glory

If you're referring to the post above (Cadets thread most likely to devolve), then not visiting it is relegating it to one-sided slander. If you're referring in general, then one reason is none of us can know where any single corp's thread is trending. Another would be discussions about Corps X might be better as discussions about any corps. HH

I've been wondering this for a while: Would this forum work better for all concerned if we didn't have these year-long topics? I think so. If you're new to the site, you might not know that only three or so years ago, we had dozens of new discussions every week and none titled Madison 201X or Cadets 201X. Things came to our mind. We posted until we exhausted our opinions (or patience). Then we moved on to more catastrophe (and tedium). No August to August discussions ostensibly about anything but often about nothing at all. It's not clear to me what we gain by having single threads to encompass presumably everything about any given corps. If you're a regular to these threads, then you know they tend to be either: 1) a place to collect complaints (i.e., Cadets and maybe BD; or 2) a place for sharing the rosey glasses (including BD). Wouldn't we be better off with threads that are specific (and finite)? First and most important, it would be apparent when we are discussing something new. Imagine having a clue what's inside the thread now. Rather than everything or anything all the time theoretically about one corps only. Or tell me why I'm wrong ... ... again. HH

Back on topic ... Cadets enter 2018 off an odd 2017 year characterized by a dearth of veterans and substantial turnover in senior staff. A year ago they were a young corps with a staff that had never worked together. Yet the corps mostly held its own in a 2017 summer in which the competition was particularly good and despite the unforeseen consequences imposed by the license holder on Cadets musical options. The members gave 2017 a strong thumbs up for satisfaction, which has translated into a high percentage of vets returning for another year at Cadets in 2018. Last year's senior staff returns as well, this time unencumbered by the restrictions of the Bernstein family. All told, things are looking a lot brighter this spring than they did a year ago. HH

If I said I doubt that I could cash that check even if you ever did write it, would I have to quote a post from DCP for my synthesis to be correct? Also, I'm pretty sure you're not talking about Cadets 2018. HH

Not well in Allentown? By what standard? Principal staff return. Members return at a very high rate. I know this board would rather that it weren't true, that all the DCP complaints about the 2017 show would manifest in mass defections from Allentown. Not happening. Not so bad there. HH

Information isn't truth. No surprise that some of the people involved want to rationalize their riches so we might think it wasn't about money. HH

Don't fall off your chair when I say this but ... This is correct. The man in charge gets the blame for failure just as he deserves the credit for success. On balance, it's been success. That staff stayed together longer than most. When it came apart, it did as others were tearing (Crown) while others were buying (Boston). There also were extenuating circumstances beyond any director's control (terminal illness in the family). We should also weigh in the balance that last year's staff returns. HH

One year doesn't make a trend. The same staff was together for a decade. Then it wasn't. Why? Some here would have us believe that two of the defectors were entirely altruistic in taking the big bucks from Boston. That their conscience is what motivated them. Even as they shifted allegiance as the 2017 tour was just getting started. Should we conclude the same about the staff who migrated from Crown to Massachusetts? They too resigned in protest? The money was beside the point? Such thinking is naive at best. Of course things change. Of course minds change. But acting as if the departures from Cadets were only about directors or direction is wrong. The reasons were many, and money was one. HH

You're too smart to swallow that line. It's convenient after a lousy season to make it seem as if money weren't the case. But convenience isn't fact. And the anti-Hopkins echo chamber in DCP can't change the facts. Those two didn't show up at the banquet the day after finals 2016. Why? It wasn't because Boston hadn't called yet. And it wasn't because a number had just been floated. No. That deal had been offered and accept long before. Those guys checked out during the season and maybe even before competition began. Ask yourself what impact that had. And don't try to compare apples and oranges, Cadets and YEA. Cadets have had one of the most stable staff in DCI for decades. That's another fact beyond dispute. HH

You know better than this. It was the same director who kept that same staff together for a decade - some more. And let's be honest about why they quit. It wasn't in protest about design or anything else. In two prominent cases it was for money. Another resulted from tragic family circumstance unrelated to the Cadets. I know. It's as easy as it is incorrect to blame everything on Hopkins. The truth is the wholesale staff turnover at Cadets last year wasn't because of him. I don't doubt that certain guilty parties are trying to make it sound as if it were. They're tapping into the conspiracy theories to disguise their own mercenary motives. Don't believe it. The Cadets have been among the corps with the most consistent staffing a long time. One unusual year doesn't change that. HH

Major stretch to try to connect USBands indoor to anything, Cadets or otherwise. That circuit is a handful of shows for handful of local high schools. As for your larger point about Cadets not hewing to the WGI trend ... Isn't that ironic? How much DCP has lamented the WGI influence in DCI. And how much we've lamented the lemmings who follow along. Maybe the Cadets are zagging after all. Maybe y'all would just prefer more WGI in your DCI. HH

Right. And by all accounts, the 2017 Cadets loved their season. All this sturm and drang about poor design choices and not meeting expectations and the kids loved it anyway. Believe it or not, something went right. HH

Not asking you to confess any sins or anything,. It might be wise, however, to acknowledge the comprehensive turnover in staff along with the significant loss of veterans in evaluating the 2017 Cadets. Then there was the competition (though I'll never concede that Cavies deserved to place so high). Stand by what you said. But maybe give a younger Cadets corps last year a break as well. HH

What the heck? I'm agreeing with HockeyDad all the time now! HH

Just occurred to me. DCP is still on the tic system. Certainly it is where the Cadets are concerned. Any shortcoming is noted, publicized and maximized. Full discredit given. Points subtracted. Permanent marker used. Accomplishments are taken for granted. Worse, they're actually discounted. Reminds me of 2005 on this board when when one of our fellow contributors shared her pride at "sitting on her hands" after Cadets performed. As she told us, there was nothing to applaud. Tic system. Still in full form for Cadets. HH

So did Cadets. Some people in the stands at finals thought Cadets easily gave us the most beautiful show of the night. Was it a first place show? No, but not because it wasn't quality. People forget that much of the Cadets design staff skedaddled before the season - and a significant percentage of members went with them. This wasn't a prime Cadets corps like some before it. I'd say they did great work creating a quality show under challenging circumstances. HH

HockeyDad and I agree for a change. The boos continue. Shame on y'all. HH

Great? No. Not great. Not great at all. The selfish, childish, boorish behaviour of fans in the Rose Bowl was a worse offense than any for which the Cadets were accused. Those kids performed as well as any corps - that year or another - and they deserved better from adults. The jeers and the boos put the stands as low as the Cadets were high. HH

Cadets 2007. Possibly the best brass line ever. HH

Right. But why? BD performs less and rehearses and rests more because they don't need the performance fees to offset costs. No doubt other corps would manage their schedules more strategically too if they had the option financially. HH

It would be wrong. I agree. It would be wrong also to think BD and SCV are in the same financial category as any other corps. They have an income stream and/or assets that put them in a different category. The reason why Cadets, Crown and others perform in 30 or more shows a year is they need the money. The reason why BD and SCV are in 10 or so fewer shows is they don't need the money. HH

Garfield's numbers, while no doubt accurate, aren't the answer to the question. Corps like Cadets and Crown have to scrape to fund themselves. Neither donors nor members nor the combination cut it. I think that's the "big money" distinction X is making. BD and SCV, on the other hand, are big money. Bingo cash is the differentiator. Bingo is what's put BD in hotel rooms finals week for as long as I can remember. HH

Bingo. The difference is other corps' design challenges aren't scrutinized the way Cadets' are. HH

Maybe it's you? I have been a drum corps fan since the 70s. I've been to every DCI since 1990. I don't remember a time when people weren't complaining about the Cadets' design choices. Pick your problem. Props? Voice? Pop music? Obscure music? Add to your list too many gimmicks, too literal and too cerebral. The situation the past eight years was no different than the eight before that and all the eights before. Maybe yo'u're cheering for the wrong team? I know a long-time drum corps fan - a BD fan - who for a lot of reasons only made it to one show in 2016: Finals. His favorite of the 12 from two years ago? Stoned. Statues. Awakening. Cadets. He's a sophisticated fan, someone who's been to dozens of DCI finals, Allentown and others. And not a Cadets fan. So why did he pick Cadets 2016? I've thought a lot about that. And the answer I think is he wasn't part of the endless, breathless discussion that summer. He didn't see the developing program dissected down to the last detail. All he saw was what the Cadets put on the field. He credited all they accomplished and only what he saw that night. Different from here and the judges sheets, he didn't attempt to reconcile what he saw and heard against criteria assembled by themselves and others in the weeks before. I don't like every design choice the Cadets have made. I do recognize, however, the Cadets aren't unique in that respect. There have been lots of bad design choice along with some good ones across the spectrum of corps. We just never cut the Cadets a break around here. HH

Having already gone over the top in my response to Eleran on this subject, might I just suggest that we be a little more welcoming and a little less dismissive (broad statement) of new voices - youth voices - on this topic? HH