Phantom Regiment and the Visual Department...

[Nizerifin]

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 ########.

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.

[Loud-is-good]

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.

[Nizerifin]

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.

OK, let's break it down.

2006 Phantom @ Finals

Total Visual - 28.95 (-.55 from 1st)

Visual Ensemble - 19.5 (-.4 from 1st)

Visual Colorguard - 19.0 (-.4 from 1st)

Visual Performance - 19.4 (-.5 from 1st)

How you pull from these numbers that only performance was the problem, I'm not really sure.

GE Visual - 19.5 (1st; Cavies were -.2 points behind and in 3rd)

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.

[billj]

I don't know about Phantom, but I know SCV ran into this wall head-on in 2005. Myron vs BOD...Myron 1, BOD nothing

I know this is going off topic, sort of, but would it be possible for you to elaborate?

[billj]

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. Phantom's musical design last year was much superior to the Cavies and Cavies visual design was much superior to everyone. They both executed so darn well - I just don't understand those two judges.

Um, the GE captions are not scored exclusively on "design" (otherwise, they could be give a score before they even performed). GE scores also take into account the performance.

[Loud-is-good]

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.

[Nizerifin]

Um, the GE captions are not scored exclusively on "design" (otherwise, they could be give a score before they even performed). GE scores also take into account the performance.

Yes, GE Visual is 1/2 Design (Rep) and 1/2 Performance. The opposite is also true about the Visual caption. It's not only performance.

[Nizerifin]

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.

GE is half performance, first of all. My point overall is that Phantom's drill is not hard enough/effective enough. The Cavaliers typically have the most effective drill, with SCV following closely behind. Now follow me on this one. If x corps marches easier drill, their performance score will suffer mainly because content affects quality. This is a subjective thing throughout performance subcaptions.

[The Tsar]

Um..back on topic....

I have trouble believing Dave is the only PR alumn with something to say about Regiment's visual program, past and present. For my part:

When I started with Regiment in 1991, I didn't know any better. 30 drill charts or 100, I would not have known if that was too little, or too much. Heck, I don't even remember how many pages the 1991 drill was. I have the drill chart somewhere in storage, and I will pull it out one of these days for the sake of nostalgia. I suspect we marched 40-50 pages, with a lot of the movement in between coming in the form of subsets.

Even back then, rookie though I was, I knew that Regiment could MARCH. Basics blocks with Bob Smith were intense, and were not helped by Bob's less-than-cuddly personality. A lot of people hated Bob Smith, but no one can deny that the man could clean feet. Brian Hildreth and Mike Mitchell both helped out with marching, Julie Slick and Chris Church helped as well. It was a good core of visual staff. In 1992, Brazale's final year, we had a lot of very good drill that was unfortunately not "sold" by us, the marching members. I don't know what happened, because frankly, I think the 1992 corps was the most talented of the four I marched...maybe we just never "gelled."

In 1993, we were starting over. There was a sense of dread going into the season, mostly because of the results of 1992, but also because we were affected by the deaths of John Brazale and Stephanie St. Angel. However, there were a few of us who were simply determined to salvage the Regiment's reputation....Grant, Dave, Kevin, Aaron, myself....too many others to list. We did our best to make sure that we put Regiment back on the map. Along comes this little guy who they tell us is the drill writer. On the front page of his drill are the words familiar to fans of Douglas Adams: "Don't Panic." A lot of people didn't take kindly to Tony right away, but as we saw a method to his madness, he began to win them over.

I don't know how many different shows we learned that year...the drill was constantly evolving. We added the crabwalk for DCI South, the helmets for DCI Southwest, rewrote part of the closer for DATR, and added the new ending (anyone remember "18 and 24, again!") during Finals Week. It was a great year all around...my favourite of all the years I marched. Tony's drill is hard to describe...I cannot for the life of me remember how many subsets there were....getting us FROM and TO our helmets at the beginning and end of Fire of Eternal Glory took him forever. He worked his tail off to come up with our drill, and I appreciate him for it.

1994, I was not on the field, so I can't speak as to the drill....I am sure Poodle, Mike, Dave, or Corey are better prepared to speak to it (isn't it funny that the only representatives of the 94 Regiment on DCP are all baritone players?)

[Chris Scott]

I think that dance and ballet were prevalent in the times that we marched. Blue Devils led the cavalry with avant-garde dance integration, and they set the trend until the Cavaliers set the Marching world on it's ear with the Michael Gaines style of drill.

Back in the Cindy B. days, execution was the key. Timing and no drops. But as the (judging/design) community became more entranced with Broadway, execution was not enough: It HAD TO BE execution, demand, and depth of composition.

Suddenly, instead of the guard being a portion of the show, it was (and is) a large portion of the compositional fabric. If the guard is not integrated enough, or there are not enough dynamic visual characteristic of the non-guard portion of the show, the ensemble "seems" to not receive Box 5 credit, even though the performance might be box 5.

Garfield sealed the fate of "Picture Drill" with Zingale's innovative drills, and vanguard 86,87 and Phantom 87 added visual moments to the corps proper (corps members acting, and Phantom incorporating Ballet - 1st, 3rd positions, plies, etc.). 1988 Suncoast Sound and 1989 Cadets of BC sealed the deal by adding in motion and visual depth for the non-guard performer beyond that perfunctory to the basic execution of the show. 1990 Cavaliers to 1992 Cavaliers picked up the idea of Guard integration into the already visually appealing drill, and Star 93 sealed the deal. 92-97 Blue Devils made leaps forward with modern dance. 98 Cadets brought back kaleidoscopic and psychedelic drill, and the floor has belonged, and a collective hat tipped, to the Cavaliers since then for their visual.

I think the combination of modern dance, Cavaliers type drill and the "new sound" of Wind Ensemble pedagogy has created a knockout punch that traditional corps can't seem to best. The only way to come out on top is to do something that no one has seen or heard before, or create an overwhelming, tangible emotional response. (Which is why the oft-maligned Hopkins is someone that I will always respect - sometimes not like - for his "different drummer" attitude).

That being said, I think the days of winning through "clean drill, marching in step, and playing your notes" has gone the way of the Dodo.

I've rambled enough and gone far enough off-topic. My kids are hungry and it's time for them to eat. :)

SUTA!

Chris