Dale Bari

Congrats to the latest new parents at ES from the former latest new parents at ES! We know that she seems tiny to you now, but when you look back a few months from now, you will be amazed! (Elizabeth was about Shaelyn's size at birth.) No need to remind you both of the nightly feedings, the oooohing and ahhhhhhing gawkers, mopping spit-up, and the endless questions (formula or not?/cloth or disposable?/etc) So, to Gina & Shane, welcome to the world of diapers, swaddling, and bottles. And to Shaelyn, welcome to the world. Good luck, Startzel family! You're off to a great start. (No NICU! Yea!) PS: For our family's latest exploits: www.finetwins.com

I will assume, Kyle, that that statement is aimed at me. First, stop putting your words into my mouth. In this thread, I've given my opinions on what makes a good review, but I've never stated that my way is the best way. Second, I have written several reviews. Whether or not I have been or will be criticized, I will continue to do so. I have gotten many positive comments, esp ones that credit my ability to criticize without being "offensive". My record is clear. Why don't you try writing one and see how it goes for you? Edit: Also, as I look back at my prior post, I wrote 7 paragraphs, only 2 of which dealt even obliquely with how I write reviews, and really only the second graf deals with how *I* would do something. That was a nice stab at using hyperbole, but I think your knife missed my jugular. (More like it sliced off a few strands of hair.)

Truman is reinforcing my own points very well. And, he dug up a line from Dave's review that is rather telling: He claims the judges didn't cack ES for not moving. (Which in itself, is a very presumptuous line. If he didn't read the recaps, how does he know that? And if he did...) Without hearing the tapes and reading the sheets to know exactly what their pings were for, the two visual judges put ES 6th in Field and 5th in Ensemble. So, his statement that the judges glossed over ES' shortcomings is totally false.

But that's the problem: he's NOT been "drawn and quartered" over his comment. Now, it's the "reaction to the reaction" that's getting blown out of proportion. You and Kyle seem to be thinking and saying that "Geez, this backlash is SO over the top" and it's not been. By continuing to hit on this meme, it's your reactions that are perpetuating the idea that Dave's review was outrageous - it was not. Leslie's reaction is completely understandable. His subjective opinion doesn't jibe with her reality, so she got that "Huh?!" feeling and wanted some clarification. Canuck also got a "huh?" reaction because his take is so at odds with Dave's. (Frankly, I did too, but that doesn't bother me so much.) When I do reviews, I very rarely if ever feel the need to say "I had X corps in X place". Fans who didn't attend the show I reviewed can read the recaps or the scores and come to their own conclusions about what happened in the competition. My job as a reviewer is to relay info they can't get from a recap. Maybe there is opportunity for some sort of judging travesty to occur, but short of it happening in Finals, it just doesn't matter, so why belabor the point? Maybe one or two judges get something wrong, but a corps getting royally screwed happens very infrequently. In those instances, a review including that kind of info/opinion is completely justified. (The DCW article about DCA Prelims in 1987 written by Ed Cagney about MBI finishing 11th comes to my mind.) The people who want to argue with the judging can do so, but it's all in the wording, too. A nimble writer can make a point without seeming confrontational. Not that I think Dave necessarily did that in this case. It's just that his comments in context appear to be saying, "ES doesn't move much, therefore they should be fifth". He also seems to be arguing that, because of his "revelation", ES' High Brass trophy win isn't legit. That goes beyond mere disagreeing with the judges. That starts calling the generally accepted rules of competition into question, and it starts smacking of a little disrespect. (See below for more on that thought.) Hey, the judges probably don't agree amongst themselves either, so it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's about making statements that can be verified, empirically true or untrue. Saying, "Cabs got screwed this year. That one judge dumped them," falls into the empirically untrue category. As I mentioned earlier, with proper dissection of the drills of the Top 5 or so, we can actually find out if ES moved "enough" compared to the other corps. I don't think anyone actually wants to do that. Opinions are not Zeus' aegis; they are not bulletproof, invisible shields meant to ward off any and all criticism. If one has the intent to make a cutting remark about something that can be verified, one should have some kind of proof to back it up. Notice that no one connected to ES has taken Dave on about his comments regarding the individual members' style, or lack thereof. (ES got 6th in the Field Vis caption, so he may have been on to something.) The retorts have only focused on his comment about the drill, because it has the virtue of being provably untrue. As in your 2006 review of Lewisburg, you replay the whole "ES making it look TOO easy" meme, with which I still take umbrage - based upon the principle that that statement makes no sense ("So, we should suck a little more, so that it looks its 'proper' difficulty?" or "So, if we can make it look that easy, we should have beaten Bucs, no?"), and not because it was directed at my corps. I think on DCP, we on the DCA side do a rather remarkable job of not disrespecting each other, since we are at once both fans and performers. Making comments about style ("I don't like props.") falls into pure opinion, hence completely non-verifiable. Making comments about substance gets a little trickier, because they require some objectivity, like saying, "The sopranos had a bad night; they missed attacks and releases." That kind of statement still is respectful because it is about a transient thing - one particular night's performance. But, telling members of a corps, "you don't move enough," (which is not only a constant week to week, but also is completely out of their control) when they have the "scars" that prove otherwise, starts sounding disrespectful. I know that's not what Dave meant, but this comment also has that tinge to it. PS: Check my prior post on this matter a little more closely; the review I showed getting knocked for not mentioning pits (except one) was pvt_cairns, not Dave's, so your agreement is misplaced.

The first time I watched all of Prelims was 2004. I did it again in 2007. This is, hands down, the best entertainment value in all of drum corps. Prelims 2004 is still the best drum corps show I've ever seen.

You guys are still "G"? Cool. I thought I had heard differently. Sorry 'bout that one.

That's why "we" need to get MCL into Finals - Only Renegades and Statesmen left on G in the Top 10.

Well, it's one thing to say, "I don't like" X. But, it's another thing to say something that is empirically incorrect. Dave said he didn't think that Statesmen moved around enough. That's an opinion, because he didn't supply any evidence that it is true. However, it is something that can be actually known, to be proved or disproved. I think, if we dissected the drills of the Top 5 or so, we'd find that that statement is not true. Judges, as you well know, take those kinds of things into account in their work. If it were true, then ES' scores would've reflected that. But, they did not. He thought that Cabs should've placed 3rd, but the judges disagreed (as did you), so again he's pitting his opinion against the judges'. Someone's right and someone's wrong. Judges are supposed to be the experts, but I leave it for others to decide the outcome of that battle. If one wants to review the corps, then do so, but if one wants to criticize the judging (which is how I interpreted some of his comments), then that's a separate issue - don't make it a corps' problem. Also, as a reviewer, one should try to be as internally consistent as possible. If one hits 2 corps for the same thing, then one should be consistent in how it affects their overall impression. It appears that Dave did not do this (re: movement of ES vs MBI). He said he doesn't like props in general and didn't like ES' big signs. I say they were necessary to tell folks that they were honoring past Championship performances of their corps. It's perfectly valid for him to not like it, so no one "called [him] out" on it. pvt_cairns also did a review of Finals. Some people called him out on not mentioning any other pits besides Reading's. (There were other criticisms, but that's the main one I recall, other than jabs at his lack of proficiency at spelling, IIRC.) Who jumped to his defense? Leslie asked some legit questions. I know Leslie isn't trying to be controversial - she genuinely wants to know how Dave came to his conclusion and what other, deeper thoughts could he provide. As for Canuck, if he was really trying to slam Dave's review, he could've done so a lot more forcefully. Really, these criticisms of this review are pretty tepid, as fas as such reactions usually go. (ie, see critique's of pvt_cairns' review in a nearby thread.) Dave needs very little defense. I myself said it was a pretty good review (other than a couple of points). I try to be as balanced as possible in my reviews. I also have two kids I'm trying to watch (so they don't get into trouble and so they don't disturb the other fans around us) so I probably don't get into the inner workings of the shows as much as I'd like. Maybe if I did, I might say something more "offensive", but so far I've never had any PM "hate mail" on my reviews. (And, I'd like to add that I did reviews before I had kids, too.)

A 50% larger MCL next year? <lets out long whistle> Holy Cow! Saying "Paetec Park will need more work done" would be quite the understatement. Good luck to MCL in 2009. I hope you reach that "50% larger" threshold. And we'll be waiting eagerly for your next VA appearance.

Just so long as it isn't "Interstellar" (Suite, that is... still can't get that image of Spirit in satin out of my mind).

Well, if we want to note those kinds of things: Alliance's guard was Top 10 as well. MCL's brass & perc were both Top 10, too. Alliance seems like a scary corps for those lower placing Open Finalists.

Well, if you're picking on Canuck, he said "a wee bit biased", and I don't think he meant that, because Dave marched Bush, he was tilted in favor of Bush. It's just that Dave seemed to pick on one aspect of one corps (and some others somewhat) but didn't apply that criticism equally. I pointed out that Dave did not seem to draw the same conclusion about another corps that he criticized the same way. So, no one here that I saw was accusing him of some major bias - just for hitting some corps differently. It's his review - he's allowed to his opinion, just as others are allowed to call him on some kinds of judgments. Overall, I thought his review was pretty good. I'm glad he wrote it, because it gives me a chance to see what others thought of the show. OK, so he thought Cabs were still third on Sunday. His opinion differs from the judges'. Take that for what it is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in drum corps, as in most of Life.

I'd say that, for me, show design is not a high priority, if by "show design" you mean an overall philosophy going into that season's offering. As mentioned, certain corps have strongly established identities that can affect how much someone wants (or doesn't want) to march there, and that may over-ride the year-to-year fluctuations. A corps' culture and organization are much more important effects on my desire to be a member or not of certain groups. Some I have experienced first-hand, others come across in how those members represent it, some others come out in how the corps represents itself on the field, either in competition or in a rehearsal. Some groups will be great fits with one's personality, and others will be terrible fits. I've mostly played jazz-based shows, sometimes with a latin tinge to them. That just matches my personal style. However, I don't feel like I have to find a corps that plays that style to enjoy it. OTOH, if I think I'll like a corps and after being there a while, I find that the corps' org culture rubs me the wrong way, it can diminish my enjoyment. If it's diminished enough, I could leave. (Assuming I haven't passed the point-of-no-return. Hopefully, I can find that out before it's too late.) It's as simple as that.

I wish I had been at Finals too. But, it wasn't in the cards. Thanks anyways.

Well, that Ensemble Visual caption was weak both days (6th on Saturday), so while the spread opened up (-1.3 change) the Cabs hardly lost places solely because of that (accounting for 0.65 of the 2.25 point loss from Prelims to Finals). If all their other scores had remained the same, Cabs would've gotten a 95.225, which would've kept them 3rd (behind MBI and ahead of ES). So, no, that judge did not cost the Cabs anything. For anyone having Cabs still in 3rd on Sunday, I'm wondering to what you were reacting. The guard held up its end, and the brass did the same, but the percussion, visual, and effect captions all lost ground. All but 2 captions had Cabs placing lower on Sunday. All but 2 captions had Cabs scoring lower on Sunday. (And, those 2 pair consisted of 3 different captions.) The 2 GE Vis judges agreed within 1 place and 0.3 on Sunday relative to their caption winners. The 2 GE Music judges agreed within 1 place and 0.3 relative to their caption winners. In Perc, the Field and Ensemble judges agreed on place and within 0.1 relative to the caption winners, which echoed the results on Saturday (agreed to place and within 0.2 from the winners), except 2 places lower. No, the judges got that call right. PS: Could we all please do some judicious snipping when replying to long posts, esp when all that's being added is a "Ditto to that" or an "Agreed" or what have you? Thanks

Well, hopefully we're not going to devolve to the point where everyone takes out his stopwatch and times how long one group moves compared to another. As most of us should be aware, good show design (and judging of same) takes into account not only how long performers move and stand still, but also stride length, tempos, variety of motions, and difficulty in maintaining dress & form. Dave has his opinions and made the calls as he saw them. I didn't notice any appreciable difference in how Statesmen moved versus the other corps in Scrantion, but that's my opinion. I just find his reasoning a little flawed when he cacked ES for not moving, and then stated that he would've put them in fifth place (not third), yet he also cacked MBI for the same thing, but thought their second place was correct. Also, I read with interest his (and others') opinions singling out the exceptional quality of Reading's colorguard, yet the judge(s) scored two other guards above theirs (and three scored higher in the Excellence subcaption on Sunday). Not a knock on Bucs guard - they were obviously very good. But, it does highlight the subjectivity with which we all view this activity.

I'd expect nothing less from my friends there. To Ken (Gauchos77) above, Glad to hear your daughter and your son both had great experiences at ES. I know Joe Pero very well. I have had some experience with Jim Steele. I have not had the pleasure of being taught by Al Chez, but my wife did a while back, so I know OF him. Tamm would agree with me: they are very fine instructors, as well as good motivators. (David B. wouldn't want them unless that were true, IMO.) When you have two outstanding players, with more professional playing experience than most DC instructors, not only telling you, but showing you, how to be your best, it can't help but rub off on you. Joey's work ethic is very strong. Being around him makes me want to be a better player. And, it makes me shake my head in mock disgust as I realize I can never be that good.

Tamm & I saw Joey in probably his last set with Maynard's band in DC. We went to the bar afterward. (It was a late Sunday night gig at Blue's Alley.) I hadn't talked to Joey much before that, but I had run across him once or twice. Tamm had been in ES the year before (their last Championship), so they knew each other very well. I got to know Joey as a member of ES in '05 & '06. Joey is genuine and warm, but still introverted. (He just covers it better now.) In '05, he and Blick made a very good combination of brass instructors. Blick provided the technique, and Joey provided the groove. Seeing him work up close and personally, it's no wonder that he's as good as he is, and he can only improve. (Scary thought!) He is a master craftsman, and his humbleness is a result of secureness with his talent (along with a whole lot of constant practicing). We look forward to hearing his debut CD.

I was imagining the cement overshoes 100M butterfly, but then, that's just me. I think the "Chicago Piano" trap shoot might be a great new event (for more interest, just launch all the targets at once). Or, they could add to Track & Field the 100M Stiff Carry (first person to get his/her "dead body" into the trunk of a car wins the gold). Reminder: Cadets also did a good job at the Statue of Liberty re-dedication in 1986.

Congrats to Genevieve! (And good luck to Patrick!) 10 lbs 3ozs!! Holy Cow, but he's a big one! Our twins together were 11 lbs 8 ozs. (We saw a newborn girl in the hospital nursery who was almost 11lbs - she filled up the isolette.)

I don't know about that, but it's kind of like how, on the DCI side, people explain why the score 98.4 crops up frequently at DCI Finals. There are certain realities that must be faced in the competition side of our activity.

Lack of conversation? Us? Never! Well, the old joke about engineering majors ("Four years ago I couldn't spell 'engineer' - now, I is one.") doesn't apply to me, I guess. Back on topic: These judges today all seem to take the fun (read: "controversy") out of these contests. How can we have a new "1981" without them screwing things around?!

That's because anyone bringing Yuengling in over the PA/NY border has to pay duties - erected to keep it from putting Genny out of business!

Never too much math! Although, this particular mathematical exuberance stems from my statistics' tutoring days ('01-'04) rather than from engineering. (Besides, it makes me sound erudite, as well as lets me cover my butt. LOL!)

Just a quibble, but I thought there were 5 undefeated seasons by the Cabs in the time prior to the Brigs' streak (72-74 & 84-85). But, I get your meaning.