Anthony V

Great performance today Brewer! I’ll admit, I’m a sucker for the Main Theme from Band of Brothers, you nailed it.

Awesome job today Colleyeville Heritage. A lot of clean marching. And the ballad section with the two soloists on opposite 25’s is wonderfully done.

Well hello there Burleson Centennial! Strong run today. Lots of great musical moments. See you again in finals tonight hopefully.

Wonderful performance today Cleburne! That’s come a long way since Mansfield POC. Lot of good musicaL moments in there.

Hauntingly beautiful show Richland! Love Pure Imagination as the ballad.

Curious about your Area F finals predictions…top 10 and who advances.
 
Azle finishing 2nd is impressive…what was your question about their placement?

Centennial’s show is entitled Hood. The run was better tonight than in prelims, but I feel like they’re holding back a little. I’m not sure of the strategy.

I agree with a lot of your commentary. There was some interesting judging and a scoring system that I’m not sure will translate well to UIL.
I do think Azle was solid, but I’m not sure about that placement. I think Aledo is stronger overall, but I also think their run in prelims was better. 

I don’t know if this contest did anything other than make next Saturday even more of a tossup in Area F. 

Results:
10. Burleson (744)
9. Midlothian (757)
8. Chisholm Trail (757.5)
7. Brewer (760)
6. Burleson Centennial (784)
5. Sachse (799)
4. Rockwall (812.5)
3. Aledo (823)
2. Azle (829.5)
1. LD Bell (861)
 
 
Music: Aledo
Visual: LD Bell
GE: LD Bell
Percussion: LD Bell 
Color Guard: LD Bell

I'm here at the event. Will send periodic updates. I warn that I am not particularly good at evaluating performances in real time. ?
The first exhibition band was Argyle, who won 4A Iin prelims. They sound fairly good at times, but they're a bit of a mess visually right now.
Then Richland performed in exhibition. Their show is haunting but beautiful, and I was happily surprised with the package as a whole. They're pretty small -- about the size of Argyle -- but they're performing pretty well. I think they have a good shot at being middle of the pack in Area F finals. They clearly need to clean their closer though. And their first trumpets need to play in the ensemble, not just in tune. ?
Burleson had a fun bee themed show. They're sounded rougher than Argyle and Richland, but had some good music ensemble moments. They performed at a level above Argyle and just a bit below Richland. The guard was fairly good.
Midlothian's show was ballet themed with a gem motif. They wore tux uniforms! They performed weaker than Burleson tonight, though I think some of this comes from show design weakness.
Brewer performed just below the level of Midlothian. They had a patriotic themed show. 
I missed the name of Burleson Centennial's show, but visually it's themed graffiti on brick. They have several large props like this which some of the kids go on top of. They have a lot of stage presence tonight! I feel pretty comfortable placing them above Richland. Their show feels state-worthy, but they need to make it through Area F. Great show!

You have been missed, sir!!!

I'm here at the event. Will send periodic updates. I warn that I am not particularly good at evaluating performances in real time. ?
The first exhibition band was Argyle, who won 4A Iin prelims. They sound fairly good at times, but they're a bit of a mess visually right now.
Then Richland performed in exhibition. Their show is haunting but beautiful, and I was happily surprised with the package as a whole. They're pretty small -- about the size of Argyle -- but they're performing pretty well. I think they have a good shot at being middle of the pack in Area F finals. They clearly need to clean their closer though. And their first trumpets need to play in the ensemble, not just in tune. ?
Burleson had a fun bee themed show. They're sounded rougher than Argyle and Richland, but had some good music ensemble moments. They performed at a level above Argyle and just a bit below Richland. The guard was fairly good.
Midlothian's show was ballet themed with a gem motif. They wore tux uniforms! They performed weaker than Burleson tonight, though I think some of this comes from show design weakness.
Brewer performed just below the level of Midlothian. They had a patriotic themed show. 
I missed the name of Burleson Centennial's show, but visually it's themed graffiti on brick. They have several large props like this which some of the kids go on top of. They have a lot of stage presence tonight! I feel pretty comfortable placing them above Richland. Their show feels state-worthy, but they need to make it through Area F. Great show!

I'm somewhat surprised about Duncanville, although, as with many other programs this year, their situation could perhaps be easily explained by the effects of the pandemic.
Also, The Colony's absence from finals is notable, even if this is consistent with their bottom-of-finals finish at HEB finals this year and their early-ish performance time today. My guess is that they are the first out.
I'm most surprised by Summit's lower placement, though, given their BOA Midland placement last week. Of course, Midland was not an incredibly deep contest, and this is not BOA scoring. Additionally, Summit had an early slot today, although that is not by itself a strong explanation in this context.
Highland Park seems to be securing their program's upward trajectory. Since they were not in contest with Wylie for captions in prelims, it is difficult to say how close or far the two are.
Movement in finals will be interesting. I think Summit is most likely to move up, and Highland Park most likely to not move down (apart from Lewisville). 

I'm somewhat surprised about Duncanville, although, as with many other programs this year, their situation could perhaps be easily explained by the effects of the pandemic.
Also, The Colony's absence from finals is notable, even if this is consistent with their bottom-of-finals finish at HEB finals this year and their early-ish performance time today. My guess is that they are the first out.
I'm most surprised by Summit's lower placement, though, given their BOA Midland placement last week. Of course, Midland was not an incredibly deep contest, and this is not BOA scoring. Additionally, Summit had an early slot today, although that is not by itself a strong explanation in this context.
Highland Park seems to be securing their program's upward trajectory. Since they were not in contest with Wylie for captions in prelims, it is difficult to say how close or far the two are.
Movement in finals will be interesting. I think Summit is most likely to move up, and Highland Park most likely to not move down (apart from Lewisville). 

The longer I'm connected to this activity, the more I realize how little anyone can understand from the outside-in what scores mean. I'm somewhere between being connected and being on the outside, so I feel hardly in a place to say anything about any particular scores. But speaking generally on the matter (and perhaps more briefly than... usual...) is something reasonable.
 
Is judging subjective? Yes, and it must be, since judges don't have access to an objective, Platonic world of forms against which to evaluate performances. Does that make it entirely unscientific? No. Why? Because not all subjective viewpoints are tolerated. What viewpoints are tolerated? From educators, designers, or others with acceptable credentials. Is that sufficient? Generally and for the most part. Does that mean there is still bias in judging? Yes. Can judging be more scientific? Yes. How? Most generally, by the removal over time of viewpoints which do not reflect the tolerable range of scores a performance in a given caption is, according to present standards, deserving of--as well as the invention of new viewpoints which better and more consistently reflect the tolerable range.
 
And how does that occur? A incalculable number of ways, but all of which put judges in positions in which they must rank-order certain novelties or excellences over others. Are there other necessary conditions? Yes, and a vast number which have yet to be determined, but one of which is the aggregate continuity of judging experience within the community.
 
Okay, they're kicking me out of the coffee shop now.

The longer I'm connected to this activity, the more I realize how little anyone can understand from the outside-in what scores mean. I'm somewhere between being connected and being on the outside, so I feel hardly in a place to say anything about any particular scores. But speaking generally on the matter (and perhaps more briefly than... usual...) is something reasonable.
 
Is judging subjective? Yes, and it must be, since judges don't have access to an objective, Platonic world of forms against which to evaluate performances. Does that make it entirely unscientific? No. Why? Because not all subjective viewpoints are tolerated. What viewpoints are tolerated? From educators, designers, or others with acceptable credentials. Is that sufficient? Generally and for the most part. Does that mean there is still bias in judging? Yes. Can judging be more scientific? Yes. How? Most generally, by the removal over time of viewpoints which do not reflect the tolerable range of scores a performance in a given caption is, according to present standards, deserving of--as well as the invention of new viewpoints which better and more consistently reflect the tolerable range.
 
And how does that occur? A incalculable number of ways, but all of which put judges in positions in which they must rank-order certain novelties or excellences over others. Are there other necessary conditions? Yes, and a vast number which have yet to be determined, but one of which is the aggregate continuity of judging experience within the community.
 
Okay, they're kicking me out of the coffee shop now.

The longer I'm connected to this activity, the more I realize how little anyone can understand from the outside-in what scores mean. I'm somewhere between being connected and being on the outside, so I feel hardly in a place to say anything about any particular scores. But speaking generally on the matter (and perhaps more briefly than... usual...) is something reasonable.
 
Is judging subjective? Yes, and it must be, since judges don't have access to an objective, Platonic world of forms against which to evaluate performances. Does that make it entirely unscientific? No. Why? Because not all subjective viewpoints are tolerated. What viewpoints are tolerated? From educators, designers, or others with acceptable credentials. Is that sufficient? Generally and for the most part. Does that mean there is still bias in judging? Yes. Can judging be more scientific? Yes. How? Most generally, by the removal over time of viewpoints which do not reflect the tolerable range of scores a performance in a given caption is, according to present standards, deserving of--as well as the invention of new viewpoints which better and more consistently reflect the tolerable range.
 
And how does that occur? A incalculable number of ways, but all of which put judges in positions in which they must rank-order certain novelties or excellences over others. Are there other necessary conditions? Yes, and a vast number which have yet to be determined, but one of which is the aggregate continuity of judging experience within the community.
 
Okay, they're kicking me out of the coffee shop now.

The longer I'm connected to this activity, the more I realize how little anyone can understand from the outside-in what scores mean. I'm somewhere between being connected and being on the outside, so I feel hardly in a place to say anything about any particular scores. But speaking generally on the matter (and perhaps more briefly than... usual...) is something reasonable.
 
Is judging subjective? Yes, and it must be, since judges don't have access to an objective, Platonic world of forms against which to evaluate performances. Does that make it entirely unscientific? No. Why? Because not all subjective viewpoints are tolerated. What viewpoints are tolerated? From educators, designers, or others with acceptable credentials. Is that sufficient? Generally and for the most part. Does that mean there is still bias in judging? Yes. Can judging be more scientific? Yes. How? Most generally, by the removal over time of viewpoints which do not reflect the tolerable range of scores a performance in a given caption is, according to present standards, deserving of--as well as the invention of new viewpoints which better and more consistently reflect the tolerable range.
 
And how does that occur? A incalculable number of ways, but all of which put judges in positions in which they must rank-order certain novelties or excellences over others. Are there other necessary conditions? Yes, and a vast number which have yet to be determined, but one of which is the aggregate continuity of judging experience within the community.
 
Okay, they're kicking me out of the coffee shop now.

Weareprosper!!!!!! Absolutely amazing

I wasn’t there, but that seems by FAR the best run they had all year, they really left it out there. That opening fanfare was fantastic on Flo. Prosper did Team Texas proud this year. Congrats again!!!

Yeah, I know, my standards are extremely high, but honestly I wasn't a huge fan of the top 6 this year. Carmel's show is a slow-burn at first, but the ballad to the end is amazing, and leaves a very good impression. I just wish it had more ENERGY. Tarpon Springs had a great performance, and brought some much needed energy to the contest, but I don't care for the show. Too much stuff on the field. (I don't even want to know how much it cost!) Broken Arrow had an excellent, all-around performance, but the show is an update to something I've seen 100 times before. Loved Blue Springs, but the music performance -- and actually, despite the visual caption win in semis, the visual performance -- left a bit to be desired for me. I did get some nice Eagle-chills from the ballad. Great singer! Avon's show was pleasant, and very cute, but it very much lacked the polish I'm used to seeing from them. They should be looking outside of the top 3 this year for the first time since 2006. Guard was absolutely fantastic, though! Wando was a pleasant surprise. I really, really enjoyed this show, despite the incessant narration. I might have them above Avon, actually, but I don't think that'll happen. The multi-cam shots revealed a bit of a struggle at the field level.
 
So, who'll win? Honestly, I don't know, and I don't really care. I'd go with Carmel, but I don't feel strongly about it. I just wasn't WOWED this year.
 
And you know what, despite my expectation that I was going to like the shows at Nationals better than the ones at San Antonio, I'm left thinking San Antonio was stronger at the top. And obviously stronger at the bottom. So, go Texas, I guess!

Yeah, at this point I wish any of the top 4 from San Antonio were here.

Congratulations to Prosper on advancing to BOA Grand National Semifinals!  

Which is why bands like Melissa, Argyle, North Lamar, Canton, etc. should go to SA!  They'd kill it in A.  

Everyone else is afraid. Tarpon Springs and Broken Arrow both don't want to risk losing a regional, and Blue Springs doesn't want to lose a medal (and end up in the bottom half). Avon now gets to say they did it, but lost their streak of medals in the process. It's cost prohibitive for Dobyns-Bennett and Wando isn't a band that travels much. Every other band - quite literally every other one in question - would be in grave danger of missing finals.
 
For better or worse, this regional is Texas's turf. Other bands can come at their own risk.

Not this guy.....