ouooga

9 pages, I skimmed. My $.02, if it's going to be on the field it should be judged. The only caption it fits into is GE, so that's where it should be. To the question of "what if the power goes out that night?", a corps is judged on what they bring to the table that night. Someone asked last year how BD can still be scoring high after their tarp was stolen; shouldn't the tarp's absence be reflected in the score? We all know the answer to that question, and the same answer should apply here. If there's electronics, judge them. If there's no electronics (that night) judge what's still on the field. If a corps doesn't know how to adapt for that night, that's corps'/staff's problem, same as if the corps didn't know how to march with a hole or alternate a sick soloist.

Corps*

As much as I love Ghost Train, I never think it translates well on the field. Godzilla Eats Las Vegas though, that's a different story. Gotta love Eric Whitacre. Side note about Whitacre, I got to see him conduct a live performance of Cloudburst (the wind band version) for a CD he was recording. Full concert hall though, it was packed. Before he started he asked everyone in the audience to snap their fingers throughout the tune. No rhythm, just snap as often or as little as we wanted. The end result was a very obvious, very cool sound of pouring rain. I've heard this piece performed on the field a few times, but I've always wanted that specific aspect, the audience snapping, to somehow be included.

Cool idea, but the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Double sewing time, double uniform storage, double cost in some cases. That said, the Cavaliers in 16 are a good example. I like the idea of a show-specific uniform that's modular to be more traditional when needed, like in parades. Parades have to be interesting with extremely-show-specific uniforms. Did Cadets do any parades this season?

It's crazy how accurate that fourth bullet is.

Digging the answers here, yours and everyone else's. Totally agreed on the subjective end. As far as the word I'd use, I'd probably go with a non-qualifier like "one of their best" or "one of their most successful" etc. From my own personal subjective side, I'd put "best" somewhere in between placement and fan appreciation. Red, to me, covers both of those topics, and does them slightly better Wicked. Though in full transparency, if Boston had had that fire prop in 2000 I feel confident they'd have passed SCV. Unless we're talking about record-breaking scores, basically anything over 97.0 for non-champions and 99.0 for champions, score doesn't really factor into the "best" category for me.

If I had to pick a best for Boston, it would definitely be Red.

Not sure if this warrants a new thread or not. I was reading the article about Finals on DCI.org, and this quote caught my eye: That word best stuck out to me. I checked, it looks like this was their best score, but Boston's been in 5th place twice (00 and 02) in their history and 6th once too (03) so not their best placement. I really don't consider scores comparable from year to year, so if we're basing it on that I feel like it's not really valid. Or is it because they jumped six places in a season (is that a record for Boston, or anyone else for that matter?) Basically I'm trying to figure out, how would one go about defining a corps' best season. If you think a particular show/season is the best for a specific corps, why is it their best? Just show design? Score? Placement? Increasing placement from last year? It was a great season for Boston, don't get me wrong. I'm really just curious if DCP agrees with that statement or if you all define best on something else.

Wouldn't that fall on the corps? It's up to DCI to implement the rules, but it's up to the corps to choose how to play within them. The NFL may say what is and is not legal, but it's up to the teams if they want to be a running team or a passing team or a hybrid team or a slightly deflated ball team.

Well of course I expect to hear some Nickleback mixed in with the loud Latin jazz. Figured that went without saying.

Malagauena. Literally just play Malaga and Malaguena and call it good.

At that point it comes down to a question of how important the brand name is on sales. In the scenario, people know the name Kentucky Fried Chicken. Change the name, and risk losing any brand loyalty, which could hinder Oreo Cake sales as well. It's a risk though on either side, I don't know if there's a definitive which-one-is-right, but that's a good question you present.

In a perfect world, I want to disagree with you. I'd love to see scores and placements go away, and drum corps be basically like Cirque shows that tour the summer, with students doing it for the experience and the love of performing and the love of the style itself. But I tend to think you're correct on this one. The competitive aspect keeps it interesting to new members, and that's the lifeblood.

Also as for Boston, yes, they need to place better to win. Maybe 5th, I think we can reasonably assume that a 5th place corps can pick up the momentum (Bluecoats in 2013 started that trend, even though '14 didn't win, SCV from last year to this year is another example). But thinking again about how how you place one year impacts your talent pool next year, as great as Boston's show was this year, do you really think it was great enough for enough top-level talent (let's call them ring chasers for the sake of this discussion, I used the term in another thread for a similar point) to win a championship? You need three things to win: Talent in the membership Talent in the design staff A strong show design (which the design staff does not always nail on the head no matter how strong they are) Take any one of those pillars out, and there's no championship. A sixth place show following a 12th place year is not strong enough to attract the talent for that first point, but it is enough to attract the folks who are willing to help them make the climb. Give Boston one or two more years of consistent higher-than-last-year placement and the other two pillars in place, and there's a shot. Side note: I'm 100% willing to eat my words if Boston wins next year or just bucks this trend entirely somehow. Or any corps for that matter. But historically, the aforementioned is what needs to happen.

Hey, this thread lives! I stand by my comments from years ago, competitive inertia as a whole exists, but it's not some ethereal thing where you need to check off the Top 3 box before you can win a championship; it's marketing. You place well, you'll attract better talent and probably better design staff (or at least retain a strong design staff who will continue to get stronger together). And that's exactly how you climb the ladder; a ladder which does have a golden end point. From a thread I read on Reddit though, I just want to point out here how interesting it is that 2016's 12th place corps and 1st place corps finished side by side in 2017.

Meh. You're not wrong, but I don't see the problem outside of the aversion-to-evolution scope. Scenario: Imagine KFC's chicken sales plummet; people just stop eating chicken entirely. However, their Oreo Cake sales increase dramatically; everyone in the country has to eat at least two a day, they're that good. At the end of the year, KFC reports their best year ever in sales, highest net profit in company history, even though they didn't sell a single piece of chicken (their core product offering and even their namesake) and daily they sold out of Oreo Cakes. Would you consider that year a success or a failure for KFC? My answer, it's a success. It may not be what was envisioned, and there's a lot of people going to be screaming "what about the chicken?!" but if I was KFC, surviving and thriving would be the primary goals, with remaining traditional a secondary.

I assume you're taking that as a negative, but I actually agree with that example and think it's a positive for the future of the activity. Also I'm no expert on college cheerleading, but I feel confident there's "purists" of that arena that feel that activity has changed and mutated over the years too, and hate what it is now. A lot of parallels in your example.

It's tricky. I agree with you on the musical sport aspect. I'd also put something like Figure Skating or Floor Gymnastics on the list, closer to the sport side; competitive performance activities that include music, physical in nature, judged for score by individuals. That said, I can't think of a single other example on this spectrum where the music is actually performed by the athletes.

Scores provide three important things: Marketing material (will the Blue Devils beat the Santa Clara Vanguard in a head to head competition? Find out tonight! Sunday Sunday Sunday!) Motivation (one more rep guys! You want the Crossmen to beat you again tonight?!) A winner (the reigning, defending champion Blue Devils!!) Take away scores, and the activity will need to be reframed. Not a bad thing at all, but how everything is marketed will need to stray from a competitive activity to more of a performance activity. We already teeter on that line, so it's not ridiculous to think. As far as quality goes, you'd lose motivation in some cases. Take the ring chasers out (assume there's a lot of folks in the top 6 who are at least somewhat motivated to march Corps X because Corps X might win) and disperse them instead at either their nearest corps or the one that puts on the shows they like the most. Overall quality in the (now called) Top 6 would decrease, but quality is just about everyone else would increase. Basically we'd have an entire playing field of corps with a (now called) 12th through 8th place quality. You decide if that's good or bad.

Do Football games show scores? Yes. Do Theater Performances show scores? No. Do jazz festivals show scores? Sometimes. Where does Drum Corps fit on that spectrum?

Ya, the seat poaching problem sounds pretty bad, but death seems a bit extreme. Can't we just give them cake instead? Is cake an option?

Eh, I'll take a stab at disagreement with that. It's about an overall entertainment package. Look at Cirque du Soleil; originally was an actual traditional circus, has added much of the things debated about in this exact thread, and has since gone on to be one of the premier forms of live entertainment worldwide. I'm sure there's some traditional tightrope walkers and jugglers who say "that's not real circus", and arguably they're right, but to the larger audience it's just a more entertaining product. Drum corps is expensive, and tickets pay those bills. I guess that final sentence could also read "....has been taken over by those who want to keep the lights on."

There's some leaps in there, but ya, if you use the methodology of once a fan, always a fan, and assume all who don't purchase are doing so because they don't like the changes, then ya, I guess there's some logic there. Just was curious how you were doing your math. I appreciate the explanation. Carry on.