Phantombari1 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) I think that 02 Cavies had a much larger effect on the modern day design of a drum corps show than 08 Regiment. 02 Cavies made it so that you have to have the total package (music and visual) to win. The incorporation of all sections of the corps toward the show concept was really driven home. 08 Regiment (no disrespect) is a show who's historical importance is greatly overstated. Yeah, they were a good corps. But did they really do anything revolutionary? I don't believe so. And don't try the "they won in the era of amplified voice without using amplified voice" argument. Let's face it. Amplified voice is a concert that has largely (and thankfully) been a gigantic failure. It was tried for a while with medium to little success. It was a novelty. But 08 Regiment really didn't change anything on the face of the activity. They may have been the best corps on Saturday (not for me, but for some) but nothing really revolutionary. I'd argue the Cavaliers haven't impacted Drum Corp as much as they should have. I fully expected more corps to create drills to match theirs but that hasn't happened. Obviously no one has caught on to their less is more volume approach. (no disrespect intended.) They have had some great shows no doubt but change the activity I think not. Edited May 28, 2009 by Phantombari1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rut-roh Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I think people are looking at this the wrong way. It's not about marching geometric drill. It's not about a certain type of brass playing. It's not about original music or fight clubs or any of that. Their success and their impact has hinged on the total audio/visual coordination of the product. Sure, other championship corps have done this too, to varying degrees of success, but I've never seen anything like what they've done during their run. Nearly every single year, I'm left walking away saying that they have the best coordinated product on the field. Every audio/visual effect maximized, no bad transitions, perfect staging of elements and audio/visual focus. This is not to say they are without their faults, but one can say the same for any championship corps, even those who have made the biggest impacts over the years. Regardless, nobody can deny that their consistency over the past ten years has been more than impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedawn Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 the biggest change was in the way shows were judged. "ensemble clarity" became the buzzword. ensemble demand stopped being rewarded. those early 2000s shows proved that you could have virtually NO simultaneous demand (seriously -- watch the videos. playing while marching is at a premium. playing and marching while the pit is doing something other than accents is extremely rare.) and score a 99. shorter: the shows were the catalyst that ended the run-and-gun 90s that so many of us loved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 the biggest change was in the way shows were judged."ensemble clarity" became the buzzword. ensemble demand stopped being rewarded. those early 2000s shows proved that you could have virtually NO simultaneous demand (seriously -- watch the videos. playing while marching is at a premium. playing and marching while the pit is doing something other than accents is extremely rare.) and score a 99. shorter: the shows were the catalyst that ended the run-and-gun 90s that so many of us loved. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymbal_steve Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I think people are looking at this the wrong way. It's not about marching geometric drill. It's not about a certain type of brass playing. It's not about original music or fight clubs or any of that. Their success and their impact has hinged on the total audio/visual coordination of the product. Sure, other championship corps have done this too, to varying degrees of success, but I've never seen anything like what they've done during their run. Nearly every single year, I'm left walking away saying that they have the best coordinated product on the field. Every audio/visual effect maximized, no bad transitions, perfect staging of elements and audio/visual focus. This is not to say they are without their faults, but one can say the same for any championship corps, even those who have made the biggest impacts over the years. Regardless, nobody can deny that their consistency over the past ten years has been more than impressive. You my friend, have the correct answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillH Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) the biggest change was in the way shows were judged."ensemble clarity" became the buzzword. ensemble demand stopped being rewarded. those early 2000s shows proved that you could have virtually NO simultaneous demand (seriously -- watch the videos. playing while marching is at a premium. playing and marching while the pit is doing something other than accents is extremely rare.) and score a 99. shorter: the shows were the catalyst that ended the run-and-gun 90s that so many of us loved. This does prove the Frameworks effect exists. Except in a few cases, visual almost always overrides musical in the modern era. If the designers are going to sacrifice, it will be offering up musical challenges and effectiveness to drive visual impact. It seems that the pendulum is starting to swing back the last few years, but I do believe that there was a strong movement to follow that Cavies model to some extent, becuase that is what was being adjudicated as "state of the art". My personal preference is for visual to interpret and develop musical, not the other way arround. Your mileage may vary. Edited May 28, 2009 by BillH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_S Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 My personal preference is for visual to interpret and develop musical, not the other way arround. Your milage may vary. Ah, there's the rub. I disagree that visual overrides musical in the modern era, as you asserted. I believe instead that visual finally started to receive as much attention as did musical within the design process. For those like yourself who believe visual only exists to support the music, or for those who came up at an earlier time in the history of drum and bugle corps when music was king, I don't doubt that this increased attention feels overbearing at times. After all, its different than what you are accustomed to. For someone like myself however, who came to the activity just ten years ago, this notion is easier to take. If you believe that the music is the end product and ultimate goal, then no doubt the visual component of a show is going to seem unimportant and worthy of only a supporting role. If, like myself, you believe that the complete live show is the end product, then it's easier to accept music and visual as two equal components needed to create the best show possible. If either component is lacking, whether music or visual, then the complete live show will suffer. It's this focus on the total product that defines the legacy of the Cavaliers' championship corps, I think, and I believe that emphasis and influence on the shows that came later is easy to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 the biggest change was in the way shows were judged."ensemble clarity" became the buzzword. ensemble demand stopped being rewarded. those early 2000s shows proved that you could have virtually NO simultaneous demand (seriously -- watch the videos. playing while marching is at a premium. playing and marching while the pit is doing something other than accents is extremely rare.) and score a 99. shorter: the shows were the catalyst that ended the run-and-gun 90s that so many of us loved. Very well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOSMarcher Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Yes, but it was far less convenient to view and more expensive. I’d be curious to see audio sales number before and after DVD I bought CD's in 2003 and 2004. I really enjoy the music of 2004. I personally like the quality of the sound that is coming out of hornlines and batteries now. Much cleaner and easier to listen to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillH Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Ah, there's the rub. I disagree that visual overrides musical in the modern era, as you asserted. I believe instead that visual finally started to receive as much attention as did musical within the design process. For those like yourself who believe visual only exists to support the music, or for those who came up at an earlier time in the history of drum and bugle corps when music was king, I don't doubt that this increased attention feels overbearing at times. After all, its different than what you are accustomed to. For someone like myself however, who came to the activity just ten years ago, this notion is easier to take.If you believe that the music is the end product and ultimate goal, then no doubt the visual component of a show is going to seem unimportant and worthy of only a supporting role. If, like myself, you believe that the complete live show is the end product, then it's easier to accept music and visual as two equal components needed to create the best show possible. If either component is lacking, whether music or visual, then the complete live show will suffer. It's this focus on the total product that defines the legacy of the Cavaliers' championship corps, I think, and I believe that emphasis and influence on the shows that came later is easy to see. Well put. Thus my bolding of "personal" preference. I certainly did not want to indicate that I believe visual is "unimportant and worthy of only a supporting role." It certainly was not true in my marching experience. However, growing up (drum corps-wise) at the feet of Jim Prime and George Zingali and Thom Hannum, I believe that the idea of an entire show of visual and musical as complete equals is similar to two people dancing, with both trying to lead. It loses focus and audience connection. But it is nteresting to think about. I hear people talk about how the shows of today are music major-centric and not fan-centric, but I, as a former music major, have felt the opposite in terms of shows like Frameworks. I love to watch the drill, but the music leaves me seriously wanting. And the idea of cleverly designing out simultaneous demand to achieve great visual effect with excellent musical technique seems anathema to my view of drum corps as being all about challenging the performer. But maybe that's just me being a curmudgeon. I just can't imagne having to watch a bunch of shows with amazing drill by musicians who are not really playing while performing it and lots of pit-filled music time to accomodate those visual demands. Not to mention the need to minimize thematic (melodic/harmonic) development time periods to allow for all of those small count set changes. That being said, the Frameworks show, in my opinion, was ground breaking for its visual complexity, its musical technicality and its design integration. And that corps executed its brains out! I just prefer more musically visceral design and shows that totally kick the butts of the brass players in regards to simultaneous demand. 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.