Atlantic Indoor Association

February 2010

Critiques after shows are “an opportunity for instructor and judge to exchange insights relative to the performance of the ensemble.” There is one more overt reason to attend critique: to be seen. “Sometimes there has been an opportunity to critique with those instructors and the ensemble may stand out in the judge’s mind.”

The purpose behind the critique.

To clarify judge’s comments which are confusing or unclear.

This presupposes that instructors have listened to their respective judges’ show commentary. Often, staffs don’t have the time to listen to their discs before critique. Bear in mind that the last group of a day is called last in the rotation for teams to enter the critique room. Efforts must be made to listen to discs prior to meeting with judges in order to get the most out of that exchange. Otherwise, it is impossible to have a critique as productive as it could have been—instructors get a ‘first read’ on the judges’ perceptions of their shows rather than an informed dialogue with them about the merits of their show. Not having listened to the discs means that instructors simply won’t know what the judges thought of their performance, unable to approach the conversation informed, questions and points of discussion in hand.

Having listened to the discs, instructors have a better starting point with adjudicators than asking them, at the end of a long, exhausting day, “What did you think?” Expect a judge to ask for the sheet, because this session isn’t going to go very far. This is too vague, leaving the judge to respond from memory or notes rather than to specific issues that have some bearing on the show and its progress over the course of the season. Imagine you’ve just a marathon. Now imagine that I asked you what you thought of the fifth mile, or whether you saw Oprah in the crowd at mile ten. I might be upset that you had no recollection of that early stage of the race, or that you didn’t remember or hadn’t caught Oprah.

Panels evaluate shows in two ways: reacting to the show on disc, and quantifying their impressions with scores. The first should accompany the second, and an instructor who enters critique knowing only the second without understanding the motivation for a score is like a jury convicting someone without hearing the evidence.

To discuss places in the show that were unclear or to which the judge did not respond favorably.

How did the judge react to the show in full, or at parts? If there were periods of the show that instructors haven’t gotten to focus on, or phrases which linger and don’t offer something to the program, expect a remark on the disc. Judges understand that shows are works in progress; in the competitive arena, they also understand that a full minute spent going nowhere is worse, or less entertaining at least, than a minute that does. With just five or six minutes to do their best and sell their program, performers crave the excited feedback that judges and audiences have for their efforts.

The question is usually, what are we doing or not doing throughout the show that can contribute to the overall value of it? While judges should not be asked to write or re-write shows, having witnessed a performance they can certainly offer constructive observations that many instructors, myopic by nature, may have missed. Was it that the judge didn’t respond where you wanted them to, that they did where you hadn’t planned? Performances and critiques are always great opportunities to learn what audiences, judges among them, interpret when they check out your show—synching your understanding with their perceptions should be paramount, for you can then adjust the show accordingly to employ effects that work.

To offer insights to the judge relative to your intent. Where you’re heading in the program/vocabulary development, when you plan to implement changes, when you are scheduled to address concerns expressed by the judge.

Was it that the judge didn’t respond where you wanted them to, that they did where you hadn’t planned? These are related questions of intent, an important subcaption consideration in both PA and Visual. A good judge quickly gains a good sense of players’ skill sets and their ability to execute; John Q. Audience can’t be expected to fully understand a drumline in context—its stage of development—in six minutes. Part of the discussion between instructors and the judging community throughout a season is to improve each side’s understanding of the show.

Assuring a judge that a deficiency or an under-developed moment or skill is recognized by staff can go a long towards ensuring that it will be on his radar the next time. Judges love seeing the improvement in shows and performers. An instructor’s attitude to affront that, an admission that an issue is not on the instructor’s agenda, or an instructor thinking that a judge is wrong to offer observations about their show is simply counterproductive to the process—the productive, positive exchange—between judges and instructors. Important discoveries and useful insights can come of a critique that addresses the status of a show; a show that goes unchanged from November to March is not just unresponsive to the opportunities of performance—it is indifferent to the players and it undercuts their chances at competitive and educational success.

To discuss your score relative to the criteria of each score sheet and relative to your competitors.

Judges are accountable to their scores. It is not the case instructors can expect a steady upward climb in their scores week to week. It is the case that those scores must be explicable and defendable. The conversation which attacks a judge for this box placement of a show (without having heard their disc, especially) rather than seeking justification is doomed to introduce tension instead of fostering a common understanding.

Critique is not a courtroom, where outcomes are decided based on arguments. Nor is it a deliberation, where opposing sides seek an outcome based on convincing, or worse, pouncing on the other. It might just be that an instructor thinks his drumline’s skills are ‘advanced’ whereas a judge thinks them ‘intermediate,’ that a mom thought the tenor line was better than the snare line, or that a dad didn’t think it was a ‘box 4’ run thru.

It could be, too, that one subcaption criteria was absent in favor of another, that some elements of the sheets made it into the show design where others didn’t. These issues translate to scores, and they are best addressed at critique. Drumlines (much like people) tend to do some things but never all things really well. This phenomena is inevitably made clearer to instructors in the scores, in the verbal and written commentary, and makes for fruitful topics for consideration.

Importantly, critique is not a time to talk about others’ shows. Insofar as the numbers imply descriptions of a judge’s views towards the ‘ranking and rating’ of competing drumlines, that is, as they compare one to another, these are also helpful points of guidance. The goal need not be that Jerry outmaneuvers Tom, or Wile E. Coyote outruns Roadrunner. Was the drumline ‘pointed’ in PA because it really was clearly worse in the caption than the better team, or was it ‘pointed’ in the composite score because of a balance of issues across the captions? Instructors are entitled to an explanation of a judge’s score, but not to that of the other teams of the day.

To ascertain insights as to where you might stand “Nationally” (if this is pertinent).

More and more drumlines from AIA and, really, from nearly every other local circuit around the country are competing in Dayton every year. AIA has WGI judges at nearly every local show—a great opportunity for our teams to get feedback from those who are seeing teams nationally. Far be it from a team to attend a regional, get slaughtered, and wonder why. Many of us have been there. Just like we crawl before we run, we should know whether we face certain death before running a gauntlet.

While AIA as a circuit and its drumlines have dealt with reconciling local v. national standards and standings since the circuit’s beginnings, great strides have been made and healthy adjustments instituted to lessen the shock of ‘death by a thousand tenths’ that unprepared teams experience their first time out. Instructors should certainly seek to understand their standing nationally if they want to compete on that level. Again, mysteries and shocks can hurt—unnecessarily. Many teams have no desire to leave the region, and this is great! This approach precludes wondering whether a show can compete in Dayton and begs for speculation.

Further discussion.

Critique is addressed early on in the WGI Judges’ Manual, at page 5:

“We communicate to the ensembles in everything we do; the performance evaluation, the critique and just casual conversation with instructors carries a need for well-developed communication skills. Judges must be professionals who do not employ sarcastic or rude dialogue to those whom they are adjudicating. Hurtful commentary is unnecessary and unacceptable. To convey boredom or indifference is unacceptable.”

The same is true of both sides of the table. Importantly and not to be missed,

 “Accountability by the judge is a skill-set that is developed through dialogs with instructors wherein the judge is accountable for observation, scoring decisions, etc. For a variety of reasons, there is no longer real discussion relative to the judge’s ranking/rating process, which is such an important aspect of accountability. Because of time limitations, many instructors now deliver a dialog to the judge telling them everything they want the judge to recognize/reward in their show. This is clearly not yielding the desired results relative to accountability by the judge and the subsequent trust the instructor can build when such accountability is forthcoming. We would like to provide a critique approach that will return us to the exchange of information where judges account for their decisions. This will involve comparisons. However, it is important that “ensemble bashing” of competitors does not occur.”

Accountability is with adjudicators to instructors, but the same made be said of instructors’ accountability, by definition, to students. Striving to satisfy the sheets (even if the sheets are mere guides to assembling entertaining shows), but moreover to give the members’ a fulfilling experience, should be one of the aims of a good show. Attending critique prepared, with goals for the discussion that can be addressed satisfactorily in the time afforded there, is indispensable towards these healthy ends.

In the next part of this discussion, we take up preparation, etiquette and goals for critique.

Do you have suggestions or submissions? War stories from the floor, questions or other interests? Email Michael Kirby at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .