Wiid

Good thing you're reading the 26th page of the 9,000,000 Cadets thread then. I can tell you really have time to read only the things you care about...

I find this post to be particularly honest and I would like to state that I respect all of the views you have presented here (before I respectfully disagree). To say that shows from the past were more entertaining is a subjective statement. How were they any more or less entertaining than shows of this day and age? According to your post, this would be due to the inclusion of more recognizable music and themes, which again is extremely subjective. A tune that brings back great memories and is very familar to one person may be completely foreign to another. And while I love hearing renditions of songs I know and love, I also enjoy lots of abstract music (both in drum corps and my other musical tastes). Just because a show does not present "familar" material, does not mean it has failed to "entertain" members of the audience. Which brings me to another point. As I am a relative newbie to drum corps (first discovered it in 2000 as a high school sophmore), I was never aware of the corps' "obligation" to "entertain" the audience. I was simply amazed at what I was witnessing on the field! It was like marching band, but on crack! Performed at a level that I had always imagined, but never thought possible! Not until I talked to some older fans at a few shows and started reading rants on the internet did i realize that not everyone shared my awe. However, to me it never mattered if a corps played music I was familar with or if a show wasn't full of melodic music. If I liked the music and the corps performed what I believed to be a well designed show at an incredible level, nothing else was important. I still hold these views to this day. Moving on, you state that the Cadets shows of the past couple years have supressed the talent of the corps members. I will interpret this as a complaint about narration, however, please correct me if I am wrong. In 2005 and 2006, there is simply not enough vocalization to cover up the corps. I say vocalization because I do not consider a few seconds of voice blurbs to be narration, whether it is amplified or not. In 2007 and 2008 however, the narration is a considerable part of the show. I can completely understand why folks do not like the narration. I was weary at first as well, but have since embraced it. It does not distract me, it does not "cover up" the corps in my opinion, it does not reduce the corps to playing supportive long tones in my opinion. I enjoy listening to the 2007 and 2008 shows both with and without narration -- I feel that it works equally well either way. While some music is more "background" oriented, I feel that this does not compromise the compositional quality of the music. Next, I will agree, the narration in 2007 was not literary genius... however, I firmly believe that the narration and music were staged appropriately, having a natural ebb and flow feel. This to me is grounds for innovation. The logistical integration of narration that satisfies both voice and music equally, must come first -- the well-written prose will come later. My long winded point is that, although the "entertainment" has stopped for you, it continues for many (not all, but many). I do not think that corps members would be driven to such high levels of performance if they did not ardently believe in both the current state of the activity and the organizations they willingly choose to seek participation in. If a few spoken words and some different music ruin that for you, I feel sorry for you. To me, drum corps is music -- all music, not just something familar. To me, drum corps is motion -- not just symmetrical designs and rigid movement, but also all kinds of crazy shapes. To me, drum corps is art -- and to stifle it by trying to define what it "is" and "isn't" is never good. I know not everyone can open up to change, as the past holds some wonderful memories and feelings, but it never hurts to try... **edited for grammar**

Just curious... do you really consider what the cadets did in '05/'06 to be considered "narration." To me narration suggests large amounts of speech that directly influence the message of the show. '05/'06 imo are vocal effects used to enhance GE (akin to the coats and crown last year).

disclaimer: i am a huge cadets fan and i loved the '07 show. I would agree with others that the flow of the 2008 show has a very broken up feel. However, I offer this perspective: The narration of 2007 was less "story"-centered and offered more of an overall look at the thoughts and experiences of corps members. Was it Shakespeare? No. Was it cheesy? At times, yes (specifically the narration at the start of the closer). Was it delivered professionally? No, but I believe the corps members did very well with the lines that they were given. These drawbacks considered, I firmly believe that the narration of '07 had a great give-and-take with the music; accents both visually and musically were woven in very well with the dialouge and I found this to be highly enjoyable. I know that not many share this view, but that's the great thing about opinions :-) Now, as for the 2008 show, I feel as though the approach to narration is completely different from 2007. The "story"-centered, individualisitc nature of the show, naturally leads to a more episodic feel (wrapping up an entire lifetime in 11 minutes, can have the tendency to give you that rushed feeling :-) ). I was not "confused" or "confounded" as other posters implied was the feeling of the audience (maybe some, but not all). I feel like the Cadets staff has accomplished exactly what the show says it will do: follow this woman through her adult life, in her search for a happy life. Is this search fulfilled with education? No. Partnership? Love? Children? Work? Power? Money? No. Turns out happiness is a choice and sometimes it takes a monumental event, like the threat of death, for us to realize this. Is this an absolute, universal truth? No, but it is a view presented by the staff and in my opinion, delivered clearly. As for the impact points, volume and the overall "drum corpsy-ness" of the show, I would agree that yes, the narration does take away from some of these elements that would otherwise be more abundant in a traditional show. However, these are not the only reasons I go to see a drum corps show and I am happy that The Cadets can offer an effective vision of what else the activity can be. **edited first sentence for clarification**

ditto

In a particular order: 1.) Cadets 2.) Crown 3.) Blue Stars 4.) Phantom 5.) SCV Edit for HM: Madison Boston

I would have to be in disagreement as well. I think Crown deserves every bit of hype that has come their way. They're just incredible.

OUT: Bluecoats, Boston, Glassmen IN: Blue Stars, Madison, Troopers

Drill: Cavaliers 2003. Music: Cadets 2000 no contest. Hard to pick just one.

My top four in this order: Cadets Phantom Crown Blue Knights (Phantom and Crown could almost be interchangable, but the last 2 mins. of Phantom's show put them over the top for me...) So hard to decide! So much greatness this year

My top 5 in this order: The Cadets Madison Crown Phantom Troopers