Rochester New York

Agreed, agreed, agreed. I've been saying this for years, though with [name of different corps] inserted. HOWEVER, it's worth remembering that it was the Cadets/Hopkins, more than anyone else, that made amplification such a dominant force in this activity--thus ensuring that design would ultimately prove more important than musicianship. Live by the sword, die by the sword. (Maybe that can be their theme next year...)

Years since 1988 when BD either slipped in placement from QF to SF, or when the gap between BD and the next highest corps decreased by more than .15 from QF to SF: 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 It ain't over yet, folks. After Semifinals, it probably WILL be over, since the SF winner has only lost twice in the last 30 years.

In my opinion the use of synths evacuates the music caption scores of any legitimacy. The fact that judges are assigning music "achievement" scores to brass lines whose sound cannot be distinguished from a synthesizer--or, as is clear from many of the posts here, who cannot be heard clearly because of a synth--is truly astounding to me.

"...what I freakin’ hate is how you can’t tell when you hear bass anymore how much of that bass is coming from the low brass and how much from the speakers… I’m thinking it may not be wise to put any more than 12 contras on the field anymore… put more guard members out there for the visual… the subs can easily make up the difference…" And this is why, in my opinion, this activity has completely lost any legitimacy as a music competition.

Are you serious? According to whom? I heard from one of the corps' board of directors that this may have been the lowest attendance at finals in several years, if not decades. Thus it's unlikely that DCI will publicize the number of ticket sales. This seems corroborated by the photos of the stands (see the pictures posted on the Finals thread). I have never seen so many empty seats in between the 45s--even in the bottom section of the stadium. I've gone to several Finals in the 90s and 00s, and the seats between the 40s (much less the 45s) were always completely full on Finals night.

No, there was a difference. As someone who went to championships every year from 1997 to 2006, the difference was very palpable. A good example, which addresses your concern about appropriate comparisons, is Cavaliers 2000 vs. Cavaliers 2001. The opening chords in 2000 were, by general consensus, HAIR-SPLITTING. Seriously, I still remember that sound resonating in my chest. In 2001, Cavaliers played a similar sequence of chord punches (about a minute into their show), but it simply didn't have the same projection. Not close at all. And yes, Cadets 2000 opening hit was loud, but it was very very "blatty." Horrible example of tone spreading, which is what often happens when the Bb horns are pushed beyond a certain volume level.

Um, did you read Brasso's posts? His original post said nothing about talent/recruiting parity. In fact, he explicitly said that design is the biggest factor in "the placement of the people actually competing on the field."

Hopkins Fact #1. Drum corps audiences are primarily band kids and family members of corps members. Lifelong fans and patrons are an inconvenient minority who only care about acoustic music, loud playing, and shows without narration. Hopkins Fact #2. The G7 corps draw in the most ardent, highest-paying fans, who have followed the corps for years, regardless of whether they personally know someone in the corps. Hopkins Fact #3. If any two facts contradict each other, see Fact #4. Hopkins Fact #4. Woodwinds will solve everything.

Folly? That's rather harsh. Consider that designers are PAID by the corps, and that a significant portion of the score (including the ensemble captions, which one would reasonably expect to based solely on the effort of the "unpaid" members) is explicitly and directly tied to design quality.

Great research, brasso. There is also the fact that MLB pulls from a much, much bigger of pool of potential, serious players. In other words, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of good players who would kill to play in ANY major league team. Conversely, a corps like Glassmen or Troopers probably only cuts a few dozen good players each season. And, if we're talking about specific sections, Madison has often had trouble merely filling out their guard. I believe the change to 150-member corps only exacerbated the lack of parity, though that would pale in comparison to the effect of the G-7 proposal if implemented.

Um, it was a different guy. Boy, you must really be scratching your head over Cadets' 2005 show. lol

Ok, so let me sum up what seems to be the one thing everyone, including DCI, agrees on: DCI is consciously transforming drum corps from a unique musical activity with audiences and patrons who stick around for decades.... ...into the country's most expensive band camp.

You're being too kind, given that many of these changes appear to have DECREASED interest, judging by shrinking audience numbers and more lukewarm audience responses. Yes, claims that "the sky is falling" are as old as drum corps itself. Yes, claims that one change or another would "kill drum corps" have been made every decade. BUT, it's worth remembering that, in the "Boy Who Cried Wolf," there WAS a real wolf, and he ate the boy just as quickly, not caring that the boy had cried wolf a dozen times before. My fear is that, this time, we really are looking the wolf in the face.

Ok, but whose fault is that? *DCI* has created a system where certain types of shows are rewarded by the judges, and *DCI* has created a system where corps placement is directly tied to the amount of support from DCI. So OF COURSE there has been a proliferation of "wannabe" shows. How could there not be? The absurdity of the G7 proposal is that it would further encourage this "wannabe" culture. I thought your post as a whole was smart and thoughtful. But I think the pressure to "try something really new, really fresh" ALL THE TIME has not helped these "lower" corps bring in more fans. Not a whit.

So, you're essentially saying that two wrongs will make a right?

I only wish SCV had done this with 2004's Scheherezade show. It was a thrilling show, but it had some weak spots in the drill design and some rough brass moments. With some refining and development, a revamped Scheherezade might have rivalled Phantom's Spartcaus for the show of the decade.

That last sentence expresses my feelings perfectly, if by "gimmicks" you also mean synthesizers, amplification, electronics, and B-flat horns. Call me a dinosaur if you will (I saw my first live dc show in 1996), but each of these "gimmicks" had a direct, palpable effect on the medium's uniqueness and musical effect on the audience.

Well said, and not only because you used "canard" in a sentence correctly. I think the complaint about time between shows is ridiculous. The audience NEEDS a few minutes to process and wind down, especially after a good show. Can you imagine what it would have felt like to watch BD perform after Phantom in 2008 with only a minute or two of interval time? The intensity of the shows is partly a factor of the rest periods. Watching a series of shows with little or no breaks in between would soon become numbing, to say the least.

I sat in 341 last year, in Friends of DCI/Super Premium seats (i.e. $400 for all 3 nights). I have to tell you--the sound was HORRIBLE. A "bit of an echo" is like saying BP made a "bit of a mess." No clarity of sound, articulation went out the window, and lower percussion parts were almost completely inaudible. Sorry to be so glum about it. But the sound is the reason why, after going to finals every year since 1997, I won't be going this year.

Exactly! So many of the changes--including the proposed change to have G7-only shows--have been designed to attract a steady stream of high school band kids, without any thought as to how to BUILD a solid, long-lasting base of support (or to RETAIN the base of support that still hasn't fled yet). If you can't hook the kids enough so that they will come back when they're in their 30s, 40s, and so on, then who's going to pay for those $400 Finals tickets? Who's going to donate $100 at the drop of a hat when a corps is struggling because of high gas prices? Who's going to sponsor a kid to march? It seems like the lessons learned by other performing arts and athletic groups--orchestras, soccer, etc.--have been completely missed by this myopic group of directors.

Step 10: Go to a DCA show this year.

The cynical answer is that judges, consciously or unconsciously, roughly score what they think corps SHOULD be doing in June. This makes the shows seem legitimate and worthy of attendance. For example, if the top corps at a June show scored a 40, how could DCI justify charging attendance? Why pay full ticket prices to see a corps that are below mediocre according to judges' scores?

Don't take this the wrong way, but didn't BD win top guard every single one of those years? I believe that 91 Cadets guard didn't even make top 3 that year.

The OT raised the question of "feminine" guards in DC. Some people think that the USMC D&B, in order to be as "masculine" as possible, got rid of the guard entirely. In other words, for the USMC, ANY guard is too "feminine" (or "un-military"). Does that connect the dots for you? Or would you like me to draw a picture?

Um, because this thread started as a discussion of "masculine" vs. "feminine" styles. Gay people, by virtue of living in a country that treats them as second-class citizens, are generally more self-conscious and thoughtful about labels like "masculine" and "feminine" (not to mention words like "prancing"). They have to be. If a gay kid in high school hears someone say that he is "prancing" down the hallway, he sure as hell will understand the implication. People who think this thread has nothing to do with gay issues don't understand the relationship between sexism and homophobia in this country.