audiodb
-
Posts
6,216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by audiodb
-
-
I'm not even sure people should even get upset over these things?
It seems like to me they wanted to play up on the "2" theme of the e-mail. "septemeber 2nd" "Cadets 2" "year of the 2" "2 performances". And honestly if they added "hopefully" or "possibly" it would take away from the release and they needed to inform people about the prelims and finals competitions to sell their weekend package.
However, for those that don't like Cadets2 I can see why the phrasing may come of as being audacious... but again, only if you don't like Cadets2.
(sigh)
Let's get one thing straight here. I like all corps, from the tiniest struggling last-place finisher to the perennial title contenders. Nothing makes me happier than to see new corps make the field. I have defended Cadets2 and George Hopkins in this forum against the unfair attacks they received back in the fall. I think I made my support for Cadets2 clear back then, but if not, I'll repeat....I support Cadets2.
I discovered drum corps in the early 1980s, and marched in the late 1980s. The years in between were extremely difficult times for drum corps, both junior and senior. Corps were folding all over the place; membership numbers were plummeting, even with fewer surviving corps to fill. Some corps publicly declared what size corps they would field and where they aimed to place, as was an increasingly common practice in the preceding decade....only in these trying times, those promises could not be kept. This type of PR failure was devastating to some corps.
As a result, that approach was resoundingly rejected. A new conventional wisdom developed where corps refrained from setting such specific competitive placement goals, and press releases no longer promised such specific contest results or exact membership quantities. Corps leaders made it a high priority to convey this philosophy throughout the ranks. I entered the activity right in the midst of this attitude adjustment, so that's what I learned.
Evidently, times are a-changin', and I have some more learning to do.
One other thing to note....I see many responses alluding to video posted by Cadets2 attesting to their current quality. I'm at a disadvantage here, as I don't listen to pre-season audio/video clips. I prefer to see and hear the shows for the first time as they are intended....on the contest field. From the comments here, it sounds like this might be a debut so historic as to rival the DCA rookie record set by Phoenix in 1975 (5th place). That would be very impressive.
Looking forward to seeing all the corps (Cadets2 too) this summer!
-
1
-
-
The only other question I've asked repeatedly that remains unanswered is: When 21 cokorps in a row perform largely traditional shows and one single corps does something different, executed superbly (even if if didn't meet someone's threshold of entertainment)....Why is it treated like DC blasphemy?
Because some think Teal Sound's use of....oops, wrong thread.
On this board, any corps can be treated like blasphemers....and most are.
-
I've seen some senseless press releases over the years, but I don't recall any this audacious.
From a Cadets mass e-mail today, here's how their blurb on Cadets2 begins:
Join Us for Our First World Championship and Cadets Meet-upThe year 2012 is the year of "2," and for Cadets2 their inaugural season will conclude at the DCA World Championship Finals in Annapolis, Md. of course, to be held on September 2.
To celebrate our inaugural year, Cadets2 and the entire Cadets organization is planning for a Labor Day celebration in Annapolis which will feature 2 performances by the corps in the DCA World Championship preliminary and finals competitions, along with social events and a very special Cadets Meet-up for fans and alumni on Saturday evening.
Does anyone recall a first-year corps having the nerve to announce their plans to perform in both prelims and finals in advance, as if it is an absolute certainty they will make the finals cut?
-
5
-
-
I'm glad the thread is still open....it allowed you to post. :)
-
1
-
-
I thought on the latest Surf video they said they were doing a full tour. I guess not if they are only doing 15 shows.
The DCI definition of "full tour" is to join the tour by San Antonio and stay with it from then through championships. Jersey Surf is doing that in 2012; therefore, they will be a full-touring world-class corps.
-
1
-
-
Just one minor exception though...1972 with the advent of DCI was the first year that prelims performances where the full show.
Yes - good catch. At U.S. Open a week earlier, the short prelim routine was still in effect, but the DCI Championship prelim shows were full-length.
-
My argument (in conversations on DCP) has always been about posters claiming to know why everyone in the stands is sitting on their hands or politely clapping and most often it is to bolster their argument that it is because of BD's presentation. I believe (as you may know) that many other things are at play as well, and to what degree one or the other is more prevalent, none of us have any way of knowing. I understand that some fans feel that "fan reaction" is the only counter for competitive results, but in recent years it has become ridiculous and beyond the pale.
Why should that bother you, then?
In short, why not just applaud all the corps, no matter what they put on the field, as long as they perform the #### out of it? But the politics of competition creep into this debate and dominate the conversation. Why else would this thread that started on 26 April have twice as many pages than any other Corps thread (exception SCV and Madison which both started in Dec)? Why?Maybe your 29 posts in this thread have something to do with it.
Seriously, this thread has been primarily an exercise in trolling for many pages now. We all know the advice "don't feed the trolls". Clearly, both the trolls and the ones feeding them are enjoying their roles, or they would have stopped long before now.
-
1
-
-
If you're making the case that there would be more corps today had no organization like DCI been formed, then you're going to have to offer some support for how all those corps would have survived all the transition and turmoil around them.
No, this thread isn't about "what if DCI had never been formed". Now, asking "what if DCI could do things a bit differently", as I am, fits within the topic.
(If you're that curious, we had a thread about what might have transpired had DCI not formed as it did. Try the search feature, and you might find it.)
It's easy and convenient to blame DCI.Oh, good grief. Didn't you read my disclaimer?
I say you can't make a reasonable case for the survival of all those corps - big or small - because lower expenses by itself wouldn't have been enough. You still had to attract the kids, the crowds and the cash. And those were disappearing before our eyes irrespective of DCI.I am not saying that ALL of those corps would have survived....just that more of them could have.
-
Wow....where to start?
Like CrownBariDad admits, his metering approach has it's limitations, and your mileage may vary. This is a topic with which I have some experience from recording shows, so I can see several reasons why.
First of all, let me emphasize that there is no way to settle this matter quantitatively. Too many inseparable variables prevent us from "measuring" brass volume in the setting of a DCI field contest.
For example:
1. Judging from the dB meters I look at (i.e. on recordings), peak dB moments are almost universally achieved by percussion instruments. This is particularly true in the past 30 years, owing partly to the growth in size of drumlines, partly to the development of their equipment over the years, partly to the end of close-mic technique in recording field contests, and partly to the development of the pit.
2. Bear in mind that CrownBariDad is not leaving his dB meter on for the whole show to catch the true peak moment, but rather, judging for himself when he thinks the peak is coming, and turning the meter on then. There could be reasons for choosing that approach....but that method might catch the true peaks for some corps and not for others.
3. There really is no way to isolate the peak dB impact of a hornline from that of the drumline or pit, given that they play together so much of the time.
4. Along those same lines, crowd noise can't be ruled out either. Sound dissipates over distance, so a loud noise close by can easily top that of a distant sound source. Perhaps CrownBariDad or his neighbors, likely fans of Carolina Crown, are contributing to the chart-topping peak results for their own favorite corps.
5. And then....are peak dB readings really the most relevant measure of a brass section's perceived power? Brass strength, as I perceive it, is not exclusively in the momentary impact of an accent, but also in the sustained volume of a note, preferably one that is four beats or longer in length.
My own take on things is that the differences between brass sections are not nearly as wide, in dB, as the data distribution CrownBariDad obtains with his dB meter. And my own impression of the 2011 field is that hornlines were more closely-matched in volume than many other years. With the exception of SCV, the whole top 18 let me know they brought full brasslines to the show. I can't decide who was loudest this year. (But don't fret....Crown is on my short list!)
-
1
-
-
Name one lesson from the past that has not been appropriately addressed. Seriously, any lessons currently relevant have been well learned (Miss Jackson, if you're nasty).
Oh? Apparently, judging from the G7 fiasco, top corps still haven't learned this lesson. When you set up an organization to serve X number of member corps while using Y other non-member corps, eventually you will be left with only X.
Once upon a time, ten corps got together to form their own circuit to serve their best interests....which would ordinarily be just fine. Except in this case (DCI), they promoted this circuit as something that would serve the entire junior corps activity's best interests. So they set up shows, tours, world championships, etc., talking dozens (eventually hundreds) of non-member corps into participating without getting the benefit$ of DCI membership.
I'm sure DCI's founders meant well....they probably felt justified that since they were creating the circuit in the first place, why shouldn't they get something extra for their trouble? But this is how DCI has operated for all 40 of their years....and for that entire time, the number of surviving corps has declined in a manner that approaches X asymptotically. Thankfully, at least X has grown from the initial 10 to as much as 25 over the years (now 23), but some member corps are very reluctant to grow that number.
Using the "have-nots" to leverage the circuit for the benefit of the "haves" seemed like a great idea back when there were 400 "have-nots". Now, there are less than two dozen....and we're still keeping them in the "have-not" category. How's that working?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, your response will be that since you believe there should only be X corps anyway, that the situation is already being addressed appropriately. As we have found out in recent times, your belief is shared among some of those top corps administrators....in fact, some think X should be a smaller number than it is now. You (and they) are entitled to that opinion....and I am entitled to mine.
And a disclaimer for the coming wave of posts saying "no, it was:
declining veteran support
declining church support
end of baby boom
gas prices
inflation
societal changes - go read Bowling Alone
video games
President (fill in the blank)'s policies
marching band
etc."
....of course, many factors have affected the corps population. Haves vs. have-nots is one, a big one IMO....but not the only one.
-
1
-
-
The problem with that concept to me is that hundreds of local corps that had almost nothing to do with DCI are the bulk of those that folded through the 70's and 80's.
But that "almost nothing" involved a significant amount of expensive travel for some of those corps.
If you look at 1975 Open class finals, of 12 corps...9 are still in existence. From 1980....8 of 12 are still around. 1985...9 of 12.If you look at the 1975 class A prelims, out of 19 corps....only two still exist. All-girl prelims....all ten are gone. From 1980....all 21 of the corps that went to Birmingham for class A/AG are dead.
-
The first part, however, isn't addressing the core issue, which is better high school band experiences might have dissuaded some kids from seeking out local corps through the years.
That's because you haven't shown a cause-and-effect connection there.
You're correct about both options. A lot of kids didn't have the choice to march in a local corps because those corps were dying through the 70s and 80s. So some significant portion of the kids in marching band couldn't march in their parents' corps. I think we agree on that.It's more than that. Some of these bands are in areas that never had a corps....and conversely, some of yesteryear's corps were in areas that didn't have competing band programs at the time (some still don't).
The substitute effect in this case refers to what else they didn't do. Those marching band kids (in general) didn't seek out the corps that remained, some of which could been quite close. Dozens, hundreds, of soon-to-be-extinct corps didn't attract the similar numbers of young marchers even in regions where drums corps recently had drawn large numbers to participate. Did demand for the experience just evaporate? I'd say yes in some respects and no in others. And the no owes in part to the fact that some kids were finding sufficient satisfaction in one particular substitute - competitive high school band programs.Not buying it.
I don't see all these hordes of kids saying "well, I was going to march 27th Lancers, but now my HS has a band so I'm doing that instead". You aren't even giving an anecdotal example of such. From what I know, it's quite the opposite, in that bands are often the mechanism that introduces kids to drum corps. Happened that way for me circa 1980....if not for my marching band, I would never have discovered drum corps.
In fact, given that today's corps recruits are exclusively MB trained, it is silly in a way to contend that marching band is taking kids away from drum corps when, in fact, MB is the near-exclusive supply source of drum corps kids. Again though, the adults are a different story. I can see how a whole wave of creative staff/potential drum corps admins chose instead to become marching band staff/band directors, where there was a financial base in place to support what they were doing. And from there, the recruiting and development efforts of that whole wave of people went toward marching band programs instead of local-level drum corps.
No meteor hit this ground. The failure of a generation of young people to find the drum corps practice fields reflects several things: disruption in the communities that once nutured drum corps and their participants; substitute experiences, including high school marching band that drained the talent pool of potential; money; television; blah, blah, blah ...It all adds up to one truth. And that is we can't go back.
In what sense? If you are referring to some dinosaur thinking that if we just unplugged the synths, hacked the valves off the horns with a blowtorch, and marched squad drill, that hundreds of corps would spring up like corn in Iowa and the stands would magically fill with legions of people....you're right, that won't work. But let's not discard every single principle that can be associated with "the past" just yet. For instance, cost-consciousness is a principle from "the past" that I think belongs in the discussion somewhere....
-
Interesting that people get so caught up on semantics and what used to be.. what didn't.
Only thing that matters right now is that currently is (though "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing") the present and future.
Who cares if bands replaced local corps or didn't .... if there were mostly local corps vs. now touring. What is not IS NOW.
If there was something that was in the past that isn't anymore... and it seemed pretty #### good/useful/reasonable... give a nudge and try to reintroduce, reencourage. To simply lament.. what is the point in it?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not discuss the past merely to lament. As the cliche says, we learn from our past mistakes. Successes, too.
-
Not logical at all. In economic terms, you're confusing a complimentary experience with a substitute experience.
No, I am not confused on that.
If anything, perhaps some of the adults who were inspired to create more of what they experienced in drum corps chose corps-style marching band as the more economical $ubstitute vs. drum corps, given the nine-figure annual subsidy from our tax dollars that supports scholastic band programs. The kids, however, often haven't had both options to choose between, as my previous post points out.
Other corps (the complimentary experience you're describing) was one alternative. As competitive marching band grew and came into more prominence, it was the substitute experience (which MikeD describes) that had a profoud impact on drum corps.Subsitution is when the ocnsumer (in this case, the prospective member) makes a choice that acknowledges the changing cirucmstances and options available. In the drum corps case, this reflected changes at so many corps and communities through the 70s as well as the advent of more polished and competitive high school marching band programs. Some teens opted for the traditional corps experience. Others choose the substitute experience in the high school band.
The point is - and it's a good one - that some teens who otherwise might have joined local corps in the 60s chose not to in the 70s and 80s at least in part because their high school band experience was a sufficient substitute.
I just saw the perfect response to this earlier today. Oh, look who wrote it....
you really ought to make a more credible argument. Because you've made assumptions that aren't valid, substituted conjecture for fact and generally missed the point
-
Notice I said 'local corps'. Garfield was a national level corps even back then. There was a difference between the top corps and the smaller local corps (a la GSC). If I did not make what I was talking about clear, my bad.
Oh, I thought your comment was saying every corps was like that back then. Thanks for clarifying.
So in the '68-'69 Imperial Guardsmen, no one came from more than two towns away. Got it!
-
1
-
-
Back in my local-corps days, pre-DCI, nobody came from more than one or two towns away from the corps.
So when you left the Imperial Guardsmen and joined Garfield, you were the very first "import" in the history of drum corps?
-
My comparison is between competitive bands today that have replaced local field corps of back in the day.
But bands haven't "replaced" corps. Perhaps you see them as interchangeable (and choose to ignore people who don't). But even if you accept the band = corps premise, your statement still isn't true.
Ever since your marching days, the junior corps experience has been available to kids throughout the 13-21 age range, with no systemic geographic limitations. Competitive marching band is only available to high-school kids whose schools are among the 20% of schools that have a competing marching band. If your kid sees a marching band and wants to join, but your town's HS doesn't have a competing band, tough luck. You can't join the band in the next town.
Bearing that in mind, for marching band to have literally "replaced" drum corps, the programs would have to be located in the towns where these drum corps used to be. But reality is quite the opposite. Marching band grew more prevalent in areas that historically lacked junior corps activity, like Texas, Indiana, and several Southern states. Even in the Northeast, the locations of competitive marching band programs don't correspond to past drum corps hotbeds. I don't see scores of competing marching bands hailing from Newark, Garfield, NYC or Boston. I do see lots of them in suburban towns that had no drum corps heritage.
-
Our old church had to stop the scouting program because of lack of adult help. Parents wanted to help but in a lower income area things like earning enough money to pay for food come first. So you can't help with the kids if you're pulling that weekend shift at teh Uni-Mart making bread money.
Excellent point....one reason I've been saying that "recruiting" shouldn't be limited to marching members. We need to recruit adults for administrative staff and volunteering as well.
-
If you went to almost any local show back in the day, there was a general hierarchy as well. At the class 'A' level in 71, for instance, most of the time here in the Northeast Blue Rock won, 27th was second, Garfield was third. Boston, Blessed Sac and St Rita's followed up...every so often there might be a position change or two, but usually that was the hierarchy.
First of all, that is pure fiction. Here are some 1971 contests with placement order different from your supposed "hierarchy":
6/12 Boston: Blue Rock, Boston, 27th, Garfield
6/13 Revere: back to your order
6/19 Toronto: 27th, Garfield, Blue Rock
6/20 Batavia: Garfield, 27th
7/9 Garfield: back to your order
7/11 Hempstead: Blue Rock, Garfield, Boston, 27th
7/15 CYO: Blue Rock, Boston, 27th, Garfield
7/17 World Open finals: 27th, Blue Rock, Garfield, Boston
8/7 Union: back to your order
8/8 Dream: 27th, Blue Rock, Boston, Garfield
8/18 VFW finals: 27th, Blue Rock, Garfield, Boston
As you can plainly see, these four corps were flip-flopping all over the place.
Secondly, you can't possibly pretend that today's contest results permit the same kind of "any given day" outcomes, where a middle-to-lower finalists could catch title contenders in the manner you saw (and did) in 1971.
-
1st maybe soccer is doing great BUT you arent looking at the big picture..
Actually, I am....which is what makes my point noteworthy.
Boy Scouts are 1/2 the amount of kids now from 1972...many or most civic programs are down or gone..forget church groups....Yes. And in the face of all that, there are some youth activities that have grown over the past generation.
How can you say kids dont have more choices than we did back then..I can't say that....so I didn't. But regardless of how many choices kids have now, there are some youth activities that have grown over the past generation.
Its a whole new world.....the activity serves a very different kid today. Maybe I see it different because i deal with kids today and their issues and they by no means are the same as we were.Yes. Yet no matter how much kids have changed, there are some youth activities that have grown over the past generation.
Instead of making excuses for why we should fail, why don't we look at successes and find ideas we can use?
Next, Drum corps is as competitve as it always was...less corps? yes...less interest yes compared to the 60s maybe...Different times and needs...as far as contests BITD were all over the place and anyone could win or flip flop because the tick system was a horror and was at the mercy of more of a personal opinion and tollerence and was a totally unaccountable situation.Understood. Yet, for all the shortcomings, it is interesting to note that fan (and member) interest was higher, perhaps even stoked by the more unpredictable nature of the competition.
-
Kids do have more choices today, so more traditional activities have seen a decline.
That's a myth. Soccer is a traditional youth activity, and it hasn't seen a decline.
We've looked at finances in these posts. we've also looked at old school/new school debates, and just about every other topic, but if we're discussing saving drum corps, have we ever asked what is essential to drum corps? The unique aspects of a drum corps is the selling point.And while we can argue endlessly over precisely what those unique aspects are, they do fall into two main categories....art and sport. I'd like to address the latter category for a moment.
There's a reason people pay good money to see the non-professional art of drum corps....because it's also a competition. Back in the day, drum corps was a competitive free-for-all, and it drew huge crowds partly on that account. Today, there is a well-established competitive hierarchy due to disparities between corps, and a systemic competitive inertia that further discourages changes in the placement order of contests. Oh, and look....fan interest has dropped over that same time period.
If you want to "save" drum corps, figure out how to make it competitive again.
-
2
-
-
No, it is not really a very different experience. Local corps of my day and local competitive bands of today are pretty much the same, only an average band today is much better than the small local corps used to be.
But a small local corps today is still better than the average band. Why are you comparing today's bands only to drum corps from decades in the past?
-
Permit me to contend otherwise by pointing out that "back then" the activity was flourishing; one only needs to count the numbers. The product being put out today, rings or no rings, is boring to the general public and to potential new recruits.
Wow....this thread has risen from the dead, and all because you chose to take a months-old post of mine way out of context.
I'm on your side (if there must be "sides"). I am well aware how much the drum corps activity was flourishing BITD compared to today. However, it is fair to point out that from a technical standpoint, today's corps are more advanced than 50 years ago. (On the other hand, it is also fair to point out that technical advancement has not maintained the same audience draw that drum corps enjoyed 50 years ago.)
But anyway....
-
(boldface by me)
Again, with the "mass" anything. That is so not-dada....it's more along the lines of daduh!
Oh my friend, the show was there two years ago (and the two previous years)....but one can only lead a horse to water, you can't make him clap (i.e. sitting on their hooves). Simply stated: popularity is no measure of talent, quality or art....that's why most classic artists died poor. It's for this reason that nearly all American Idol winners are faint memories now (forgotten, vaporized)..no substance. True longevity exists in art when we see beyond the popular norms. In my view, this is exactly where BD is trying to pull design....kicking and screaming.
Look at the trend of the recent BD show themes....Absurdity/Risking, Depression/Shell Shock, Reflection/Disturbing, Burt?? (hey, Cesario insisted), Dada/Culture Re-imagined.......these are designers who are looking through a different prism altogether; The only way they are able to see the same "yesterday" that so many DCPers do (and even long for) is through that glass and darkly. They might even suggest that if you want BD 96....go get the video! (please ignore the snarkyness of that, but that may be the sentiment).
Personal Opinion Alert: I expect a full-on assault on the metronome this year. A brilliant assault. And as in true dada fashion...your validation of their design will not be a requirement. I would even say (although it is always a lovely thing to get) it isn't expected. Afterall, the center of gravity for Dadaism is anarchy...in short, lawlessness. Rejecting reason, embracing non-sense as a means of shocking the insanity of normal. Doesn't exactly sound like "Dress right, DRESS!" to me (inside humor for us military types
). No G, this will be a design that inspires intuition and counter-culture (not a very far leap from the structured world of Drum Corps)....... and they have the chops to do it!Wow....I fully expected to see posts like this from you two months from now, but not before we've even seen the show. You've launched a pre-emptive strike against anticipated fan disappointment.
Just wondering....are you so sure fans won't like BD? Or is this just a self-contrived win-win situation, where fans who like it are "enlightened" while fans who don't like it only prove how highly evolved the design must be?
(I usually stay out of these pre-season threads. It doesn't matter to me who's playing what, anyway....it's all about how they play it. And I will wait to see/hear that for myself before forming any opinions.)
-
1
-
It's Official, Cadets need a new PR writer
in DCA - All-Age Corps Discussions
Posted
I am not feuding, nor am I singling you out. Your quote was the best example of what many are probably thinking.
The press release doesn't say "possibly". It says Cadets2 "will" perform twice in competition....that they will perform in "preliminary and finals competitions". See how one word can totally change the meaning? Too bad you aren't writing their press releases - you'd have gotten it just right!
Frankly, you and I both know that making a statement like that cannot possibly be "setting a placement goal". Bear in mind that DCA corps have not even declared open-class vs. class A yet. For all we know, there could be 16 corps in open-class this summer....or we might not even have 10.
Where do you see me saying anything remotely like that?
Read the title I gave this thread. See where it says "PR writer"? Focus on that, and listen.
I know full well that the Cadets do not "indoctrinate" their members to think they're better than everyone else. No corps these days sets 1st place as the only acceptable outcome. To my knowledge, the only person on this planet publicly promising a finals placement for their corps is the PR writer for Cadets2.
Hey, I came into this thread believing that humility was the only sensible way to go. The near-unanimous reaction of others was the opposite. I am willing to admit when I am wrong. Perhaps audacity is a valid tactic these days. According to camp reports, it is working so far. Maybe this will be the wave of the future. I don't know yet. All I know is one PR writer is giving it a try.