Is broken.

It had to be said and someone said it.

Someone else, I think it was inMichael, said in the other WGI 2010 thread that he strongly disagreed with the fact that Timber Creek Independent placed so poorly, and asked someone to explain to him why. Someone else replied that when he sees the video, he'll understand. I am going to assume that is a reference to their playing, which couldn't really stack up against the likes of Rhythm X this year. I could agree with that.

There's one big problem. They scored a 34/40 in GE. That really rubs me the wrong way. I am going to compare them to the group that won the GE caption, Rhythm X, based on the criteria listed on the score sheets. For clarification, I saw both groups at prelims (I'm poor,) but I did see them from the bottom of the uppermost seating section - i.e. the best GE seats in the house, really.

For those of you who have actually looked at the GE judging sheets, you'll understand why I am upset. There is not a subjective word on it. The sheets clearly explain what the grading criteria are, and how much of a spread is justified by the magnitude of difference between two groups. So I'm going to discuss each criterion individually, the way I would hope a judge (having read the sheets as if it were their job) would.

Music Effect

Communication - I will admit I don't really know enough to comment on this one, because I don't really know what TCI's source material was. I will say it never struck me as being at odds with the show concept, which is good. Rhythm X played several tunes by Muse, a band whose music's subject matter tends to be rebellion of some sort, or the apocalypse. See "Communication" below.

Musicianship - Rhythm X scores points here for the section where they played Chopin's Nocturne... but only there, I think. Whenever their battery played, it was a battery ramfest. An awesome and clean one, but that shouldn't win you points for musicianship. TCI displayed dynamic contrast, some metric modulations that gave the illusion of tempo changes, etc. They would take this category.

Creativity - This one isn't a contest. TCI had some of the most creative ideas ever in a percussion show. X's creativity was mostly visual. They missed a big opportunity with the singing bit at the end... it would have been great if they had all been singing the different harmonies (there's like 10 of them), but instead they used the sample for it. Maybe it wasn't feasible to get 30 battery members to sing in tune. I get it. But you shouldn't get points for creativity then.

Blend and Balance - Again, I saw them at prelims, and maybe this was fixed at finals. At no point during the first movement could I hear the pit. Such issues did not occur for TCI.

Excellence as it Relates to Effect - In other words, "the performance caption." I've never really liked this being on the GE sheets because, as I'll discuss later, I think it's the source of the problem. I understand why it's there - if you play something ridiculously awesome, it's effect, and should be rewarded. Rhythm X pretty much just ran around the floor playing awesome things. That is indisputable and I would easily give them this category.

Expression - would someone care to explain the difference between this and "musicianship"? If not, see above. Ramfests are not expression.

Idiomatic expression - Sure, I guess? I don't really know enough to discuss this one.

Overall Effect

Communication - Someone want to clarify how Rhythm X's show had anything to do with the show title? I really don't think it does. I think most of what they did would be more in line with something like MCM's 2006 sideshow show. At least there they pretty much said at the start "ok, we're gonna do a bunch of ridiculous and irresponsible things which are awesome, watch this" and then they did ridiculous and irresponsible things which are awesome. Here they call it "Inspired", and then their show was that they did ridiculous and irresponsible things which are awesome.

As a side note, as mentioned above, the music is about apocalypse/rebellion. So either they "communicated" apocalypse/rebellion, or they "communicated" inspiration. I don't really see where the two intersect, unless they were trying to inspire me to end the world by rebelling against it. Didn't work, society's still going.

As for TCI, I don't think anyone is going to say that their show didn't ooze out the pores with the theme of censorship at almost all times. I could pick out stuff that might not even have been intentional, like how the costumes played off each other in some parts, that communicate censorship.

Audio/Visual Coordination - I don't really have anything conclusive to say here. Both groups did well.

Imagination/Creativity - TCI's show was remarkably out of left field. A show about censorship is not easy to pull off - and they did it in ways I would never have thought of. X certainly did unique, creative things, but they fall into the category of "increasingly risky tricks" - a category which we've seen before.

Pacing - I guess both shows had good pacing. They both kept the effects coming with good timing.

Impact/Resolution - With so much of the battery's playing at a high dynamic level for so much of the show, it's hard to say RX had a lot of resolution or impact.

Range of Effects - Both groups certainly had varied effects. I think the difference here is that TCI had variety in how they presented the censorship idea, whereas RX had variety in what crazy thing they would do next. Which is great! But it still doesn't relate to the music or the show idea.

Entertainment - I'm not going to say RX wasn't entertaining, because there were thousands of people in the UD Arena who said otherwise. With that said, so was TCI! People were laughing and reacting to all of the unique things they did, even if their playing wasn't as good.


So just to recap, here is how I broke things down:

Communication - Dunno
Musicianship - TCI
Creativity - TCI
Blend and Balance - TCI
Excellence - X
Expression - TCI
Idiomatic Whatever- Dunno

Communication - TCI
A/V - Tie
Imagination - TCI
Pacing - Tie
Impact - TCI
Range - TCI
Entertainment - Tie

Now, I'll be realistic. There were probably things I missed. Maybe Rhythm X had a lot more subtle musicality/expression than I noticed, and maybe I'm being a little bit idealistic about TCI in those regards. I understand that things are not so black and white.

But here's my point: the only, ONLY part of the GE caption where Rhythm X was a slam dunk choice over TCI was "Excellence as it Relates to Effect." I think everywhere else, there will and should be debate. And here's what irks me... one of the GE judges gave X a perfect score (double 100s) and TCI an average 86 (85 and 87.) First off, as discussed above there were very real flaws - not just my opinion - with X's show, so a perfect score is not correct. But more importantly, the WGI judging sheets say quite clearly how to define a points spread, and I quote:

"Very comparable: 1-2%"
"Minor differences: 3-4%"
"Definitive differences: 5-7%"
"Significant difference: 8%+"

In other words, if Line 1 has minor differences that make them better than Line 2, and you gave Line 2 an 85, you give Line 1 either an 88 or an 89. This isn't that difficult to figure out.

Between RX and TCI, in the GE caption, there was a spread of 15 points. If there was a higher tier of "differences" (it would probably be called the "you just got dunked on" tier) this spread would be placed in that. As I said above, I may have missed things and I could just plain be stupid. But is anyone really willing to say that in almost every subsection of the GE sheet, Rhythm X had "significant differences" that put them above TCI?

I'm not. As I said above, even if I gave RX the benefit of the doubt, the only category where they should really dunk on TCI is Excellence. And that one category alone is not, or should not be, worth 15 points of spread. Never, not at all.

This is why I don't really like that category being in the GE sheets. I feel like it justifies treating the GE caption as a second PA caption, and this can especially be problematic when you have judges who do one caption at one show, and the other the week after.

It also kind of defeats the purpose of there even being different captions. Isn't the whole point to account for the fact that groups may be strong in one caption but weak in others? Perhaps strong enough to overcome those weaknesses to some degree?

I'm not trying to say TCI should have won or even been top 3. They couldn't play or move nearly as well as say, MCM. But if just for the sake of argument they received the same score Rhythm X did in the GE caption, a 38.55, ceterus paribus, they'd be in 8th place. Not a terrible result. Instead they score so low that most people that buy the DVD might skip over probably the second most innovative show of the year. That is absolutely criminal.

I take issue with the GE caption because I can't really come up with many examples of them getting it right. And in the PA and visual captions, for the most part, they do get it right. And I put myself in the shoes of the show designers at TCI, who must've put a lot of thought into not just the concept of their ideas, but also the execution, and then they go to finals and aren't really rewarded for it. I know my reaction would be "Well ok, why doesn't everyone just run across the snareline if that's all you need to do to get a good GE score."

What's the solution? I really don't know. But people really need to talk about this because I'm not the only one who feels this way. Maybe the GE caption needs to be restructured, or maybe the judges just aren't reading the sheets, or are selectively ignoring things, I don't know. But the way things are right now isn't right.

Instead of debasing the opinions of two highly respected judges, perhaps you should look at the bigger picture here. Have you done the same comparison with the other 10 groups that scored higher? I think you'll find your answers there.. Please keep in mind, it's ONLY DRUMS IN A GYM!

"When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, it will filter everything else out and find examples of that thing everywhere." -Pi

I chose to compare those two groups in such detail for two reasons:

1) I think TCI is the group people for whom people would agree with me the most that a higher GE score is justified

2) Rhythm X won the GE caption, and therefore the gap between them and TCI was the greatest

By the nature of #2 I thought it would go without saying that I felt TCI could go head-to-head with the other ~10 groups between them and Rhythm X in the GE caption.

My intention is not to debase anyone's opinion. In fact, according to the judging sheets, opinions shouldn't have very much to do with it at all.

"Very comparable: 1-2%"
"Minor differences: 3-4%"
"Definitive differences: 5-7%"
"Significant difference: 8%+"

Here is where I feel like you're misconstruing things.

Keep in mind that when you perform on the level like that of TCI or Rhythm X, you're dealing with "the best of the best" per say. You're right, in comparison, the level of performance between TCI and that of RX is not SIGNIFICANTLY different by the standard of an outside viewer. But keep in mind that if you judged them all based on those "minor" differences that the everyday performer wouldn't necessarily notice or take into high consideration, then your scores would turn out to be ridiculous, and you would be faced with the predicament of scores that end in ties and other situations accordingly. If this competition was also riddled with High School lines and other lines that aren't even close in comparison, then I do believe that your point would be completely null. The small things that RX does to achieve their level of "perfection" (considering it is all subjective), make a SIGNIFICANT difference when faced with the challenge of comparing and contrasting many EXTREMELY talented and well-rounded lines.

Think about DCI; it's the same exact way. Take into consideration BD, SCV, Cavies, Cadets, and Carolina Crown. These 5 corps never seize to amaze. They are ALL impeccably managed and they all perform to high standards that to the average performer would seem almost equivalent in stature. When comparing scores, however, you do tend to see a wide spectrum of grades. Why? Because the MINUSCULE differences, from the judges point of view, have to be a deciding factor and that can make or break a corps. That's the level of perfection that these performers have reached, and that's just the way it is.

My other qualm with your post is this. You're being too idealistic toward TCI, and you're coming off as being biased. There are too many other variables to take into consideration. Your post is somewhat like watching a football game. When your team is losing, then the other team is getting lucky calls from the ref. When your team is WINNING, then the game is being fairly played and judged.

Hope that makes sense to you.
B

I'm not quite sure you grasp the whole idea behind General Effect in the indoor percussion activity. I hope you'll consider reading pages 20-28 of the WGI Percussion Adjudication Manual I've attached. Great source of information, and will hopefully help you understand how the judges make their decisions!

I was the one who said when the DVD comes out, he would see. And I was talking about every caption. Everyone got what they deserved or very close to it at Finals. Just because your favorite group didn't do as well as you thought they should have doesn't mean the judges were wrong. I competed against these groups first hand and I am not only proud of the group I'm in but all the others as well. I don't know if you are aware, but the General Effect caption isn't the only caption. There is also PA and VIS. Plus any penalties that a group gets affects their score. Imagine if in 2008, Rhythm X getting the penalty they got at Prelims, but at Finals instead. They wouldn't have gotten the gold and they would have gotten last. Is that fair? Yes, because they didn't follow the rules. There are rules for each caption, they are different for every class, if you read them for PIW and critique a show with honesty, you will realize why certain groups did the way they did. It's just a game. The best team wins and people who are bitter take the fun out of it.

I can see your argument, but without knowing who did what I can still pick apart every single argument. But I feel no reason to actually wire a post that's longer than in that follows.
GE is the most subjective caption, and it accounts for 40% of your total score. Words like "seldom", "sometimes" and "always" on those sheets are subjective. Or rather the perception of those, and how much weight each individual judge places on each sub caption of the GE sheet. just a hypothetically, Maybe the judges felt "excellence as it relates to events is far more important than "communication". That's just one scenario. Do that for every group, for 30 groups.
Comparing numbers group to group just makes ZERO sense. Can you remember how TCI played,marched, and communicated, WHILE Pulse is performing then remember the number you gave them, and all the others, and at the same time continue evaluating Pulse For that matter every other single group that went earlier? Its too much info to apply all at once.
Therefore the only thing to do is apply the criteria to each group individually. the only thing you can compare is the lasting impressions of a show. So instead of comparing the RX to TCI, why not compare the numbers TCI got to the sheet.
re-write your rant and see if it still makes sense.

The next issue you have is when TCI went on. How can any one judge feel comfortable giving near-perfect numbers to a group in 14th place, with 13 to go, Its easy to give groups lower numbers, but it would be hard to give them a 39, because of there are 5-6 groups who are blatantly better there are no numbers to express that.

I certainly take issue with your criticism of the musicality of RX. Musicality is not restricted to evaluation within a ballad. the term itself is subjective. You may not see musicality in the RX "rams" but its there. It goes beyond "soft/loud" and "fast/slow". It relates directly to communication, and how appropriate the arrangement is being performed with respect to the music itself.
Death metal has musicality to it. If you were to give scores to death metal vs the overture of 1812, why should 1812 score crazy higher?
Its a perspective thing, and as such is 100% subjective.

Some of the things you mentioned here are wayyyyy off base. I'm not going to start a war here, but I think so many of the things you've mentioned in your attempt to pick apart Riskbreaker's argument are just not true. Firstly, I don't know why, but you've turned so many criteria into "subjective" ideas in your argument, that we might as well score GE in colors of the rainbow from here-on out. In which case I would definitely give Pulse a green because they were my favorite and green is my favorite color....and I would give Redline a red because I thought it was passionate and it also goes with their name.

Also....musicality is not something that is evaluated on a WGI General Effect score sheet. There's Musicianship, which is not the same thing as musicality, and there's Expression, which is what I think is closest to what you're talking about. This is something that Riskbreaker got wrong in his original post by assuming that the two are the same and it is only further exacerbated by the misuse of musicality to prove your point that Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture is not necessarily any more musical than Morbid Angel's greatest hits. (eek)

Finally, the WGI adjudicator's handbook states in its first paragraph on the topic of General Effect, the following: "the competitive nature of what we do requires the judge to be accountable to all competitors in determining placement and ranking. The accountability occurs by comparing specific qualities in each program to those of all other competitors in that range." So to say that "Comparing numbers group to group just makes ZERO sense." actually makes no sense as an argument. A judge should be doing nothing but comparing each subsequent group to the groups that came before it. It is not their job to compare each group solely to the criteria on an idividual basis. The things written on either side of a GE sheet are merely there for a judge to point out what a group is doing right or wrong as a means of feedback to the students, staff, or whoever.

I've tried to keep my criticisms to strictly factual inconsistencies only because I know how much people love to take away karma. So, there's a lot more that I would love to say but I'll leave that to someone who's already got negative karma. Plus, I don't want to be too garrulous, since I plan on discussing my own thoughts on the issue in another post soon hereafter.

I'm not looking for a war, just a solid discussion, we haven't had one of those in a long time. Ill admit that that post was a knee jerk post, and not well thought out, written, or reviewed prior to posting.
Criticize all you like, It's not often that a good discussion can be had around here.I'm not the type who gives negative Karma for opinions that differentiate from my own. I actually rarely give Karma at all.

What I wrote about musicality (musicianship) was a thought separated from any separate issue. Just another tangent. I know the term is musicianship on the sheet. Oversight by me. Replace the terms and re read, respond accordingly if you like. If not we can end that tangent here.

I see the terms like "sometimes" and "seldom" as subjective. there is not set number that is objective. what is "sometimes" to you may be 60%, to me is could be 80%. Objective, as its used here, means that its the same or everyone, not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or based on facts. It's similar words like " a few" (3?4?5?) or "a handful" (7?10?22?) they are quantitative, but not free from influence. Even a word like "never" it is objective, but its application in terms of judging isn't. because once isn't never, but some may give you that number. Same with "always". a 1/4 second relapse isn't "always".

You could say group A, did it more than group B and award a difference of .3 more points. To the next judge that same "more" could be worth .5. That's the influence and subjectivity. If the rules gave hard numbers, then they would be objective. Expecting that would be ridiculous. no one can see everything every time.

I think the biggest area of disagreement is how the numbers are applied with respect to competitive results VS individual evaluation.
I will expand my meaning.
When you're watching a group, at least when I do, I do not actively compare them to others. I compare them against a standard. specifically the one set forth on the sheets. The number given would be close to the groups around it. That is when placement adjustments are give, and the number changes based on the judges opinion. So you're still making a call, but not doing it constantly throughout each show.
If you have a better process than that, please tell me because I can only watch and effectively evaluate one group at a time. There's no way I could do 15 simultaneously. Remembering 100% of every show , and then comparing them completely quantitatively doesn't even seem possible to me.

Its very difficult to convey some of these ideas over text, If you like pm me, and Ill give you my phone number to speak in greater, and faster detail, at your convenience.

Insomniac, that seems beside the point whether or not a judge can effectivly take multiple groups and judge them against eachother quantitatively.

No matter whether they are doing that or not is hardly a concern of mine.

The difference in GE scores between Rx and TCI is not directly the problem. It is just the evidence used to show that TCI should have placed much higher than they did in GE. As you said, judges should be scoring groups based on standards (and experience imo). If they are doing this, I still believe that TCI really should have scored higher. Doesn't make any difference whether they are being judged individualy or comparitivley.

The issue at least Im ADDRESSING has to do with the low placement of TCI in the GE department.

I would discuss what you're discussing but everytime I type something I realize this isn't the thread to do it in...