better
> than you guys -- you never would have been able to beat them."
>
A judge would have to think long and hard before giving someone a 10, that's
for sure. Your point is well taken in that if you give out two of them, how
do you know which 10 was better? It's my own opinion, though, that it's
better left up to the judges to assign numbers, and not write 'rules' about
this or that. Let the judge justify the result, or admit to the mistake, or
whatever... That's what accountability is all about. I understand your point,
and I would think that in most cases, judges aren't going to throw 10's
around for just that very reason.
> And I'll do my part to keep RAMD a happy place. Back to lurking for me!
> :-) (Well, once this thread dies. I'm sure there will be a flame before
> it does.) But thanks for keeping this discussion civil! Seems to be a
> rarity these days on this group...
>
You are welcome. :-)
Keep up posting; it's good to see more civil people here.
DCI Chump
>from my
>stingy pen. That was 1993 Star in GE Brass.
>
>
...and that wasn't even in Finals!!!!
Cheers, thanks a lot.
DCI Chump
>placements were for that year?
>
>Paul Muncy
As was I!!!! It was a 15 point performance # in 88-89:
BD: 14.5; Cavies/Madison: 14.6; SCV: 14.8; Garfield: 14.9 (SCV won High
Percussion, as the GE score was added to arrive at the caption awards then)
Notice the performance order of drums in the top 5:
14.5, 14.8, 14.6, 14.6, 14.9
Cheers, thanks a lot.
DCI Chump
>percussion with the Blue Devils waiting to perform. The controversy was alive
>once
>again..
Where was the controversy in 1986 when BD received a 10 in Brass Ensemble in
Finals (Garfield had yet to perform)?
Same difference, if ya ask me;)
btw...Garfield received a 10 in Field Percussion the week earlier...in Still
water or Sioux City or someplace... Spirit came in 2nd with a 9.1... a 0.9
spread!!!!!! It was obvious that the line was pretty damned good that year...
AND I have 99% of the recaps from 1987, and I cannot find a SINGLE instance
where Garfield did not win or tie High Percussion (Field + Ensemble).
All I know is that the bass line sounded like tenors. Zowie!
Cheers, thanks a lot.
Charliebsn
front(1st one before it dissentergrated) towards the end of the show.The
mellowphones and Bari's had running 16'ths which led into the big hit (simple
gifts)theme.There were 4 or 5 small straight lines that rotated in complete
circles a few times at a high rate of speed and one of our sops simply got
stepped on and fell.
So start with company front and rewind slowly from there.Then again I could
be totally wrong 12 years is a long time ago.
Happy searching.
Charlie Bailey
Garfield Cadets
83-85-86-87
Rochester Philharmonic
Stuart R Miyasato
>In article <7gq03b$a...@rocinante.Stanford.EDU>, miya...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stuart R Miyasato) wrote:
>>Steve Sorrell <ssor...@NOSPAM.knology.net> writes:
>>>
>>>A walkman taped to a snare carrier? Oh well, that by far is the best vantage
>>>point to listen to the percussion ensemble, isn't it? (sarcasm off)
>>
>>It's a better vantage point than listening to the DCI audio, isn't it?
>
>Maybe by your standards. No, the DCI audio is not the best recording one
>might could make of a performance, but it sure as hell is better than a
>tape made on a Walkman that is taped to a snare player.
Have you heard this tape? You can most definitely hear nuances that you
can't possibly hear on the DCI recordings. The triplet sixteenth flam
accents during "Lullaby" for example -- you can't hear *any* of that on
the DCI recording.
>How can that tape possibly reflect the ensemble that is spread over 20
>yards or so? How can those two or three snares that are closest to the
>recorder not drown out the pit, basses, or quads?
You obviously haven't heard the tape. True, the snares will be the focus
on the recording. But you can definitely hear the other sections, and
there are obviously points in the show where the snares are not playing.
And be realistic here -- how many judges concentrate on what the bass line
and cymbals are playing? They tend to concentrate on the snares, followed
by the tenors and pit, at least in my experience. Field percussion judges
won't be able to concentrate on the entire ensemble at once either.
>Tell me how you can manipulate the physics of sound and direction to
>support that. Or better yet, never mind. You'll try to have the last
>word anyway. You can have it.
I'm surprised -- you're being mighty presumptuous here Steve. Especially
considering how little I post here, I don't think you can possibly have an
informed view of my posting style. What makes you think I'll want the
last word? (Despite the fact that I'm following up here.) :-)
I will say this -- I've followed what you have said since you first
started posting on this newsgroup. (I've been following this group a
*lot* longer than you have.) I had a lot of respect for the Spirit corps
from the early '80s and I thought you have had a lot of important and
informative contributions to this group. But it surprises me that you're
being rather disrespectful. No need to be so defensive -- it's just a
discussion about drumming. It's not life or death...
No wonder I don't post here very often anymore... (I predicted flames,
right? I'll further predict it isn't over yet either.)
-- Stuart
Stuart R Miyasato
>
>A judge would have to think long and hard before giving someone a 10, that's
>for sure. Your point is well taken in that if you give out two of them, how
>do you know which 10 was better? It's my own opinion, though, that it's
>better left up to the judges to assign numbers, and not write 'rules' about
>this or that. Let the judge justify the result, or admit to the mistake, or
>whatever... That's what accountability is all about. I understand your point,
>and I would think that in most cases, judges aren't going to throw 10's
>around for just that very reason.
I fully accept this reasoning. I can't say I know of another occasion
where it's happened aside from 1987 finals, so that's good. As long as a
judge is willing to be accountable for such a situation, I'll accept that.
>Keep up posting; it's good to see more civil people here.
Heh. We'll see. :-) It's mostly a time issue (or lack thereof) for me,
but I also have been around long enough to know that no matter what I
post, it has a good chance of generating flames, regardless of topic. So
I mostly lurk. And I'll probably resume that role soon.
-- Stuart
Sam & Sandra Signorelli
> GE!) overcame to win them the championship.
Yeah, and don't I wish they'd blown it juuuuust a little more...2/10th
would have done it for me...I was in BD that year!
Then again, had we still been on the tick system, I think we would've
won, because, frankly, Cadets just couldn;t stay in phase while
marching.
Great horn line, though
Sam Signorelli
S Muncy100
>and cymbals are playing?
>>
overlooked the other two in B corps this past year commenting more on the
cymbal sound quality and whatnot. Good tapes that man had.
Paul Muncy
Stuart R Miyasato
That's excellent! I hope other judges follow this lead! (I'm a bass
player myself.) :-)
-- Stuart
DCI Chump
>won, because, frankly, Cadets just couldn;t stay in phase while
>marching.
For what they were asked to perform, it was still pretty fancy footwork. BD was
only 0.1 ahead in field visual (9.7 to 9.6). In 1984 (as long as 10's are
discussed...), SCV placed 4th in semi's.. in Finals, they received two 9.9's:
in Field Visual and Field Brass. With 3 more to go (w/ hot hornlines), that's
even LESS justifiable than giving corps 11 a 'perfect' number.
Cheers, thanks a lot.
Steve Sorrell
>>Tell me how you can manipulate the physics of sound and direction to
>>support that. Or better yet, never mind. You'll try to have the last
>>word anyway. You can have it.
>
>I'm surprised -- you're being mighty presumptuous here Steve.
Presumptuous? I've been in RAMD for 3 years and you think I am making
presumptions about you?
> Especially
>considering how little I post here, I don't think you can possibly have an
>informed view of my posting style. What makes you think I'll want the
>last word? (Despite the fact that I'm following up here.) :-)
I've gone a round with you before, Stuart. Who hasn't? And why wouldn't I
have an informed view of your posting style? I have just as much of an
opinion as any one else in the group. Your posts might not number as many as
mine or many others, but the sheer size of your posts exceed them greatly.
I've read enough, and skimmed over enough, to know your style.
>
>I will say this -- I've followed what you have said since you first
>started posting on this newsgroup. (I've been following this group a
>*lot* longer than you have.)
So? You've been here longer. Big deal. That doesn't change anything.
> I had a lot of respect for the Spirit corps
>from the early '80s and I thought you have had a lot of important and
>informative contributions to this group. But it surprises me that you're
>being rather disrespectful. No need to be so defensive -- it's just a
>discussion about drumming. It's not life or death...
This is rather ironic coming from one that is usually pretty disrespectful and
defensive in his posts and responses.
>
>No wonder I don't post here very often anymore... (I predicted flames,
>right? I'll further predict it isn't over yet either.)
Wow. You should be on the psychic friends network, Stu. Good guess.
Steve
predicting that my participation in this discussion is over.
>
>-- Stuart
Stuart R Miyasato
>In article <7gtq8b$3...@rocinante.Stanford.EDU>, miya...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stuart R Miyasato) wrote:
>
>>>Tell me how you can manipulate the physics of sound and direction to
>>>support that. Or better yet, never mind. You'll try to have the last
>>>word anyway. You can have it.
>>
>>I'm surprised -- you're being mighty presumptuous here Steve.
>
>Presumptuous? I've been in RAMD for 3 years and you think I am making
>presumptions about you?
Yes, most definitely. Because I think that you're mistaking me for
someone else...
>> Especially
>>considering how little I post here, I don't think you can possibly have an
>>informed view of my posting style. What makes you think I'll want the
>>last word? (Despite the fact that I'm following up here.) :-)
>
>I've gone a round with you before, Stuart. Who hasn't?
Excuse me? I don't believe I've ever spoken to you before this thread.
When have we ever discussed anything? You sure you're not mixing me up
with Stuart Press or, heaven forbid, Stuart Rice?
I can guarantee you that if you were to ask people on this group, there
will be a *lot* more who will say we've had nothing but productive
discussions here.
>And why wouldn't I have an informed view of your posting style? I have
>just as much of an opinion as any one else in the group. Your posts
>might not number as many as mine or many others, but the sheer size of
>your posts exceed them greatly. I've read enough, and skimmed over
>enough, to know your style.
Obviously not, since I don't think you know who I am, judging from your
statement of "going a round with" me. I can't ever recall having an
adversarial conversation on this group -- it's not my style. This group
doesn't need any more flames.
>>I will say this -- I've followed what you have said since you first
>>started posting on this newsgroup. (I've been following this group a
>>*lot* longer than you have.)
>
>So? You've been here longer. Big deal. That doesn't change anything.
Sure it does -- I know your style. You can come across as a bit rough
sometimes, but your knowledge and experience more than makes up for it.
Your personality shows through. Based on postings, I think I have a much
better idea of who you are than vice versa. And I still think we're
dealing with mistaken identity here.
>This is rather ironic coming from one that is usually pretty
>disrespectful and defensive in his posts and responses.
Examples please? Like I said, I think you'll find that many others will
disagree...
>>No wonder I don't post here very often anymore... (I predicted flames,
>>right? I'll further predict it isn't over yet either.)
>
>Wow. You should be on the psychic friends network, Stu. Good guess.
I used to manage Stanford's news administrators. I know what USENET is
like. :-)
>predicting that my participation in this discussion is over.
I don't, because I'd like answers to the questions above. Are you sure
you're thinking of the right person? And if so, please tell me when we've
spoken before, because I sure don't remember it.
-- Stuart Miyasato (miya...@leland.stanford.edu)
Is this name that one you're thinking of?
Stuart R Miyasato
Stuart R Miyasato <miya...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>I used to manage Stanford's news administrators. I know what USENET is
>like. :-)
The intent is the same, but that should be news *servers*. I don't manage
people, thankfully. :-) The phrase news administrators just flies off
the fingers since I used to be one... Just wanted to clarify!
-- Stuart
HFMoon
has always bugged me about the subjective scoring system is the simple fact
that if a corps goes on early in the evening, their score will often be "lower"
than it would have been had they performed latter in the night. leaving room
for subsequent corps always seemed to me to be short-changing the early corps,
in the cases of nearly equivalent performances.
So here's my thought: Why does the subjective system have to have an absolute
top barrier? That is, since the subjective system does not judge
perfection/mistakes, what meaning does that top-end "perfection" barrier have?
If the Guam Pomerianians Drum and Bugle Corps had gone to DCI in '87 and had a
drumline that was, in every way one could concieve, better than Garfields,
would that mean that Garfield didn't deserve a 10? Would that mean that
Garfield's "perfect" drumline wasn't *as* "perfect" as Guam's? What if the
Cavaliers had a sudden, universal mutagenic accident on their drum bus,
resulting in a drumline that could best both Garfield's and Guam's, would that
make them even more "perfect"?
Of course, I don't have a coherent solution to the quandry, but complaining
feels good.
Richard, Euph
<*>
Don't sweat the petty things--and don't pet the sweaty things
Steve Sorrell
>Steve Sorrell <ssor...@NOSPAM.knology.net> writes:
>>In article <7gtq8b$3...@rocinante.Stanford.EDU>, miya...@leland.Stanford.EDU
> (Stuart R Miyasato) wrote:
>>
>Yes, most definitely. Because I think that you're mistaking me for
>someone else...
>
mistaken with Stuart Rice (in which case maybe you can understand the tone
that I displayed). That is completely my fault and I should be banned from
RAMD for such mistaken identity. You have my deepest and most sincere
apologies.
I have no excuse for such a mistake, except that I jumped the gun and was
being a total asshole. Please accept my apologies.
To all of RAMD, I promise not to make such a mistake again!
Steve
Jeff Mitchell
DCI Chump wrote:
> >All went along smoothly until 1987 when the Cadets received 3 10's in
> >percussion with the Blue Devils waiting to perform. The controversy was alive
> >once
> >again..
>
> Where was the controversy in 1986 when BD received a 10 in Brass Ensemble in
> Finals (Garfield had yet to perform)?
> Same difference, if ya ask me;)
To really discuss this fully, there needs to be some clarification. First of all,
judges don't award 10's and 9.9's. We evaluate subcaptions. So BD getting a 10 in
Ensemble Brass means this:
TQ&I 4.0
Musicianship 3.0
Balance & Timing 3.0
Total 10.0
In the Brass judging 1982-1993, scoring any mark of 9.8 or better meant a
maxed-out score in a subcaption. My 9.9 to BD in Brass Ensemble for semi-finals
was actually a 3.9, 3.0, and 3.0. Thus on Saturday they got maxed in all 3 boxes,
instead of 2. So it is permissible to max out a subcaption at any time and happens
with great frequency. This has been a long held practice in judging.
When all the sub-captions are maxed, it means that corps is, at least, tied for
first on that sheet. So, if this is given prior to the last corps, no one can beat
them. The two examples noted, 1986 DB brass and 1987 Garfield percussion, were
both given prior to the last year's champion performing. They chose the option,
which was eliminated for 1988, I believe. Neither 86 Garfield Brass or 87 BD
percussion scored anywhere close to 10.0 and the judges were aware of their
capability and felt comfortable doing so.
Now before anyone flames me on "pre-judging", let me make two points;
1) A maximum score is allowed, according to the clinics of that era when, "the
judge hears or sees a performance that is the best one has ever witnessed or could
imagine." One could make the case for 1986 BD fitting that criteria, given the
caliber of their brass line. They greatly exceeded what was done by themselves,
Garfield, and SCV in 1985. I was tempted to go 10.0 on Ensemble Brass in semi's,
but they had a few problems with pitch. They still receive accolades as one of the
all-time great corps. They were smoking in Madison.
One could make the same argument for 1987 Garfield percussion.
2) Judges in the mid-1980's saw each corps several times and worked 20-25
contests. In 1985, I was on the field with the Cadets 5 times in a 7 day stretch.
I had my own drill. Watch me in Candide going from the Bari's near the end zone to
the upper voice feature 60 yards downfield on the finals tape. Today a Brass judge
probably won't get 5 exposures to anyone in the same caption. One could say with
reasonable certainty after hearing the Blue Devils in 1986 Finals, that the 1986
Garfield Cadets brass ensemble would not equal that on their best night. While
this is a risk, it's one every judge takes.
I remember Pepe stating that if only the last corps could receive a 10.0, then the
first corps in Finals should not receive more than an 8.9 as you needed to leave
room for 11 corps to top the score. He proceded to state that each position should
than have a maximum score as he poked fun at the people who favored holding back
scores. If you hear or see a 10.0, give it out. You may never hear another.
> btw...Garfield received a 10 in Field Percussion the week earlier...in Still
> water or Sioux City or someplace... Spirit came in 2nd with a 9.1... a 0.9
> spread!!!!!! It was obvious that the line was pretty damned good that year...
> AND I have 99% of the recaps from 1987, and I cannot find a SINGLE instance
> where Garfield did not win or tie High Percussion (Field + Ensemble).
> All I know is that the bass line sounded like tenors. Zowie!
> Cheers, thanks a lot.
The 10.0 to BD was not controversial as it had no impact on the results. BD won by
well over a point. The 3 10.0s in 1987 allowed Garfield to edge SCV by .1. Now
that's the substance of controversy.
--
Jeff , old judge 1975-1999, DCI-AD Brass Caption Head
Stuart R Miyasato
Steve Sorrell <ssor...@NOSPAM.knology.net> wrote:
>
>Oh my God, am I completely ashamed of my response to you. Yes, I did
>have you mistaken with Stuart Rice (in which case maybe you can
>understand the tone that I displayed). That is completely my fault and I
>should be banned from RAMD for such mistaken identity. You have my
>deepest and most sincere apologies.
Apology accepted. I've written to Steve in private mail. I'm actually
somewhat amused -- I've never been compared to Stuart Rice before. :-)
-- Stuart "not Rice" Miyasato :-)
John J. Fitzgerald
BD won by
> well over a point. The 3 10.0s in 1987 allowed Garfield to edge SCV by
> that's the substance of controversy.
>
> --
> Jeff , old judge 1975-1999, DCI-AD Brass Caption Head
I think it is kind of a sweet irony that the three 10.0s to Garfield's
percussion section offset SCV's 0.6 edge in GE Visual. I've always felt
that the '87 Garfield drill was the best, or at least one of the best, of
all time. The dissolving and reappearing company front near the end of the
show when the corps is paying "Simple Gifts" is, I believe, the best move
of all time. SCV's drill, in comparison was, IMHO, pretty pedestrian,
dressed by costuming and magic tricks. Several years later I heard that
the judge who gave out those indefensible numbers commented, on Garfield's
show, "I've seen people march backwards before." Don't know whether this
is an accurate quote or apocryphal. I'm not a knowledgable percussionist,
but that line and show by '87 Garfield was stupendous. No one can write a
percussion show like Thom Hannum, and I think that was his best--so far.
John Fitzgerald
Shane Connor
the way on the right started off all the way on the left? The whole line just
reversed & reappeared 8 steps forward as if it had just marched forward 8
steps...
Bit o' trivia for you... :)
Shane
DCI Chump
>won by
>Now
>that's the substance of controversy.
The BIGGER subject of 1987 was Dan Smith's GE Visual scoring. Um...was he
sequestered in Whitewater...mailing in his numbers???? C'mon... Cavaliers:
14.1; SCV: 14.6; Garfield: 14.0??????? Cadets had a 14.9 in semi's. Different
night, different judge, yes. HOWEVER: explain to me why that was his LAST major
DCI show. Had Garfield received 9.9's in drums, it would have been SCV's
win...and we'd be talking about Smith's GE numbers. I was told (by another
judge) that he was "judging the music" (whatever the hell THAT meant). Seems as
though he was a bit misguided. That number is --- to me --- the single most
BLATANT error i have seen from a judge. Yes..I call it an error. Jeff? Please
comment;)
Cheers, thanks a lot.
DCI Chump
>has always bugged me about the subjective scoring system is the simple fact
>that if a corps goes on early in the evening, their score will often be
>"lower"
>than it would have been had they performed latter in the night.
I understand...this is why they go in reverse scoring order. Remember 1988? Top
5 went last...in random order (from semi's, the order was: 2, 3, 4, 1, 5). In
1984, 27th Lancers went on 2nd in finals (11th place). Apparantly, the
percussion was amazing, as they received a 9.8 on the field...and a 9.9
upstairs!!! BD swept w/ 9.9's (GE not counted)...Garfield got a 10 in Perc
Ensemble in semi's...my guess is the drum judge didn't want "Indecision" w/ 2
10's. Turned out, Garfield got a 9.7...another "what if..." which could have
resulted in a tie.
Cheers, thanks a lot.
xnprusopr...@gmail.com
> In article <372BB751...@earthlink.net>,
> Shane Connor <cars...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Yes they did get a perfect. They had an awesome line!!
>
> Garfield was good that year, but IMO not good enough to deserve perfect
> 10s with BD still to perform. I don't know how many times I've said this,
> and no one has ever replied with anything that would make me change my
> mind. What I do know is this -- Tom Float's BD drumline had taken the
> previous four high percussion awards. Why did the judges count them out
> before they even took the field? The best the drumline could do was get
> perfect 10s, even if they blew Garfield off the field.
When you go pretty much undefeated the whole season in drums, chances are that won't change unless we went out on drugs. There was no way we were going to play a bad show, not that line and not that year. It wasn't about "PERFECT" rather, it was about Garfield's line .........without saying all that. Drum lines today, move and play because of that line and we were rewarded for having stretched ourselves, thus stretching the activity in marching percussion. Do ensembles today even know what the 50 was to a drumline back when? We did that. We maxed out the boxes on the sheets. Remember, it was no longer about tics (tear down) but achievement (build up). But trust me, we played a near flawless show.
Michael Jones,
Garfield Tenor
1983, 1984, 1985,
1986, 1987, 1988
>
> Sorry, it's a big peeve of mine. Almost up there with those who feel the
> rifle drop cost Phantom Regiment the title in 1978. (Hi Whitney! I'm
> still alive!) :-)
>
> Still got to hand it to Garfield in '87. The disappearing/reappearing
> company front still amazes me!
>
> -- Stuart
xnprusopr...@gmail.com
> Tom & Karen Peashey <tpea...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >You people will never get it... the problems were the same in the tick
> >system - only worse... I give up... I guess you had to be there ticking to
> >appreciate it... or worse... trying to teach somebody how to tick...
> >control tolerance... and still properly rank, rate and evaluate without
> >writing someone off the sheet...
>
> See? I knew there had to be a response. :-)
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the problems under the tick system. Jeff Mitchell has
> outlined them quite nicely for us. But I dare say we have the problem in
> the opposite direction under the build-up system. Where the tick system
> might go too far and write a corps of the sheets, the build-up system has
> too much slotting allocated to it. And it completely breaks down when a
> corps has a truly outstanding or terrible show. See 1989 finals for an
> example. SCV gets a 98.8? Whatever. (And I *love* SCV and that show.)
> The scoring failed due to problems in slotting in the early corps that
> night. And I still have yet to hear a good argument for Garfield getting
> perfect 10s in 1987. The judges had a feeling? Still, what if BD whupped
> Garfield's collective asses in percussion? It's a total breakdown of the
> system. (And I still maintain that Garfield did not have a 0.5 point
> advantage over SCV in percussion that show. That's a huge gap. I sure
> haven't heard differences in execution that would justify that gap in the
> score from any of the recordings I've heard.) Maybe, just maybe, the tick
> system might have distinguished the differences in execution a bit better
> that evening in Madison.
>
> This discussion over the judging systems has been rehashed so many times
> it's scary. We're not going to resolve any of it here. I still say one
> build-up judge and one tick judge in the musical execution categories
> (brass and percussion) would be great to see, but DCI can't afford it.
> Such is life.
>
> -- Stuart
Stuart, that wasn't happening that year, BD beating us in drums at any point of that season, nor the end, nobody. Well, maybe the Cavies but we would've had to be drunk out there for that. It wasn't happening that night. That "Garfield" thing was turned up full blast. We performed as dedication to Don Angelica that eve. I still watch that performance in amazement. The corps....please. just watch it. watch the sensitivity & expression. watch the colors. watch the aggression , athleticism...... watch that 3rd number featuring the percussion....... Watch to the end......................Now watch someone else......... SEE
xnprusopr...@gmail.com
>
> >Garfield was good that year, but IMO not good enough to deserve perfect
> >10s with BD still to perform. I don't know how many times I've said this,
> >and no one has ever replied with anything that would make me change my
> >mind. What I do know is this -- Tom Float's BD drumline had taken the
> >previous four high percussion awards. Why did the judges count them out
> >before they even took the field? The best the drumline could do was get
> >perfect 10s, even if they blew Garfield off the field.
> >
> >
>
> find lots of errors. That's a fundamental flaw in the "subjective" scoring
> system. It rewards impossible results.
>
> VKG
>
> "We are the people our parents warned us about"
>
> Remove "byte-me" from address to respond by e-mail
LOL, We never said "Perfect", Ya'll did....... We said 10+10+10=30.
Only God is perfect.
xnprusopr...@gmail.com
> >Hence, their 3rd place (tie) finish in percussion performance.
> >GE!) overcame to win them the championship.
> >>
> placements were for that year?
>
> Paul Muncy
xnprusopr...@gmail.com
> > Remember..Garfield's drumline basically BLEW in 1984... brass and visual (and
> > GE!) overcame to win them the championship.
>
> would have done it for me...I was in BD that year!
>
> marching.
>
>
> Sam Signorelli
xnprusopr...@gmail.com
> I've got a thought on the whole "perfect score/10" discussion. On thing that
> that if a corps goes on early in the evening, their score will often be "lower"
> for subsequent corps always seemed to me to be short-changing the early corps,
> in the cases of nearly equivalent performances.
>
> So here's my thought: Why does the subjective system have to have an absolute
> top barrier? That is, since the subjective system does not judge
> perfection/mistakes, what meaning does that top-end "perfection" barrier have?
> If the Guam Pomerianians Drum and Bugle Corps had gone to DCI in '87 and had a
> drumline that was, in every way one could concieve, better than Garfields,
> would that mean that Garfield didn't deserve a 10? Would that mean that
> Garfield's "perfect" drumline wasn't *as* "perfect" as Guam's? What if the
> Cavaliers had a sudden, universal mutagenic accident on their drum bus,
> resulting in a drumline that could best both Garfield's and Guam's, would that
> make them even more "perfect"?
>
> Of course, I don't have a coherent solution to the quandry, but complaining
> feels good.
> Richard, Euph
> <*>
>
> Don't sweat the petty things--and don't pet the sweaty things
The requirements to perform their show clean vs ours was light years apart.... so,let's say we were not that stupid word ya'll keep throwing around........but played as well as they did.... totally even, we still win because of what it takes for us to achieve and maintain that level of playing. Ya'll should really stop using that word perfect. All we said, is we won, which we did. Blame it on that "Garfield" thing. We weren't trying to please anybody.