From: dci@cs.washington.edu (Donald Chinn)
Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps
Subject: Re: Money, etc. + sermon
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:15:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Jul27.183414.1@vax1.umkc.edu> eputnam@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.185233.7365@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, dci@cs.washington.edu (Donald Chinn) writes:> 
>
>> Star and money: I have to add my voice to the group of people
>> who say that money is not everything.  Talent, organization,
>> management, and teaching are the keys to success in drum corps.
>> Money is just one aspect in all four of these areas.  Clearly
>> all other things being equal, it is better to have more money
>> than not, and presumably corps with less money have to work
>> harder to achieve the same placement.  But (as was said by
>> someone else) the judges are supposed to judge what is on the
>> field, not by corps' financial situations.
>
>Could you clarify this?  "ALL other things being equal" implies that a tie
>would occur (unless you believe the judges favor corps with more money).
>

What I meant by this statement was that within an organization, given
the same staff, kids, parental support, and organization, then a corps
with more money has a better chance of doing better than a corps that
has less.  I was not trying to make a statement about judging.

>> It is not true that DCI didn't want Star to buy them off in the
>> early years.  Star's performances (certainly in 88, 89, 90 -- I never
>> saw the Star shows before 87) were not championship caliber (although
>> I might add that the show design in 1990 might have won it if performed
>> just a little better).
>> 
>> Once again, since we place such a high value on winning, we see Star
>> as an "enemy" because they have money and other corps don't.  Why not
>> just admit that the judges thought they were better.  Instead of
>> blaming Star or having bad feelings toward them, why not blame the
>> SYSTEM of rewards in drum corps and try to come up with a better one
>> (good luck if you try ...)?
>
>The judges and a LOT of fans think that the show is better.  Once again, the
>vocal minority (read Cavaliers' fans) gets the attention.
>

What I meant here was that I don't think it was the judges wanting Star
to prove itself before they were willing to give them the title that explained
why they hadn't won before 1991.  I was one of the many people who were
praising Star after the 1991 win (notice I only said that the shows before
and including 1990 were not championship caliber, not 1991, to support my
view on how the judging works [or, rather, how it does not work]).  I am not
a Cavalier fanatic, although I am a fan of all corps.  "We" in the quote
above refers to people who have been bashing Star (which does not include
me -- a sort of contradiction, I suppose, on my part).

>> 
>> Drill: I'm sure many people will respond.  My one-and-a-half cents:
>> it is not necessarily true that a more difficult drill executed well
>> will necessarily score better.  This is because while the field visual
>> judge may ooh and aah at the technique and execution, the general effect
>> judge may not be impressed by a drill that is difficult, but does not
>> make "sense" (i.e. fit in with the musical presentation).  However, it
>> true that a "winning" drum corps show has to be on the cutting edge in
>> brass, percussion, and visual, meaning that a blah drill tends to mean
>> a blah score.  Advances in drill design have been incredible in just
>> the last few years.
>
>True that intricate drill doesn't mean better drill.  However, I don't think
>that a corps must be on the cutting edge to win the championship.  Take the
>Madison victory in 1988.  Great show, but it didn't push the activity in a
>new direction or even continue the current motion (any more than any other
>top 6 corps).  In fact, cutting edge usually gets fewer points just because
>it is so different.  I know that the Cadets in '85 are an exception (and of
>course STAR), but I am talking in general, not absolute, terms.  I personally
>prefer cutting edge corps even though they are not as initially exciting as
>the others.
>

It is true that a winning corps doesn't have to have a cutting edge drill.
But nowadays there are so many good designers and arrangers that it's
very improbable that it wouldn't have a cutting edge drill/music/etc.
I think in judging, cutting edge drills are rewarded for their innovation,
but they can be docked because they are over the judges heads or simply
don't work.

(Moving away from the original posting and response ...)
I too like to see new stuff on the field just for the sake of seeing new
stuff (sort of like tasting a new food every now and then not knowing
whether it will be any good).  This is why I think arguing about scores
and placement is silly.  It's all a matter of taste, and everyone seems
to have a different idea of what is "good" in drum corps.  I am not surprised
at all that my perception of the performances is only loosly correlated
with that of the judges.  I would be very surprised if anyone's perceptions
DID correspond to that of the judges that do DCI Finals (even you former
judges out there!).

So this is my plea to end the Star-bashing and the obsession with who should
have won a show, etc.  Sure, it's fun to talk about the title, but at a
certain point it boils down to me liking a particular aspect of one show
versus you (this is the generic "me" and "you") liking some other aspect of
some other show.  These things cannot be quantified, and maybe they shouldn't
be.  Let's all just concentrate on what's being put on the field.

However, I am not saying that discussion about who should have won shouldn't
happen.  But these kinds of discussions tend to degenerate into people saying
things like "you don't know what you are talking about" and other unproductive
statements.  Hopefully future discussions will not degenerate in this way.

-- Donald