Leland Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Sheesh... what a thread. What the heck, I'll put in my 0.02 (all IMO) -- Crown can have a shot when they stop writing the show around the hornline. They need to cut it out with the schizophrenic arrangements. Why waste a nice Debussy moment by tossing in Bernstein and Holst? They need to have more "looks" to the drill, rather than mostly having the horns move around in front while the drums stay in back. They need to find a way to feature the guard without resorting to cheesy horse impressions. This year's show may have deliberately been a hornline-focused show. It wasn't bad, either -- I mean, EVERYbody was talking about Crown's hornline. But, nobody seemed to care about either the drums or the guard. Watching Cadets and Crown back-to-back really showed me some contrasts in show design. As long as I ignored the Cadets' stage prop (which, IMO, hurt them more than anything), I could see that they had more variety to their drill and did a better job of highlighting the drums and guard. Crown's drill just didn't seem to get away from blocks and wide curvilinear forms -- great for showing off hornlines, but not so good for drawing attention to the rest of the corps. It also sounds like their horn writing is largely unison except for big hits. Except for Claire de Lune, you'll hear a unison/octave trumpet part, one mello part, and often a single low brass part. It's great for masking individuals and generating a big sound overall, but cuts down on the difficulty part of the judging sheet. It could be blamed more on the choice of repertoire than the arrangements. We already know that they can execute extremely well. The kids just need to be given a visual package and show concept to put them over the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mn trumpter guy Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Sheesh... what a thread.What the heck, I'll put in my 0.02 (all IMO) -- Crown can have a shot when they stop writing the show around the hornline. They need to cut it out with the schizophrenic arrangements. Why waste a nice Debussy moment by tossing in Bernstein and Holst? They need to have more "looks" to the drill, rather than mostly having the horns move around in front while the drums stay in back. They need to find a way to feature the guard without resorting to cheesy horse impressions. This year's show may have deliberately been a hornline-focused show. It wasn't bad, either -- I mean, EVERYbody was talking about Crown's hornline. But, nobody seemed to care about either the drums or the guard. Watching Cadets and Crown back-to-back really showed me some contrasts in show design. As long as I ignored the Cadets' stage prop (which, IMO, hurt them more than anything), I could see that they had more variety to their drill and did a better job of highlighting the drums and guard. Crown's drill just didn't seem to get away from blocks and wide curvilinear forms -- great for showing off hornlines, but not so good for drawing attention to the rest of the corps. It also sounds like their horn writing is largely unison except for big hits. Except for Claire de Lune, you'll hear a unison/octave trumpet part, one mello part, and often a single low brass part. It's great for masking individuals and generating a big sound overall, but cuts down on the difficulty part of the judging sheet. It could be blamed more on the choice of repertoire than the arrangements. We already know that they can execute extremely well. The kids just need to be given a visual package and show concept to put them over the top. I concur absolutely with MOST of this- I have said for the past few years (read: 2) that their visual program is their weakest- note: not WEAK, just their achilles heel, as it were... I will have to listen to the horn parts more (read: actually critique, as opposed to basking in them) when I get my cd... hopefully soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thePerfectbuzz Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 There is a science to CI, however. CI is based upon observations and the theory of CI is made upon these observations. CI is proven time and time again. As per an earlier response to Phantom winning while they were 4th in 07 and won in 08, it is because they not only medaled in the past, but they have won before. Hence, they can win. Crown has not won or even medaled. This is because of the judges reluctancy to allow a corps who hasn't "proven" themselves to be put amongst those who have. It's human nature. May I ask, have you read the CI thread? nononononono NO! please don't really think that. Phantom won in 08 because they deserve to win in 08. it has nothing to do with where they placed in the past, whether winning or medaling before. Crown did not win( or medal) because they did not deserve to....nothing to do of what they did in the past. The judges got it right, they have 2 1/2 months to get the corps in the right spots. if a corps deserves to medal because they have the right package and well enough execution then they will get placed accordingly. when crown deserves to win, they will win.....but they havent been that good yet. and it has nothing to do with the judges just not giving it to them because they haven't "proven" it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leland Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 I concur absolutely with MOST of this- I have said for the past few years (read: 2) that their visual program is their weakest- note: not WEAK, just their achilles heel, as it were...I will have to listen to the horn parts more (read: actually critique, as opposed to basking in them) when I get my cd... hopefully soon. Right; I dorked out during the Warrenton show and took notes on my iPhone. Regarding Crown, I finished with saying, "Good corps in need of an interesting visual program". It seems strange to say something like that when they're running around so much, but after a while, all I was seeing was a scattering of cream-colored uniforms between the 30's in front of midfield. I wasn't looking anywhere else on the field because there wasn't anything else to draw my attention. not that I'm any good at writing drill either... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kekkles Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 (edited) This year's show may have deliberately been a hornline-focused show. It wasn't bad, either -- I mean, EVERYbody was talking about Crown's hornline. But, nobody seemed to care about either the drums or the guard.Watching Cadets and Crown back-to-back really showed me some contrasts in show design. As long as I ignored the Cadets' stage prop (which, IMO, hurt them more than anything), I could see that they had more variety to their drill and did a better job of highlighting the drums and guard. Crown's drill just didn't seem to get away from blocks and wide curvilinear forms -- great for showing off hornlines, but not so good for drawing attention to the rest of the corps. It also sounds like their horn writing is largely unison except for big hits. Except for Claire de Lune, you'll hear a unison/octave trumpet part, one mello part, and often a single low brass part. It's great for masking individuals and generating a big sound overall, but cuts down on the difficulty part of the judging sheet. It could be blamed more on the choice of repertoire than the arrangements. We already know that they can execute extremely well. The kids just need to be given a visual package and show concept to put them over the top. responding from the position of a percussionist: crown needs to revamp their percussion program before i'll care about them. yeah, they placed fourth this year, which makes me uncomfortable about saying this, but... i don't know, they just sound bad to me. the drums themselves are tuned poorly and sound gross, the players seem like they're playing with a harsh sound, and the writing just sounds like a whole bunch of notes rather than a part of the music (EDIT: sometimes; othertimes, i actually like the writing, but as a whole their parts just aren't on the same level as the perennial top lines). i know there are good percussionists in that line, but it just doesn't sound good to me. as far as their visual program: they need to bring in someone to eliminate their individual mistakes. watch any youtube video with crown where anything visual is involved, and there will be an individual mistake, on every rep, on every video. i don't know where that's coming from, but it needs to go. Edited September 4, 2008 by Kekkles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L1STEN2311 Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 (edited) responding from the position of a percussionist: crown needs to revamp their percussion program before i'll care about them. yeah, they placed fourth this year, which makes me uncomfortable about saying, but... i don't know, they just sound bad to me. the drums themselves are tuned poorly and sound gross, the players seem like they're playing with a harsh sound, and the writing just sounds like a whole bunch of notes rather than a part of the music (EDIT: sometimes; othertimes, i actually like the writing, but as a whole their parts just aren't on the same level as the perennial top lines). i know there are good percussionists in that line, but it just doesn't sound good to me. I really really really disagree. While Lee's tuning and arranging is quite different from most of the other top lines, I really appreciate what he does to make the whole drumline sound as one vs. snare vs. tenor. vs. bass (other people do that incredibly well too, but his just seems different.) check out crossmen from 02-04. BUT. you are entitled to your opinion. so fair enough. Edited September 4, 2008 by L1STEN2311 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tez Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 nononononono NO! please don't really think that. Phantom won in 08 because they deserve to win in 08. it has nothing to do with where they placed in the past, whether winning or medaling before. Crown did not win( or medal) because they did not deserve to....nothing to do of what they did in the past. The judges got it right, they have 2 1/2 months to get the corps in the right spots. if a corps deserves to medal because they have the right package and well enough execution then they will get placed accordingly. when crown deserves to win, they will win.....but they havent been that good yet. and it has nothing to do with the judges just not giving it to them because they haven't "proven" it. Yes, Yes, Yes.... This post is absolutely correct. No one has come up with any real evidence to refute this. Just because something has happened for 36 years, doesn't mean it will continue to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 (edited) There is a science to CI, however. CI is based upon observations and the theory of CI is made upon these observations. CI is proven time and time again. As per an earlier response to Phantom winning while they were 4th in 07 and won in 08, it is because they not only medaled in the past, but they have won before. Hence, they can win. Crown has not won or even medaled. This is because of the judges reluctancy to allow a corps who hasn't "proven" themselves to be put amongst those who have. It's human nature. May I ask, have you read the CI thread? Wrong! Phantom's win had nothing to do with CI. After great seasons in 1996 and 1997, Phantom suffered in the rankings and programming (perhaps a loss of talent/staff) in 1998 and 1999. In 2000, we saw the corps begin to rebuild. That rebuilding continued through 2005 IMO where they hit their stride. 2003 even showed us that Phantom was improving and rapidly - better staff, more talented members, better programming. The drop in placements in 2004 and 2007 had more to do with programming shortcomings (in comparison to the corps above them), then lack of talent. In 2008, all the pieces came together. The didn't win because they were in the top 3 in the past. They won because they were the best corps on the field. The judges do their job and they do it right. Were Crown the best corps on the field in '08, they would have won. How many times do I have to go over it? The entire CI is based on some ridiculous coincidence that no one who hasn't placed in the top 3 previously has ever won. That coincidence could hold up for a long time, but it has nothing to do with CI. The only thing that's been proven from 1994 to 2008 is that it is almost impossible to beat all three - Cavies, Cadets and BD in one season. That's why no one who hasn't placed 3rd before hasn't won - because of the dominance of BD, Cadets and Cavies. Phantom did it this year, so I'm hopeful the tide is turning, but the creater of this "so-called" CI has absolutely not presented what-so-ever one (ONE) concrete argument that supports CI. Edited September 5, 2008 by gellio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 (edited) Yes, Yes, Yes.... This post is absolutely correct. No one has come up with any real evidence to refute this. Just because something has happened for 36 years, doesn't mean it will continue to happen. Exactly! It's really 37 years (1972 to 2008 = 37 championships). As I said before, SCV, Cadets, BD and Cavies have won (or shared) all but 5 of those 37 titles (1972, 1975, 1988, 1991 and 2008). AGAIN - the reason no corps has won who hasn't placed in the top 3 before is because of the dominance of these corps. In the 1970's BD and SCV dominated the activity. As 1977-1979 Phantom proved, it was #### hard (and impossible) to top both BD and SCV at finals. From 1973 to 1982 (10 years) the only time one of these two didn't win was 1975. In the 1980's Garfield joined SCV and BD in their dominance. Together, the three won all but one championship in the 80's (1988). From 1973 to 1988 (16 championships) only one corps was successful in winning that wasn't named BD, Garfield or SCV - that's why we used to have t-shirts that said "The Third Coast". In the 1990's SCV slipped and the Cavies really emerged as a championship contender. So now, we have BD (aside from their slip 1990-1993), Cadets and Cavies at the top. As 1996 Phantom and 1999 SCV proved, it was impossible from 1994 to 2007 to beat all three of these corps in the same year, even at your best. Star was the only corps to really challenge these three, and Star not only proved they could beat all three, but that they were among them. Post Star, the activity has been totally dominated by BD, Cavies and Cadets. Until 2008, they won (or shared) the last 14 championships. The fact that no corps has not won without previously placing in the top three has nothing to do with CI - it has to do with two or more corps completely and totally dominating the activity, for lengthy periods, nearly since the inception of DCI. Still, I believe 2008 Crown had the elements of a championship caliber corps. We'll see what 2009 brings, but I am really excited for this organization. I will say IMO Crown will not likely win, as it is #### hard to beat BD, Cavies and Cadets all in the same year, and now Phantom is amongst them. THAT is a much more sound argument as to why Crown may not win than CI. Edited September 5, 2008 by gellio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruckner8 Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 ...but the creater of this "so-called" CI has absolutely not presented what-so-ever one (ONE) concrete argument that supports CI.You've managed to make me speechless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.