DCI RULES CHANGES (maybe)
It's almost time for DCI Rules Congress 2023!
It’s only December, but one of the most significant parts of the 2023 DCI Season is under a month away. The 2023 DCI Winter Meetings are taking place in Indianapolis, IN, on January 6th through 8th, well known throughout the community as “Januals.” What sets this year apart is that it is time for the biennial DCI Rules Congress.
The Rules Congress is an opportunity for instructors and corps directors to propose modifications to the existing rulebook and judging sheets to address issues that have come up throughout the two seasons since the prior Congress. Previously proposed rules that have passed are massive sheets overhauls, scoring Open Class corps on the same sheets as World, and allowance of all brass instruments instead of the traditional marching versions we are accustomed to. Notable failed proposals include the infamous all-instruments rule, widely opposed by fans primarily because it would legalize woodwinds, breaking down one of the main barriers between drum corps as it exists today and competitive, high-level marching bands.
Six proposals have been put on the agenda this year, and we’re going to break each one down one by one.
THE PROPOSALS
Proposal 1 - Submitted by Staff from Carolina Crown
From DCI’s Website:
This rule would remove the second Music Analysis judge and add one upstairs "Ensemble” judge to the panels at all Regionals (San Antonio, Atlanta, Allentown) and all three days of competition in Indianapolis for the DCI World Championships. This judge’s sole focus would be to evaluate the holistic brass ensemble from the same viewing perspective as the General Effect and Music Analysis judges.
This judge’s numbers would exist on a 20-point scale, 10 points for content and 10 points for achievement, and would be averaged with the field brass and field percussion judges’ numbers for an overall “brass” number. This judge would be granted purview over dynamic matching and shaping, balance, blend, intonation, and tone, similar to the field brass sheet, but would ALSO include purview over brass ensemble alignment, musical inflection, orchestration (texture, tessitura, harmonic and melodic variety) and the quality and quantity of amplification (solos, small ensembles, full ensemble).
If passed, it is recommended that the sole MA judge for these shows be a person with a percussion background.
The Breakdown:
This proposal takes the doubled Music Analysis judges at regionals and during Championships and converts one of them into an ensemble brass judge that would be located upstairs in order to get a read on how the hornline sounds at the judging area in addition to the field level judge sampling the hornline up close. This provides the opportunity to listen to more of the blend of sounds that isn’t observable from up close.
The Takeaway:
Let’s dig in. The reasoning behind much of this is that the judge for the brass is down at field level; therefore, they can only get the read on what they can hear. This all makes sense and is a limitation of having the judge down there. When adding a brass judge upstairs, this judge would have the opportunity to hear it all and catch many potential positives/negatives that would not be audible to the field-level judge.
Much of the focus of this new judge, however, would already be covered by the present Music Analysis judge, and additionally would take away a different opportunity to not only view the music program in its entirety but when combined with the suggestion at the end of the proposal, would limit the MA caption at regionals and championships to only those from a percussion background.
While the activity has many outstanding adjudicators that fit that bill, background and experience do both add in bias, which introduces the risk of, firstly, much of the nuance within the brass book being lost because a judge may not have a wind background, and secondly, the potential that the Music Analysis feedback and scoring become, in essence, an upstairs percussion tape, with occasional comments on hornline sound and how they complement each other.
Proposal 2 - Submitted by Staff from Madison Scouts
From DCI’s Website:
All World/Open Class corps shall be in competition with its complete competing personnel for not less than 8 minute[sic] or more than 10 minutes. All World/Open Class corps will be scheduled to compete at fifteen (15) minute intervals. Adjudication will begin/end as queued by corps personnel and a corps must fully enter/exit the field within the 15 minute interval.
The Breakdown:
This proposal brings DCI timing intervals to every 15 minutes. This is much easier to schedule than 17 and simpler for the audience to keep track of. It would also reduce the maximum performance time from 13 minutes to 10 minutes.
The Takeaway:
This proposal makes sense looking at it at face value. It reduces the amount of content that instructors teach, ensuring that the remaining content is performed at a higher level. It reduces the amount of show performed so members can refine what is out there. It makes timing intervals easier for everyone involved. It also makes events shorter and takes away potential issues of performing late into the evening and running into local noise ordinances or issues in neighborhoods.
Proposal 3 - Submitted by Staff from Carolina Crown
From DCI’s Website:
This proposal would rename and redefine the adjudication criteria for the two General Effect judging captions from "General Effect 1" and "General Effect 2" to "General Effect Music" and "General Effect Visual”. Instead of a broader lens that allows for acknowledgment and even evaluation of the visual and musical side of a production for both GE judges, regardless of professional background, the two GE judges (four at regionals and championships), would respectively be asked to evaluate Music only and Visual only (two judges for each at regionals and championships). Yes, as it used to be. The “old sheets” could indeed be used, but perhaps more productively could be referenced in creating new sheets for GE Visual and GE Music
The Breakdown:
This would be a reversal from a recent change and asks judges to view elements of the show associated with each aspect as opposed to the holistic view they are expected to use now.
The Takeaway:
Right now, all GE judges are using the same sheets and evaluating the program as a whole. The caption at every show is evenly split between judges with Visual backgrounds and judges with Music backgrounds. This change would place the focus on one aspect of the production and simultaneously reduce the scope of the judge's responsibility, as well as increase the depth they are expected to provide in their commentary.
This would also include a redefinition of the sheets, so they are more narrowly oriented toward the caption they cover. This also, for better or worse, depending on your perspective, ensures that no one judge is evaluating the whole nature of the show, both musically and visually, and instead focuses each on one smaller aspect.
Proposal 4 - Submitted by Staff from Madison Scouts
From DCI’s Website:
We propose to introduce a 10-day exhibition period at the beginning of the 2023 DCI Tour, providing performers an opportunity to transition into the competitive season with a series of non-scored performances. As proposed, all performances through July 6 would receive verbal feedback from adjudicators. No scores would be recorded, privately or publicly, for these performances. The recording and publication of scores would begin with events on July 7.
The Breakdown:
This rule change would mean that all DCI events prior to July 7th would not be scored. They would still have judges there, but their purpose would be to provide feedback and comments on the productions they see, and no numbers or direct comparisons to other shows.
The reasoning provided for this is that it would give members the confidence to perform their own show without having to worry about the score for the first week or so of performances. Other aspects it may affect would be potential costs for DCI if a reduced panel would be called for, as well as a potential increase in score volatility when scores do start.
The Takeaway:
Shows develop throughout the season. This is due to both judging feedback and seeing where captions are scoring relative to both the corps as a whole and their competitive peers. This has a unique opportunity to permit designers to flesh out their ideas more during the early parts of the season when performances may not be as consistent, so they can throw ideas at the wall and see what works within the context of the larger show.
A counterpoint some have made though is that this may add the potential for judges to shape the direction of the show. If a comment or suggestion is made prior to scoring, and that comment isn’t taken, it could introduce bias against whatever avenue the designer chose to go down instead.
If you’ve been around this activity for a while, you can think of a few shows that, while the performances may not have been as consistent, the design appealed to you more at the start of the season than it did at the end. Alternatively, you can also likely think of a few that didn’t quite come together at the beginning but, through refinement and improvement of the concept, became more and more effective throughout the summer.
The long and short is that this proposal would put significantly more impact on the judge's comments and feedback in critique and much less on what numbers they write down during the show, during the crucial early season development of a production. Whether that appeals to you or not, it would be a bold statement from DCI and significantly influence the development of productions throughout the competitive season.
Proposal 5 - Submitted by Staff from Madison Scouts, Carolina Crown, and The Cavaliers
From DCI’s Website:
This proposal stipulates that short-range personal microphones cannot be used for ensemble reinforcement of the horn line (i.e., reinforcement of tutti musical lines). In essence, such microphones would only be used to amplify musical content that is "soloistic or soli-istic" in nature. This proposal would not place limits on the number of performers that may perform such content at one time or through the duration of that ensemble’s performance. Amplified solo content should not reinforce non-amplified ensemble content.
The Breakdown:
Some corps, as of recently, have found success in miking hornline members performing parts that aren’t as exposed or are harder to hear due to staging and ensuring balance through all the elements of the musical ensemble up top. This proposal is an effort to ensure that during full ensemble moments, ensembles that choose to utilize this technique aren’t using it to potentially reinforce their sound or to cover up weaker aspects of the hornline.
The Takeaway:
This is similar to the following proposal regarding the problem it is trying to solve. These are both designed to ensure that the horn lines, specifically in full ensemble moments, are made up primarily of acoustic, unenhanced sounds, as opposed to having assistance from the electronics that have become so ubiquitous in the activity.
Where my curiosity lies is why more corps don’t choose to explore the solutions that these methods provide, outside of cost limitations.
People against these proposals argue that these techniques are a unique avenue to explore live performance as it exists outside of the pageantry arts, as many ensembles or solo acts choose to utilize similar aspects to provide a more impactful experience to those watching (and include with it the potential to take away from the performance if it doesn’t work, similar to a flubbed solo, or someone dropping out of a sustain and losing that voice temporarily).
On the other side, proponents argue that if this technique is being used to mask deficiencies in the ensemble, it can call the entire exercise of trying to judge these horn lines into question.
Proposal 6 - Submitted by Staff from Madison Scouts and Carolina Crown
From DCI’s Website:
This rule would restrict the direct and simultaneous duplication of brass parts within the group’s brass score by similar pre-recorded or synthetic electronic voices communicating the parallel performance of a DCI brass line.
The Breakdown:
This is an interesting one, as the way this is phrased, this rule is designed to prohibit a synthesizer or controller from doubling brass parts to reinforce the sound and increase volume artificially.
The Takeaway:
If we go by the exact verbiage here, the way that many groups choose to do that is not actually covered, as they select sound fonts that firstly are not explicitly designed to duplicate the hornline sound and secondly are designed to increase the depth and tone of the ensemble, therefore, augmenting it, instead of just adding in more volume.
When you add on the difficulty to enforce, the adjudicator in charge of enforcement would need the most recent copies of hornline and electronic scores, which synth patch is currently selected for each area where there is potential overlap, and whether the sound coming from the speakers is coming from the synth or amplified members of the horn line. Regardless, there are many questions surrounding this proposal.
IN SUMMARY
We have many interesting proposals on the docket this year, and each of them will have to find their way through instructor discussion, an instructor ballot, director discussion, and then a director ballot in order to take effect. They can also be modified as seen fit before they get voted on. It’s a fascinating process and can involve impassioned pleas, backroom deals, and hours of debate.
What proposals are you in favor of? What questions do you have about them? Sound off in the comments, and stay tuned for all of our DCI coverage!