KemoLondon Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 While I was working the gate I had MANY friends in the stands that said the same thing. Cavies were too soft in their attempt to be "balanced" it seems. Cadets impressed the crowd way more. I'm a Cavie fan but other than the drill the show is missing punch. I'm still trying to get over this morning's crash involving the Gmen. Not the kind of thing you want to wake up to with a kid in the corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn craig Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) I guess I'll never understand why quiet means bad and loud means good. Have you heard a professional symphony play Mahler? Have you heard a Wagner opera live? The sound of a good orchestra playing full out is exhilerating. It does't mean tone quality and musicianship are sacrificed. Actually being able to play out and do it well is just as important as playing soft. I'd rather hear a music group (drum corps, orchestra, any ensemble) willing to "go for it" and not be quite perfect than a boring well executed performance with little emotion and a narrow dynamic range. Edited June 26, 2009 by shawn craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevingamin Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 As my staff members used to say, you make your louds louder so your softs are softer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_King Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 funny story last night in the stands i heard someone behind me say: the cavies are as flat as nine year old girls. I wish i knew who said it because it was funny how they said it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn craig Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 As my staff members used to say, you make your louds louder so your softs are softer. One of the BGSU chorale directors always said the best fortissimos come after the pianissimos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000Cadet Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Geez, I refuse to believe that Cavies are as bad as many of you are making them out to be. I am looking forward to seeing their show, but I really hope they are not as bad as people are saying here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevingamin Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Geez, I refuse to believe that Cavies are as bad as many of you are making them out to be. I am looking forward to seeing their show, but I really hope they are not as bad as people are saying here. They're not bad at all. We just disagree with their brass volume philosophy. Less dynamic contrast means less music effect, or so you'd think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) Geez, I refuse to believe that Cavies are as bad as many of you are making them out to be. I am looking forward to seeing their show, but I really hope they are not as bad as people are saying here. As near as I can tell, nobody has criticized the Cavs Visual and Guard this year on this thread. Nor the Corps ability to EXECUTE. Plus, there is no Color Guard judge judging these Corps Guard yet. So unless the Cavaliers Visual is sub par and their Guard is sub par and the Corps overall execution in various sections is sub par as Mark Twain once said........ " the reports of my death in the press have been greatly exaggerated ". Edited June 26, 2009 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000Cadet Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 As near as I can tell, nobody has criticized the Cavs Visual and Guard this year on this thread. Nor the Corps ability to EXECUTE. Plus, there is no Color Guard judge judging these Corps Guard yet.So unless the Cavaliers Visual is sub par and their Guard is sub par and the Corps overall execution in various sections is sub par as Mark Twain once said........ " the reports of my death in the press have been greatly exaggerated ". Point well taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunkertim Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 A decade has 10 years though.The 1990s were 1991-2000. The 2000 are 2001-2011. There was no year 0. Cheers, Sean Ummm, you are right, a decade does have ten years. and the 2000 decade is from 2001 to 2010, not 2011. Lets count the years: 2001 =1 2002 =2 2003 = 3 2004 = 4 2005 = 5 2006 = 6 2007 = 7 2008 = 8 2009 = 9 and 2010 = 10 Now back to your regularly scheduled pointlessness...... 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.