BoyWonder1911

Hmm...I just may make this a project of mine. In a week or so, I will make a post that will try to convince why show x was the best show ever written, and I will try to include objective facts and examples, and then construct them in a way as to be almost impossible to deny or argue against. The problem will be determining what show was the best show ever written...hmm...LOL

"You guys sounded like a bunch of chickens running around with your heads cut off."

I'd like to mention a little about supply and demand. The more people who would potentially go to see a show, the higher the prices should be, based upon how many seats are available. The Whitewater, WI show had a lot of seating area, and only filled maybe half the seats. Do you think if tickets were cheaper for that show, they'd draw in more fans? There are also a lot of shows at smaller high schools where the seating area is small enough to where 90% of seats are sold. Tickets for those shows could probably be hiked up a little. And of course there are shows like Allentown, where there are a bunch of seats, but they pretty much almost sell out. And then people go and sit on the grassy hill. Seems like those prices are in good balance. It is in everyone's best interest to have the prices of seats to where it's the maximum price possible while still selling as many seats as possible. And then again, shows like Whitewater, WI where there are a lot of seats, even if you do lower prices, it might not necessarily attract more people because of where Whitewater is, it's not exactly a large town. And the number of corps in attendance, and who they are, also makes a difference. This poll is really not a bad idea, but would have preferred the OP left "lesser corps" or OC out of it.

There has to be some sort of objective criteria that makes one show inherently better than another. General popularity and fan opinion have almost nothing to do with "best written". I think PR 08 and Cavs 02 were both great shows, but I still believe Cadets 2000 was in the top 3 best shows ever designed, and PR 08 is not one of them, and the other two are not in this decade either. I'd like to prove this as a fact, but not sure how to go about doing that.

Maybe I turned this in a direction I didn't mean to turn it into. I just equate anything that has to do with military as being "conservative", because "liberal" would mean anti-war and anti-military. And I do consider drum corps as an activity with it's roots in military, which to me = conservative. Maybe drum corps should go back to it's roots and play only military-style performances, include fifes, and play only patriotic music? Maybe current Drum Corps should be renamed "Musical Marching Dramatic Arts" or something similar? That would actually be more accurate than "drum corps".

Well I guess if you want my answer, I would only go see a drum corps show if the following apply: 1)4 hour drive or less, and if it's 4 hours, it better be every single WC corps. I'd pay $80 max. 2)I wouldn't bother wasting my time going to see a show if there were only 4 or 5 corps in attendance, and I wouldn't bother going to a show if I couldn't sit high enough to see the entire visual product. 3)I would go see any drum corps show, whether it be WC or OC, if it was less than an hour from my home, and also adheres to #2. If I could get a seat high enough and within the 40yd lines, I would pay $30 to see 8 corps, WC or OC.

No longer applicable?????? The entire activity of modern drum corps has it's roots with VFW, who sponsored most corps. In fact, the entire activity is based upon the drummers who played cadence to keep soldiers marching in step, and the fife players to play patriotic hymns and other tunes to keep the soldiers in good spirits, and to keep their mind focused on the imminent battle. Drum corps exists because of war. Like it or not, it's true.

I think it's pretty apparent that people would pay more to see better shows, which is what it seems you are trying to get out of your poll. I don't think you need a poll to determine that. I think this whole topic is a real bad can of worms as it is, and I'd really hate to see this whole thread turn into a debate on which corps should get which revenue, etc. I just find that a very touchy issue, and in bad taste to bring up like this here. I'm sorry if I'm going overboard or being paranoidschizo, don't mean to offend you, but it just seemed like you are trying to open up that can of worms.

^ ? I didn't read the original political opinion post, but drum corps is an inherently conservative activity...in fact, the only reason we have drum corps today is because of WWI, WWII and Korean War, if you think about it.

... I don't even know how to respond to this. ? "I like all corps"...? Are you trying to determine whether all participants should get an equal share of show revenue? Really, they should be paid for how many minutes of performance they do. Which would be almost exactly equal. Drum corps isn't a professional sport, it's just drum corps.

About the driving times - those 10/15 8 off hours are for bus drivers. For truck drivers, it is 11 hours driving, in a 14 hour window, with a 10 hour break. When you go back on duty after your 10 hour break, your 14 hour window starts again. As for the original post, first off I wanted to mention that Star 1991 was not boring to me. In fact, I think it was one of the best musical performances in the history of the activity, with Cadets and Star 1993 being in there. You seem to be a Scouts fan. Well the Scouts really have not ever played classical music. Unless you count Gershwin and other jazz-classical stuff. They have played a lot of American jazz, latin, etc. So this tells me you really don't have a taste for other normal orchestral music. That is all fine and dandy, but to call Star 1991 boring is ripping on Respighi's music. "Pines of Rome" is an excellent piece of orchestral music. I also find the drill in that show excellent as well. The cross-to-cross at the end of the show is arguably the best closer in any show, period. A show doesn't have to be jazzy and in your face to be a good show. And you have to realize that they don't play with bugles anymore, and the instruments they use don't really give that shrill buzz like the bugles did. The instruments they use now may be not as loud or shrill, but they blend better, and the overall sound is more comfortable. I think a lot of what you are complaining about, you have no reason to complain because a lot of what you said simply isn't apparent. Today's shows are entertaining because they are more artful than shows have been in the past. The activity has had a lot of time to evolve since the 1980's. All the top corps are looking for new ways to innovate, to become more competitive, and sometimes a new innovation just doesn't work out, and sometimes it is wildly successful. Cavaliers 2000-2003, 2006 stick out to me as shows that have innovated the activity, and at the same time established a very strong identity for them. They will change, they won't always do blocky, symmetrical drill with minimalist music, and I hope to hear something similar to their 1992 show from them once again. I really do. True, SCV 1989 is a masterpiece, but SCV 2011 is also a very well designed show, it's just on the opposite spectrum of music. It's not melodic, it's not in your face, it is not readily-noticeable music, it is not written to please judges, it was written to explore new avenues, new ideas, new ways of expressing art and music on a football, the Earth is not flat, we went to the moon, the stars in the sky are not pinholes on heaven's floor showing through, and the Earth is not the center of the universe. I think maybe you should give the shows of this era a chance to entertain you. I watch a lot of live drum corps shows, being on tour as a driver, and yeah I agree that some shows do bore me at times, and that is normal, no one likes every single show, but every time I watch it, I look for things that stick out as entertaining. On the other hand, I would definitely like to see a lot more emotion in drum corps shows. I love the Cadets because a big part of their identity is bringing emotion to the field, and Phantom Regiment too. There has only been 3 shows that have ever made me cry (besides crying for my Blue Stars when they have an exceptionally good night), and those shows are SCV 1989, Star 1991, and Cadets 2000. Since then, really nothing. So I agree with you whole-heartedly on this, I think bringing back music-dominated shows would be good for the activity. But on the other hand, try to enjoy what you see on the field today. I consider myself a pretty picky fan, and I don't "love" a whole lot of shows, but I do give every show a chance, and I applaud for the kids for every show. They work so hard. But I think the activity will go wherever the fans in general want it to go, and I think that will ultimately be back to music > visual.

"Machine" was a show about various different machines, and also the concept of machines itself. Errantly calling this show "The Machine" signifies that it was about one machine in particular, which it was not.

Cadets 2000 - the greatest show ever written in the history of marching music in all of the universe. Cavaliers 2002 - just about as flawless a performance as we may ever see, ever.

In 2008, one corps did a concerto for Oprah and Drum Corps.

^ My bad. Not Orwell, but Huxley. I really ought to read that book one day anyhow. For me, a theme is just about everything. It doesn't have to be a concrete theme, it should be left a little open to interpretation, of course. But the more solid of a theme you are trying to present, the harder the job is of depicting that theme. When Mahler started to write symphonies, he was all in favor of programs for the concert. He wanted people to know what his 1st symphony was about. He later changed his mind and got rid of the programs, and never went back. He said the music should be left to the audience to interpret for themselves what the music means to them. But like in any symphony, there is a revolving theme throughout the work, usually in the form of musical motifs. You can hear this is Mahler's 1st - even in the 1st movt, there is a hint of the last movt poking through. If any of you are a fan of Mahler like I am, then you probably know that Mahler's music is very emotionally complex. A LOT of his music can mean different things to different people. For me, the Mahler 1 is about nature. #2, well, it's about the resurrection, but the each individual movts are subject to interpretation as well. Symphony 5, 6, especially the 9th, all subjective. In symphony 9, movt 1 I think he was writing about the dying of humanity's soul. Movt 2, was writing about his beloved Austria, movt 3, about his mother, and movt 4 about dying and letting go. In any case, a lot of things in drum corps are open to interpretation, and I was just trying to get some others' subjective interpretations of various drum corps shows. Seems like a lot of you are saying "I don't care what it's about, I just like to sit and watch." That kinda irks me. And others have mentioned that "this show is about x, and it is mentioned right <here>." In any case, XtraordinarY is about a little boy who has a dream that we went inside the book "Where the Wild Thing are" and that is how I will see the show for the rest of the season.

^ this is why I asked what these 2011 shows mean to YOU, on a personal level. I'm not asking for objective understanding, I'm asking how YOU perceive the programs.

2001 Cadets - one of my very favorite openers of any show. Could be a closer in a lot of shows.

Yes, I do love curvilinear drill. I think boxes and rotation boxes, lines, etc. have their place and moments, but a truly good drill design has those magical moments when curvy formations, along with the music, keeps that momentum going and going, making you wait and wait until BAM! the form suddenly merges into that impact set we've been waiting for. This is why I have always generally preferred the Cadets over Cavs, BD, SCV, because of this, and also because of the emotion that the Cadets bring from the field to the stands. Incredible. This is why Cadets 2000 is my favorite show of all time. I can't help but cry when I watch it. I also think the last few sets of that show (last minute) from the time they make the company front until the end, is the best closer ever written. Of course I can't forget the cross-to-cross in Star 1991, that is just freakin' epic. Probably have to have that as a tie to the 2000 show. I'll check out that 1983 Cadets show. BTW, where can I get more info on Zingali? I'm familiar with the name, just would like to read the history about him. I already got blasted for not knowing about Jim Mason, so I guess I'd better learn more about Zingali since I've been posting on here quite frequently.

Nice. Seems like you made a pretty good system out of it. I thought about doing this myself a week ago, but I didn't want to turn my brain into oatmeal.

Well I think it had more to do with the visual design rather than how clean it was. Cadets seemed to have never stopped moving in that show! And the pass-throughs...omg. And it was almost all curvilinear drill. One of my favorite drill designs. Cadets 1998 is my favorite in that regard.

Yeah I guess you are right about that as well. Maybe I look at scores and placements too much. I have a feeling you are a big Cavaliers fan, and I did not mean to offend you. I didn't mean to say that the Cavaliers suck if they don't take 1st or 2nd. I think it's just that when a corps does so well like they did from 2000-2006, then expectations grow, and when they start to fall a little, people get disappointed and start to ask questions, the sky is falling, etc. If you work hard, next week your boss expects more, then more, then more, then when you go back to the level of 3 weeks ago, you suck and you're fired. Anyways. But now that I have had the privilege of actually touring with a drum corps, starting as of last year, I really get to see first hand how shows develop from early stage to finished product, and I also get to see a whole lot of competitions, and get to see a lot of shows a lot of times, enough for me to get a real good grasp on each show's total package. Not only am I now able to see that a real good show doesn't have to win to be a real good show, or even take top 3, (and I think PR last year "Into the Light" was a prime example of this. I thought that show was beautiful, from visual to music, the theme was concrete and they were able to express that theme very well. Might not have been the most difficult show, or the cleanest, but nevertheless it was a very entertaining show for me, anyway, and it took what, 6th place?) but I am also beginning to see what makes a winning show a winning show, or a top 3 show a top 3 show. My naiveity (sp?) is starting to wear off. Looking forward to seeing BK, BC, Academy and Crest for the first time this year.

I went back and found this, and it confirmed what I believed. The ONLY reason Cadets won that year, by .1, is because of visual. http://corpsreps.com/scores.cfm?view=scoreshow&showid=1993173 Star won Brass by .3, (tied with BD btw) Star won Percussion by .2 Cadets won GE by .2 Cadets won Visual by .4 In fact, Regiment beat Star by .1 in visual.

You also have to factor in average age/XP of staffers. You can't deny that the staff at some corps > staff at other corps. A really good staff is able to bring out more from their members, be they rookies or not, and a not-so-good staff may have a good number of veterans and still not be able to bring out their full potential.

Sorry Jeff. I didn't mean to imply that taking 2nd is a failure. I did try to imply that the slightly different direction they seemed to have taken last year ended up with a 2nd place show, which is good, of course, but not enough info to know yet if this new direction will be successful. 2000-2006 was the most successful run ever. Seems they have kinda lost it since Machine. Change is always good, when change is needed. I guess I'd have to say that a successful change will improve placements by average 2 spots, which is on par so far. 2007-2009 they got 3rd, 3rd, 4th, last year their slight change got them 2nd. So it remains to be seen if they will go on another run of 1sts and 2nds.

And you are calculating this how? The corps out west haven't competed out east for almost 3 weeks. Surely you can't compare the east and west with any kind of accuracy at this point. Maybe you'll prove me wrong. Can I know how you calculate this? EDIT Ok, you answered before I asked. How have you found that these calculations stand up against spreads from the first regional competition of the year?