Crowd Reactions to shows

[BRASSO]

 Yes, JWillis35 above is right, imo.. The '95 Madison Scouts have to be right there at, or very  near,the top of any list of Corps shows by Finals week ( Buffalo. NY in this caae ) that had just about everyone in the audience going absolutely delirious with appreciative and loud applause.  On video, audio reproductions at Finals, the audience is all standing and cheering so loudly that in the final 30 seconds of the show, you can barely hear the final musical passages from the Scouts. Seriously. The Corps got a standing O from many in the audience after a musical/ visual segment in the middle of the show.  The fact that Madison did not medal for their performance with the 7 DCI judges in '95 has not diminished, can not diminish, what an unforgettable enthusiastic and undeniably positive & appreciative connection that the Corps show had that '95 season on audiences.

Edited April 28, 2017 by BRASSO

[Tobias]

4 hours ago, jwillis35 said:

In all my years of going to DCI Finals, no corps every produced more audience reaction than did the Madison Scouts of 1995.  That was the loudest, craziest crowd; and Madison must have received 5 or 6 ovations throughout the show.  One of those was when they marched on the field.  It was a freakin' rock concert of epic proportions.

In general, Madison Scouts have typically been the corps with the best overall crowd reaction - especially from the 70s, 80s, and 90s.  My favorites are 75, 81, 82, 88, 92, 95, 97, and 99.  

 

The Phantom Regiment can also light-up a crowd when they get a show to really purr. We all remember 2008, but when they closed with Elsa's just a few years ago they killed it. Their 2003 show is one of my favorite music books.  1996 is killer good, as is 1989, 1987, and 1984.

 

In more recent years, I believe Carolina Crown is grabbing the crowd better than the others.  Bluecoats have done a tremendous job here as well in the last 3 years; but Carolina is constantly putting on shows that drive the crowds crazy.  They are the biggest fan favorite of any of the corps presently competing. 

Agreed. Crown has been the crowd fav consistently since 2007. Mostly due to great brass and wonderful arranging. Great sound gets people going. Also have had great guards.

Bloo recently has become a crowd fav also. I think there's a lot of hype there. Newest group braking into top 3 and then winning but I still think Crown wins the crowd. Ofcourse, new season, who knows what happens.

[xandandl]

8 hours ago, jwillis35 said:

In all my years of going to DCI Finals, no corps every produced more audience reaction than did the Madison Scouts of 1995.  That was the loudest, craziest crowd; and Madison must have received 5 or 6 ovations throughout the show.  One of those was when they marched on the field.  It was a freakin' rock concert of epic proportions.

In general, Madison Scouts have typically been the corps with the best overall crowd reaction - especially from the 70s, 80s, and 90s.  My favorites are 75, 81, 82, 88, 92, 95, 97, and 99.  

 

The Phantom Regiment can also light-up a crowd when they get a show to really purr. We all remember 2008, but when they closed with Elsa's just a few years ago they killed it. Their 2003 show is one of my favorite music books.  1996 is killer good, as is 1989, 1987, and 1984.

 

In more recent years, I believe Carolina Crown is grabbing the crowd better than the others.  Bluecoats have done a tremendous job here as well in the last 3 years; but Carolina is constantly putting on shows that drive the crowds crazy.  They are the biggest fan favorite of any of the corps presently competing. 

I don't disagree with what posters in the thread have been noting, but I find the discussion incomplete in this regard.

Comparing shows of the past and today is comparing apples to oranges. Some shows are designed to drive the crowd into frenetic frenzy. Some shows on the other hand are designed for the audience to sit and be in awe.

Star '92 and '93, Cadets '87, more recent BD shows of the last decade, many/many SCV offerings are all meant to dazzle the crowd and audience rather than make them raucous. JVK's approach with Bloo the year they used the bleachers is far different a design-audience engagement than Bloo '16, even without The Wink. Different designs, different approaches to audience engagement. Noise isn't the only mark of approval. Sad for the fan who can approve only noise.

Madison almost never does an "awe" show and BD has long given up shows designed to throw babies midway through the shows, percussion features excepting. Emotional doesn't only mean that fury is always the metric of beauty and art. Otherwise, one would be saying that looking at the Grand Canyon in its luster wasn't pleasing to the crowd. Not so.

[BRASSO]

1 hour ago, xandandl said:

 

Comparing shows of the past and today is comparing apples to oranges. Some shows are designed to drive the crowd into frenetic frenzy. Some shows on the other hand are designed for the audience to sit and be in awe.

 

 Its hard to quibble with this assessment, as its an accurate one too, imo. It is FAR  easier to gauge a show's effect on an audience that is designed by staff to secure ( as you said ) " a frenetic frenzy " with the audience, than one that is designed to have audiences " sit in awe". 

 With the former, there is no guesswork. We have concrete, visible, physical evidence to support the assessment that the audience thoroughly enjoyed the show. With the latter however, because as you correctly stated, the show is designed structurally to have audiences " sit in awe ", we are compelled to simply guess if the audience is really " sitting in awe ", or is distracted, bored, and thinking about a million other non Drum Corps related things during a particular Corps show. This thread then, seems geared for us to reply to those shows over the years where the connection with the audience was undeniably favorable, enthustiastic, and positive. Here we have such undeniable, incontrovertible evidence for us to support the assessment upon the audience that we are making. The shows that were designed to be cerebral in nature, we are compelled by both its design and its intent to simply guess its effect on audiences.

Edited April 28, 2017 by BRASSO

[Geneva]

15 hours ago, Ghost said:

The crowds at the Dream over the years really loved their D&BC even if the corps was from another state. I played the 59 Princemen from a FB post and that was a very good crowd.  The stadium design may have had something to do with the volume. 

Yes, Dream crowds loved their drum corps! Here it is. Especially at 12:23!

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Geneva

[BRASSO]

24 minutes ago, Geneva said:

Here it is. Especially at 12:23!

 

 St. Kevin's Emerald Knights ( Dorchester, Ma. ) incidentally had under 40 brass ( 3 contra ? .. 4 at most ) performing in this competition in New Jersey that galvanized the audience into a collective and spontaneous frenetic state of appreciation at midpoint of their show ( concert ) at  7: 40 mark heard here, and also at the completion of their show at the 12: 30 mark.

Edited April 28, 2017 by BRASSO

[xandandl]

40 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 Its hard to quibble with this assessment, as its an accurate one too, imo. It is FAR  easier to gauge a show's effect on an audience that is designed by staff to secure ( as you said ) " a frenetic frenzy " with the audience, than one that is designed to have audiences " sit in awe". 

 With the former, there is no guesswork. We have concrete, visible, physical evidence to support the assessment that the audience thoroughly enjoyed the show. With the latter however, because as you correctly stated, the show is designed structurally to have audiences " sit in awe ", we are compelled to simply guess if the audience is really " sitting in awe ", or is distracted, bored, and thinking about a million other non Drum Corps related things during a particular Corps show. This thread then, seems geared for us to reply to those shows over the years where the connection with the audience was undeniably favorable, enthustiastic, and positive. Here we have such undeniable, incontrovertible evidence for us to support the assessment upon the audience that we are making. The shows that were designed to be cerebral in nature, we are compelled by both its design and its intent to simply guess its effect on audiences.

I both agree and disagree.  It is easy to agree that the raucous shows with the crowd constantly applauding and standing seems to say the crowd likes the performance.

But if a hush falls over the crowd as they listen, the silence can be as "loud" a statement of enjoyment as frenzy is.  "one could hear a pin drop" is more often a complimentary statement than it is a statement of disinterest. It's only when you hear the snoring that I would say the show has lost the crowd as boring. How many are running to the bathrooms (even if beer isn't being sold,) when the teens put away the text messaging, and the refreshment lines are empty, then an awe show is considered more than awful. That's not guess work.

Of course, there are those who like my Mom at 93 prefer the yelling of FoxNews and CNN compared to BBC America or PBS discussions  because the hearing has gone; I suspect at times there are drum corps fans like that too, and  not always dinos.

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by xandandl

[BRASSO]

20 minutes ago, xandandl said:

 

But if a hush falls over the crowd as they listen, the silence can be as "loud" a statement of enjoyment as frenzy is.  

 Maybe, maybe not. Its predominantly in the realm of pure guesswork. A quietly played " ballad " for example, requires the audience to be " hush ". Whether the quietly played, soft ballad connects well with the audience is speculative at best however. We have no visible evidence to support its level of reception upon an audience. Even the quiet shows with a quiet ending that we THINK the audience loved, is open to speculation at best, as we have no way of really knowing. This is completely different than a show designed to hit audiences in the gut or in their heart. Such shows provide evidence of its level of connection to an audience.  A soft show, a cerebral show, we can determine its effect conclusively upon at least 7 members of the audience however. The judges. Much like the physical, visible evidence on a loud, frenetic show's connection to an audience, the judges can provide us physical evidence of their reaction to a cerebral and/ or quiet designed show. They score it. We can read those scores. But we have no real way of knowing a cerebral or quiet shows connection to an audience, imo... as we have no conclusive physical or visible evidence of such.

Edited April 28, 2017 by BRASSO

[xandandl]

12 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 Maybe, maybe not. Its predominantly in the realm of pure guesswork. A quietly played " ballad " for example, requires the audience to be " hush ". Whether the quietly played, soft ballad connects well with the audience is speculative at best however. We have no visible evidence to support its level of reception upon an audience. Even the quiet shows with a quiet ending that we THINK the audience loved, is open to speculation at best, as we have no way of really knowing. This is completely different than a show designed to hit audiences in the gut or in their heart. Such shows provide evidence of its level of connection to an audience.  A soft show, a cerebral show, we can determine its effect conclusively upon at least 7 members of the audience however. The judges. They provide us physical evidence of their reaction to the show.

What I'm saying is that shows that are designed for adrenaline rush reactions during the performance and after the performance completion are not necessarily a better gauge alone of crowd engagement. I've been and you have been to shows where the disinterested young and grandfatherly old join the clapping because everyone else is doing it or standing to see because others have stood. (The traditional reaction to Handel's Halleluia chorus except in Ireland or in Catholic congregations.) I take more stock when the crowd doesn't interrupt the show yet still stands and genuinely applauds when the awe show is finished...though you'll probably counter that they are applauding that the show is finished.

 I'm moving on to other duties. Have a good day.

Edited April 28, 2017 by xandandl

[BRASSO]

28 minutes ago, xandandl said:

What I'm saying that shows that are designed for adrenaline rush reactions during the performance and after the performance completion are not necessarily a better gauge alone of crowd engagement. 

 True. We can not state that a quiet, cerebral show was less appreciated than one that was geared to get an audience on their feet, collectively cheering loudly. All I'm saying is that we are compelled by the structure and intent of a cerebral, quiet show to guess its effect on the audience. For example, the '94 Blue Devils show ( that won DCI ) had a very quiet ending to the show. If one looked over to me in the stands, it would be next to impossible to gauge the effect on me with the show. Because the show had a quiet and muted ending, my reaction to the completion of the show reflected that ending. If one was present at Finals in '94 and looked over at me and concluded from my comparatively quiet reaction at the end of their show that I did not enjoy the '94 Blue Devils show as much as '95 Madison Scouts, they'd be mistaken. I loved them both.. about equally. That said, as I noted above, it would be FAR easier for people to gauge my end of show reaction to the '95 Madison Scouts show than that of the '94 Blue Devils show. We can thus do this on a broader scale then too, ie the audience as a whole, imo This thread seems designed to ask us about the shows where the evidence of an audience reception is not as speculative. Thus, the shows that are designed to be quiet ones are at a decided disadvantage in gauging an audience's connection with the show, imo. I'm going on now to do my " to do " list. Have a good day as well.

Edited April 28, 2017 by BRASSO