G-8/everyone else audition camp disparity

[corpsband]

Look, the reality is that each year the collective try out talent that walks through the camp doors of the 3 Corps of the Blue Devils, Cadets, and Cavaliers is better than ALL the other World Class and Open Class Corps combined.

You're WAY over-estimating the difference in talent and way UNDER-estimating what the instructors at said corps *teach* to that talent.

BTW I've heard first-hand from some long-time instructors in said corps that you're assertion is not accurate; these were not first year techs either. Guess they were just making #### up.

And take a look at the results of the staff vs talent poll. It would seem also to contradict your assertion that talent rules the game.

Finally-- anyone who's out there teaching kids in the activity knows that talent is only a small part of the equation.

[BozzlyB]

One of the things they did was make bold programming choices over the past five or six years, including some choices that weren't conventional or at least not conventionally popular. By taking chances with voice and/or strong thematic approaches, they developed identities which helped attract and retain talent, without which their success would have faded. There's obviously more to the formula than just mics or sewing machines. You must acknowledge, however, how their success accompanied such defining choices while others who took a more conservative approach couldn't match the climb.

Anyone else want to jump in on this question?

FWIW I think one of the things corps which are on the move do is evaluate themselves honestly and objectively to see weaknesses and aggressively address them.

This is spot on. Blue Stars have seen a consistent and steady upgrade in numerous different aspects for several seasons now on an annual basis. From traveling to staffing to finances and including administration.

[Jeff Ream]

We've had staff that have worked with Corps that won DCI Titles.

Simultaneously, they worked with other Corps.... Corps that didn't fare all that well.

Did the Corps that won the DCI Title with that staff member do so principally because they worked harder than the other Corps with that same staff member ? In most cases the answer is " no ".

Then what allowed the first Corps to win a DCI Title and the other not to fare as well ? Well, we generally know the reason. Usually, it is the talent level differential more than any other single factor.

Arguably, the greatest basketball team ever put on a basketball court may have been the 1986 Boston Celtics. They dominated the competition. ( were 40-1 at home ) They had the deepest bench depth ever in the NBA ( Bill Walton came off the bench, for example ). Their Coach was K C Jones. Did the Celtics win it all in 1986 principally because K.C. Jones, who designed all the plays, was the greatest basketball Coach ever ? Hardly. K.C. Jones was a nice guy , but a mediocre Coach at best. The Celtics won not because they had a lock on " hard work ". Or a great coaching staff that designed all the plays. They won principally because they had a lock on the most experienced, saavy, basketball talent that year more than anything else.

and you're talking a best with, oh 10 times more people performing at once. Look, talent helps. But look at BD...yes they have talent. but without the staff and developed program they have in house, would they be that good with talent?

no.

I've seen some drum corps with per person talent off the charts suck. if you dont have the tools to mold the talent, the talent will only go so far. and while I hate the Celtics, KC Jones was no slouch. and Walton lol...he was a shell of his UCLA days by 1986.

[glory]

That's it! Finally, we have an explanation for why the Boston Crusaders couldn't crack top 4 this decade - they never took chances with voice or strong themes....oh, wait, I meant Glassmen....no, Crossmen....oops, Spirit....oh, never mind.

Honestly, none of what you say correlates. Everyone takes a thematic approach nowadays....that's old news. The other things - voice or no voice, consistent identity vs. a different style every year, edgy vs. conservative - either choice succeeds sometimes and fails other times.

I think Boston proves, rather than disproves my theory. After a strong showing (though with mostly conventional programming) between 2000 and 2003, Boston tries something bolder with voice in 2004. It returns to the more conventional styles of the time with Ode to Joy, Cathedrals, Picasso, etc., in the coming years. The fact that those shows had themes didn’t constitute a statement from Boston in and of itself.

Meanwhile, Bluecoats seemed a rather mediocre 7-8 in 2001-2002 before they revealed a new vision for the corps in 2003 with the very excellent (but just 7th place) Capture and Pursuit. They added voice successfully with Criminal and Boxer in 2007 and 2008, giving what first seemed a subtle change a more dynamic difference. Imagine dropped the voice but took the vision one step further. Metropolis went another. In all, this decade was a defining reinvention of who Bluecoats were.

Crown was similar. Bohemia in 2004 was the separator with voice and even singing. It doesn’t matter that Crown used voice only sparingly since. What matters is that since 2004 it has offered programming that led the trend instead of followed it. I think you can say the same for Bluecoats. I don’t think you can say that for Boston. Triple Crown, Finis and Greener Grass are good examples. Crown wasn’t copying; it was exploring.

Crown and Bluecoats were establishing programming identities over the past five or so years that added to their momentum in recruiting, retention and ultimately achievement. Again, I am not saying these programming choices were the only factor or even the most important factor in their success. I am saying that less consistently dynamic choices didn’t assist other corps in achieving their competitive goals.

I don’t expect on this point to find many kindred spirits among my DCP friends. Perhaps this Thanksgiving week you’ll be kind in your criticism of my genuine if uncommon (here anyway) thinking.

HH

[BozzlyB]

I think Boston proves, rather than disproves my theory. After a strong showing (though with mostly conventional programming) between 2000 and 2003, Boston tries something bolder with voice in 2004. It returns to the more conventional styles of the time with Ode to Joy, Cathedrals, Picasso, etc., in the coming years. The fact that those shows had themes didn’t constitute a statement from Boston in and of itself.

Meanwhile, Bluecoats seemed a rather mediocre 7-8 in 2001-2002 before they revealed a new vision for the corps in 2003 with the very excellent (but just 7th place) Capture and Pursuit. They added voice successfully with Criminal and Boxer in 2007 and 2008, giving what first seemed a subtle change a more dynamic difference. Imagine dropped the voice but took the vision one step further. Metropolis went another. In all, this decade was a defining reinvention of who Bluecoats were.

Crown was similar. Bohemia in 2004 was the separator with voice and even singing. It doesn’t matter that Crown used voice only sparingly since. What matters is that since 2004 it has offered programming that led the trend instead of followed it. I think you can say the same for Bluecoats. I don’t think you can say that for Boston. Triple Crown, Finis and Greener Grass are good examples. Crown wasn’t copying; it was exploring.

Crown and Bluecoats were establishing programming identities over the past five or so years that added to their momentum in recruiting, retention and ultimately achievement. Again, I am not saying these programming choices were the only factor or even the most important factor in their success. I am saying that less consistently dynamic choices didn’t assist other corps in achieving their competitive goals.

I don’t expect on this point to find many kindred spirits among my DCP friends. Perhaps this Thanksgiving week you’ll be kind in your criticism of my genuine if uncommon (here anyway) thinking.

HH

Interesting thoughts. I think there is something to what you're saying, but I think it has less to any one risk (i.e. voice) than just a general improvement in program design. For instance, I would guess had Crown used no voice in 2004 and had designed the same show without it they would have placed the same.

[jjeffeory]

and you're talking a best with, oh 10 times more people performing at once. Look, talent helps. But look at BD...yes they have talent. but without the staff and developed program they have in house, would they be that good with talent?

no.

I've seen some drum corps with per person talent off the charts suck. if you dont have the tools to mold the talent, the talent will only go so far. and while I hate the Celtics, KC Jones was no slouch. and Walton lol...he was a shell of his UCLA days by 1986.

Totally agree. Look at the 3 tenors. They didn't sound as good together as other groups do. They're all talented, but they're soloists.

Talent is great, but it's the tools that matter most.

[glory]

... I think it has less to any one risk (i.e. voice) than just a general improvement in program design.

Absolutely though not just vague "improvement" in design but a committment to advance the vision. Not an agenda necessarily. A committment to be different from their own past and different from most other corps. An identity in programming. Certainly the Cadets, Cavies and Devils have that.

HH

[ContraRich77]

I just farted. Sorry.

[baristeve]

G-8, B-7, C-13 who gives a ####

AND i sunk your battleship, biatchs

Edited November 25, 2010 by baristeve

[soccerguy315]

G-8, B-7, C-13 who gives a ####

AND i sunk your battleship, biatchs

Edited November 25, 2010 by soccerguy315