ChicagoFan

We can all comment on what we like/dislike and, to that end, one opinion is as valid as the next. However, when it comes to technical analysis of content, performance, etc., that is where first hand experience counts for something. For example, I have no trouble accepting that my best friend prefers one guard over another but when she tries to tell me that one group has easy work or another was cleaner, I will often disagree, as my experience allows me to recognize technicalities and subtleties that she does not. I know what it is to attempt a quad while moving backwards or to execute a toss from a prone position after having hit a mark on the fly -- she only knows those things from a spectator's standpoint. Likewise, I know virtually nothing about drumming. I might like the antics of SCV's drumline and enjoy the sound they produce but, as I've never picked up a pair of drumsticks in my life, I will defer, in most instances, to someone who has.

I don't think anything will ever top the absolute hysteria that Madison '95 generated, but I'll also agree with several other posters who mention SCV '04. There was an emotional reaction from both corps and crowd on finals night that I haven't experienced in a long time.

The Latin text followed by my loose English translation: O magnum mysterium, et admirabile sacramentum ut animalia viderent Dominum natum, jacentem in praesepio! Beata Virgo, cujus viscera meruerunt portare Dominum Christum. Alleluia! O great mystery and glorious sacrament. The animals worship the Lord, born in a stable. Blessed be the Virgin who was worthy to bear Jesus Christ. Alleluia. The author of the verses is unknown but it has endured as a motet text for centuries. One of the earliest and most notable choral settings is by Vittoria in the 16th century.

I don't want to derail this topic or turn it into a discussion of educational philosophies but I'm intrugued by your responses to my post. I notice that you've worked closely with Ravi Shankar. Were I to tell you that Ravi Shankar's music is crap, would you stand for that? Would you simply dismiss that as my personal opinion and write it off as my unfamiliarity with the music? I hope not. I hope you'd let me know that, though I may not understand or appreciate the music, it is not "crap." I spend plenty of time reaching out to students "where they are." I go out of my way to help them understand and appreciate all music, not just that which I think is valuable. However, I draw the line at allowing them to denigrate and dismiss something -- particularly something as masterful as a Bach concerto or a Shankar raga -- as "crap" just because they don't like it.

And there's the problem... Some people just don't care and/or refuse to see that their behavior is offensive to others. I'm only all to happy to see young people at drum corps shows, particularly when they become engrossed in what they see/hear. Their enthusiasm reminds me of my youthful exuberance. However, if the show is only one more opportunity for them to "talk and giggle and squeal" then, perhaps, everyone would be better served if they hung out at the mall.

I don't remember pigeons in 79-80, though I do seem to recall baloons being released from behind the giant rainbow at the end of the closer.

This kind of attitude will always be appreciated and I think you'll find people are only too willing to help you learn about corps. It's the "I know everything and nobody can tell me I'm wrong" mindset that, I think, bothers many of us.

I'm a professional educator. Among my colleagues we have a saying, of sorts, about students: "It's not what they don't know that's the problem...it's what they THINK they know." In our overzealous efforts to build self-esteem and engender warm, fuzzy feelings in everyone, we have raised a generation of young people to believe that they are infallible; that their opinions are always valid; and that whatever they believe or say should be respected as absolute truth. Of course, opinions and ideas can always be challenged and I'm usually excited when a student formulates original thoughts or becomes involved in a topic to the point that he/she will question a position, theory or situation. However, what doesn't excite me is the increasing number of self-centered young people who feel that they already know it all; whose egotistical arrogance will ensure that they never profit from anyone else's knowledge or experience. Though I can -- and often do -- learn from my students, at the end of the day, my years of study and experience in the field will usually trump that of an 18 year old, no matter how convinced he may be of his superiority. Is this elitist? No, it's just the truth. By way of example let me offer the following little story: Several weeks ago I played a recording of Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 5 for one of my freshmen classes. After listening, I asked some questions about particular aspects of the music -- textures, harmonies, etc. -- then solicited opinions. One young lady stated that she didn't like the music and offered some reasons why -- she didn't understand it, it was too complicated, it wasn't the type of music she normally heard, etc. While I may have been slightly disappointed and even dismayed by her inability to appreciate Bach, I respected her opinion. Very quickly another student joined the discussion with, "I hated it, too. It's crap." After picking my jaw up off the floor counting to 10 to control my temper, I asked the guy why he tought the music was "crap." His reply: "It's just crap. It's no good." When I suggested that he might offer a reason to back up his statement he became incredulous and defensive that I had the audacity to challenge his belief. See the difference? The young woman offered an opinion -- a personal opinon -- based on her own likes/dislikes and experiences. The guy tried to turn his opinion into fact. He believed it, therefore it was so. He had neither the ability nor the experience to support his claim but he made his arrogant pronouncement nonetheless. In so doing, he only exposed his own ignorance. It's one thing to say "I didn't like Phantom's show because...." or "I don't think that song works well for the ballade" or "the lines looked dirty to me," but far too often we hear people with limited to no experience or background make blanket statements that only expose their lack of knowledge. Unless you've played every horn book on the field or have extensive experience as a performer or instructor, how can you claim that BD has the easiest brass parts? How many 17 year olds have the technique to critique and evaluate SCV's drumline? Watching a couple of shows from the stands and buying a couple of DVDs does not suddenly turn you into Michael Gaines, Wayne Downey or George Hopkins. Remember, what you don't know is not the problem and can't be held against you. It's what you THINK you know that will get you into trouble.

As Mr. Boo pointed out, there are literally dozens of musical settnings of this ancient text. The one enjoying current popularity is by Lauridsen though, the most famous is probably that by Renaissance composer Tomas Luis deVittoria.

Though it's not evident on the recordings, the reaction to Spirit of Atlanta's "Let it Be Me" in 1978 was, apparently, loud and long, with the entire audience standing for the final minute of the performance. Rondinaro and Cesario even comment about it during the introduction to the Legacy DVD.

Yes, there is quite a bit WE would love to see on television but, we have to face facts: relatively few people in the television viewing audience are like us. While we may eat, breathe and sleep drum corps, it remains an unknown entity to most people --the vast majority of whom would not be interested even if they were to make the discovery. Shortening show times, airing up close and personal biographies of legendary drum corps directors, exposing the history of the bugle, showing clips of kids sleeping on gym floors, creating head to head regional competitions, etc. is not suddenly going to make drum corps popular with the general public nor make it a viable television product. Ask yourself these question: would I be inclined to watch a curling competition if they showed me more scenes of the curlers practicing? Would I tune in to log rolling if the time spent on the log was trimmed from 3 minutes to 2? Would I rush home on Thursday night to watch badminton if there were more segments about the history of the sport? I think not. Those sports, like drum corps, attract small, niche audiences that will likely remain so despite the fervor and devotion of diehard fans.

Like the above poster, I've been a fan of Phatom's guards since the days of the Rockford File. Too bad they've chosen to go the way of everyone else -- down the co-ed path. I truly enjoyed the unique feminine sophistication of the all-girl guard.

Hmmm...I like the idea of less fluff but I'm not sure mainstream America does. Other than the big 4 (football, baseball, basketball and hockey) most sports are packaged for television as fluff. For example, coverage of the Olympics has become more a celebration of individual athletes -- that we get to know through touchy-feely behind-the-scenes vignettes -- and human interest stories than a true presentation of athletic competition. Compare the amount of screen time skier Bode Miller received on the slopes versus that he received sitting in interview chairs, in slick pre-packaged bios, commercial endorsements, stories about what he ate for breakfast, where he bought his first pair of skis, what sock he puts on first.... I, myself, would much prefer to watch the downhill race with some insightful commentary by an expert but that's relegated to a place of lesser importance behind the fluffy promotion of "sexy" individuals.

Ding ding ding... The appeal of many sports (particularly individual sports such as ice skating and NASCAR - to cite those mentioned in a previous post) is as much in the personalities as in the competition. For example, the onset of figure skating mania and almost year-round television coverage can, in many respects, be traced back to the Nancy - Tonya saga. It was a popular fascination with the characters involved rather than in any sudden interest in figure skating itself, which had long received only minimal media coverage. The same may be true of NASCAR's recent surge in popularity. Only with the advent of cover-boy drivers and interesting characters did this long-suffering sport come to the attention of the general public. Drum corps, unfortunately, lacks such individuality. It is not driven by star performers or whacky characters (George Hopkins excepted) who grab media attention.

I'd ban idiotic posts on DCP. But, that would leave very few posts.

In discussions such as this, this question -- or a variant thereof -- is often asked: why doesn't DCI become involved in creating more corps? We also hear a good deal about the activity moving towards a super-corps model, in which only the best and fittest will survive. While creating additional corps might please fans, contribute to greater competitive variety, provide more opportunities for potential marchers to become involved, etc., it is important to remember that DCI is, essentially, the member corps themselves. Realistically, why would those corps want to share an already limited pie with upstarts? Furthermore, though cruel as it may sound, why would SCV be concerned by the disappearance of Pioneer or Esperanza? Less competition equals greater success for SCV. Each corps watches out for itself first and foremost. Here's an analogy: The handful of corps we have left can be compared to the airline industry. Where there were once over a dozen national carriers and many more regional ones, we are now left with only a few major players. Analysts predict that further attrition may result in 3-4 super carriers dominating the industry. In such a precarious climate, why would Southwest Airlines go out on a limb to help rescue Delta? Why would a struggling United lobby for the creation of yet one more start-up competitor? The travelling public might benefit from greater competition and I, for one, would appreciate having more choices when I fly but, the handful of airlines that have survived deregulation are fighting for their own livelihoods and are little concerned with the desires of the you and me. Sure, in a perfect world it would be magnanimous of Southwest to lend some of its yearly profit to help shore up Delta; it would be great if United helped to fund a new airline; and I'd love to see TWA, PanAm, Eastern, Republic, et al, make a come back. Likewise, it would be terrific to have 100 corps back on the field and it would be great to see DCI leading the way. In reality, in today's world, it simply cannot and/or will not happen.

The parameters are sort of undefined here. Are we talking about pre-season hype, hype and buzz during the season, or the inevitable critique and discussion that comes with hindsight once the season is over? Certainly, 2005 was given a great deal of hype in the off-season but, after the first few shows of summer the naysaying began, with many proclaiming this to be an all-time low for SCV. Only after the corps turned in a truly inspired and emotional performance on finals night did many fair-weather fans begin to jump back on the bandwagon. I'm going way out on an unpopular limb and suggest 1980 as the most under-appreciated of SCV's efforts. Yes, there were some execution problems in all captions that held scores down and, yes, the show was so "odd" for its time that most people just didn't get it. But, I think, therein lies part of its appeal. That show truly was ahead of its time and helped to establish precedent for many of the things we take for granted today, particularly in the area of drill design. Moreover, if you can get past the problem areas, it truly is a beautifully designed, subtle, nuanced program.

A clarifying FYI: according to several sources (Harvard Dictionary of Music, New Grove Dictionary) timpani is both singular and plural.

Amen and amen.

An off-topic diversion for your Sunday morning perusal: Bach's music is poetry of the highest order. To compare his work to sentence fragments is akin to suggesting Michelangelo scribbled on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. In the words of Charles Gounod (no mean composer himself): "Bach is a colossus of Rhodes, beneath whom all musicians pass and will continue to pass. Bach has said all there is to say." Sentence fragments, indeed!

It's been done many times. A few corps in Div1 are the result of mergers of some sort.

Threat topics? Does this mean we're allowed to threaten people? I'll get my list ready.

Hmm... the same might also be said of you. Many of us "nerds" who post on this board have been involved in the activity since before you were born. That gives us a perspective that you presently lack. Perhaps, one day in the future, when drum corps (or whatever it's called then) undergoes yet another drastic change -- one you cannot tolerate or feel fundamentally alters the state of the activity -- you will understand why we nerdy fossils of the monolitih past feel the way we do about current developments. And I'm curious...since I also know many people that agree with me and my opinion, does that mean your post is "pretty much negated"?

I was there in '79 and '80 -- in the audience -- and it was unbearable in the stands. It must have been brutal out on the astroturf. I remember it became something of a "game" with the crowd to count the number of fallen performers after each corps exited the field. A few kids passed out during their performance, but most had the fortitude to make it to the end, only to drop once the final note had been sounded. If you've never experienced August in Alabama, you don't really know what "hot" means.

A couple of choices that probably won't make too many others' lists: "Walk Him Up the Stairs" Spirit of Atlanta 1978 "Sea Hawk" Guardsmen 1980 And from slightly more recent times, Cadets Ballad from 06...singer and all.