What works and what doesn’t work

[cfirwin3]

Some of this will come across as extremely opinionated and perhaps offensive to some fans (who are easily offended, needlessly)... But hey, that's kind of what the question is asking for.

These are broad comments about concept and design in general.  It seems to me that there are a few types of contending designs, each places a focus on a different area of engagement.  The first type prioritizes adjudication (a monochromatic theory of GE).  The second type prioritizes the audience (a contrary monochromatic theory of GE).  And the third type prioritizes the show itself (a high-risk theory of GE).

I'll just deal with the top 4, but one could easily import this analysis to the others.  I'm not suggesting that one type is inherently better, because any concept can win if the show is technically solid, well performed and favored by the judges.

Crown - this show favors the judges.  It depends on an esoteric drama rooted in a theme... like so many shows in the past, across related idioms of competitive field band and indoor troupes.  It's a proven way to contend, but it's success depends more on what others are doing.  I personally find this type of show to be tired and cliche, but plenty of fans will carry on endless high-brow conversations about artistic meaning, concerning this type (and find great enjoyment in it).

Bluecoats - this show favors the audience.  The section rankings (especially the percussion) demonstrates less of an interest in 'features' and more of an interest in corps entertainment.  This puts most of the eggs in its own theory of GE.  Even if/when the group is very technically proficient, the focus of content may frequently fall short of other groups that put adjudication as a higher priority in design.  In my opinion, this is where Madison should have tracked to by now.  Crown came closest to this type in 2011.

It's important to note that Bluecoats and Crown have both won championships by performing these types respectively.

Blue Devils - they kind of balance the two, but probably favor adjudication over the interests of the audience.  Personally, I think they are totally "phoning this one in".  But it's a proven formula that has won them a ton of championships.  In spite of their proficiency and mad, mad skillful ability to engage both the audience and the judges... They are a cliche of themselves.  It's like Elvis being his own best impersonation of himself... if that makes sense.

Vanguard - this is the third type... and ironically this is the type that Vanguard has contended and won with in the more recent past.  It's only after falling victim to what seems to me to be an obsession with the late 80's and 90's thematic versions of itself that Vanguard has found the way back to the present.  This type of show is extremely selfish and vain, for all the RIGHT reasons.  A show like this cuts all the proverbial fat and gets down to business, at the high risk of disenfranchising the audience and the judges alike. The result starts to look minimalist, and technical... with any emotion only being derived from the performance and phenomenology itself.  HOWEVER... when the risk pays off, it has the capacity to have both the audience and the judges in the pocket.

So in the end we have BD, juggling everything (as always) competing evenly with SCV (who is juggling nothing).  But Bluecoats giving the strongest challenge to GE as a scoring block with Crown giving the strongest challege to the sectional scoring blocks.

It can really pay off as an expansion of content and engagement to have the least "accessories" going on in the show.  This is doubled by the unanimous approval and investment by the marching members in the masterful design that's there.

So in the end, some groups will give the audience more to hoot, holler and smile at, others will give people more to think and talk about... but Vanguard is having its cake and eating it too.

Edited July 23, 2018 by cfirwin3

[BRASSO]

34 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Over the years, the majority of thoughts on DCP is the shows are geared for the indoor stadiums.

 At its most fundamental levels, the " shows are geared for " what the judges will reward, imo. These shows are a scored competition. Judges training, experience, and preferences come to the fore in their assessments. Corps design shows for what they believe these judges will reward, and change things they believe are being done, but not rewarded perhaps as they were in the recent past. These things are flux too. What the judges value and give credit for is not the same here in 2018 as it was a decade ago. And what was valued and given credit for in 2008 is not what was valued and given credit for in 1998, and so forth. Once Corps design staffs find out what is being currently rewarded ( and not rewarded ) they naturally future design their shows to that new scoring points build up altered environment it seems to me.... and will do so, until the judges change what they value and reward once again... ( ..haha)

Edited July 23, 2018 by BRASSO

[ashevillemurphy]

17 hours ago, MadisonBandMan1 said:

I know that this is probably going to be a pretty unpopular opinion, but after watching the hi-cam vodeo of crown from last night a couple times, I think that those props are fine where they are at and set the stage really well, in fact. I know, they aren't used at all during the show, but sometimes its ok to have something there and not use it. Think of a play, there are often props through-out the program that are never used but yet are a key part in setting the scene and mood during the play. The same goes for drum corps. Just think about it.

I believe they are used to hold/hide additional guard equipment and horns...

[luv4corps]

14 hours ago, Bluzes said:

Maybe if they resembled bones, their base is to large and tops curved like Hersey Kisses, they have an effect though they give me the munchies. One more thing and it may sound like a beer commercial. 

I don't frequent museums' that often but when I do I prefer my dinosaurs bones to appear more yellowish in color.  

Silly me, I thought they were teeth.

[Bluzes]

26 minutes ago, luv4corps said:

Silly me, I thought they were teeth.

Funny I did as well early on. Hope they dull them down with flat paint (to reflective) maybe more of a cream color that does not shine under the lights, maybe weather them somewhat.

[RedJazz1900]

10 hours ago, cfirwin3 said:

Some of this will come across as extremely opinionated and perhaps offensive to some fans (who are easily offended, needlessly)... But hey, that's kind of what the question is asking for.

These are broad comments about concept and design in general.  It seems to me that there are a few types of contending designs, each places a focus on a different area of engagement.  The first type prioritizes adjudication (a monochromatic theory of GE).  The second type prioritizes the audience (a contrary monochromatic theory of GE).  And the third type prioritizes the show itself (a high-risk theory of GE).

I'll just deal with the top 4, but one could easily import this analysis to the others.  I'm not suggesting that one type is inherently better, because any concept can win if the show is technically solid, well performed and favored by the judges.

Crown - this show favors the judges.  It depends on an esoteric drama rooted in a theme... like so many shows in the past, across related idioms of competitive field band and indoor troupes.  It's a proven way to contend, but it's success depends more on what others are doing.  I personally find this type of show to be tired and cliche, but plenty of fans will carry on endless high-brow conversations about artistic meaning, concerning this type (and find great enjoyment in it).

Bluecoats - this show favors the audience.  The section rankings (especially the percussion) demonstrates less of an interest in 'features' and more of an interest in corps entertainment.  This puts most of the eggs in its own theory of GE.  Even if/when the group is very technically proficient, the focus of content may frequently fall short of other groups that put adjudication as a higher priority in design.  In my opinion, this is where Madison should have tracked to by now.  Crown came closest to this type in 2011.

It's important to note that Bluecoats and Crown have both won championships by performing these types respectively.

Blue Devils - they kind of balance the two, but probably favor adjudication over the interests of the audience.  Personally, I think they are totally "phoning this one in".  But it's a proven formula that has won them a ton of championships.  In spite of their proficiency and mad, mad skillful ability to engage both the audience and the judges... They are a cliche of themselves.  It's like Elvis being his own best impersonation of himself... if that makes sense.

Vanguard - this is the third type... and ironically this is the type that Vanguard has contended and won with in the more recent past.  It's only after falling victim to what seems to me to be an obsession with the late 80's and 90's thematic versions of itself that Vanguard has found the way back to the present.  This type of show is extremely selfish and vain, for all the RIGHT reasons.  A show like this cuts all the proverbial fat and gets down to business, at the high risk of disenfranchising the audience and the judges alike. The result starts to look minimalist, and technical... with any emotion only being derived from the performance and phenomenology itself.  HOWEVER... when the risk pays off, it has the capacity to have both the audience and the judges in the pocket.

So in the end we have BD, juggling everything (as always) competing evenly with SCV (who is juggling nothing).  But Bluecoats giving the strongest challenge to GE as a scoring block with Crown giving the strongest challege to the sectional scoring blocks.

It can really pay off as an expansion of content and engagement to have the least "accessories" going on in the show.  This is doubled by the unanimous approval and investment by the marching members in the masterful design that's there.

So in the end, some groups will give the audience more to hoot, holler and smile at, others will give people more to think and talk about... but Vanguard is having its cake and eating it too.

I think this is wonderful insight to the types of shows we are seeing this year.

[gak27]

23 hours ago, luv4corps said:

Silly me, I thought they were teeth.

The first time I saw a pic of them I thought they were vertebrae/rib cages coming up out of the ground...after seeing a recent high cam pic of them, they look more like 3M Command hooks that have started to deform in the Texas heat...

[rmurrey74]

On 7/22/2018 at 8:34 PM, tedrick said:

Bluecoats - the trombones were working at the beginning of closer and it sounded great - swung hard -

 but then they added plunger mutes in Houston and it doesn't sound as good --

Listen to the original. Now they fit the intent of the music 

[Jeff Ream]

On 7/22/2018 at 5:20 PM, MadisonBandMan1 said:

I know that this is probably going to be a pretty unpopular opinion, but after watching the hi-cam vodeo of crown from last night a couple times, I think that those props are fine where they are at and set the stage really well, in fact. I know, they aren't used at all during the show, but sometimes its ok to have something there and not use it. Think of a play, there are often props through-out the program that are never used but yet are a key part in setting the scene and mood during the play. The same goes for drum corps. Just think about it.

if i were sitting in the 500 level i'd agree. however i don't sit there

[kdaddy]

On 7/22/2018 at 5:15 PM, PCEP00 said:

SCV

What doesn’t: Picking nits, but the EDM dance off. This is drum corps, not Bring it On.

 

I actually love the concept of the twerk off, but it really wasn't as cool as I thought it'd be. When I heard the hype about it, I expected more...