Loud-is-good
-
Posts
155 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Loud-is-good
-
-
i wasnt overexaggerating....i know people loved the show phantom put out in '06, but i really think its obvious that the cadets were a drum corps performing at an incomparably higher level this year. well, i guess they were comparable since theyre both drum corps shows, but i dont think they would have been close score-wise.
in my opinion, phantom '06 would have been lucky to be in the top 7 this year. :sshh:
edit - well actually, im pretty sure i'd have put the cavaliers in 7th this year. i'd put phantom '06 ahead of them too, for what thats worth. still not in the same league as the cadets though.
So um, Machine from 06 would've been 2.5-3.5 (since it was barely in front of Faust) behind cadets this year, and potentially not in the top 7? Give me a break. Cadets probably would've edged out Faust, but by making statements like it being a 3 or 4 point gap, you just make yourself look silly. There is a difference between what you want it to be and what would actually happen.
-
Oh, and on topic, I thought Madison 2000 was a sweet show, even if it did mark the beginning of the dark ages placement wise (well, at least the dark ages until this year).
-
The La Mer show was a bag? Or are you thinking about 95?
For my part, I thought La Mer was easily the single most boring production put on in the history of music.
-
How you pull from these numbers that only performance was the problem, I'm not really sure.
GE is not the only part of the sheets that takes design into account. All visual weighs design and difficulty and then execution to find scores. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sorry, I should've said "the performance captions," as in everything that falls under the "visual" section of the sheet (basically, not ge) and which is primarily based on how it is performed (look at the language on the sheets). Visual GE is not one of the performance captions, and it is by far the visual caption most focused on design (although obviously performance is a huge part of it). It just makes no sense to cherry pick design as the problem, while praising individual performance, when clearly design was the area in which the corps performed the most strongly, and performance captions is where it lost. So yes, while I agree design can make a difference in all the captions, the fact that the most design oriented caption was the strongest one makes it hard to swallow that design was the problem.
-
Phantom was .55 points back from the Cavaliers in Total Visual last year at finals. Cavies only beat them by .35 total, so I theorize that if Phantom's drill was up to par with the Cavaliers, Phantom would have been much closer or even have won.
You mentioned design. It was not the design part of the visual score that held them back. It was performance. You are saying "even though they won the part of visual that incorporates design, if their design was this much better, they would have won overall, so design must have been holding them back." That's about the equivalent of saying "they won drums, but if they had won by more, they would've won overall, so drums must be a weakness." It makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Find an original argument.
-
Well, IMO there's no way in hell they should have won GE Visual last year, just like there's no way in hell Cavies should have won (over Phantom) GE Music. That made no sense to me.
When you compare 2004-2007 to anything before - greatly improved. 1989 was so well designed, but so easy. 1996, IMO, was a mess - very easy, poorly designed, and with a guard that was invisible. Their great brassline saved that show.
That's your opinion. Your opinion has no basis on who actually wins; the judges' opinions do. Just cause you THOUGHT they shouldn't have won vis doesn't change the fact that they did win vis. You comments on 1996 are similarly absurd; they won (edit: came in second in) GE vis, and therefore their brassline didn't save anything. Your opinion is meaningless as to what actually determines who wins. So, the fact remains, talking about their "consistently poor visual program" causing them to lose every year is stupid in light of the last couple seasons. The absurdity of the examples you chose to use only further illustrates this point.
As a side note, I thought it was absurd that they won GE vis last year too; it's still the fact that they did though.
-
Phantom's visual package keeps them from winning every year. Their drill is simply too simplistic and under designed. I've watched them practice this year and I can tell that the marchers are very strong and agile. They're simply not being pushed visually. Check the recaps, they do all the talking.
Every year, too under designed? For the zillionth time, they ####### WON GE VIS AT FINALS LAST YEAR. Being "under designed" obviously is not what kept them from winning. Get the #### over it and stop rehashing the same old ########.
-
You are correct, I mispoke. I looked at it, and what I did find was that in head to head matches, the Cadets beat PR 9 out of 9 times until their July 9th meeting in Rockford last year. I think that is what stuck in my head. They had matched up several times and PR only started beating them once they reached the second week of July. It will be interesting to see if this year parallels last year in that regard.
As long as it parallels the second half of last summer, that's fine by me :P
-
And remember when the Cadets were beating PR all the way up until finals last year???
As I recall (and a quick scan at corpsreps seemed to back up), Regiment was beating Cadets pretty solidly for the last month or so of last season. Perhaps you meant BD was beating Regiment up until finals?
-
I'm actually encouraged by the recaps. Getting blown out in performance captions is a heck of a lot easier to fix than getting blown out in GE.
-
In the visual caption, I am not accutely aware of the differences between the subcaptions. If someone scored well in visual performance and color guard, what are characteristics which would justify a sub par score in visual ensemble? Just asking to educate myself...no conspiracy theories please!!!!
Good technique on the field coupled with dirty forms from the stands.
-
I remember '02 quite well. PR was moving their butts, though I agree the drill wasn't too complex (but thats for another place and time to discuss)
Oh yeah, the drill itself was horrible (same with 04 and, to a lesser extent, 03), but that wasn't because it was a bunch of standing still. It was just #### poor design that happened to still contain a ton of running around.
-
post 2000...always has been. Especially in 2003 and 2004. All park'n'play, they are good at that. Since last year, they have gained a sort of more visually demanding mentallity, aka, more butt hauling. Last year was not as bad...They played really well "on the move". I hate to hear they are back to that. Ill see them in Louisville.
"All park'n'play"??? Are you friggin' joking? Go watch the 02 and 03 dvds (especially 02, it was terrible designed but we were flying for almost the entire show) and see how much park and play you see outside of the ballads. Same with 04-06, although I didn't experience them firsthand. What, do you automatically equate less than stellar visual design (from 02-04) with standing still? What a load of uninformed horsecrap.
-
Fat-fingering going on, I'd say
Lots of fat-fingering
To obtain a special dialing wand, please mash the keypad with your palm now.
-
Congrats SCV! :)
Now if we can only get a head-to-head match up with these West corps and East corps to see if there really is inflation...
When is the first contest with at least BD or SCV against PR, Cadets, or Cavies?
Yeah, there is inflation. It's there every year.
Oh, and go Vanguard!!
-
And it is funny, but all the years I have been around corps, I haven't seen the rudeness from any other corps. And I have been around it alot. But it seems to me like these such instances probably should be brought to light. All of the top notch corps, BD, SCV, Cadets, Cavies, have really pleasant people who don't knock the better scoring corps, or make fun of someone because of their sexuality, at least not in front of paying customers.
You obviously haven't been looking very hard. ######## exist in every corps, and I've dealt with them from every corps you mentioned with the exception of SCV. You're a joke.
Oh, and two of those corps you mentioned regularly belittled the other corps standing next to them DURING retreat back when they had retreat at every show. Furthermore, all I've heard from 2 people I formerly was friends with since they lost to PR last year was "F*** PR F*** Cavies." If you want to act like jerks are only confined to one particular corps, thats your choice, but you are only fooling yourself.
-
But then, we've never had opportunity to discuss that so I won't hold it against any of you that you didn't know that about me.
Here's my real sticking point in this whole line of questioning and answering, though.
If I were to state a question, similar to Loud-is-good's, that basically asked, "what's it going to take for people to stop claiming the Cavaliers horns are weak, their book is full of whole notes and they have no demand? They won the Jim Ott Trophy last year.." I am sure those of you who are honest with yourselves would admit you would be ALL OVER ME with a similar response.
For people to STOP making those statements it's going to take consistent proof. They would have to win the Jim Ott trophy a LOT. it doesn't change how much I like their brass sound or their books or anything else.. it just means that's what it would take for perceptions to change.
The difference is, the original post I commented on didn't say anything like "Phantom Regiment has no visual demand, etc." like in your hypothetical about what some people say about the Cavaliers; it stated that Regiment's visual program was actually the reason they couldn't win, which automatically implicates scores and thus can be disproven. If people don't think Regiment has demand that would just be an opinion, and not disprovable by scores. However, stating that "Phantom Regiment's visual program will continue to hold them back from winning" is easily disprovable. I mean, let's rephrase your hypothetical above to be more like this situation. If I actually said "Cavaliers' subpar music program will hold them back from winning," then you could easily shoot that statement down in the same way I did to the assertion that Regiment's "subpar" visual program kept them from winning.
-
Would you like it better if we said that it's their music that is holding them back? I mean, they didn't win the Brass Caption or the GE Music caption last season, did they?
And winning GE Visual once does not equal a CONSISTENTLY strong visual program that a championship caliber corps should have.
Well I guess in this context, it doesn't really make sense to say that any one caption is going to keep them back. I mean jesus, the way people talk around here you'd think Cavies blew everyone out of the water; it was extremely close between the top 3.
So, no, it wouldn't really make sense to say anything held any of the top 3 back; there were a couple small differences in a few captions, and that made the difference. It wasn't some huge program flaw, so to make the comment that any one issue is going to hold back any of the corps that scored in the top 3 last year is just silly. Sometimes corps just get outperformed, and there isn't anything deeper to it than that. There isn't always the need to make some broad proclamation in the form of "x is holding corps y back."
-
Greg made a reasonable statement of fact. You asked what it would take for people to stop talking about how PR has no visual or a sub-par visual program. My answer: it will take consistency and a championship.
Hope that clears things up for you.
I asked specifically what it would take for people to stop pointing at Regiment's visual as the reason they can't win a title. I then pointed out that it clearly was not their visual that kept them from winning a title. Your response did not address this at all; rather you made some simple minded statement about them not winning.
Let's take this a step further. If a corps scored, hypothetically, perfectly in every single visual caption (GE, field, guard, ensemble), and then scored zeros in every music caption, would it make sense for someone to say "they don't have the visual program to win a title"? No, of course it wouldn't, and if the inanity of that statement was pointed out, and someone responded "they need to win a title for people not to think their visual program was subpar" well, it would be idiotic. Oh, wait, that's basically what you said. If you are going to be so flippantly arrogant, at least take some classes in basic logic.
-
You do realize, of course, that PR won GE Visual at DCI Finals last year, right? I would say that qualifies a being able to "compete" with Cavaliers.
[Waits for someone to make some snarky and completely non-sensical bait and switch response to this display of reason too]
-
ummmmm.. consistency? a championship? Just throwin it out there..
Stef
Um, I addressed the claim that it was a "subpar visual program" that was keeping them from winning the championship, when it clearly was something else. Simply saying "well they haven't won" doesn't make any point at all; it still has nothing to do with their visual program (seeing as they won GE vis last year). When I start arguing along the lines of "what will it take for people to stop claiming Regiment can't win," then you can make your last post again, and it will actually make sense, rather than just being a bait and switch.
-
I'll believe Regiment winning the title when I see it. They've come so close on so many occasions but been so far away. Last year's second place finish was the classic example of awesome music, but a show that cannot compete with the class of the visual dpt (Cavs). That's not to say Phantom's visual program is bad, because it isn't. But if they had a program which could have competed with Cavies, let alone beat it, they would have won last year outright.
They won visual GE last year at finals...
What is it going to take for people to drop this tired old line of Regiment having a subpar visual program that is keeping them from winning. They didn't win last year because the Cavies edged them out in a couple performance captions, not because they had "awesome music that couldn't compete with the class of the visual department."
-
-
Best Music arrangers of all time?
in DCI World Class Corps Discussions
Posted
JD Shaw was Phantom Regiment's arranger in 02