Synthesizers in drum corps

[Matt_S]

the problem i believe is in that they see it get rewarded by the judging community, and we all know that corps will follow what they see the big boys do. as such, it scares people off for what they see as future trends.

not saying it's 100% accurate, but there is validity to it as well.

The odd thing is, though, I can't think of a single corps that saw their placement improve simply by using amplified voice. A momentary instance during Blue Devils 2007 aside, we've only had one champion that used voice, and the 2005 Cadets swept all captions so it's impossible to point to their use of voice as the winning factor. The only other corps to use voice and finish as high as second was the 2007 Cadets, and most everyone seems to agree that they were a tremendously talented group that earned their placement through terrific marching and playing.

What has been the real trend? Blue Devils 2005 finished fourth for the first time since 1993. Cadets 2006 and 2008 both finished fifth, for which hadn't happened since 1991. Bluecoats have used voice three of the past four years but their best placement was in 2006 when they didn't. Boston dropped to ninth the year they tried out voice, after finishing fifth and sixth the years before. The only corps that's really seen a jump when they used voice has been Carolina Crown. They rose three spots with their 2004 show, but hindsight makes it pretty easy to see that Crown was a corps on the rise, regardless of their use of voice. They also recorded their highest score and placement ever to that point with their 2007 show, but then we're talking about a show the fans just voted as their second favorite of the past six years. Not to mention that Crown easily passed their 2007 score and placement with their 2008 show, which didn't contain any use of voice.

The idea that judges are rewarding corps just for the mere presence of the latest tools is simply a myth. Looking at the information above, it's impossible to claim that, all else being equal, the show with amplification will beat out the show without it. I expect the same to be true of electronics, that no judge will give out free points just because a corps chose to use those tools in their show. If the numbers have told us anything it's that weak design is still weak design, performance matters, and both will be judged accordingly.

[Jeff Ream]

But it isn't really being rewarded by the judging community any more than corps that don't use it are being rewarded by the judging community.

Only 1 champion has used any amplified vocals, and that was a pretty light use.

The Cadets used it fairly extensively in 2006 and 2008 and had two of their worst placements in a decade and a half.

Nobody in the top 4 last year used amplified vocals.

1 corps in the top 4 of 2007 used amplified vocals (Cadets)

1 corps in the top 4 of 2006 used amplified vocals (Blue Devils with only one or two lines)

2 corps in the top 4 of 2005 used amplified vocals, Cadets and Blue Devils. Blue Devils used it most extensively and got their worst placement in 12 years

It seems that corps that use vocals and also march, play, and spin really well get rewarded and the corps that don't use vocals but also march, play, and spin really well get rewarded the same.

i agree with you to a point, and it's a large point. the problem is people see it, get turned off, and like with any form of entertainment, you get one shot to do it right.....that one shot is blown, people give up.

plus..in terms of being rewarded score wise...regardless of who may or may not win, most of the shows that have been among the most polarizing were top 5/6. For every fan that loves Cadets 07, despite what mike may say, there are just as many that hated it and felt it should have been killed in GE...and looking at the recaps, GE wasnt what cost them the win.

Granted, not every fan knows the way judging works, but fans also pay to see what they like, and if they see a top corps doing stuff such as this that they hate, it will turn them off.

[audiodb]

I dont' consider the things I have read as 'worthwhile' because IMO they are primarily molehills and isolated events being blown up into massive Problems by those who dislike the very idea of these new things from the beginning.

Molehills?

Take just one example - last year's Bluecoats. Of the nine performances of theirs that I viewed, eight had total amp failures where extended passages of narration were lost, often with disruptive cutting in/out and noise detracting from whatever background music was arranged to coincide with the narration. Is that a "molehill"? Eight "molehills", perhaps?

[audiodb]

The odd thing is, though, I can't think of a single corps that saw their placement improve by using amplified voice. A momentary instance during Blue Devils 2007 aside, we've only had one champion that used voice, and the 2005 Cadets swept all captions so it's impossible to point to their use of voice as the winning factor. The only other corps to use voice and finish as high as second was the 2007 Cadets, and most everyone seems to agree that they were a tremendously talented group that earned their placement through terrific marching and playing.

What has been the real trend? Blue Devils 2005 finished fourth for the first time since 1993. Cadets 2006 and 2008 both finished fifth, for which hadn't happened since 1991. Bluecoats have used voice three of the past four years but their best placement was in 2006 when they didn't. Boston dropped to ninth the year they tried out voice, after finishing fifth and sixth the years before. The only corps that's really seen a jump when they used voice has been Carolina Crown. They rose three spots with their 2004 show, but hindsight makes it pretty easy to see that Crown was a corps on the rise, regardless of their use of voice. They also recorded their highest score and placement ever to that point with their 2007 show, but then we're talking about a show the fans just voted as their second favorite of the past six years. Not to mention that Crown easily passed their 2007 score and placement with their 2008 show, which didn't contain any use of voice.

The idea that judges are rewarding corps just for the mere presence of the latest tools is simply a myth. Looking at the information above, it's impossible to say that if all else is equal the show with amplification will beat out the show without it. I expect the same to be true of electronics, that no judge will give out free points just because a corps chose to use those tools in their show. If the numbers have told us anything it's that weak design is still weak design, and will be judged accordingly.

Voice is not a tool, though, and thus is not inherently rewarded for being used.

Amplification, however, is a tool that has become a prerequisite for competitive success. Use of amplification is even prescribed on the ensemble music judging sheets, so there's no doubt that it is rewarded. What's worse, though, is that when amplification fails, disrupting large portions of a performance, there is no corresponding loss of credit in the scoring. Judges were specifically instructed to ignore such amp failures when it was first used in 2004, and it would seem that they still are.

[MikeD]

plus..in terms of being rewarded score wise...regardless of who may or may not win, most of the shows that have been among the most polarizing were top 5/6. For every fan that loves Cadets 07, despite what mike may say, there are just as many that hated it and felt it should have been killed in GE...and looking at the recaps, GE wasnt what cost them the win.

Since you mentioned my name...

Once again, IMO you are magnifying your dislike of the Cadets 2007 show and trying to assign it to half of the audience; you have no way of knowing what percentage liked or disliked the show.

You are right that GE did not cost them the show...performance in percussion and guard was most of the gap. IMO from an effect standpoint they should have been exactly where they were. The show was very well integrated including the dialogue, and the show communicated the story very well...and was very entertaining.

[Jeff Ream]

The odd thing is, though, I can't think of a single corps that saw their placement improve by using amplified voice. A momentary instance during Blue Devils 2007 aside, we've only had one champion that used voice, and the 2005 Cadets swept all captions so it's impossible to point to their use of voice as the winning factor. The only other corps to use voice and finish as high as second was the 2007 Cadets, and most everyone seems to agree that they were a tremendously talented group that earned their placement through terrific marching and playing.

What has been the real trend? Blue Devils 2005 finished fourth for the first time since 1993. Cadets 2006 and 2008 both finished fifth, for which hadn't happened since 1991. Bluecoats have used voice three of the past four years but their best placement was in 2006 when they didn't. Boston dropped to ninth the year they tried out voice, after finishing fifth and sixth the years before. The only corps that's really seen a jump when they used voice has been Carolina Crown. They rose three spots with their 2004 show, but hindsight makes it pretty easy to see that Crown was a corps on the rise, regardless of their use of voice. They also recorded their highest score and placement ever to that point with their 2007 show, but then we're talking about a show the fans just voted as their second favorite of the past six years. Not to mention that Crown easily passed their 2007 score and placement with their 2008 show, which didn't contain any use of voice.

The idea that judges are rewarding corps just for the mere presence of the latest tools is simply a myth. Looking at the information above, it's impossible to say that if all else is equal the show with amplification will beat out the show without it. I expect the same to be true of electronics, that no judge will give out free points just because a corps chose to use those tools in their show. If the numbers have told us anything it's that weak design is still weak design, and will be judged accordingly.

and like with dbc, i agree to a large point. as i said abve, the average fan may not know judging like we do......and, in entertainment, often times yo have one shot to do it in a way that keeps people attention.

remember...winning isnt the only thing that can affect this perception. being in the top 5/6 can affect it a lot.

regardless of how talented those cadets corps may have been, and despite what some here may otherwise, they did turn a lot of people off. and because to those people they saw them towards the top, even if not on top, they said screw it. remember, with the way dci markets those top few, it feeds this perception

not saying it's 100% right, but it is a view more than a few people have. i've heard it many times. I decided to give DCI a chance in spite of it last year, and i was mostly pleased, but ever since the first rule got passed, many feared that it would come to where we sit now, and could go yet.

and i cant say i blamed them for feeling that. as it's been said before, once pandoras box was opened, it's tough to close.

[dbc03]

Voice is not a tool, though, and thus is not inherently rewarded for being used.

Amplification, however, is a tool that has become a prerequisite for competitive success. Use of amplification is even prescribed on the ensemble music judging sheets, so there's no doubt that it is rewarded. What's worse, though, is that when amplification fails, disrupting large portions of a performance, there is no corresponding loss of credit in the scoring. Judges were specifically instructed to ignore such amp failures when it was first used in 2004, and it would seem that they still are.

But lots (certainly not all I realize) of people aren't saying that amplified pit is why they are leaving. They say things like "I'm leaving because of Cadets 2005"

If someone can't enjoy a show that has an amplified pit then I guess it would make sense to leave since very few corps don't amplify their pit in some manner at this point. But vocal amplification is used in a small minority of shows.

[Jeff Ream]

Molehills?

Take just one example - last year's Bluecoats. Of the nine performances of theirs that I viewed, eight had total amp failures where extended passages of narration were lost, often with disruptive cutting in/out and noise detracting from whatever background music was arranged to coincide with the narration. Is that a "molehill"? Eight "molehills", perhaps?

a question,and it may need recap research...do you recall seeing their scores suffer for this?

[dbc03]

i agree with you to a point, and it's a large point. the problem is people see it, get turned off, and like with any form of entertainment, you get one shot to do it right.....that one shot is blown, people give up.

plus..in terms of being rewarded score wise...regardless of who may or may not win, most of the shows that have been among the most polarizing were top 5/6. For every fan that loves Cadets 07, despite what mike may say, there are just as many that hated it and felt it should have been killed in GE...and looking at the recaps, GE wasnt what cost them the win.

Granted, not every fan knows the way judging works, but fans also pay to see what they like, and if they see a top corps doing stuff such as this that they hate, it will turn them off.

See, with casual fans I can sort of understand this, but not with people who make their way to drum corps planet and have signatures proclaiming their many years of experience with drum corps

[Jeff Ream]

Since you mentioned my name...

Once again, IMO you are magnifying your dislike of the Cadets 2007 show and trying to assign it to half of the audience; you have no way of knowing what percentage liked or disliked the show.

You are right that GE did not cost them the show...performance in percussion and guard was most of the gap. IMO from an effect standpoint they should have been exactly where they were. The show was very well integrated including the dialogue, and the show communicated the story very well...and was very entertaining.

my dislike Mike? solely mine? do you have your head in the sand? Show me a show on here that got that much venom...aside from last year and 06. please i beg of you to show it's solely my dislike.

you cant. because you know what i say is true about how much dislike there was for this show by fans of all ages and backgrounds