From: R.Vincent.Lamb@um.cc.umich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
Subject: from Prodigy - Judging
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:28:36 GMT
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <1hpq1iINN867@early-bird.think.com>, fath@mbcrr.dfci.
harvard.edu, (Michael Fath) wrote (from Prodigy - Judging):
 
|>Tom Vererber wrote:
|> 
|>Perhaps the hardest thing the activity is faced with and perhaps one that will
|>never be perfected is the issue of judging.  Personally, I feel it's a good
|>thing now (not great, but adequate), but as time goes by it'll be fine tuned 
|>and tweeked out.
 
I strongly doubt it.  Judges are like the Red Queen in "Through the
Looking Glass", running as hard as they can just to keep up with a
moving world.  Besides, as soon as the more experienced judges learn
how to move faster than the pace of change, they start leaving The
Activity.  The younger judges who replace them will spend years just
keeping up.
 
|>The main problem is trying to judge an activity that has
|>been described as a combination of both sport and art, with art being the 
|>issue.  Is it possible or is there a fair way to associate a score with so
|>many different entities in the activity?  Possible...sure anything's
|>possible.  A fair way?   Maybe ... maybe not.
 
<discussion of comparing corps of different times deleted>
 
|>My point is, if we want to compare an "apples and oranges" style of drumc
|>corps within the same given year, a standardization of compulsory requirements
|>is going to have to be implemented.  There are many "sporting" activities out 
|>there that mesh in artistic qualities -- olympic figureskating, ballroom
|>dancing, cheerleading, concert band compeitions (with required sight reading),
|>etc.  The compulsory areas don't have to be so rigid that it has to take
|>away from the creative nature of drum corps.  Just that if we want to maintain
|>a fairness about drum corps judging perhaps something like this needs to be
|>implemented.
 
Before DCI, there was a lot of "standardization of compulsory 
requirements" by the American Legion and VFW.  All corps had to enter
from the left side end zone and exit from the right side end zone.
They had between 11.5 and 13 minutes to perform their shows, during
which time, they had to march at least x minutes (I forget how much--
8-9 sounds about right) and present the American (or Canadian) flag.
The result was a *very* standardized show format of Off-the-line,
Color Presentation, production into concert, concert, production out-
of-concert, and exit, with 15-30 second drum breaks between the
songs during which the corps marched (Listen to records from the
period 1965-1972 and you can hear how universal this format was).
Despite this straightjacket, corps managed to be very creative and
distinctive (Play one of these records for someone but don't let him
or her hear the announcer.  He or she still can tell The Troopers from
The Kilts from Madison from Boston from Santa Clara, etc. ad nauseum
with *no problem whatsoever*!).
 
The main trend in drum corps over the past 20 years has been that
DCI has gradually lifted these restrictions, leaving only the
minimum/maximum show length (a shorter one than before, BTW).
This was done to allow greater creativity and better development of
music by allotting more time for each song.  Ironically, one of the 
complaints long-time fans had was during the early parts of this
process was that corps were losing their individual and regional
identities and becoming more alike despite the greater freedom from
format.
 
Maybe Tom Vererber has decided that DCI's relaxation of the format
restrictions was not such a good idea.  Well, my examples of the
shows of 20 years ago supports the idea that more compulsory elements
do not necessarily restrict creativity.
 
Getting off my soapbox,
 
Vince