Brian Porter-Szucs

That's the problem. I want them to move up but I don't want anyone to move down. Can I have my cake and eat it too?

I love the SCV maneuver when the clear the field except for a couple dancers. They did this with amazing impact two years ago with Les Miserables, and they have something similar in this show. Awesome.

I'm trying to put my finger on what seems so unique about the Blue Knights. I think the word I'd use is graceful--for the musicians as well as the guard. More than any other corps, they have a dancer's fluidity that's really special.

When my daughter saw this Scouts show she asked if this is how they view women: two dimensional and pink.

I think almost everyone feels the same way. Or maybe I'd put it like this: with the amazing top-5 race this year, I'm more invested in these corps than ever. The shows this season will almost certainly rank among the best ever. But DCI as an organization has demonstrated either ineptitude, disregard for their audience, or cowardice in the face of a legal threat that would almost certainly not stand if actually brought to a judge. I suspect the latter is the case, and if so then a lot of the blame goes to the predatory legal team of the music industry that continues to adopt a cut-off-my-nose-to-spite-my-face strategy regarding the internet.

I've been watching tonight's shows on a poor connection, and combined with the high camera (particularly in Denton) all I can see are blurry figures. Making lemonade out of this lemon, I've been focusing just on the drill, and it's interesting how that has changed my feelings about some of these shows. SCV has risen in my estimation: their marching is so tight, and their formations are impossibly intricate. Bluecoats, whose show I have absolutely loved when I've seen it live and relatively close to the field, felt a bit less coherent from far above. Has anyone else had the experience of having one favorite show for seeing close up, and another when relegated to the nosebleed seats?

"War in Warrensburg" was just too obvious.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been looking forward to this event. After watching five corps trade the lead all season, we finally get to see all of them together in one show with a full panel of judges. Whatever our opinions about the "Tour of Champions" concept in the abstract, this show is going to be special. The weather, however, will be a problem for marchers and fans alike. There's a slight chance of thunderstorms, but that's not the issue. Instead, it's the heat, which is as oppressive as anything the corps will see all season. The numbers in the weather forecast don't capture what it's like here. Today the high was in the mid 90s, but the stultifying humidity brought the heat index well above 100. Unlike what some of us northerners are used to (I've come down from Michigan to see this show) it doesn't cool off much in the early evening. As I write this (exactly 24 hours before the start of the show) it is still around 90, and by 10:00 p.m. it might cool down as far as the low 80s. So if you are going to the show, bring lots of water. I don't know how well stocked the stadium concessions stands will be with bottled water, but personally I wouldn't rely on that. Don't underestimate how dangerous this sort of heat can be--stay safe tomorrow. Schedule Cavaliers: 7:40 Phantom Regiment: 7:57 Blue Devils: 8:14 Bluecoats: 8:38 Cadets: 9:05 Carolina Crown: 9:22 Vanguard: 9:39 Judges General Effect 1: R. Kemp General Effect 2: P Hinman Visual Proficiency: J. Orefice Visual Analysis: S. Sybilski Color Guard: M. Czapinski Brass: A. Lo Music Analysis: S. Page Percussion: J. Queen

For just the reason you state, this sort of commentary would usually apply to sections rather than individuals. As to what sort of criticism, here's an abstract example: if someone says that the snares from a particular corps are the best this year, I'd love to know what they are doing (and thus by implication, what the others are failing to do) in order to win that label.

I think the parallel is closer than it might seem at first glance. Fewer than 5% of NCAA Div-1 athletes ever play professional sports, and a great many of those flame out after one or two years. Conversely, a certain percentage of DCI members end up with careers as professional entertainers--OK, probably not 5%, but some. An even better parallel might be Olympic sports. Consider the way fans and commentators discuss a gymnast's routine: usually with kindness and compassion, but without any hesitation to say that so-and-so messed up her landing or needs to work harder on her technique. Those who have pointed out the difference between an individual performance and a collective performance have made a good point, but again: that's not a distinction that matters as much in team sports. We criticize both the play-calling by the coach and the failure of the second-string receiver to make the catch. As for the distinction between sports and arts, I don't find that persuasive. DCI advertises itself as "Marching Music's Major League" and emphasizes the competitive aspect at every opportunity. Here on DCP people write a lot about which corps will finish in which position this year, and people frequently say that they are looking forward to a particular event because it will pit corps X directly against corps Y. Plenty of sports involve judging, and DCI is no less a sport than gymnastics or ice-skating. Maybe some would say that gymnastics and ice-skating aren't "real" sports, but just try saying that to a gymnast or skater. Anyway, when it comes to criticism the arts are hardly immune: just consider theater reviews, music criticism, book reviews, etc. Please understand that I'm not suggesting that anyone should be rude, aggressive, or hostile; that's wrong whether we are dealing with a loudmouth screaming at the dropped catch or the troll who posts a mean-spirited remark on this forum. The criticism in all cases should be constructive criticism, both motivated by good intentions and phrased with care so as not to offend or cause offense. But an intelligent discussion of a DCI performance can, in my opinion, include observations about the performances themselves, and not just the show design. I'd love to read (for example) more commentary about what constitutes good or bad execution for the color guard, because that would help me become a more informed viewer of an aspect of the show that I don't know much about.

Quite frequently on these discussion forums, someone will respond to a critical comment with an appeal to speak positively about the efforts of the young people who work so hard and show so much dedication. Even more extreme in this regard is the writing on DCI's website and Facebook page, which has all the edginess of a corporate press release. As a parent, I'm sympathetic to this sentiment. On the other hand, I'm struck by the double-standard implied by this attitude. Just turn on sports talk radio during any discussion of college basketball or football--I doubt you will every hear someone say that we shouldn't criticize a players, but instead focus on their hard work and commitment. Do we really want to suggest that "our kids" in DCI (who are, after all, the same age as NCAA athletes) are too delicate to withstand the judgmental critique we all routinely subject university athletes to? I'm not holding up the way we treat athletes as a model, because it is way to extreme and objectifying in the other direction. But I do think that someone who is talented enough and dedicated enough to join a World Class DCI corps should be ready for the fact that their performances will be viewed and assessed not only by the official judges, but by all of us. To be clear: a rude or gratuitous attack is always wrong, but in my opinion the standards for deciding what falls into that category should be the same whether the individuals are governed by the NCAA or DCI.

I don't know...Those three are pretty close this year according to the scores (for whatever that's worth early in the season--I know, not much). You are right that falling below 12th would be very unlikely. But ending up right around there and getting a scare....

I'd hate to see the current members of Phantom pay the price for those needed reforms, but you are right that someone, someday, has to. And this is an unusually weak year for them.

We probably shouldn't make much of this. Too many scores went down from previous performances -- it was just a really tough crew of judges.

I thought the big drop in the SCV score at the last show was a fluke, but this one matches it. What's up?

Agreed. Particularly with the Bon Iver piece. It's very disconcerting on first hearing, but it grows on you. BD somehow captures the mood of that one in ways I didn't think would be possible when I first heard it. That said, the lyrics of that song still have me scratching my head....

Is whistleability a requirement? (is "whistleability a word?) I actually like the show because the sticks with me emotionally without being catchy in a conventional way.

So this is how the Scouts introduce women to their act: two-dimensional cut-outs.. Not cool, imo.

Hah! Agreed. Retro can be fun, but it isn't going to get them in the top tier. And I say this as an old fogie who is a living embodiment of retro.

Ah, that's a classic Madison opener. Takes me back....

Oh, and Crown of course. When has there last been a year with five viable champions like this?

What's up with the video feed? I've suddenly got 240, but my own connection seems fine.

That's got to be a top-3 show, in my opinion. Blue Devils are sharper and their show is probably a little bit more difficult, so I get that they will pass the Bluecoats. SVC is definitely in the running. I think that leaves Cadets, but their show is just "meh" for me this year.

Am I imagining it, or is the echo effect a bit off, maybe because of the lack of rear (visiting) stands?

I do agree that it is a show that will bring mixed reactions.