phan77

Based on reaction to some threads on DCP, I was asked by a Scouts member I sponsor to post this information. The entire membership of the 2006 Scouts WAS emailed a brief note stating facts about the staff resignations. The email came from a staff member. It has taken about 24 hours to compile and set this email in motion. Corps office data for obtaining these addresses was not used for professional reasons, so it took some time. Any member not receiving an email was not an intentional action. Several addresses have come back as un-deliverable. Members are encouraged to forward this to a memeber that may have changed their email address.

Considering news I heard today from Scouts friends, I don't think Pat will want to go to Scouts. Could be very unfortunate. The third-party-news/rumor/conjucture is that the board wanted Sal to cut the budget drastically, hire only local staff, and return to a more local recruiting base. Pat is very competitive and would NOT go to a corps that will be lucky to be doing parades in four years if these rumors are true. Though I can't believe my friends would lie or stretch things, I hope the rumors are not true. Please don't invest too much into all of this until the board makes announcements.

Interesting points being made here. I enjoy that most posters on DCP try to be professional and curtious. As I stated, there are lots of Scouts from the 70s, 80s, 90s, that are good musician, great teachers, creators, etc. Most that are still in the activity did go else where unfortunately. From what I know from some of them, their departure was based on the corps unwillingness to be open to new ideas. If alumni from an older school of thought are in charge of restructuring, doesn't it seem that only ideas that gel with their will be accepted? Doesn't this seem to restart a bad cycle? Most of the great name people I know of that left Scouts in the 90s, etc. have been some of the huge names in the activity, most pupils of Sal's. (sorry for any mispelled names) Scott Chandler Van Matthews BZ (last name?) Scott Schultz If there are people from the past who have been waiting their turn to be a part of Scouts staff, I assume Sal would have certainly welcomed anyone who he thought had a pulse on the current state of DCI and would have gladly brought them on board to teach/create. If someone has been waiting their turn, have they been successful in DCI somewhere else, maybe even the BOA world? Seems very unlikely. I really don't want to be a dooms-day guy, but my fear level is extremely high. It hurts when any corps goes through this, especailly an ICON like Scouts. When the teaching staff is finally listed, you probably will not recognize one name of anyone who has been current or successful on any DCI or Band level for the past ten years. That should make everyone very nervous for the corps future existence.

Hmmmmmm, an all new brass staff? I think this staff has done a good job of trying to get the power and passion back to the horn line, yet be competitive and part of current quality expectations for DCI horn lines. The old Scouts sound would not work today. The "old" sound was often edgey, over-blown and top-heavy. A lot of tuning issues existed due to the complex harmonic language and octave doublings in the brass book (though appreciated for it uniqueness, variety, at times genius and appropriateness for their style) I also think the brass staff has had to overcome too many visual woes the past three years to put forward a top 5 product. Track record: 2003 6th 2004 6th 2005 6th 2006 9th (isn't this OK once in 4 years, especially considering many visual concerns in 06?) Has the brass staff had much say in show/music choices? I imagine Michael Cesario has had a lot of that say. Collin McNutt also has a more classic style/symphonic style that may have had a lot to do with this year's music choices. After Collin got the drumline scoring in the top 5 in 2005, it would make sense for the program coordiantor (Michael Cesario) to cater to that caption. If anyone thinks a Madison brass staff made up of alumni from the 70s, 80s or 90s are going to restore that caption's competitive edge, you will probably be very disappointed. I am sure there are lots of great musicians and teachers from those decades, but the horn line game has changed as all captions in DCI have changed. At various times in drum corps history, different units have redefined the level at which captions can perform. Santa Clara, Blue Devils, Cadets, and in the last five years Cavaliers have changed what is expected from horn lines. Seems that the horn staff has worked hard to find where Madison can fit into this new level of expectation. A job I don't think many would really want to be responsible for considering what is now expected in brass performance, music ensemble and music GE. Give this brass staff better staging, less ridiculus physical running in the drill, a guard that supports the music, and show music that is "Scouts" in nature but can be 2006 competitive, and I think everyone..including supportive alumni would be happy. ** As with some alumni for all corps, they won't be happy unless it is exactly the way they want it to be. Often the way it was in the decade they marched.

I started this topic a few hours ago and was interupted several times. Low and behold, the Scouts directorship announcement came before I finished. Though I have opinions regarding this decision for a new director for Scouts, I will stick to my original post subject. As stated on earlier posts, I enjoy all aspects of drum corp and have experience in all areas, specifically horn lines. Though not always the biggest fan of everthing they have done, I have paid a lot of attention to the Scouts horn lines the past four or so years. Some of my favorite horn performances prior to 2000 include several years of Madison Scouts horn lines. When the corps went to 14th and had to regroup, I was curious to see what would happen to what I felt was typically the strongest aspect of the corps for many years. In 2003, the corps was reportedly very young and many members did not return because of Scott Stewart's absence. Knowing that they would be on G bugles, competing with all other top 12 corps in Bb, I was eager to see what a new brass staff (some returning guys as well), would do with the horn line. A deserved 6th place in horns with a huge improvement between San Antonio and finals. Hard book, hard drill, some tough staging. In 2004, first year on Bb, they were better than 03 and had a more mature sound and a better variety of sonority than years past. I always felt the corps to be too top heavy all of the time. Hard book, lots of exposure, harder drill than 2003, some almost imposible staging. Less appealing show musicaclly than 2003 in my opinion. Another deserved 6th place. In 2005, second year on Bbs and a big jump in quality. Of last year's CDs, this one gets played as much as Regiment, Cadets and Blue Coats for me. The horn demand up even further. Multiple tonguing was great and existed throughout the book, not just the high brass feature in the opener. More low brass presence with plenty of highs when appropriate to the style and genre of music. Some great staging, some poor staging, drill as hard as anyone's, lots of mouthpiece on face time. Some crazy balance and blend demands: though the visual design was solid visually, Pete Weber had the instruments mixed up a lot...many times no where close to each other. That opening hit? Spread across the field after running for a minute, then turn blindly and play a first huge impact??? cudos!!!! 6th place again was a place or two lower than I would have had them. In 2006, first year on Yamahas, and I thought another jump in quality, with near impossible drill, tempo, step-size, physical endurance, rough staging at many points, multiple tonguing all over (*double and triple) and huge exposure to error. As stated in another of my posts, 9th place seemed severe and not accurate by any stretch. Quality of tone and tuning, impact, variety, balance and blend (sometimes where it should have been impossible). Some mistakes too, but no more than those placing well above them. It seems to me that this brass staff has managed to use Scott Boerma's arranging (arranger for a long time) and change their loud, aggressive ( over-blown in my opinion) sound of many years and up date it for modern day drum corps. The horn line had not been able to sale a ballad for ten to twelve years due to the edgy/lack of needed finese approach. It took a few years to get the volume up to that of current day competitors, but they seem to have done so with a quality sound and a mature approach. I know some think it does not sound exactly like the Madison Sound, but when fans say that, I assume they are refering to 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1988, etc. That sound was on G bugles in a day where a certain level of over blowing was OK. Their horn lines were always known for having a high average/maturity level. Their visual demands were not usually tough. When risk and demand were in fashion, Madison was not doing so, at least visually. This ( and having years of screamers) all aided that Madison Sound. Anyone wanting that exact sound again from a COMPETITIVE Scouts horn line will simply never get it. Different time with different expectations musically and visually. The 2006 show was near impossible for the horn line in many ways becasue of all the visual issues I mentioned earlier. Instead of the shows getting any easier or more condusive to the horn line's needs, they seem to have only gotten harder (this year to the point of crazy). What would this brass staff do with the book, staging, tempos, pacing of most of their competitors? I see many of their Bios on the Scout's web site, but it isn't clear who is around the most or who has been making this positive change come about. I may not have picked the 2006 show for the Scouts horn line, but in four years, someone has really improved the quality and maturity, and in four short years gotten the energy, impact, and attitude back into the line. Great job.

I took an additional week beyond DCI finals to get away from work as long as possible, thus my late review. Some short opinions: Madison is a great city Camp Randall is a great stadium for drum corps The top 12 are getting stronger and stronger Drum corps fans are generally very polite and despite expected strong ties to favorite corps, most have a genuine overall love and appreciation for the activity and all marching members. Spirit: A very solid 12th place corps. Compared to most years past, this was a very strong showing in that "last spot". All areas of performance were pretty equal in my view. The drum line quality in this spot is testiment to the massive improvements in the past ten years when it comes to excellence in that captian. I really respect them for hanging onto their roots yet trying to be new. I really appreciate the true approach to jazz/swing. Corps no longer choose that option because it is hard to do correctly on the field. The fluff or fake jazz done now drives me crazy. Good job Spirit. Glassmen: Though not a huge fan of this show, it certainly had some intelligent thought behind the overall design. The guard was the strongest captian for the group. From a show construction stand point, I understand why it was ahead of Spirit. I like some of the arrangements and delt with other parts due to the visual interest. Like many of the 2006 corps, they seem to be trying to find a niche for themselves. If the design continues to move forward and quality increases, we should expect good things from them in the future. Agreed with the placement. Boston: There was a clear jump in quality here for me. Boston was cleaner and more refined than Spirit and Glassmen in all areas except guard. Many design issues were well orchestrated. The show did come across as "easier" than the previous two corps in the areas of the drill and brass book. This allowed for a more polished performance, but left me wanting a lot more. I didn't feel there was even mild risks being taken in any area. I enjoyed it but didn't love it. Agreed to the placement. Madison: I seem to have an unexpected soft spot for the corps this season. My earlier posts were pretty supportive of the efforts to reinvent a giant. I was eager to see the corps again after the San Antonio regional. LOTS of improvement. By comparison to the corps around them, drill, marching and guard seems placed where it should be. I can buy the GE numbers based on the issues with drill and guard. I have a problem with the brass and percussion numbers. I really enjoyed the music and how well it was performed. To be honest, I was shocked by the percussion score and even more so by the brass placement. I know that judging on the field is different than what we hear upstairs, and I allow for that gap somewhat, but this seems too severe. I was very intrigued by what the music offered. I wish it was much better supported by the visual program , thus creating more GE. I judge a lot and have an open mind to others who share this difficult task, but this really makes me question politics. I do know that if you study ranking and rating for DCI or BOA, it is very rare to have ordinals that are all over the place. Strong captians are almost always pulled down by weaker ones. Obviously no credit was given for taking risks or taking on extreme challenges. I did get a strong sense of that Madison energy that seems to have been allusivepart of the past few years. The impacts were as strong as anyone's. The musical offering was extremely creative, diverse, and well performed and will make for one of the more enjoyable CDs to listen to when they are released. Lots of energy finals night, maybe one spot up was the reward. Easily would have them over BK. Carolina Crown: Like many, I was blown away. Great in all areas. I have never strongly liked or disliked them. I have always been supportive of their efforts to create an identity for themselves. Bingo. Keep going this direction. No question one of, if not the best 8th place corps ever. To be somewhat fair to what I have written about other groups, if pushed for something I though was lacking, I would say musical demand of the brass. Seems they can handle more... or maybe this was an example of perfect timing of maxing out a combination of talent and achievement. Well done. Look forward to the DVDs. Would have them in 5th. Blue Knights: Flags nice (again). Guard nice. I like that their drill is very identifible as BK as well as their marching style. The fact that the drill writing is so different is a cool element o fthis group. I am glad this corps has accomplished consecutive years making it into the finals. Some cool percussion offerings. Overall, I really did not like the show. It came across to me as smoke and mirrors, with little substance or demand. I do want the members to be successful and I am sure they, as well as the staff, were extremely pleased with the jump over Crown. I had the most trouble with the brass performance and the brass book (music offering in general). This is one of those years I would like to show several non-drum corps or non-marching band university music professors the finalist corps. Based on what they heard (not saw), it would be interesting for them to rate the music efforts of each group. I fear this would not get positive nods. The horn line is clearly well instructed in such a way to hide its deficiencies. My comments are not to take away any level of achievement. Unfortunately this activity is about comparisons. Could have had this corps in 11th or 12th. Santa Clara: Big improvement guys. Loved, loved, loved the first and last minutes. First corps to somewhat match Scouts demands. Pete Weber is the real deal and the staff did a great job of balancing the what and how. Some very good guard moments. I felt the pit was too lound and much weaker than the battery. Some battery writing bothered me as did the quality of the horn line. Not buying the fake jazz. Overall very energetic and a strong finish for a successful come back year. Would have them where they finished. Cadets: It is tough being the returning champion. Marching and playing coordination was what this corps offered best. The staged moments and props were not effective for me. There just wasn't enough inventiveness or intellect with those moments for me to not get the same with a high level band. Horn line seemed fairly weak without a lot of demand. I was such a fan for so many years. I try to not let that effect me too much by expecting them to always be who they were 1983-2000. Guard was great and drum line stronger than I was lead to think they were. Again, Jeff Sattig offered some great coordination at times. Would have them 7th. Blue Coats; March well, play well, spin well, drum well. Show solid and well performed. The emotion was not there Thursday or Friday, so I had them finishing 6th. They really steped it up finals night. Watching them was very comfortable and easy. They should be proud of their upward journey. It of course gets really tough from here. Agreed with 4th based on Saturday's performance. BD: I really liked it. I loved the guard and that their involvement with the theme wasn't overkill. Like the recognizable music quotes and the diverseness of how they were offered. Wayne and crew stepped up the horn demand, which I like and respect a lot. Drum line very solid and pushing their identity some...keep it going. This corps was not out marched in my opinion. When you get your DVDs, notice how easy they make it all look. Great job. Would have them 2nd had Regiment not cranked it up finals night. PR: I love the horn book and the integrity to music development through arranging. What they do as a horn line and what Cavies do CAN NOT be compared. I think the two are so far apart in horn book concepts that you can't even judge the two against each other. Cavies horn performance near perfect in every way. Regiment not quite as clean but with a lot more demand and playing music that requires emotion to be fully appreciated...I don't think you can challenge a musician more when you consider they are performing on a football field. I am sure JD and crew talk, stress, beg for the emotional effort from the performers so it reaches into the stands. means something to their heart. David Bertman and crew never have to go there...the music requires clean, no emotion...and they clean that horn line year after year better than anyone in the activity. The girls in the guard were great. Good drill, but I would like more visual appeal. Visual ensemble a strength, visual GE not. Great drumline. Great emotion, one of my favorite aspects of the activity. Thanks PR for keeping that alive and scoring well with that approach. Would have had them in 2nd. Cavies: Did not like it early on, but what growth. I have shared my thoughts on the horn line. The show coordination, theme use, attention to construction detail, etc. unmatched in 2006. Performance excellence in all areas very strong... thank you members. They did so much so well it was hard to give it to someone else. The design team made the difference with show construction. I enjoyed it very much. The perfection in and of itself is an effect. Wish the music (not music sound effects) had more to do with their success each year. I do fear that as corps follow their music style, we will loose support outside our small group of fans. Would have had them 1st, but close.

My considerations for physical demand are based on the following: tempos how long those tempos are susatined large step size how long large steps are sustained frequency of direction change time moving vs. time standing (full horn line and sections) jazz running frequency of jazz running large steps/jazz running while playing (length of these phrases) large steps/jazz running prior to playing (length of these phrases) long sustained phrases (physical lung requirements) long sustained phrases on the move what is being sustained (physical lung requirements) body/horn moves combinations of all of the above When the season is over and you have your DVDs, turn off the sound and simply watch for these things. Follow several individuals for an entire show. Follow the same approach with the sound only or your C.D.s. Try to remove personal bias. It is only human nature that liking a show or having a favorite corps often elevates our perception of what they are doing. Same concept applies to where a corps finishes competitively. The concept that the winner must have the hardest and most rewardable isn't necessarily true. I certainly look at things much beyond the fact that if it is dirty, it must be hard.

My analysis is reported in order of strongest to weakest. This is also my opinion and may not be shared by judges. Someone on this thread also averaged my rankings, giving each category equal weight. That is not my intenet nor is it how the judges may be determining their rankings. I am simply trying to give each horn line its rightful credit for different areas that I feel should be considered. To be honest, knowing the musical and instructional backgrounds of many of the brass judges, their rankings for brass performance are probably primarily based on ticks (mistakes). The more mistakes, the lower the score. I also assume that overt shaping of motives gets points for "musicality". What is being shaped and how it is being shaped in comparison to professional performing ensembles is by and large not a consideration by many judges. Always hearing exaggerated (often grossly) shaping can be mistaken as musicality by average trained musician. Recognizing cracked notes and out of tune pitches is a fundamental skill of ALL average music educators (including well trained high school students). To justify your score based on hard cold facts is the easy way to defend the number you give and seems to be the trend in brass performance scores, thus the considerable lowering of the risks or challenges offered to most drum corps brass musicians. Blue Coats have great tone, strong stagging, matched articulations, and average drill challenges. They sale their book fairly well and I am sure are well trained. The don't take a lot of risks, but more than many. Thus their rich and well blended sound.

Though I respect that everyone should be allowed their opinion, I am always eager to know the basis of their stand. Please notice that I had Cavies at the top of most categories. I am courious as to whether you feel that the two categories you listed are based on what has been the norm of past adjudication and total show success (reputation). Isn't it possible for horn lines to have different strengths? Isn't possible for a cleaner performance to be part a result of level of difficulty, musically and physically? Isn't it also possible that the 12th place corps has a harder book and harder drill that the first place corps? Are you using a many elements drill design and music writing for your opinion?

I am a big fan of drum corps and want everyone to do well. My hope is that the activity stays healthy because each individual corps stays healthy. There are a lot of opinions related to what makes great drum corps. One area I think that no one would argue to its value is great horn lines. This is my favorite aspect of the activity. Judging horn lines can be difficult. I have considerable experience judging and will state it is not easy. Though I have my favorite horn lines, I try to be as non-biased as possible. I have had time to follow the corps through several shows since S.A. After being surprised by the horn scores from San Antonio, I looked at a copy of the brass performance score sheet and a copy of the placemat used for aiding the evaluation of this caption. I considered the sheets I have used in my judging past: BOA and DCI models. I went to several shows with this review of the evaluation criteria fresh in my mind. I told myself to give the judges the benefit of the doubt, thinking I had missed somethings in S.A. I sat in almost identical places for all shows (four shows): ten to thirty or so rows up near the 50 yard line. The DCI brass performance sheet is broken into two categories: technique and musicality. There is also a statement written in bold across the bottom of the sheet that states that the evaulation is based on consideration of "WHAT" is being performed, and "HOW" it is being performed. I was sure to keep detailed notes during the shows. My scoring(order) process was based on the break down of the "what" and the "how". My results are based on seeing some corps several times and others only twice. The "WHAT"- Who has the most difficult techniques demanded of its brass? tempos style changes exposure of all sections dynamic ranges articulation types time signatures or feels range of expression or understanding required based on the content phrase length physical demand (a big factor ) The "HOW"- How are they meeting the above listed challenges? tone intonation balance/blend eveness of dynamic shaping cracked pitches appropriate style style/articulation player to player appropriate phrase shaping communication of the music's intent Again, how are they performing what is given? After hearing everyone, when really conscience of the previous descriptions, I was surprised as to the result of my evaluation of some groups. The "WHAT" Overall demand of the music book: (In order) Madison Regiment Cadets Blue Coats Spirit Blue Devils Blue Knights SCV Cavies Glassmen Crown Boston Overall physical demand: (In order) Madison Phantom SCV Cadets Blue Devils Blue Knights Spirit Blue Coats Cavies Crown Glassmen Boston The "HOW" TONE (In Order) Cavies (moments of trumpet edge on short notes) Blue Coats (few trumpet and mello edge moments ) Blue Devils (several trumpet issues) Regiment (some trumpet issues, many individuals over blowing) Madison (moments of issue seem to be while running their butts off) Cadets (some very bright sounds scattered through out the performance) Crown (trumpets very weak at times, stuffy low brass at times, pinched mello sounds) Boston ( each section seems to lack depth of player, issues in each section) SCV (each section seems to lack depth of player, esp. during non-tutti moments) Spirt (each section seems to lack depth of player, esp. during non-tutti moments, some big individual issues) Blue Knights (seem to hide lack of depth through scoring, tone concepts very different player to player) Glassmen (seem in a very different league thanrest of the top twelve, a lot of work to do in the area of mature tones) INTONATION (IN Order) Cavies ( minor chordal issues) Blue Coats (some issues player to player on unison lines, several big major chords not locking in) Madison (only issues seem to be the more complicated chords, few individual lapses) Blue Devils (several trumpet tuning ouches in ff moments, tubas blow sharp at times) Cadets (also some issues on more complex chords, several baritone ouches, tubas push sharp at times) Regiment (more issues than I would have thought, all kinds throughout show, seem hot and cold in this area) Crown (lack of trumpet tone also hurts intonation throughout the show, anything beyond unison or open 5th lacks) Boston (their smart scoring hides a lot, ff moments present a lot of tuning problems) SCV (their scoring places most harmonic responsibilitiues in the pit, when horn line has to step up tuning has issues) Spirit (tuning issues throughout, harmonic language of the book is a challenge) Blue Knights (very rough, in the S.A. day show, tuning was extremely poor) Glassmen (lack of maturity player to player for traditional and non-traditional Beethoven needs much more attention) BALANCE/BLEND (IN order) Cavies (always good, maybe too bottom heavy pyramid of sound at times) Blue Devils (good for most part except trumpets at times) Crown (one thing they do consistently well, trumpets an issue often as well as baritones) Blue Coats (lack of detail in all sections for balance seems to be getting better) Boston (the nature of their safe book and compact drill allows for a good B/B most of the time) Madison (some ends of forms an issue but getting much better here) Regiment (over blowing cause issues here) Cadets (bright sounds seem to keep there from being a blended warm sound) SCV (many dindividuals sticking out still, drill placement an issue at times) Spirit (depth player to player causes blend and balance issues a lot of the time) Blue Knights (the bright and thin sounds do not mix with those that are mature players) Glassmen (the bright and thin sounds do not mix with those of mature players, many push beyond their skill level) Cracked Pitches/Articulation issues/Style (IN order) Cavies (hear few issues only on short accents and a few "accidents" here and there) Blue Coats (articulation matches well, not buying the non-stylistic jazz articulations) Madison (a strength for them, some issues related to drill) Blue Devils (some recourring phrases where tutti brass moments are not all played the same) Regiment (over blowing and thick tonguing a problem, DBL is pretty heavy) Cadets (lots or hard articulations, matched but cause some distortion) SCV (a strength for them, but few challenges for performers, not buying non-stylistic jazz articulations) Crown (seem to have only two articulation considerations, immature players distort) Boston (match pretty well, but pitch and clarity issues are many dues to tonal issues due to tongue placement) Spirit ( a lot of challenges for the many styles not being realized) Glassmen (pretty mis-matched throughout) Blue Knights (mis-matched with lots of fundamental issues that cause tone and tuning problems as well) Phrase Shaping/Dynamic Use/Communication of written intent (IN order) ** This one is the toughest for me based on the many styles there are out there. I tried not to base it on show design, but strictly the written book. Regiment (hands down doing the most here) Madison (a little surprised I feel this way, strongly reinforced by their TBA clinic the morning after the S.A. show) Blue Devils (always good here, just wish there was more variety) Blue Coats (good most times, but a little musically forced at times, the fake blues/swing bothers me) SCV (as with Blue Coats, don't like the fake jazz, the guard communicates well there , but not the music style) Cadets (some real extremes, wish there was more depth and variety) Crown (some well communicated ideas, some weak moments based on player weakness) Cavies (tough for me to feel anything based on the music alone, lots of nuance, but music could not stand alone) Spirit (not all communication the same but value the energy and excitement, some missed moments) Glassmen (trying hard to communicate musicall and have soem moments of maturity, many moments of immaturity) Blue Knights (seems a jumble music message, that is fooling many based on its good pcing of events and guard support) Boston (same issues as Cavies, but with less content) I tried to not evaluate based whether I like the show or not. This process actually helped me enjoy and appreciate more shows. I understand that judges give credit to challenges when they are met, but during this process, I found myself paying more attention to what each line was playing as opposed to just counting ticks. When seeing the recaps from Atlanta, I am still very surprised by brass performance placements. Madison in 10th is the most shocking. Though not my favorite corps of all time, they seem to be getting knocked in areas they should not. I was not at the show, so my opinion is only based I what I did see of them prior. Madison and SCV are two corps I have seen more than twice. As listed earlier, I attended Scout's brass clinic at TBA. My assessment of their brass line was strong the night before. I was very surprised to see their score in the day show 17.1 drop to a 16.3 in the evening show. I went to their clinic not knowing what to expect. I was blown away. I do know they were just standing still, but the attention to all details I have listed earlier was truly impressive. As a judge, I know that it is hard to not let the corps overall all rank not influence you. It takes a mature judge to place a lower placing group over a higher placing group in one caption. Shouldn't be this way, but it is. Notice that the ordinals at finals are rarely radical. Percussion seem to have the most room for placing differently than the over-all corps. This has happened in the percussion caption for several decades. I will attend several more shows between now and finals: extended vaction is a good thing, seeing drum corps is a great thing. Hope this creates some healthy discussion and possibly gives each horn line its deserved attention.

This post is by and large in response to the one made earlier titiled "What are the Scouts playing, and why?" After the 2002 season, I spent a lot of time feeling bad for Scouts and trying to come up with how I would try to re-establish that giant. I think many posters here, fans, and Scouts alumni forget that just three seasons ago, the corps was 14th place. Follow the history of great DCI icons that have had similar departure from the top twelve and you'll discover most of those corps gone from the activity. Of all of the current active drum corps, if asked which one I would not want the responsibilty of making a champion again, it would be Scouts. Most of the legend corps have now been through their six/eight year change of format that has allowed them to keep some idenity and yet move forward competitively. Scouts are currently at the start of that journey, and many people have an opinion, with one formula as to how to make that corps a competitive giant again. One formula that is not negotiable. These "problem solvers" also seem the most angry and quick to criticize. Off the field, Sal has done a great job of making the brotherhood traditions stronger than ever. When I meet these guys, they are very outgoing and eager to share their pride. I have experienced too many pre 2003 Scouts alumni who are eager to share snide comments and gossip. They forget that they are not talking about an inanimate object, they are talking about 135 young men who came to Madison to be a Scout, just as the pre-2003 alumni did. I undertand that Sal and his staff spend no time preaching about these alumni issues, the corps moves forward while embracing its past. Find a Scouts after a show and ask them about the nail around their neck....VERY COOL. These nails are some proof of the current staff's attitude toward issues off of the field. Well done Sal! On the field....WOW, this is the really hard part. How to keep Scouts the same, yet competitive? Remember SCV's transition years in the 90s, Phantom's, Boston's ? So Scouts are in that transition stage after being out of top twelve just three seasons ago. Without writing paragraph after paragraph of what you want a Scouts show to be, could a fan narrow that down to a few sentences? Could we support the staff to find their way? Could we maybe narrow our requests down to a word or two? I have. I want the Scouts to be aggressive and entertaining. These two words can be explained and defined many ways by many people. Some of what is entertaining in drum corps has changed. Expectations are different. So I leave it to the staff the try to create an aggressive and entertaining Madison show. These two words best describe all of my best experiences watching that corps for many years. So competitive, aggressive, entertaining Madison would be on my description sheet. I am sure no staff sits down to write a poor show or a show that will make fans angry just to make them angry. From all accounts, the staff seems to be trying to do something along the lines of what I describe. The talent on the staff is deep, experienced, and hard working. I am happy to support their efforts to reestablish the corps identity and to do so competitively. PS Isn't this about the members first and foremost? Isn't it also universally understood that all organizations that produce alumni want their support in many ways? Isn't it also universally understood that all organizations that produce alumni change? Isn't it also better to recognize, praise and encourage the positive so that suggestions for change are not meet with hard feelings, but an open mind that is convinced of one's honest motivation to support?