Leaderboard

What if, instead of miming the murders in Phantom Regiment's 2008 Spartacus show, they actually decided to KILL SOMEONE? For realz! Seriously, Stu, what specifically do you envision in your scenario of a Studio 54 show? People miming sex acts on the field? Does anyone remember the 1991 Phantom Regiment (wow, who knew it would be the straight-laced Phantom Regiment pushing all this sex and violence onto the DCI activity?!) and they did "Bacchanale" from Samson and Delilah? (link, go to 8:45-9:20 in the video to see the portion of the show that depicts a pretty obvious intimation of some fairly graphic sex acts). Was that OK because they were using more classically-themed music and not something by, say, Madonna? Is there really a difference? There's no mistaking what Phantom was going for in that moment. They were deliberately trying to be provocative, with the intent to depict a drunken orgiastic celebration on the field. (And this storyline was from an opera based on a story in the Old Testament for crying out loud.) That was over 20 years ago (notice, the crowd went wild). How much influence did that show have on leading other corps down the "path of debauchery" in DCI? You keep bringing up the two Blue Devils shows you seem to have a problem with, stating that the design team was celebrating debauchery. But this was also the same design team who brought us "Get Happy," "Happy Days Are Here Again," and "I Got Rhythm" just one year after the Constantly Risking Absurdity show. It's the same design team who brought us an entire show of Burt Bacharach music a couple years after that. Isn't that indicative of a group of designers who are influenced by a pretty wide variety of artistic endeavors? And that maybe you're reading FARRRRR too much into this whole thing? Let's hear what you have in mind for your hypothetical Studio 54 show.

Just because some people, be they inside or outside the system, think something has "standout" effect doesn't make it so ($1 to Capt Picard). My own guess is that a lot of the time the people you are talking about are confusing "personal visceral reaction" with "effect".

This activity has been blessed by "characters" (I'm sure there's a better word) that helped bring great corps across the gaps caused by evolution - being there to remind them of their history. Sun had Uncle Nicky - a constant as we sought to rebuild the corps to the musical glory that was the 60s - and Nick stayed with Sun into the new Golden Age of the 80s. The Hurricanes had Harvey - a truly funny, interesting guy who was hard to access - seemed inscrutible, until you were a Hurricane. Archie had a number of guys like this: Pop Cossetti (Jim's dad - with the corps since the 30s); Danny Goettell - another founding member that stayed around for life; perhaps the most accessible was Jack Reilly - one of my personal heroes who not only came out on the field with his beloved corps as support, but who kept playing lead soprano as well as he could manage, right through the bone cancer that eventually took his life. When I think about it, most of the Senior corps have had this type of cornerstone individual, the rock on which you build your foundation - the link to past greatness, and in some cases past stories that you might not want publicized but are still good to be preserved. Yet another element that makes Drum Corps unique, no matter what equipment we take out on the field or what key instrument we're blowing into.

We had some fun today with the idea of trying to incorporate trombones into a drum corps show... and the hazards that can result. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3Wou7efQas&feature=youtu.be It's all just in good fun. I support the ability for drum corps to exercise all creative avenues, but that doesn't mean we don't like to have some fun from time to time. No flaming please, just smiles and chuckles... and you may of course channel your energy into being the over 6,000th Like on Oregon Crusaders' facebook page. Dr. Phil

Okay ... short of having Glenn spell out each letter of his name, I think it only fitting to name this fine Scotsman on St. Paddy's Day ... Albert "Scotty" McFee ... :-)

1) using the word "entertaining" on its own is paradoxical, and difficult to quantify. Using criteria to DEFINE "entertaining," and then evaluating how groups achieve said criteria would not be so difficult. The problem, IMO, is that too many fans get hung up on the use of "entertaining" or "audience engagement" verbiage in the criteria or sheets, when that descriptor is but one of several other criteria on the GE sheets. Effect is a HUGE component, one likely more dense than the other captions, and trying to whittle it down to "entertainment" would be difficult due to the subjectivity of philosophical talks of "what is entertaining?" 2) I don't think "general effect" or even "entertainment" have eluded "the system." I think they have eluded some audience members who don't understand the explicit criteria of the general effect sheets. The judges, and the corps designs/staff/directors certainly have a really good understanding of "general effect" as it pertains to ranking/rating. They may disagree, as there will always be inherent bias, but I think there is plenty of understanding of "general effect" within the activity. Maybe not so much by fans, but def. by the people who most need to understand it. 3) Judges are held accountable in DCI. If there are legit complaints about a judge wrongly applying sheets/having a poor understanding of their caption, if a judge's tapes are unclear consistently, if a judge has poor numbers management on a regular basis, etc. that judge won't get called to work, or will have assignments canceled. I can't name specific example, due to me not wanting to call out specific judges, but I know of at least two instances where this happened. In one case it as a music caption judge who was inconsistent with both their comments & rankings/ratings from night-to-night (i.e. he sees the same corps three shows in a row and his comments & numbers are all over the place). The judge's numbers & comments had a perception of being "wishy washy," as in he would rank corps, go into critique and hear it from staff he upset, and then the next night it would appear he easily caved to said staff and through numbers/placements all over the place (with inconsistent tapes in particular regards to design elements that didn't change at all any of the nights). Corps directors complained to DCI's Caption Head at that time, that Head Judge reviewed the tapes, talked to everyone involved, and came to the conclusion that at the very least the situation did not look good and in the interest of transparency and fair play that judge lost several assignments and did not judge DCI again after that season. Similar happened to another judge, where DCI assigned the judge a caption he was not comfortable in judging. He voiced his concerns to DCI and DCI 'forced' him to judge. That judge made quite the mess (some think on purpose, to prove his point), and after two nights with that assignment it was clear that judge was not competent to judge that caption (funky note: one of those nights was during World Championships week), and he was pulled from that caption for future shows. I haven't kept track of that judge to see how much they judged for years afterwards, but for at least a season or two after he had minimal assignments, none of which were in that particular caption.

ya do know that many drum corps people for years were called snobish...especially toward the band world and what we BOTH did on a football field

I remember the discussion here last year after Gaga made headlines for some other guttural portrayal of "performance art". As I recall, several or many Gaga-apologists here lauded her "art", her talent, her money-making sold-out concerts, her throngs of fans. I recall comments such as "...drum corps should be so lucky to have such a following...". I did, and do, strongly disagree for I believe exactly as Stu says - "You are what you consume" and, for the same reasons that I don't consume fast, junk food, I don't consume what Gaga presents as tasty either. It's puke, she's puke, she likes puke, and she doesn't mind having her best friends puke on her. I don't believe that there is even the slightest hint of commonality between Gaga's garbage and our version of performance art, but everywhere it creeps into the discussion - let alone the programming - it needs to be squashed, condemned, and rebuked. That's my personal opinion, and I'll leave others to value the merit of what Gaga's sad waste of talent means for drum corps even as I keep a watchful eye out for hints of her nonsense encroaching on drum corps. If I'm in sufficient minority that drum corps becomes anything close to Gaga-esque, well, another nail in the coffin. That said, the recent REVIEW of her "Foundation" shows that she's just as irresponsible with her money as she is with her "art". In 2012, of a reported $2.1million is assets, her "Foundation" spent exactly $5,000 on her supposed foundation's mission. The rest was spent on lawyers, marketing, travel, salaries, and other non-mission expenses. In the world of charitable book-keeping, she spent just .2%, yes, point-2-percent on her charitable mission. She's a far cry from meeting the IRS's minimum threshold of 1/3 of expenses on the mission. That kind of non-program-expense spending is an embarrassment and, if DCI were so wasteful with it's assets there would be cries from the countryside (least of all the beneficiary corps themselves) that the executives running the non-profit be tarred, feathered, and run out of town. Ironically and sadly the tar & feathering portion is something that Gaga would likely latch on to as another marketing opportunity even as she thumbs her nose at the IRS. That's no taxes that were paid on her $2.1million in assets, no public good done, with only professionals benefiting from her largesse. I have found nothing redeeming at all about Gaga's "art", as her's is an example of a waste of talent and training, IMO. God help DCI should they find anything to mimic from Gaga's persona, performance, or professional attention to financial detail.

Thought it might be a good idea to crank-up a new discussion generator, given that 2014 scores are still pretty far off. First of all, I agree with a recent observation by corpsband in the 'Bored' thread that reaction to the approval of any brass instrument in DCI was unusually heavy. I'm not surprised by the outrage, yet believe the outrage isn't really over trombones. Distaste for possible Sousaphones, maybe, but not really trombones. The recent outrage is more symbolic. It represents a great fear of the unknown, a threat of one's comfort zone, and disturbance from changes that are coming too rapidly for many, myself included. Well, buckle-up . . . . WOODWINDS ARE JUST DOWN THE ROAD! Why not? The table has been set. You'll need to decide if this will be a positive addition. I won't like it, but I am convinced we'll see this inside of five years. The reasons for this development are many. 1. This activity is about creating opportunities for youthful musicians. What music educator would deny casting a wider net? Seemingly, musicians of a different type automatically means a new layer of ticket buyers, too. 2. Corps Directors need a continually enlarging flow of auditioners. The try-out fees and resultant additional charges from successful candidates are essential. 3. Instructors need to broaden the market for their skills, and open new opportunities. Many of these adults are multi-talented, don't you think? 4. Music instrument manufacturers are fully onboard. 'Nuff said. 5. SoundSport is designed to experiment and facilitate this more inclusive mission. Maybe SoundSport is just a 'toe in the water.' 6. Separate traditional marching band organizers (like BOA) are functioning nicely, but remain a challenge for DCI decisionmakers to improve. There is crossover interaction happening in the same city. 7. To survive, drum corps types need more universal approval, acceptance, and clean access into music departments of all stripes. Who needs limits in this regard? 8. In a difficult economy, a duplication of management and promotional efforts is costly. Maybe two can live almost as cheaply as one. Besides, in the end, it's all just marching band anyway. Right?

The only way people should be responding to Stu's claims is to be ironic. Can we all agree this is totally off the deep end?

Wow, that is bold, broad strokes. I assume you've talked to many DCI designers to get that opinion? I don't see much of that in marching band or WGI circuits (maybe some of the light show stuff) now so I suspect most designers in that world are OK pushing the limits a bit of current status quo. You mention insurance as a liability (both financial and health), but to implement all of that is a HUGE expense. Les Etoiles had the gravity-defying thing a season or two, but most corps didn't even mess around with that route after Les Etoiles showed how popular it was because of the logistical nightmares of hauling that stuff around. Even lighting rigs that bands and WGI groups have used in the recent seasons are EXTREMELY difficult to coordinate, with effects that may or may not be rewarding on the sheets (along with the effects not working = show is ruined and your score will likely tank). If you're saying designers' ultimate goals for the drum corps activity are elaborate, Disney-esque, pop-rock stadium show extravaganzas, I think that's an interesting stipulation & I'd be really interested in knowing specifically which of the many designers have explicitly said that sort of thing.

Yes. The same way it's always been. The same thing we are and have always been to the rest of the world. A bunch of kids marching around on a field playing things, hitting drums, spinning things, and wearing funny uniforms. Usually with strange hats on.

On the flip side, I bet Lady Gaga shows make FAR more revenue than DCI's summer tour (spoiler: I know they do). For those that use the "DCI needs to be more popular to appeal to its fans instead of artsy and esoteric," there are few examples more populist than Lady Gaga. As for the puke thing, that is illegal via DCI rules: no use of liquids (such as the colored milk used for that effect) allowed.

oh no i's a big ole we............WE.....all, on that football field!!!!!!!!!.......but you are proving my point..thanks

Were you not around when amplification was approved? Or the any-key brass change? Sure, there have been a few people venting here, but this is a pebble in the pond compared to the belly flops those other two changes produced.

I agree with you Stu that shows in the future may include some shocking elements from time to time. But it will be rare, because parents are the ultimate judge in this activity. In fact, parents are probably the reason there haven't been far more shocking incidents during shows since the 90s. However, you are applying a cultural one-drop-rule several times: - Lady Gaga had someone vomit on her in a show. Therefor Lady Gaga is essentially about vomit. "a Gaga type show" - The artist was a performance artist. Therefor performance art is essentially a depraved art form. "Down the path..." When you are heading down a path, every part of you gets to the same destination. But this is not true of performance art. Some performance artists try to shock audiences through disgusting acts, but most try to provoke thoughtful ideas, not offense. - Once some drum corps start doing something shocking, then drum corps will be "down the path" and will therefor essentially be a vomit art form. But no. Let's say several top 12 corps each year do something really thought provoking and sometimes confusing. But every two years a corps does something offensive (like vomit). It's too bad. But is it worth the trade off? Absolutely.

defined by whom? is the key question. If you find performing with vomit on your body (completely legal) depraved or perverse then it is that to you. And you can e-mail lady gaga and project judgements of moral conscience onto her. But do we have to feel this way?

Why would BOA pursue a partnership with DCI which disrupts their current (successful) event model? Frankly, the guys judging at a BOA event and doing Sunday clinics on request are largely already the same folks they'd be "gaining" from any partnership. I know this is a DCI board, and we get a bit of myopia here at times, but the reality is that DCI should be pursuing a partnership with BOA, not the other way around - and I'm not sure BOA would be all that interested. They know what they're doing, and don't need the "help." BOA runs events. Does a really good job of it, and they don't use corps people or band people. They use events people. Their legal ducks are in a row, they're back on solid financial footing, they're managed extremely well (and consistently, which is a not insignificant point given the context of YEA...), they have great relationships with the venues, and every detail of every show is relentlessly scouted, planned, and controlled. That and the promise that BOA judges are arguably better in consistency of commentary and professionalism than what you're going to find at any other high school band show add up to a value to the customers - high school band directors. Listen to what the band directors on this thread have been quietly saying, and realize that for every band student with a corps affiliation, there's over 100 without it. BOA doesn't need DCI. DCI needs BOA more so than the inverse. Someone made the point that USBANDS is overextended - their resources don't match their vision. This seems like it could be an attempt to overcome that structural deficiency, and I hope they succeed. Consistency of the brand is a problem with that circuit, and it starts at the top, I'm afraid. These are problems that BOA doesn't have. If there would be some sort of formal agreement between DCI and BOA to partner on events, there had better be some analysis that it's something which is making their shows demonstrably better, rather than change for the sake of "cool! DCI!"

And here all this time I thought it was Martian for "Goooooo TROOOOOOP!!!". Silly me.

Wrong, because neither Lady Gaga nor popular music in general, nor performance art nor the Cabaret Voltaire specifically were obscene or debauched in general. Your continuing summary of these things as essentially debauched because they tolerate occasional debauchery is the one drop rule in action.

Again, it is also people within DCI who are hung up on using terms like "entertainment". They are proposing and developing the 37th set of changes to the judging system in pursuit of that objective. I would contend that "effect" that is not understood by fans is not so effective after all. Let me also clarify - I did not say that GE or entertainment have eluded the system entirely. However, there have been too many occasions where the corps everyone inside/outside of the system is talking about afterward as the standout "effect" show of the night turned up on the recap with effect results mirroring those of the performance captions. Well, thanks for the insight, but my question was addressed to Guardling, and I would still like to hear his/her answer.

Dirt cheap compared to what sports program? I don't remember spending 3 grand to play football and win state. Ya, I was a band jock. I do remember spending money on marching band and school but no where near 3 grand and I can tell you for a fact my school music education was FAR more real world centered for music education. FWIW a young adult is usually someone that can legally be an adult 18 for the most part. I didn't make the laws BTW, I simply agree a "kid" is not 22 years old.

Fixed.

Scotty was the Editor In Chief of the RAG (Raymond A. Garbarina) ... a newsletter for AL Post 1523 and its Drum Corps, The Skyliners ... Priester has more info on his history with the RAG ... as far as I know, he gave up the reigns in the late 90's ... He was quite a character and is dearly missed ... to this day his Soup Bucket is on display at various Sky dinners and the recipe is still stirred up and shared at a number of Alumni Corps shows ... :-)

Thanks Andy and I guess it's safe to say he had his hands on the famous Skyliner periodical, The R.A.G. at one time.

I think, like most things in life, the true answer is not black/white, snob/Walmart. Drum Corps fans tend to be somewhere in the middle, which most not yelling nonsense mid-show, but not giving just golf claps either: lots of vocal cheers for awesome moments. Also, as someone else mentioned, I bet there are plenty of drum corps fans that are pretty big snobs about the activity, with their own sense of entitled, "this is what I think the activity should be and if its not exactly that it's awful and not drum corps."

...really?

So many. So many. You could list one from every corps. SCV - bottle dance. Pick a year Cadets - any year with a Z-pull. 83,84. Star - cross to cross. 91. Madison - 88. Malagueña. Among many others Bluecoats - Autumn Leaves. 88?89?90! Phantom - Elsa's Procession. 79. Or 96. Or 08. Bridgemen -77. Holy crap. Good luck finding it. Troopers - Ghost Riders. 79. Or Battle Hymn. Spirit - Let it be me. 78. 27 - Danny Boy. Various years Cavaliers - Softly as I leave you. 79? Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Mostly agree, but one minor point. Mostly for clarification, not disagreement. DCI would absolutely be the one to benefit the most. And that reason is because MFA/BOA already leans heavily on the drum corps community, leaders and educators. The post above seems to imply a more complete disconnect. While DCI and the corps are not operational, the people of drum corps are a vast and heavily utilized resource for MFA/BOA. Take a look at this year's Summer Symposium brochure. (warning, 16 pages of PDF file) LINK ----> http://musicforall.org/images/PDFs/2014/Summer_Symposium/Brochures/MFAcamp14brochure.pdf I do understand that the show/camp operations are run entirely (and successfully) by BOA/MFA folks at the functional level. But short of the page on Jazz and the page on Strings, you'll be hard pressed to find another page of the 14 that doesn't include multiple references to specific drum corps, or naming leadership and staff. So, they do lean on drum corps folks. And without a DCI brand link.

Probably repressed memories (especially since RAMD was involved).

look, we had a bull #### on the matador in VK 88. if it's funny and works within the rules, who cares?

I would say that we are beings who believe in morals. You cannot escape the the biological fact that we are all products of sexual intercourse. But there are some twisted people in the world that choose to not be moral at all (or go against what the general society has decided it sees as moral). The fact that these people exist is of course troubling for society but it rubs against the claim that we are "moral beings". During the civil war moral people who morally believed in owning slaves were fighting moral people who morally believed that owning slaves was wrong. What standard was used to settle this moral dilemma? For many a "solid standard of morals" comes from something that they believe has higher authority on the matter than themselves. Some may use Christian Doctrine, others may use Buddhist Doctrine or Philosophy and yet others may even use a scientific standard for morality. The latter called "The science of morality" which actually goes about using empirical knowledge to create a universal basis for morality. Each avenue through which a person or group of people choose to base their morality on shows that not only is morality relative but that there are multiple "standards" of morality. To debate the "ultimate standard" would involve getting into a religious/science debate in DCP so its better to simply say that there are multiple standards. You have to ask why we want to be held accountable for doing things that we find immoral? In order to do this we create laws so that by the very nature of being in this state or this country they MUST, with threat of incarceration, follow our moral code. But for those aspects of morality that do not fall under our laws (like adultery in most states) there is really no way you can be held accountable to that moral standard except through the empathy you may feel for your partner. Part of accepting that people have different moral codes than you means (for me) that you can't go around enforcing your own on others or holding others up to a moral code (even if its their own). And I say "you can't" do that but really you can but for me doing THAT is morally wrong. But if they directly or implicitly consent to being held up by a moral code than that's a different story. By being in America you are not morally obligated to do something that in any other country is immoral but being in the country you are obligated to follow laws because you have given your consent by stepping on their ground. Is there a universal standard that says that 'that particular behavior' is completely and wholly unacceptable for youth whether its called art or not? Yes, but I don't think there is any easy answer to this question but I believe such a standard would hinder on human empathy. Do I need the law, society, or some other organization to tell me that it's wrong? No. Why? Because we can put ourselves in other people's shoes and we generally don't want people to undergo and feel things that we would not want to undergo or feel. It's the same reason I think a lot of people don't go around killing people, or stealing things because we know what if feels like to feel pain and we are biologically programmed to fear death, and we learn how awful it feels to have things taken away that we earned or treasure.

Many people pay money to engage in certain behavior through the Ashly Madison website, many people pay to watch and engage in behavior via hard core porn, and in this free society they are free to do so. But that does not mean they are not engaging in debauchery; it just means they are comfortable in accepting the debauchery as perceived righteousness. This ties into drum corps because many have posted on DCP that they appreciate the 'performing art' exhibited by the Gaga and others like her; and they consider the progression of DCI should go in the direction of modern 'performance art'. All I am doing is pointing out the direction 'performance art' is going and that if left up to them, DCI will be going, maybe slowly, but going down the same 'performing art' path because that is what they consume outside of DCI.

The Supreme Court has maintained that we are a free society; that for the most part Government cannot stifle free speech; and that art, however it is presented, falls into that free speech area as long as it is only adults involved. But I have yet to read a Supreme Court decision which defines any free speech as debauchery or righteous. The Court has actually left those decisions up to, wait for it, us in society to define. By the way, you still have not defended the position that the behaviors done by the Gaga are something other than perverted depravity. All you have done is throw out some theoretical construct about the Supreme Court. Come on; defend the actions of Miley Cyrus sexually twerking with a large stuffed bear or Gaga having someone vomit on her while on stage in front of the audience as being ‘righteous’ as opposed to ‘depraved’.

This has a lot to do with DCI because many within the activity consume performance art such as Gaga; they relish in that atmosphere; they are specific in their use of the terminology 'performance art' when referring to the direction they would like to see DCI progress toward because millions of fans are engaging in this art with them. However, you do not have to use ‘performance art’ as a model to make the DCI activity accessible to the masses. There are plenty of commercially successful genres apart from ‘performance art’ which do not bathe themselves in the world of narcissistic shock value of debauchery to garner fans.

Art is merely a non-living inanimate tool; it is the 'Artist' which can be cruel, vulgar, crude, etc…

It probably could have been because there were two corps that performed their show better than Cadets did. There's a thought.

For the sake of clarification, I would say that it is DCI's job to grow the activity, and I think that DCI firmly believes it is doing just that, and through publicity, providing competitive venues, and the like, that is exactly what they are doing in what is their role. What I do not believe is DCI's job is sustaining the activity--that is the job of the individual corps. DCI has had some flaws, though what some consider flaws others consider strength, an di do believe they need to fine tune their vision and game plan which happens in the business and non-profit world all the time with successful organizations, but DCI is not out to ruin the activity, and while I'm sure I've ranted about DCI on many occasions, I do not think drum corps would exist without it. Oh, and go Madison, and you know I love you, and while I can't imagine not loving you, I'd love to love you without trombones, sousaphones, and concert French horns!

The performance art 'trend' is not specifically the vomit. The ‘trend’ is the extreme behavior shown by many of the current modern performance artists to outdo each other on being disgraceful, shocking, outrageous, reprehensible, appalling, dreadful, ... all in the name of narcissistic voracity as opposed to creating performances to enhance the inner magnificence of musical art. Somehow the tide of performance art has turned from being a craft intended to raise people and their spirit to a higher plateau over to diving into the gutter and pulling people and their spirit down with them. Stefani Germanotta attended the NYU Tisch School of Music and was/is an extraordinary pianist. She could have chosen the artistic path to enhance the creative beauty within the historical line of Bach, to Van Cliburn, to Liz Story, but she decided instead to create the alter ego of Lady Gaga. Of course she is free to make that choice; and she is free to continue down the path she is on as Gaga; and she is free to cash in on her own narcissistic voracity. But what this shows is that she is not only able to receive that narcissistic gratification via media exposure, but also receive that gratification through the millions and millions of fans she can appeal to with her Gaga behavior. One may attempt to point out that Gaga has also created the Born This Way Foundation in the name of charity. But all one needs to do is look at the title and deep meaning of the foundation to realize Gaga, not Germanotta, but Gaga is telling youth via her performance art, via her foundation bus tour, via her vocal and behavior messages, that if you were 'born to be vomited on' that is not only ok but something to be celebrated. And my point of viewing this in the light of an activity such as DCI is that many who are involved with the creative framework of corps within DCI not only agree with but partake of the type of performance exhibited not only by Gaga but also many others in our culture who dive into that world of performance gutter behavior. And because of that innate taste for the guttural aspects of performance art by many within the marching arts it will most certainly have an underlying effect on the future artistic direction of DCI and WGI; maybe not specifically using actual ‘vomit’ any time soon in DCI show concept designs, but they will move the artistic concepts slowly down the path of the sewer instead of the clouds. Why? Because you are what you consume.

Please continue to cry me a river. Your tears are salty and delicious.

How is one artist trying to catch attention by the media a sign of progression? Once I see a trend of vomited-on artists over a period of at least a few years then it would be fair to say it's a "progression" of performance arts.

Wish they were going to play Black Dykes Immortal.

Kill the overt insult. It doesn't bother me. Just because you think you're right about something doesn't mean you are. It takes time to clean multiple aspects of a drum corps show so your argument doesn't hold much weight. You were not on the judging panel nor have you spoken with the judges so you can't say you know it was the props that caused the issue.

C'mon... it's Sky - it would have to be Alfonso Progresso...

We already leave random placement based on who happens to be in the stands on a given night. We have a small group of people judging DCI, and I don't see or hear of very many new faces coming thorough, and it doesn't matter why or why not. It only matters that the small group is the same and they have their favorites and bias just like John Q Public. We all know the jokes about specific judges favoring particular corps if they can. We've had some lively discussion on here about that.

I've always loved the first 30 seconds of Star's 1990 musical program. Simply a joy to the musical ear.

Blue Devils, Channel One Suite.

The first 30 seconds of North Star's 1979 show has always been drum corps nirvana to me.

"Rocky Point Holiday," Garfield Cadets, 1983. From the first massive note to the ridiculous Z-pull at the end, it electrified a finals-night crowd that knew it was watching history. The chants of "East! East! East!" at the end were chilling.

The GE judges may be recording comments about crowd reaction, but it really has not affected their scoring evaluations. This is what actually occurs: "Wow, the crowd is really getting into it" - score based on 'my personal sense' of technical engagement 18.7 "You didn't quite excite the crowd in the way you were anticipating" - score based on 'my personal sense' of technical engagement 19.8