Warning - My responses may be wordy, but I believe it is what needed to be said. These are my opinions not of which should be associated with any organization that I may be associated with.

These are the proposals that are to be discussed at the WGI meeting May 16-17 in Chicago. I have attached the original PDF.

Proposal #1 -

Have 15 finalists in each marching percussion class at World Championships.

Disagree.

I believe that we should keep it at top 12 for finals, no matter what class. The only exception that I see would be Concert Scholastic Open when they had only 10 competing lines, and took 5 for finals. After sitting through the award ceremonies with 15-16 lines at Dayton this past year, I am begging for it to be brought back down to twelve. As I have stated before, I believe that this degrades the work that must be put forth to become a “finals” drumline. The tenths of points is what separates quarters to semifinals, and from semifinals to finals. That’s why it is a competition.
I feel as if this is one of those situations where we feel the need to make everyone happy, and to have everyone walk away with a medal or trophy of some sort because our mothers told us that we were special. As a performer, I am not even close to satisfied when receiving a “participant” badge, when I know the feeling of being a true finals line or getting a gold medal is so much better. That difference is what separates everyone, and is what makes putting that much effort into a program worth it. Why lessen the requirements that we are setting for ourselves when we’re always trying to see who can be better, who is more innovative, and who works harder?

Proposal #2 -

The addition or incorporation of the term “show concept” on the overall effect sub caption of the General Effect sheet.

Indifferent.

Correct me if I am reading this wrong, but doesn’t “general effect” include the show concept? I feel as if this must be added to the GE sheet because some judges don’t remember to stay in their caption and constantly deviate. If anyone would like to shed some light onto this proposal – be my guest.

Proposal #3 –

Adding the phrase “uniformity of movement” in regards to the front ensemble in the Performance sub caption of the Performance Analysis sheet.

Indifferent.

I have not yet formed my final stand on this proposal. I can see where the proposal comes from, [read Rationale portion of said proposal] but I can also see the other side of reasoning. I will focus more on the other side, since the proposal is more “for” than “against” movement.
If the movement is uniform and executed well, then I can understand giving points to the group for the extra demand put onto the performers. However, some groups have tried to cover up terrible playing with body movements, and you can probably tell how well that went along. Should they be commended for the body work, while playing something less-than satisfactory?
Personally, I would want to leave the majority of the body work to the battery, and focus on the music for the front ensemble. I would rather my ensemble be able to tear it up on their instruments, with a few movements that are necessary for the ensemble instead of my show being chock-full of movements that don’t add to the musical quality, and barely add anything to the visual demands of the show.

Proposal #4 –

Adjust the Performance Analysis sheet to have a 50/50 front ensemble/battery split between the total number of points allocated to the sub caption of Performance. The sub caption criteria would remain the same for both pit and battery.

Alternative: Just as the judge is required to split the “what” and the “how”, it should be explicitly stated in all literature that the PA judge is required to split all comments evenly between the front ensemble and the battery.

Agree.

This is a good thing for those lines who have both a strong pit or battery. But for those that have one or the other, it will require them to work harder to be able to uphold the standard. It is usually very obvious when a section is riding on another’s success.
Will this require an additional PA judge? While I understand that it may not, they are asking an equal 50/50 split between front ensemble and battery comments and I honestly don’t think that is going to happen. Some shows hide the pit rather well, whether it is because of staging or the music, and you kind of forget that they are back there. That may be why they are requiring the 50/50 split.
Should they then have a single front ensemble judge and another battery judge, and they stay in their own captions? Would they then require a judge to cover the simultaneous responsibilities of the pit and battery? Is this just one less thing that could be worried about? Possibly.

Proposal #5 -

Increase the point allocation on the Visual sheet to 20 and 20 to align the sub-captions with the GE sheet. Then divide the total Visual score by two to get a max of 20 [not 40].

Dennis DeLucia seems to like to make things a bit more difficult than they need to be, and I don’t have any significant thoughts on this proposal. Any of you visual guys got anything?

Proposal #6 –

Establish a reasonable deadline for review and classification of a unit based on a Regional performance. Suggested timeline: 7 days or less, especially if there is another Regional performance pending.

Agree.

As a performer in a group that had to wait almost a month for news about our promotion, let alone being a pretty impatient person, I agree. It was pretty terrible having to wait that long to find out if we were bumped or not. There is no reason to keep a line hanging for as long as some groups were held, and especially though two or three regional’s where they were possibly still competing in the wrong class. I believe that 7-10 business days would be a reasonable timeline for a review and response.

Proposal #7 –

All classification reviews will be complete within 14 days upon notification of a classification review. An official notification document will be sent to the primary unit contact.

Agree.

Proposals #6 and #7 are similar, but have different notification dates. Finding a middle ground shouldn’t be a problem.

Proposal #8 –

All ensembles must enter WGI competitions in the same class in which they compete in their circuit competitions.

Disagree.

Some drumlines may be able to hack it in Open class in their own circuit where there isn’t much competition, but would get killed if they entered Open class in WGI. Requiring them to be in a class that they are not ready to be in for WGI doesn’t give them much of a fighting chance. I’m not saying to let groups jump down as they please. But when you add in more other drumlines to the situation, it changes quite a bit.

Proposal #9 –

Change the intervals of the time classes to:
A Class = 8 minutes
Open Class = 9 minutes
World Class = 10 minutes

Agree.

I only agree in the aspect of time constraints in scheduling X amount of lines for one day in the UD Arena or Nutter Center. It would be easier to limit the show length by a smaller adjustment than to try to make it a 4-day-long competition.
Proposal #10 –

Extend each ensembles interval time by 1 [one] minute in all classes. Keep the maximum performance time as it currently is.

Class Max Perf Min Perf Interval
World 8 4 12
Open 7 4 11
A 6 4 10

Disagree.

An extra minute should not be required for electronics or amplification. All trouble-shooting should be done in the hour time slot allotted for warm up, or in a previous rehearsal. The floor is not the time to try to fix things. This is another reason why I am not in favor of electronics in the first place.
I understand that things happen when traveling from warm up to performance, wires cut out and there’s just strange things that happen. Trust me – I understand. Ask me about my Dayton performance in 2006.
It seems counter-productive to pass proposals 9 and 10. Cutting down show time, but then adding on more time to set up? Doesn’t seem worth it to me to have a lot of fuss for not a lot of presentation.

Proposal #11 –

No music can be played while an ensemble is setting up.

Disagree.

As a spectator, it’s a nice mental break to have small segments with music or advertising between shows. After watching show after show, and especially with some of the same licks, a break is definitely needed. As a performer, I never even noticed the music while setting my equipment. I don’t see how it would affect the performers if they continued to play music.

If I remember correctly, this may be the same person that complained about people talking between rounds and may just want complete silence.


Proposal #12 –

For Concert Classes---allow narration and visual ensemble [dancers, actors, flags, rifles, sabres] to perform with the concert percussion ensembles. The visual group may contain no more than 50% of the number of percussionists, with a maximum of 8 [i.e. if the ensemble has 12 players, a max of 6 visual; if the ensemble has 25 players, a max of 8 visual].

Strongly disagree.

In my opinion, this is one of the worst proposals for the year. I am for slight narration, but not anything of the other sort. No dancers, actors, flags, rifles or sabres. I don’t even agree to bring a colorguard into a marching percussion show, let alone a concert setting. Isn’t that what separates concert and marching, correct? The visual aspect?

DeLucia wants to “spice up” the concert percussion shows, but percussion lines can do that without colorguards and actors. After hearing his judge’s tape for Milton HS [PSCO], I am not convinced that he was even interested in one of the most non-concert percussion-like shows. Even with uniform changes, layout changes and some rockin’ drumset solos and Guitar Hero moments, he did not seem interested. How will bringing in colorguards work? And if he’s trying to bring in fans into a concert percussion setting, why do it with colorguard? Honestly – I would really like to know how many performers [from the lines that don’t even attend Dayton, to World Class dominating drummers] how many of them actually care about colorguard and would want to watch it FOR the theatrics – not the girls in scantily-clad constumes.

If we start bringing color guards into percussion shows, why not just mix the two weekends back together and have it all at once? Why not just merge the two together and make all percussion shows have guard, or all guard shows have instrumentalists. Hey, while we’re at it – Let’s have a saxophone line in drum corps.

Dennis DeLucia – WGI’s George Hopkins.

Proposal #13 –

Impose a MAXIMUM of THREE quadruple-forte-douple-stop-rimshots [played by snares and tenors, accompanied by unison bass drums and/or cymbals and pit] per per 4-to-8-minute performance. Penalty for exceeding this maximum will be one point per infraction.

Disagree. Dennis - If it’s too loud, you’re too old.

But in all seriousness, I understand how someone wouldn’t want to sit through hours of shot after ear-piercing shot, but that’s also like penalizing for the same licks being played over and over. How many times can you count a “chuh-chuh---chuh!” in one day of performances in Dayton? Too many for my taste. Let’s start penalizing for over-played licks, chromatic runs, bass features that only include fours and the same forms. He wants creativity to come from restricting what can be written, but I see it as just that - restricting.

Proposal #14 –

Create a fourth class for marching competitions, especially at larger regional and Championships. This class could be called “Double-A” and would fit between “A”and “Open.” It would accommodate groups whose design and/or skill sets are too sophisticated for “Basic Skills” but not yet ready for the realities of “Open.”

Disagree.

With the addition to the classes, we would have to sit through yet another set of 15 groups who “made” finals. Again, this could be another situation where their mothers told them that they were special snowflakes and they deserve medals, too.
Or you can do it how everyone else did it and do your time. You don’t get to the top automatically. I believe that to get better, you must spend a little time getting beat by everyone else. You then learn what they are doing, what you can do to adapt your program, and eventually get to the top. It should be a learning experience not only for the performers, but also the instructors. In turn, causing a more meaningful experience.



Anyone have any other thoughts?

I posted this on drumhard as well.

Some of these are great suggestions, however, some seem extremely silly to me.

Number 2- I've been wishing for this for years.

Number 8- I strongly disagree.

While I believe the intent is awesome, the truth is that if the proposal is referring to local circuits, not all of the local adjudicators are as qualified as those in WGI, nor do all the local circuits accurately judge along WGI sheets, regardless of how they claim to operate.

Number 13- Really?

The concern is legit, but I'm sure that judges could knock off composition points rather than limit the palette the arrangers work with.

Number 14- Good grief.

15 groups in finals is bad enough and you want to add another class?!

Actually, I believe Mark is requesting that the music that some ensembles play through an iPod while they are being set up not be played. The sponsors spend a ton of money every year to have their banners and commercials played between shows. Those companies have music with the commercial. We shouldn't have to listen to some ensembles music when the sponsors are paying that much money.

Why are they playing music through an iPod while setting up? That seems like it's a huge waste of time/energy and not worth it. Are these the same groups that were requesting an extra minute of set-up time for electronics? Seems like priorities may be a bit misaligned if that's the case.

I noticed a few groups that had music playing while they were still setting up. The first one that pops in to my mind is Rhythm X.

#8 WOW, that's sweet...lol it just makes me mad


in IPA we compete in world class we were fourth out of 5, we were in open in wgi and placed 11th out of 12, we would get killed if we had to move to world class, although if we went down in ipa we would dominate.

That last part i like but, this proposal seems ignorant because it could give groups a big advantage on one circuit and a big disadvantage on others.

Thank you, i agree with you completely. Does he think mansfield's 99.10 needed to be reinforced with sabers.... really? I'm pretty sure they figured the game out, at least in concert open, and dont need anything visually at all... i think they learned how to execute exactly what they needed to do to get that number. The kids in concert groups dont spend their whole season, just playing, to be distracted by 8 flags, i'm sorry, and i can say that from experience. If you're in a marching front ensemble you know everyone is going to watching the drumline for most of the show and you're going to get your moments, so you accept that. If you wanted more attention, march.

I'm pretty sure it was Aimachi's colorguard that won their medal this year, because their drumline did not have the beats, and did not have the drill... how could they have the drill when their colorguard occupied the whole floor all show. Anybody else see a problem with that? Groups like them can compensate for lack of hard drill with flags. What about those groups with hard drill and a hard show, that dont have flags... I had this wierd thought that WGI Percussion was supposed to be about performing the music.. Call me crazy, i mean i know its not just 'drumming in a gym' anymore, but like you said, the weekends are separated for a reason... performing TO the music should have been done the weekend previous.

Why do concert shows need to be 'spiced up' at all. How about Ayala 07 and Mansfield 08... i dont think so.. they are setting new standards with the current scoring systems. Franklin Central did it in PSCW in the 90s and in 2000, getting 97s and 98s, there was a gap from that for a few years and now groups have figured it out again. There are still amazing things going on in the concert setting, but if Dennis doesnt realize it then maybe he shouldnt judge concert anymore. Those kids know there isnt going to be a massive crowd, its the nature of wgi, yet they still work hard to produce these shows... people are missing out on these amazing shows, and they dont realize it.. i am sorry dennis, but there are a lot of us that can appreciate concert shows for what what they are, and dont need things moving all the time to justify them.

#1) Disagree. I'm with Tory. 15 groups is too many in finals. (And really, whether you get to call yourself a finalist or not, 13th place is still 13th place.)

#2) Disagree. Call me old school, but I don't want "show theme" to be on the sheets because depending on wording, it may become sort of a compulsory item. Like most indoor groups, I'd probably elect to write my group's show around a theme, but I don't think it needs to be forced upon us. If we use a theme to good effect, just say so in the existing GE caption.

#3) Depends on how the rule is written. Personally, I find most pit visuals silly and distracting. I don't want to be forced to include them in order for my group to stay competitive. But if a performing group comes up with some kind of movement that adds to their show, I suppose they should get credit for it.

#4) Strongly disagree. I'm all for making sure the judges pay attention to both the battery and front ensemble, but I don't think a 50/50 split is the way to do it. It takes away somewhat from an arranger's ability to play to his group's strengths.

I guess a sports analogy helps explain my stance a little bit... Let's use the Baltimore Ravens' 2001 Super Bowl win as an example. Their offense was below average, but they were still the best team on the field because their phenomenal defense carried the team. If an indoor drumline has a section that's strong enough to carry the load, let 'em.

As an arranger, I'd like to keep the ability to write a show that lets every member contribute at the level they're capable. If I've got a strong battery and an inexperienced pit or vice versa, I can write the show to emphasize one more than the other without fear of losing points on the sheet.

#5) Undecided, but leaning toward disagreement. I'm not particularly fond of overly complex scoring systems.

#6 & 7) Agree in principle. Just pick the number of days.

#8) Strongly disagree. The makeup of every circuit's competitive field is different. Let each locality determine a fair way to divide their participants in a way that gives everyone a chance to compete. And what about local circuits whose classification system differs from WGI's?

#9) Agree.

#10) No freakin' way. If you can't get all your toys working in the allotted time, you probably didn't design your show appropriately for the activity. If you choose to push the envelope equipment-wise, you may occasionally find yourself on the wrong side of the limits.

#11) Agree. As annoying as commercials may be, they help pay the bills to lessen the costs for each of us. Let the advertisers have their airtime so we can take their money.

#12) $#%& NO! Concert classes are the last refuge for groups who want to concentrate strictly on the performance of music. If the groups in this class wanted to perform with a "visual ensemble", they should be in the marching classes.

#13) Disagree. I get what he's saying, but it would be a silly, un-enforceable rule (and I'm pretty sure he knows that).

#14) Undecided, but lean toward agreement. I don't want to hand out finalist medals to everyone -- unlike Special Olympics, not everyone is a winner. But if there's a gap between current classifications, I'm not against filling it with a new class so long as there are plenty of groups to fill it.

My local circuit already does this in a way with PSA-1 and PSA-2 divisions, and I like how the setup works. It allows groups who advance to still be reasonably competitive instead of getting thrown to the wolves and stomped by the "big boys".

Somone, somewhere actually thought that this should be a rule?

If this really became a rule, could I avoid the penalty by making the tenor part only triple forte and taking bass 3 out of the unison part? It's not practical... if your impact point is just annoying, then that's how it is; you can't really define that within the realms of something that can be penalised, but if it sucks, the score will ultimately reflect it.

I'll give DeLucia the benefit of the doubt and take it, less as a proposal, but more as a bold-faced hint that—as a judge—he's tired of hearing that stuff.

We'd be back to the tic system if they made penalties like this.

On the topic of Proposal #13 -

I partially think that DeLucia worded his proposal(s) in a terrible way. Personally, I feel as if they are poorly researched, have poor convincing arguments or they are just topics to be brought up and not actual proposals.

With that said, an old instructor of mine had a different take on this one. He sat through the entire Dayton weekend in his seats and watched every single show. The man has some patience that I don't have. After a while, the same beat became very obvious and appeared multiple times in some shows. [Refer to my first post] But it may be that DeLucia is just trying to make it so that the same licks aren't put together, somewhat forcing the lines to write different things and actually think of new musical phrases instead of the same old junk.

I think that if he wanted this done, though, he should have worded his proposal differently and possibly not made it a proposal at all. He could have held a discussion, either as a clinic or online, and talked about the different things that could be changed with musical phrases if everything is sounding the same. Hell, he could have just written an article and posted on Promark's website [or something similar] and had gotten the word out that way.

In a nutshell - possibly good idea, bad presentation.

I think it was fantastic presentation. He's almost certainly being sarcastic about the rule itself, but he has a point and he picked a creative way to deliver that point to pretty much everyone in the activity.

IMO i think its a ridiculous proposal, I don't know if he was being sarcastic. If he was being sarcastic it doesn't come off that way. I read it as Delucia being legit.

Having the circuit dictate what you write and how you write seems like a bad idea. True I have seen my share of shlock fests, especially this year. Same licks over and over. But penaltizing for using too many quadruple quater note double stops is pretty ridiculous. Who's responsibility is it to count? Timing penalty? I'm pretty that judge is too busy actually timing and looking for other in fractions then having to count how many
"quadruple-forte-douple-stop-rimshots [played by snares and tenors, accompanied by unison bass drums and/or cymbals and pit]" was played.

If this is an issue. take care of it in the PA caption, is that not what its there for? Maybe start deducting points with in the caption for over use of those types of figures. Add that to the sheets within the composition Box.

Sorry man I strongy disagree obviously.


As far as 14

I would like to see a novice class before a class between A and open. I don't know what its like anywhere else in the country. But all the ensembles here step down a class from the local circuits when competing in WGI. Which means if your in open class in say TIA, you drop to A in WGI. so where do the A class in TIA go? well up against open groups. Hardly seems far in a regional where if you don't make finals. bring 10 dollars if you want to just be a spectator. since WGI charges their participants who did not make finals to come in and watch.

I know for a fact a lot ensemble here would love to do WGI they just feel there is no room for them with in the circuit. I tend to agree.


One I lean to agreeing on. Is proposal 8.(if we are talking WGI circuit shows,NOT local circuits) Mostly because of what I said above. If you are in open class then you should be an open class ensemble across the board. I guess I'm just fickle about it because I been on both sides of fence with this one.


As far as 15 groups in finals? why not? for one it adds more value to DVD sales which I'm pretty sure WGI is after. This is cost benefit written all over it. And if you were 13th this year and missed finals I'm sure those groups would agree too. Why not expand finals? I do agree with what Tory said in her response. But IMO at the world championship level it starts to be more about person opinion over quality of the shows. Some of my favorite shows never came close to the top 5. Why? IDK but that was my opinion. Having a group miss finals Because one judge slams them and tanks the score. (which has happened even with double panels) seems a bit unfair. But I do see the drawbacks as well.

Anyways just my opinion on the things that stand out.

You know regarding #13; Dennis is a very savvy guy and knows where the proposal list gets posted and who reads it (i.e. the front page of WGI and most everyone in the activity). He will have sparked conversation and gotten plenty of mileage out of this before the 2009 season begins...

As far as the classification proposals go; this is a perennial conversation at the local and national level... It is clear that we do not have a perfect system and groups fall in between the classifications (my own was one of the groups promoted from A to Open), compete in different classes locally, etc. to maintain a balance between competition and education. All I can say is that it is clear that we have something good going on with the number and quality of groups in Ohio and in our circuit at the local level... As long as we are growing and talking about it, it is all good!

Maybe it is time for another class, but where do we put it and when would it perform? We are really pushing some boundaries of time and expense as it is at the national level. I am sure they will figure something out this weekend...

It's drums in a gym... have fun!

NL