Originally Posted by Dancingles:
“I assume musicangel is referring to Emma yet again. Nobody commented they were "rubbish" unless I missed something. Len commented on lack of heel leads, which is fair enough, but he then said the "rest of it as always was great". If he had had the time, which is always a problem, I assume what he meant (and this is purely my own assumption as a dance teacher) he would have meant posture, hold, floor coverage, dancing to the beat of the music etc. all of which did look pretty good actually and are relevant. It is unfortunate they do not have the time to explain their comments, as this might prevent a lot of the arguments and criticisms on here.
I would agree that personal remarks are unacceptable and some of Arlenes are disgraceful, but so was Brendans language on a programme at that time! If Len made some of the comments Arlene makes about the female celebrities bodies etc. he would probably be seen as a bit of a dirty old man, so I dont see why it is OK the other way round.
I actually think the judges should carry on with their marking as normal. Even Brendan said on ITT that the marks usually work out about right in the end, so he doesn't have a problem there (although he did contradict himself). If it is purely the personal remarks then that should be addressed, and it would be nice if the judges could manage some constructive comments to help the participants from time to time too!”
Craig explained Emma's marks exactly in those terms - - and he mentioned most of what you did - everything else but the heels was good or very good and in most professions you would mark anyone at the 8 level if you had a really good performance marred by one consistent fault.
They don't have the time to explain more and it might not help anyway. If they say they like it and give more reasons the technical woks will still claim that they saw some mistake. If the basis of the mark is an overall impression that it looks "good", is dynamic, is dramatic, interprets the music or flows well it will still look odd to viewers who don't think so or are marking on some other grounds.
The point about Brendan was that his complaint personally had nothing to do with anyone elses. Craig LIKED his performance and marked accordingly. Brendan's problem was with Arlene who marked punitively and Len who marked it lower than Craig,. Peter's problem was with everyone - no one liked his effort - its nothing to do with favouritism or upseting a judge. Craig gave it two because he couldn't see any artistic or technical merit - which doesn't leave much to give marks for. Ray. Brendan felt was undermarked but thats straight back to the subjective issue of what you give someone if you think other people look more natural and more impressive - if thats what you see they get fewer marks .
As you say the marks overall work out with the judges prefering at least 3 of the contestants - its not as if they all like the same ones. They also even out on individuals - in fact some of the over and under marking is to make sure the total is right by compensating for other people's preferences - thats why you get 4s and 8s when everyone knows the answer is going to be 24..
Beyond that though you are not going to please everyone. if people think Ray or Matt or Carol are as good as Emma, Louisa or Mark they will not agree with the judges who are marking something they obviously don't see or they would prefer the same people. The people who vote for Peter because the judges were unkind to him and who saved him at the expense of someone better that week are just going to carry on voting for the weakest link anyway.