Why Blue Devils Win

[bawker]

Wow... a 50 page attack on BD. Cant say I'm really surprised but is this a record? What did cadets ever get up to?

It's hardly a 50 page attack on anyone.

Some people don't care for the product, some do. That makes the Blue Devils no different than any other drum corps on which subjective opinions are offered.

Your personal point-of-view might say otherwise, but if I happen to say I don't care for Spirit of Atlanta's show this year, I'm hardly attacking the membership, alumni or fans of the organization with that statement.

And, as I understand it, the Cadets seem to be doing pretty well for themselves this year as well.

[WestCoaster]

With the exception of Star *all* of those performances -- even SCV '09' -- received *very* enthusiastic applause. I've heard similar things countless times in other performance venues as well; even the saddest show can generate standing 'o's from an audience for the very same reasons as the "throw babies" reaction : it makes an emotional connection to the audience. If people are moved they'll acknowledge it. I've seen standing "O"s in the recent past for a show about the 9-11 vicitims. It was *NOT* the same reaction as an in-your-face , throw babies performance. But it was just as intense *and* just as palpable -- connection made.

Back to Star I think there's still a lot of discussion about exactly what the intent of designers were with that show. But the effect wasn't similar to BD at all. It *did* engender very strong emotions. The only thing BD generates is a complete disconnect between the audiences assessment of their program and the judges (thus the boos only at scores). They don't get people angry during their show -- people don't react at all after their performances -- they're *not* engaged.

So I disagree vehemently that I'm saying all drum corps shows produce the same emotions -- they don't. But a show that moves an audience (on stage , in the arena, or on the field) does not fail to get enthusiastic applause. Because that's the outlet an audience has to show it's appreciation.

Finally I don't want to get sidetracked into saying applause at the end is the only measure of connection. In fact I said earlier that despite the fact that you can't describe exactly *how* you do it, you *can* sense during a performance if an audience is "with you" or if they're not. Clearly in 2009 the audience was *not* connected with BD's finals performances in any significant way -- most of their effect moments generated polite applause (golf claps) which say pretty clearly to me that people acknowledge "I see this intellectually but I don't feel it".

If you stop and think about it, the audience's reactions to BD in recent times is completely described by this theory. How many times has someone said " I appreciated their excellence" and " I appreciate the thought behind that effect" ? There are clearly aesthetic and intellectual components in play. But then they say "but it left me flat". They don't say"it left me sad (or angry or disgusted )" -- it left them feeling nothing at all. That statement alone is enough to jump to the same conclusion about lack of emotional connection.

I'm certain there were people who *did* experience emotions during that show. I'm not invalidating their experience. But the audience "en masse" weren't connected. I could sense it -- people throughout the audience could sense it. I'll wager that even BD honks could sense it -- they were probably feeling upset that the audience was *not* reacting in the same way they were reacting. In a quite normal human reaction, instead of looking to the field for an explanation they attribute "haters hate" to the reaction -- that satisfies their need for explanation (and conversely get lots of people who *aren't hating* upset with BD fans.

"I could sense it"?

How ridiculous.

That show was incredible, and *I* could sense it (obviously the judges did, too lol).

So, maybe it was just me that thought the show was impressive and enjoyable.

So be it.

For you to assume that everyone (or at least "en masse" as "everyone") felt the same way is, well, ridiculous.

I love drum corps, and I love the Blue Devils; but I haven't adored every show they've put out (some shows have totally sucked).

But the 09 program gave me chills. It worked for me, it was great. This year, I'm loving it but I think they can do more.

To assume that everyone is detached from it is ridiculous. Maybe I'm the only one on earth who digs it, but then even so you've got one fan right here.

[saxfreq1128]

With the exception of Star *all* of those performances -- even SCV '09' -- received *very* enthusiastic applause. I've heard similar things countless times in other performance venues as well; even the saddest show can generate standing 'o's from an audience for the very same reasons as the "throw babies" reaction : it makes an emotional connection to the audience. If people are moved they'll acknowledge it. I've seen standing "O"s in the recent past for a show about the 9-11 vicitims. It was *NOT* the same reaction as an in-your-face , throw babies performance. But it was just as intense *and* just as palpable -- connection made.

...You're using reactions to a 9/11 show as evidence of the variety of ways shows can make an audience feel?

No, totally, that makes sense -- because it's not like tearjerkers aren't deliberately, forcefully designed to gain huge audience response, or anything.

Catharsis is a basic and VERY explicit audience reaction: this was established by Aristotle ages ago and is Drama 101, at this point. It's something all kinds of live performances, and even written texts, have been doing since the beginning of performance. You're not giving examples of emotional shows; you're giving examples of hyper-emotional shows, shows programmed to stir outward emotions, sometimes at the expense of strictly and explicitly intellectual engagement. Nothing wrong with that. But is this really the barometer we ought to be using to measure the success of a show? Because I'd argue that shows pushing for other kinds of less tangible reactions, be they aesthetic, intellectual, etc. are equally (not more) legitimate, and that in sum, DCI shows give as a great range of ways to feel, and think, about drum corps performances.

Again: this kind of evidence really only works if you're severely limited in how you understand how people express their emotions, and how shows can fight for those kinds of reactions. Experimental jazz modernism, for example, is not going to evoke the same kinds of response as, well, a 9/11 show. If catharsis is what you're looking for among an audience, no, BD is not the corps for you. I don't think they're trying to be. Can't we all agree on this and give it a rest?

Edited July 15, 2010 by saxfreq1128

[audiodb]

Yeah that's it!

Bluecoats still have not won enough yet to have their own "un-well wishers", deny it if you want.

OK....it's all a vast anti-BD conspiracy.

[WestCoaster]

It's hardly a 50 page attack on anyone.

Some people don't care for the product, some do. That makes the Blue Devils no different than any other drum corps on which subjective opinions are offered.

Your personal point-of-view might say otherwise, but if I happen to say I don't care for Spirit of Atlanta's show this year, I'm hardly attacking the membership, alumni or fans of the organization with that statement.

And, as I understand it, the Cadets seem to be doing pretty well for themselves this year as well.

I think you're whistling past the graveyard dude.

I really do.

But are you really saying that because the Cadets aren't being attacked (the reason is because they have the best chance to beat BD, you know that, right?), that it's all good?

It's not. The whole "un-well-wisher" notion is definitely a reality here. And it's way uncool for an activity that could use all the support it can get.

Just sayin.

[WestCoaster]

OK....it's all a vast anti-BD conspiracy.

That much is obvious.

[audiodb]

On general principle, I'm sure.

After all, how many of THOSE people have actually even SEEN both shows?

Quite a few, thanks to the Fan Network. I don't know how many have seen both live. I have, so that's at least one.

[glory]

...Even between two popular shows, the difference will be there. Take the powerful ending from Blue Stars vs. the soft ending of Phantom. Phantom is simply not going to garner the same amount of applause because the don't end their show in that manner. Blue Stars end with a blast, something that is far more likely to bring the crowd to their feet. If you haven't seen this year's shows, think of Cadets vs. SCV in 2000. The Cadets had an extremely visceral show throughout, and the response they got was visceral as well. SCV had a #### fine show, and I certainly would hope that you agree it was emotionally engaging. But there was no way, with that soft ending, that they were ever going to garner the same visceral response that the Cadets did - even from those who felt a greater connection to their show. This is why I think you're asking all drum corps to produce the same reaction, and they simply do not.

Agreed. And I'll take it one step further to explain the situation.

Every corps arrives on the field with a narrative behind it that helps determine the emotional component of the audience response. BD’s narrative features tradition, achievement and quality where the story of another jazz blue, the Bluecoats, is more about increments and aspiration. Put both on the same field and fans view each through different prisms. That’s why should BD and Bluecoats receive identical scores at some future show the clear verdict of the fans will be that Bluecoats “won.” Not a real win, of course. Instead, an emotional component deriving in part from the prevailing narrative that credits one more than the other.

It discredits one more than the other too. Go back to 2008. BD, the perennial bride, against frequent bridesmaid Phantom. The two finals performances were a statistical draw when you take into account any reasonable margin for judging error. Yet the fans clearly favored one. Phantom’s narrative of unsatisfied striving was fortified by a championship week climb. Indeed, it was all the stronger for the fact that the story could be improved because Phantom was the only realistic hope to surmount the odds-on and traditional best bet BD on finals night. Had the roles been reversed, had Phantom’s resume been the one with many and recent championships, I have no doubt the crowd’s emotion would have been tempered some.

That’s the BD problem this year. Its narrative – which includes some flavor of domination over the activity – doesn’t favor in the fans’ eyes and ears a show that relies on technical appeal. Cadets were in BD shoes last year. They used an anniversary, a reprise and more traditional approach to alter the narrative and overcome the emotional deficit they otherwise might have faced. It could be said they achieved more with their narrative than they did with the judges. BD is in a position now where its success isn’t in its favor for some large portion of the fans who know the narrative. Yet, there’s no urgency to alter the formula so long as they keep winning. Indeed, the calculation in Concorde may well be that all is fine because winning solves all problems.

HH

[corpsband]

...You're using reactions to a 9/11 show as evidence of the variety of ways shows can make an audience feel?

No, totally, that makes sense -- because it's not like tearjerkers aren't deliberately, forcefully designed to gain huge audience response, or anything.

Actually you're making my point. The show was designed to evoke emotion. BD's was not.

I'm not going comment on 2010 -- I haven't seen it live.

Edited July 15, 2010 by corpsband

[WestCoaster]

Quite a few, thanks to the Fan Network. I don't know how many have seen both live. I have, so that's at least one.

Live is what I meant, of course.

You can't know what's what based on a video.