Are some Corps losing their identity?

[bluesman]

Would you recognize a particular corps without it's name being announced?   We've seen corps change their uniforms or alter them to fit the them of the show, but the drastic changes some have made make you wonder who is on the field.  Last year Cavaliers lost their traditional look and this year both Santa Clara and Scouts are no longer wearing anything that makes them recognizable. Are these dramatic changes an attempt to move up in the ranks? Love to hear your opinions?

Edited July 4, 2017 by bluesman

[PopcornEater1963]

I didn't have any problem identifying Cavaliers last year nor this year. Santa Clara kept the "star" so I would have easily picked them out this year. I'm not sure Crown has ever had a uniform-based identity. Cadets have kept their color scheme. The only one I couldn't have picked in a million years is Scouts...and I don't say that negatively of them...just truthfully, I would have never picked them as Scouts uniforms. Troopers...easy to tell. Phantom...easy to tell. Coats...not easy to tell by their uniforms, but not hard to identify by their show design. I dunno...perhaps a mixture. 

 

[DrumManTx]

I feel like a lot of corps have their own unique voice I wouldn't need a name or uniform to identity them from.   Whether it's their arranger, approach to brass ensemble sound, how the percussion book is written or performed, etc. I could tell shows apart if I had to. 

I know a uniform means a lot to some but IMO if their show feels like whoever they are.....that's where the real identity lies.  I feel like I could easily pick out Bluecoats because of how Thrower and Rarick arrange, SCV by how their percussion plays and Shaws writing, Blue Stars from their approach to brass ensemble sound, etc.  I'll pass on how it looks to go for how it feels on this one.  

Edited July 4, 2017 by DrumManTx

[Brian Tuma]

Scouts have a Fleur-de-lis on their "uniform". I think that's something they'll always incorporate in some way without banging us over the head with their identity. Plus, you have a 50/50 chance of guessing who they are being that they're one of only two all male corps. I welcome the way they're shaking things up. 

[LoveKathyG]

I was prepared to be really disappointed with Vanguard's new uniform (not ready to call it a costume yet), but after my first viewing of their show I told friends I was with that I feel like they are just as Vanguard as ever.  Their staff nailed a very tough balance between integrity with their brand and history and a forward-thinking approach to this year's show.  

[Cappybara]

I usually recognize a corps by their sound or drill style than their uniform and colors 

[kdaddy]

4 hours ago, LoveKathyG said:

Their staff nailed a very tough balance between integrity with their brand and history and a forward-thinking approach to this year's show.  

While I don't especially care what corps wear, I agree with the importance of balancing brand and current design. I wish the Bluecoats would strike a better balance. 

 

[cfirwin3]

Star of Indiana's most successful programs looked nothing like each other in uniform, sound or visual.

That kind of flexibility was their identity.  Crown is similar in this way.

I think the sentiment is merely just an expression of bias for nostalgia... like so many criticisms can be.

But I think that if we were to make the case for a corps loosing their identity... I would simply say:

Hey Santa Clara, Rosemont wants their drum corps back!

As for an attempt to move up in the ranks vs. some other reason... Obviously making these visual changes have helped to make a minor difference in placements for some (Bluecoats went from being a 2nd place corps to a 1st place one), but only as part of a caption wide endeavor to compete higher.

For most groups, these changes make no change other than to add interest in their design.

I'll just say that the Bluecoats have never been more broadly appreciated than they are today, and that must either be partly because of the uniform decisions or in spite of them.

Edited July 4, 2017 by cfirwin3

[mjoakes]

It's a mixed bag for me. Neither Santa Clara Vanguard nor BAC look like their traditional selves (though of the two, I've only seen BAC live). So in that sense, there is some loss of identity. Madison even more so, as far as a traditional look on field goes.

But I also suspect any critical analysis of identity or branding over a couple of decades suggests things have always been in a bit of flux for one or more corps at any given point in time. Seems like a lot now because, perhaps, of the improvements in the ability to (presumably) affordably alter the look year-to-year. That might make the changes now more dramatic. But perhaps what now seems like less dramatic changes to a top or bottom back in the day were perceived then as pretty dramatic. 

I am optimistic that poor ideas, or poorly executed ideas, will soon pass. Good ideas, or well executed ideas, even if identity is changed, will survive and be welcomed. If so, then soon another generation of members and fans won't understand what all the fuss was about. (And a core few DCP posters/historians will jump at the chance to explain it to them!)

[George Dixon]

The answer to the OPs question is YES

In as far as visual recognition, yes it is getting tough in many cases