johnrand Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 I see the Cadet's show as a show about a show. Why not do "Chorus Line" or "Man of La Mancha". It reminds me of the Scout's "Drum Corps Fan" shows of the mid 90's. But if it's a show for us fans, why do they have to say anything? I can watch any corps...any performer and tell you if they believe in hard work. I can look you in the eyes and I'll know if you understand commitment. I can tell from 200 yards away just by how you stand if pride is something you care about. Please believe all of us drum corps fans when we say that when you have everyone running around all over the field at the beginning of your show for 50 or 60 seconds, then they all stop and face the stands, you don't need to tell us that you believe you will play "NOW." We know what's coming. (Some of us get so excited we almost wet our pants) It's just not as fun when you say "here it comes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brassop Posted July 18, 2007 Author Share Posted July 18, 2007 (edited) So, by use of the term "foister," you signal that George's explanation is false and he really intended to do something other than invoke the concept of choice (yes, when you refer to choice as a general concept, it is apprpriate to use the singular form) that he has preached to the Cadets for year, blogged about for years and brought in FISH! to teach the Cadets. Well, skepticism cuts both ways. Why should anyone believe that your professed hypersensitivity to language is sincere rather than cynical attempt to recast the perception of the Cadaets' show so that it will be viewed less favorably? ........ For the record, as I've suggested elsewhere, I love Cadets and always have. Their hornline this year is incredible and it is always a treat for me to hear them, as I did Saturday night in Atlanta. I also appreciate that they've never markedly changed their nostalgic cadet-style uniform. That said... "Well, skepticism cuts both ways. Why should anyone believe that your professed hypersensitivity to language is sincere rather than cynical attempt to recast the perception of the Cadaets' show so that it will be viewed less favorably?" Good point. So then ...well, skepticism cuts both ways. So ... why should anyone believe that your words of opposition are sincere rather than a cynical attempt to recast the perception of my position so that it will be viewed less favorably? No one should have to believe me. You said that, not me. I disagree with Cadets' narrative content this year and its clear connotations and stated that. Deal. Edited July 18, 2007 by Brassop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Blatch Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 I see the Cadet's show as a show about a show. Why not do "Chorus Line" or "Man of La Mancha". It reminds me of the Scout's "Drum Corps Fan" shows of the mid 90's. But if it's a show for us fans, why do they have to say anything?I can watch any corps...any performer and tell you if they believe in hard work. I can look you in the eyes and I'll know if you understand commitment. I can tell from 200 yards away just by how you stand if pride is something you care about. Please believe all of us drum corps fans when we say that when you have everyone running around all over the field at the beginning of your show for 50 or 60 seconds, then they all stop and face the stands, you don't need to tell us that you believe you will play "NOW." We know what's coming. (Some of us get so excited we almost wet our pants) It's just not as fun when you say "here it comes." New here much? Elmo Blatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnrand Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 I am new here...maybe I should amend my first post by saying I also can tell if your pro choice, a member of NOW, or a clone just by looking, but I have to see half the show to be sure. b**bs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legalhack Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 (edited) For the record, as I've suggested elsewhere, I love Cadets and always have. There hornline this year is incredible and it is always a treat for me to hear them, as I did Saturday night in Atlanta. I also appreciate that they've never markedly changed their nostalgiac cadet-style uniform. But I digress..."Why should anyone believe that your professed hypersensitivity to language is sincere rather than cynical attempt to recast the perception of the Cadaets' show so that it will be viewed less favorably?" Good point. So ... why should anyone believe that your words of opposition are sincere rather than a cynical attempt to recast the perception of my position so that it will be viewed less favorably? No one should have to believe me. You said that, not me. I disagree with Cadets' narrative content this year and its clear connotations and stated that. Deal. I never said anyone should "have" to believe you (in the sense of agreeing) or even believe that you are sincere. Rather, I noted your disbelief, adopted your skeptical pose and rediredted it. Since the implication of sincerety in your "I disagree with . . . ." sentence is self-serving and uncorroborated, I "choose" (as you have with George) to remain unconvinced of your motive even though I cannot read your mind. In short, no deal. BTW, my post was cynical in the sense that I really have no opinion as to what you believe or intend. However, this is DCP so why should I be the only person who doen't post because of ignaorance and intellectual apathy. Edited July 18, 2007 by Legalhack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
year1buick Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 For the record, as I've suggested elsewhere, I love Cadets and always have. Their hornline this year is incredible and it is always a treat for me to hear them, as I did Saturday night in Atlanta. I also appreciate that they've never markedly changed their nostalgic cadet-style uniform. That said..."Well, skepticism cuts both ways. Why should anyone believe that your professed hypersensitivity to language is sincere rather than cynical attempt to recast the perception of the Cadaets' show so that it will be viewed less favorably?" Good point. Well, skepticism cuts both ways. So ... why should anyone believe that your words of opposition are sincere rather than a cynical attempt to recast the perception of my position so that it will be viewed less favorably? No one should have to believe me. You said that, not me. I disagree with Cadets' narrative content this year and its clear connotations and stated that. Deal. So, for "the record," are you flat-out calling their director a liar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brassop Posted July 18, 2007 Author Share Posted July 18, 2007 (edited) I never said anyone should "have" to believe you (in the sense of agreeing) or even believe that you are sincere. Rather, I noted you disbelief, adopted your skeptical pose and rediredted it. So, since the implication of sincerety in your "I disagree with . . . ." sentence is self-serving and uncorroborated, I "choose" (as you have with George) to remain unconvinced even though I cannot read your mind. In short, no deal. There was no question mark after "Deal". It wasn't a question, it was a statement. Let me simplify for the simple, "Deal with it". Edited July 18, 2007 by Brassop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuriousMe Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 I'm not here to tell you what to do about things. You are free to respond as you see fit. But there is no" fetus" in the show, nor any call for "abortion" either, so there is no need to overeact here. A simple elimination of a divisive phrase would surely go a long way in eliminating some of this unfortunate criticiism The Cadets have brought on themselves with this polarizing statement they've put into the show.Simple answer ? The Cadets put an "S" on the word " Choice " with that females voice statement of belief and this particular controversy goes away. But my guess, it isn't added, and that will probably" speak " volumes to many. Time will tell. And it will be interesting to see what develops. If there was no intent for political posturing, then the " S " to the word " CHOICE " could be added into the show with no problem. And the addition of the word " CHOICES " would actually be more refective of the many " choices " that the narrators refer to in the show that members have availble to them. It actually would fit the show better. But if it's political posturing that is at work here, then that naturally would take priority over any of that. So, because you and your wife have misinterpreted a line in Cadets' show, they should change their show. Nah, that's not toooo egotistical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legalhack Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 (edited) There was no question mark after "Deal". It wasn't a question, it was a statement. Let me simplify for the simple,"Deal with it". Gee, I though you were clearly asserting that there was a deal (an agreement to disagree). Did I minconstrue? Shame on you for using the term deal. Edited July 18, 2007 by Legalhack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denverjohn Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 (edited) The fact that this thread exists at all is proof positive that the use of spoken text message in an activity formerly devoted to visual and musical stimuli has opened up a Pandora's box and drastically changed the very nature of the activity. It is a well-known and often stated phrase that polite formal conversation avoid the areas of "religion and politics". (I would tend to add personal philosophies to that list.) As a medium of entertainment dedicated to a viewing audience of all ages and backgrounds, it would make sense to me that show design would also be respectful of these societal norms. I first started having misgivings regarding the presentation of political inculcation as I witnessed several WGI programs which included political narration designed to chastise the US for : the internment of Japanese- Americans, environmental neglect, etc., etc. These types of shows have a tendency to over-simplify complex subject matter and sway an audience. (and/or reinforce and stroke the philosophical leanings of adjudicators). This, I believe. Edited July 18, 2007 by denverjohn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts