ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Old college threads.
User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) » Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:47 am

An actual criticism I think is more useful of the Velvet Underground question is wondering why they were called a punk rock band. I haven't found a single source noodling around on google that actually goes so far as to call them punk, and the consensus I always thought of (and which Britannica says is the case) is that they were only an influence on punk, which arose something like 10 years after they were really active.
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

User avatar
Mechanical Beasts
Banned Cheater
Posts: 5673
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50 pm

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Mechanical Beasts » Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:24 am

theMoMA wrote:My position on other things that are too hard for Fall continues to be that they are too hard for Fall. Also, I believe Grignard reagents were a noted hard part at this tournament.
Weren't they just a late middle clue in that magnesium tossup?
Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:The point is that it is much more possible for you to be able to learn about opera, social sciences, or philosophy without taking classes on it. That is barely in the same ballpark as computer science, unless you are extremely geared towards that subject already and are willing to read textbooks (which is still far more time than it takes to learn about any of the subjects I listed above.)
Bollocks. I could have tenned most of these computer science bonuses at age ten, because back then I had--well, a search engine called "Dogpile"--and mild interest in the subject. And you could have done it pretty fast: you learn that a linked list is a structure where there are objects and little links between them called pointers that you use to traverse the list. Hello, converting that bonus part for the rest of your natural life.
Andrew Watkins

User avatar
Auks Ran Ova
Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Auks Ran Ova » Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:51 am

Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:
Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:The point is that it is much more possible for you to be able to learn about opera, social sciences, or philosophy without taking classes on it. That is barely in the same ballpark as computer science, unless you are extremely geared towards that subject already and are willing to read textbooks (which is still far more time than it takes to learn about any of the subjects I listed above.)
Bollocks. I could have tenned most of these computer science bonuses at age ten, because back then I had--well, a search engine called "Dogpile"--and mild interest in the subject. And you could have done it pretty fast: you learn that a linked list is a structure where there are objects and little links between them called pointers that you use to traverse the list. Hello, converting that bonus part for the rest of your natural life.
Dogpile! Awesome. My hat is off to you.

Anyway, yeah, I agree with this sentiment, mostly. CS is no more magically impossible to take a casual interest in than any other science. That said, I do support measures to ask about easier things - shortest-path algorithms, while famous and important (and stock and transparent and...), are too hard as an answer for this tournament. Search algorithms would, in fact, be an easier answer, since you can throw in something about "looking through data" or something about Google at the end. To provide another example, "trees" would also be a fine answer - knowledgeable people will be able to buzz on things like "the splay/AVL/B/red-black/binary search variety of these things", and people who have heard of some computer science thing called a "tree" can buzz at the end when you say that they have child nodes called "leaves". You can also ask about hardware or hardware-related things that people know - "caches" or "RAM" or something, if written by a competent person, could make fine tossups. Since this is indeed the easiest, most accessible tournament of the year, I'd even be fine with doing things like making the easy part of a bonus something like "printers" or something about which easier but still real-sciency clues can be given, like "Fibonacci" as was mentioned earlier - if, as always, these easy parts are solidly connected to the actual CS topic being discussed.
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??
Member, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT

User avatar
Mechanical Beasts
Banned Cheater
Posts: 5673
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50 pm

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Mechanical Beasts » Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:24 am

Yeah; shortest-path algorithms I managed to neg with "you are on a graph and you are trying to find a minimum spanning tree for some other purpose" for great glory. I'm less friendly to "printers" as an easy part, simply because there are no real, science-based clues for making you say the word "printers" ("this is what you wish would work in your dorm room RIGHT NOW"), but I support easy CS and don't support magically invoking "this subject is hard to learn about because ___" which applies well to upper-level physics which isn't treated well on the internet, for example, but not many other subjects. (If the internet didn't exist, we wouldn't have a hundredth as many people learning how to program shit as we do. It's easy to learn: the fact that not enough people choose to do so is as much a deficit of the "well-educated person" Andrew was invoking as not choosing to listen to opera; it's just one that quizbowl persons bemoan more because fine arts are, in the majority view, "prettier" than science.)
Andrew Watkins

OntarioQuizzer
Lulu
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:29 pm
Contact:

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by OntarioQuizzer » Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:27 am

On moderating and this tournament:

- This tournament was an absolute joy to moderate. I was quite impressed that the tossups were, at most, 7 lines long. It was very pleasant not to have to battle through monsters.
- A couple of copy/paste issues aside, I was also quite impressed with the packet set. I don't think that I heard a single complaint about the questions the entire day.
- The laptop I bring to tournaments is an Ubuntu laptop, running OpenOffice. I have never had an issue; however, I would also ensure that I had a Windows laptop if somebody else was needing to read from it.
Andy Saunders
formerly Brock University
(former) general helper, University of Guelph quiz bowl

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6593
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Cheynem » Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:41 am

I somewhat agree with Andrew. I admit to being rather technologically stupid as a child, but I didn't learn or even hear a lot about computer science or its terms and I 0'ed at least CS bonus at Fall. Regarding opera, even if you never attend an opera in your life (I haven't), I feel like you have at least some cultural exposure to it and that at the very least you will recognize certain names and concepts. I mean, regardless of how fair or logical it is that novices react differently to CS and opera, I still think that if CS is something of a proper area with terminally low conversion rates (not sure if that can be tracked), something should be done.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

User avatar
The Friar
Wakka
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:39 pm

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by The Friar » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:29 pm

Ukonvasara wrote:
Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:The point is that it is much more possible for you to be able to learn about opera, social sciences, or philosophy without taking classes on it. That is barely in the same ballpark as computer science, unless you are extremely geared towards that subject already and are willing to read textbooks (which is still far more time than it takes to learn about any of the subjects I listed above.)
CS is no more magically impossible to take a casual interest in than any other science.
Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:opera, social sciences, or philosophy
Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:opera, social sciences, or philosophy
Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:opera, social sciences, or philosophy
Nevertheless I will go further than Rob in suggesting that CS is easier to take a casual interest in than other areas specifically within science. Although you can read about particle physics or cellular bio at no cost, doing them usually requires Equipment that you can't obtain or even access without Credentials, hindering casual exploration. To do CS you need a computer. Actually, I think most people who actually do CS very much go this route and are way beyond what their high school classes taught them when they enter college (I could, as often happens, be wrong).
Gordon Arsenoff
Rochester '06
WUStL '14 (really)

Developer of WUStL Updates Statistics Live!

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6593
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Cheynem » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:31 pm

I'd agree with you, Gordon. I think people who engage in CS certainly do those things (a lot of my friends did, mocking my eternal confusion with things computer). I would guess, though, that the number of people who do those things is still a minority of people, within society and within quizbowl.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

User avatar
Lagotto Romagnolo
Tidus
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:43 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Lagotto Romagnolo » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:01 pm

Not much else for me to say, really. I thought this was a very solid set, and since this will likely be my last year playing ACF Fall I was glad to go out on a high note. Well done, editors.
Also, FWIW, I got a huge kick out of that batman fighting superman tossup, quirky though it was.
Aaron Rosenberg
Langley HS '07 / Brown '11 / Illinois '14
PACE

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by grapesmoker » Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:50 pm

I think this set was very good for what it aimed to do. The only real criticism I have is that I felt that sometimes the wording on some of the questions was somewhat vague. As in, some of the clues sounded like "this is a guy who did a thing," (I'll try to dig up the exact quotation), and "this effect is associated with this other thing." Also, this is not the first tournament at which I've observed the erroneous claim that Husserl is the founder of phenomenology. This is untrue; the founder of phenomenology was Franz Brentano, Husserl's teacher. I know it's neither here nor there but it's a mistake which has cropped up in a few places, and I hope people can stop making it if they know the facts.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
women, fire and dangerous things
Tidus
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:34 pm
Location: Örkko, Cimmeria

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by women, fire and dangerous things » Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:27 pm

grapesmoker wrote:Also, this is not the first tournament at which I've observed the erroneous claim that Husserl is the founder of phenomenology. This is untrue; the founder of phenomenology was Franz Brentano, Husserl's teacher. I know it's neither here nor there but it's a mistake which has cropped up in a few places, and I hope people can stop making it if they know the facts.
I think you could consider either Brentano or Husserl the founder of phenomenology, depending on your definitions. For instance, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "In 1889 Brentano used the term “phenomenology” for descriptive psychology, and the way was paved for Husserl's new science of phenomenology.
Phenomenology as we know it was launched by Edmund Husserl in his Logical Investigations (1900-01)."
Will Nediger
-Proud member of the cult of Urcuchillay-
University of Western Ontario 2011, University of Michigan 2017
Emeritus member, ACF
Writer, NAQT

User avatar
ThisIsMyUsername
Yuna
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by ThisIsMyUsername » Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:48 pm

jpn wrote:Also, I would appreciate feedback on the music
Some oddities in the two Beethoven tossups.

From the Beethoven's Fifth tossup in the Chattahoochee packet:
A pair of horns in this piece was supposed to recapitulate a theme in C major, but was replaced by its composer in that section by bassoons.
This is an odd way of putting this. The horns play the passage in the exposition and the bassoons play that same passage in the recapitulation. Conductors of an older generation liked to alter the orchestration and use horns here too, sometimes claiming that Beethoven would have wanted the horns to play there if the notes had been available, but there is no evidence that this is at all what he wanted.
This symphony’s most notable feature also appears in its composer’s Appassionata sonata, and is played in E flat major after several imitations of the notes G-G-G-E flat, which is commonly described as “Fate knocking at the door.” For 10 points, name this Beethoven work that precedes the Pastoral Symphony.
The rhythmic motif from the Appassionata sonata is similar to the Fate theme from Beethoven's fifth: the rhythm for both is short-short-short-long, but they are not the same theme: the time signatures and melodies are different. Reading this also confuses me: it makes it sound like the symphony's most notable feature is something that's played in E-flat after several imitations of the Fate theme, rather than the Fate theme itself.

The Beethoven tossup from Yale B's packet:
A 24 bar Overtura opens a work split from this man’s thirteenth string quartet, his Grosse Fugue.
The Grosse Fugue seems too well known to be the first piece mentioned, as it doesn't allow for any distinguishing between people with moderate or deep Beethoven knowledge, as a less well-known piece might.
One work by this composer contains a subject in E-flat minor in its Grave introduction, and an oft-played piano work by this composer opens with E-D sharp-E-D-sharp-E-B-D natural-C. For 10 points, name this composer of the Moonlight Sonata, Für Elise, and the Choral Symphony.
What piece by Beethoven has a subject in E-flat minor in its Grave introduction? The way this is written makes it sound like you meant the Moonlight Sonata, but that doesn't have a Grave introduction or a subject in E-flat minor. The Pathetique Sonata has a Grave introduction, but the subject in E-flat minor is in the Allegro di molto e con brio and not in the Grave introduction.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '19

“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by grapesmoker » Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:18 am

women, fire and dangerous things wrote:I think you could consider either Brentano or Husserl the founder of phenomenology, depending on your definitions. For instance, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "In 1889 Brentano used the term “phenomenology” for descriptive psychology, and the way was paved for Husserl's new science of phenomenology. Phenomenology as we know it was launched by Edmund Husserl in his Logical Investigations (1900-01)."
Yeah, I agree with this; I consulted the Stanford Encyclopedia to double-check. I still think it's good to put a little extra information in there to distinguish one from the other. It's a minor nitpick, but if you asked me out of the blue, "who invented phenomenology?" without any other context, I don't know what I would have to say. I'd probably go with Brentano. Since I think there's a clear ambiguity in the question, it should be resolved by mentioning one or the other, or some context.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) » Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:46 am

The Grosse Fugue has not come up a great deal in quizbowl (and was a hard part at Minnesota Open, even.) It is an example of something I was talking about earlier where it is objectively much more important within music than its quizbowl reputation would lead one to believe, so I guarantee it was an appropriate clue for this leadin, as someone who actually knows about music will be much more likely to buzz on it.
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

User avatar
Not That Kind of Christian!!
Yuna
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Manhattan

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Not That Kind of Christian!! » Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:05 am

Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:The Grosse Fugue has not come up a great deal in quizbowl (and was a hard part at Minnesota Open, even.) It is an example of something I was talking about earlier where it is objectively much more important within music than its quizbowl reputation would lead one to believe, so I guarantee it was an appropriate clue for this leadin, as someone who actually knows about music will be much more likely to buzz on it.
I actually talked about this with Andy that evening; I expressed shock that it would be a leadin, and he told me exactly what Charlie just said. It's an extremely significant piece in the greater world of classical music, yet another example of how the spheres of real-world importance and quizbowl importance do not always intersect.
Hannah Kirsch
Brandeis University 2010
NYU School of Medicine 2014

"Wow, those Scandinavians completely thorbjorned my hard-earned political capital."

User avatar
fluffy4102
Wakka
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:59 am
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by fluffy4102 » Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:59 pm

ThisIsMyUsername wrote:
jpn wrote:Also, I would appreciate feedback on the music
Some oddities in the two Beethoven tossups.

From the Beethoven's Fifth tossup in the Chattahoochee packet:
A pair of horns in this piece was supposed to recapitulate a theme in C major, but was replaced by its composer in that section by bassoons.
This is an odd way of putting this. The horns play the passage in the exposition and the bassoons play that same passage in the recapitulation. Conductors of an older generation liked to alter the orchestration and use horns here too, sometimes claiming that Beethoven would have wanted the horns to play there if the notes had been available, but there is no evidence that this is at all what he wanted.
They still do. Performance practice differs for every conductor in placement of orchestra and instrumentation. Some adhere to period performance. Others don't care. Very few pieces have a distinctive history of performance practice. Often different schools of thought on how to play or conduct influence these decisions. Plus, it's highly unlikely that Beethoven wanted something he didn't put in the score. He famously indicated that he didn't want substitution for his cadenza and the one written should be played in his Emperor piano concerto. Beethoven wasn't one to hold back his opinion.
Zach Yeung
St. John's '08
Rice University '12
Biochemistry and Cell Biology and Political Science

User avatar
ThisIsMyUsername
Yuna
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by ThisIsMyUsername » Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:03 pm

Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:The Grosse Fugue has not come up a great deal in quizbowl (and was a hard part at Minnesota Open, even.) It is an example of something I was talking about earlier where it is objectively much more important within music than its quizbowl reputation would lead one to believe, so I guarantee it was an appropriate clue for this leadin, as someone who actually knows about music will be much more likely to buzz on it.
I'll buy that it separates those with real-world knowledge of Beethoven from those who have only quizbowl knowledge of Beethoven, but what about distinguishing between two players with different levels of real-world Beethoven knowledge? Or are we saying that there are too few people with real-world knowledge of Beethoven for this to be an issue? I hope not.
fluffy4102 wrote:
ThisIsMyUsername wrote: Conductors of an older generation liked to alter the orchestration and use horns here too, sometimes claiming that Beethoven would have wanted the horns to play there if the notes had been available, but there is no evidence that this is at all what he wanted.
They still do.
That practice has declined in popularity with the surge of interest in textual fidelity.
Performance practice differs for every conductor in placement of orchestra and instrumentation.
In instrumentation, rarely. Reorchestrating a piece or section of a piece is a big deal. There are conductors who became infamous for doing this (Mahler, Stokowski, etc.) or pieces that often have them done to them (Schumann's symphonies), but one generally assumes that the orchestration is an integral part of the piece that's not going to be tampered with. That's why the fact that this passage is often reorchestrated is notable.
Some adhere to period performance. Others don't care. Very few pieces have a distinctive history of performance practice.
The fact that there are and always have been different ways of performing various pieces does not mean that there is no distinctive history of performance practice. There are significant trends and schools of thought that ebb and flow with the times, and there are interpretive ideas particular to idiosyncratic individuals and those which become part of mainstream interpretation, and the study of these trends is a legitimate field. Beethoven's Fifth is certainly such a piece with a distinctive history in performance practice.
Often different schools of thought on how to play or conduct influence these decisions. Plus, it's highly unlikely that Beethoven wanted something he didn't put in the score. He famously indicated that he didn't want substitution for his cadenza and the one written should be played in his Emperor piano concerto. Beethoven wasn't one to hold back his opinion.
So, now I am no longer sure what your point is: are we then in agreement on the fact that saying "a pair of horns in this piece was supposed to recapitulate a theme in C major" is inaccurate? Because the point of my writing that was to say that the idea that the horns is what Beethoven wanted all along is an argument conductors use to justify that bit of reorchestration rather than something we should take as fact; my mentioning the performing history was just background for that point.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '19

“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by grapesmoker » Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:25 pm

ThisIsMyUsername wrote:I'll buy that it separates those with real-world knowledge of Beethoven from those who have only quizbowl knowledge of Beethoven, but what about distinguishing between two players with different levels of real-world Beethoven knowledge? Or are we saying that there are too few people with real-world knowledge of Beethoven for this to be an issue? I hope not.
I am betting that the number of people that are able to enter into the details of the debate you're now having is not that large. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be accurate in our writing, but I think in terms of basic "how many people know this vs. that" kind of distinguishing of players, the question was probably fine as it was.
So, now I am no longer sure what your point is: are we then in agreement on the fact that saying "a pair of horns in this piece was supposed to recapitulate a theme in C major" is inaccurate? Because the point of my writing that was to say that the idea that the horns is what Beethoven wanted all along is an argument conductors use to justify that bit of reorchestration rather than something we should take as fact; my mentioning the performing history was just background for that point.
This seems like a legitimate controversy which I'm not qualified to enter into, but it doesn't seem clear to me that either argument is overwhelmingly persuasive. Instead, let me ask this: given that there seem to be discrepancies between various knowledgeable people, how much does that affect how the question plays amongst knowledgeable players?
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
fluffy4102
Wakka
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:59 am
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by fluffy4102 » Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:52 pm

ThisIsMyUsername wrote:
So, now I am no longer sure what your point is: are we then in agreement on the fact that saying "a pair of horns in this piece was supposed to recapitulate a theme in C major" is inaccurate? Because the point of my writing that was to say that the idea that the horns is what Beethoven wanted all along is an argument conductors use to justify that bit of reorchestration rather than something we should take as fact; my mentioning the performing history was just background for that point.
I agree with the fact that the clue was inaccurate. I think we can also agree that performance practice is controversial and shouldn't be part of questions.
Zach Yeung
St. John's '08
Rice University '12
Biochemistry and Cell Biology and Political Science

User avatar
Louis XIV and Twenty Million Henchmen
Wakka
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:18 pm
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Louis XIV and Twenty Million Henchmen » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:08 pm

ThisIsMyUsername wrote:I'll buy that it separates those with real-world knowledge of Beethoven from those who have only quizbowl knowledge of Beethoven, but what about distinguishing between two players with different levels of real-world Beethoven knowledge? Or are we saying that there are too few people with real-world knowledge of Beethoven for this to be an issue? I hope not.
Are there that many people who could be expected to buzz early on music who don't have much real-world knowledge of music? (Well, maybe at ACF Fall, but on the very first sentence?) It seems to me that quizbowl knowledge of music is very closely associated with real-world knowledge of music, perhaps more so than other categories (maybe?). If I'm right about this, then if the first sentence of a question is to distinguish between two people with the kind of quizbowl knowledge of Beethoven that would allow them to be likely to buzz that early, it should also be able to distinguish between two people with that level of real-world knowledge of Beethoven, since it wouldn't be likely that the possession of real-world knowledge at the "Grosse Fuge" level would distinguish between them.

Oh, and speaking of music lead-ins, there's also the Debussy question – I almost buzzed on "gamelan", but waited until "G minor" just in case.
M(ir)ia(m) Nussbaum
Former player for Ithaca High School, Cornell, MIT

User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:15 pm

Hey guys, this is ACF Fall we're talking about. We don't need to worry about distinguishing between people who know a Beethoven work that, for whatever reason, is even less famous within quizbowl than The Creatures of Prometheus. If we want to distinguish between expert music players, we send our teams to Regionals and Nationals and Opens and other "regular" tournaments. To talk about ACF Fall in these terms, especially for a category that such a vast majority of people don't know anything about, is ludicrous.
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

User avatar
Louis XIV and Twenty Million Henchmen
Wakka
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:18 pm
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Louis XIV and Twenty Million Henchmen » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:27 pm

I don't think it's only "expert music players" who know what the Grosse Fuge is (or that Beethoven wrote it, which is basically all I for one know about it), but I would guess that all or most "music players" of a certain level would be able to say who wrote the Grosse Fuge, even if quizbowl gives them the opportunity to do so less frequently for whatever reason.
M(ir)ia(m) Nussbaum
Former player for Ithaca High School, Cornell, MIT

User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:33 pm

I'm saying it's ACF Fall and people should shut up about a clue like this being too hard for this field. It's not. Even if it were, I'd rather an ACF Fall clue be slightly easy than too hard.
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

User avatar
Louis XIV and Twenty Million Henchmen
Wakka
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:18 pm
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Louis XIV and Twenty Million Henchmen » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:39 pm

Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:I'm saying it's ACF Fall and people should shut up about a clue like this being too hard for this field. It's not. Even if it were, I'd rather an ACF Fall clue be slightly easy than too hard.
No, it's too easy to be the first clue of a question. That's what I meant, at least.
M(ir)ia(m) Nussbaum
Former player for Ithaca High School, Cornell, MIT

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by grapesmoker » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:50 pm

Kaleido Star Legend of the Phoenix wrote:
Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:I'm saying it's ACF Fall and people should shut up about a clue like this being too hard for this field. It's not. Even if it were, I'd rather an ACF Fall clue be slightly easy than too hard.
No, it's too easy to be the first clue of a question. That's what I meant, at least.
Is that really true? I keep asking because it seems like a bunch of people who really know music are saying this, when in fact those people probably should be buzzing at that stage.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Captain Sinico » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:01 am

I don't think it's categorically too easy for the first clue at this level. It's a decidedly second-tier Beethoven work in the popular consciousness. I would have appreciated some more substantive description of it first, but that's hardly a damning fault.

MaS
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

User avatar
Gautam
Auron
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: Zone of Avoidance
Contact:

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Gautam » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:31 am

I just looked through the discussion we had on the Beethoven tossup. Seth had suggested that the Grosse Fugue possibly was too early in the question, but I think it was pretty much fine where it was. I am no music expert, but I've played enough tournaments of various difficulty levels, and I think I can safely say that the particular piece is not all that famous in quizbowl circles for it to merit being further down in the question.
Kaleido Star Legend of the Phoenix wrote: if the first sentence of a question is to distinguish between two people with the kind of quizbowl knowledge of Beethoven that would allow them to be likely to buzz that early, it should also be able to distinguish between two people with that level of real-world knowledge of Beethoven, since it wouldn't be likely that the possession of real-world knowledge at the "Grosse Fuge" level would distinguish between them.
I really don't think that at a tournament like ACF Fall it's possible to have leadin and middle clues for every tossup which allow for distinguishing between people who have real world knowledge of Beethoven works. It would be simply impractical to attempt to differentiate people who have knowledge of third-tier works from people who have knowledge of second tier works by Beethoven.

If I wanted to use a clue about a Beethoven work that has never "come up" in quizbowl in order to award someone with deep knowledge of Beethoven works, I'd be much better off saving it for a tournament like Regionals or Nationals. Only at Regionals or Nationals will I find many people with varying levels of "real world" knowledge of Beethoven works so that my special clues can produce meaningful results. I can be 100% positive that the clue would be useless at ACF Fall since it will only be differentiating .1% of the field.

If the tossup in question led to a buzzer race between two music players with a good background in the works of Beethoven, it's unfortunate. However, all I can say is that there is very little we can do to simultaneously ensure coarser gradation between "people who know something about second tier Beethoven works" and "people who only know about first-tier Beethoven works" and finer gradation between people with varying levels of real-world knowledge of Beethoven.
Gautam - ACF
Currently tending to the 'quizbowl hobo' persuasion.

User avatar
Gautam
Auron
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: Zone of Avoidance
Contact:

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Gautam » Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:09 am

I thought I'd clarify this before I'd forget:

All issues that arose due to repeats and questions being pasted improperly and any issues which inaccuracies in the questions are to be attributed to me. As head editor, I was responsible for making sure that clues used in this tournament would be factually correct and that the final product (i.e. the packets) would not cause any inconvenience to the various teams playing the tournament. The teams who submitted packets put in a lot of hard work to write those packets and they are not, in any way, to be blamed.
Gautam - ACF
Currently tending to the 'quizbowl hobo' persuasion.

User avatar
Lagotto Romagnolo
Tidus
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:43 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Lagotto Romagnolo » Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:15 pm

gkandlikar wrote: I really don't think that at a tournament like ACF Fall it's possible to have leadin and middle clues for every tossup which allow for distinguishing between people who have real world knowledge of Beethoven works. It would be simply impractical to attempt to differentiate people who have knowledge of third-tier works from people who have knowledge of second tier works by Beethoven.
Agreed. I'm going to ask my fellow classical music mafiosi (as Ryan has dubbed us) not to hijack another thread.
Aaron Rosenberg
Langley HS '07 / Brown '11 / Illinois '14
PACE

User avatar
Auroni
Auron
Posts: 2999
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: ACF Fall 2009 Discussion

Post by Auroni » Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:55 pm

I specifically used the Grosse Fugue clue because I knew it was a work that people with deeper knowledge of Beethoven would know, as opposed to those people that know of Beethoven by studying previous packets. If you got that question early, that means that you know actual stuff about music.
Auroni Gupta
UIUC
ACF

Locked