wackywords Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Trying to ride the coat tails? Thats an ignorant statement. How in the world could you possibly arrive at that conclusion? Nothing about the entire corps has been anything like 04, ESPECIALLY the percussion. maybe i shouldntve said "coat tails" "hype" would be a better word IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snaredude08 Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I'm pretty sure the "no WGI" rule (which is unbelievably stupid) was a new development last year. It would explain why they had such an uncharacteristically bad year. Of course, they saved it by hiring a guy who draws a huge portion of talent from UNT, who participate in PASIC and not WGI. That way, it won't matter much that they can't do WGI. But still...very bad move as far as last year goes. What were they hoping to accomplish that made that huge dropoff in talent worth it? Not a whole lot, it seems... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanjrusMcRynky Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Yes, and I have been saying since the beginning that it was a move in poor taste for SCV to make if only for that reason. I love Brian Mason's writing and think he has produced some of the most musical percussion books in the activity recently. You can't seriously say that the product he put out in 2009 wasn't great and that the technique and style presented by Gusseck and Ramey wasn't effective. I maintain that the reason SCV did so terrible last season was by not letting its members march WGI and Vanguard. They lost so many vets because of it, and no matter who you are, you can't make a bunch of rookies a top 5 drumline. Sure, this move will help Vanguard jump up a few spots, but was it really necessary? The people marching Vanguard were enjoying marching Vanguard because it had become a pinnacle of percussion innovation and pedagogy in the marching field. Now Vanguard will be backed by Phantom's drumline. Sure, they'll be good and clean, but they'll be run of the mill like many of the other top 12 groups. My understanding is that Gusseck left under his own power and the rest of the staff went with...they just hired Rennick afterwards to replace him. Don't know about Mason. I do think that people are forgetting too soon what Gusseck did for SCV and this activity as a whole though. Prior to his return and the somewhat experimental (and brilliant) 2005 season, none of his lines were out of the top 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madbass4 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I had no idea about SCV not letting it's members play in WGI. That is a shame, and if it made veterans not want to return for the 2010 season, that is also disheartening for all of them. I know that it is really hard for an organization to make decisions that might have drastic effects, but I guess that is the type of sacrifice that some groups have to or choose to make in order for a desired outcome. I know that the 2010 SCV Percussion Section was one of the more younger groups in recent years, and I suppose we cannot hold anything against them for doing their best and not receiving a finish that is completely desirable. I also wanted to say that although I had posted something that seemed to be like NEWS to some about Paul replacing Brian Mason twice - it was also in no way meant to be derogatory of Mason. I personally agree with the poster that Brian Mason's arranging is very unique - and I also think it is quite tasteful. His arrangements are the only drumline/front ensemble arrangements that make me actually hear the "classical" roots in the beats. Kudos. Since I personally left a corps and "Followed Paul" because I felt his school-of-thought would make me a better player (AND IT DID), I can say that corps loyalty is one thing, but self-development is something that cannot be ignored - ESPECIALLY when trying to be a part of the music-performance community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 The idea of picking new corps members over veterans because they were better players just doesn't seem right to me. Maybe I've naive about the whole thing but there will always be someone who is better...what about those who have steadily contributed in past years? I would understand this in the case where someone was causing problems. Is this a standard practice in most corps now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcawth Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Is that confirmed, is your source reliable? confirmed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 The idea of picking new corps members over veterans because they were better players just doesn't seem right to me. Maybe I've naive about the whole thing but there will always be someone who is better...what about those who have steadily contributed in past years? I would understand this in the case where someone was causing problems. Is this a standard practice in most corps now? In many cases a vet would have an advantage, but I believe it is futile to allow a vet to keep a spot just because they are a vet. It's up to each vet to prove they can take advantage of their status within the organization. A vet showing up is not enough. If you have game, then being a vet should secure a spot for you. But, just because you earned a spot a year ago...if you don't keep improving, someone may just show up and move you down a spot or two this year. Now, how often does this happen? I would argue, very seldom, but when it does, it's almost always in the battery and most particularly in the snare line. Why? Well, it's a combination of factors, but most of which revolve around instructors and a simple case of numbers. I would wager if BD was allowed to have two snare lines in competition, their second line would finish about 5th overall. Just a guess, but the best players tend to show up their first then get weeded out to other top corps. SVC's former players will most certainly find homes if not with SCV. Some may make BDs line this year...if not, look for them out east or in the Midwest somewhere. Where a corps is located doesn't really matter near as much as it used to. What matters is who you get to perform with and for. Also, for many, who can give you the best deal money wise. In essence, one uniform fits about as well as any other. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumlaw80 Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Looking back on Gwaltneys Drum Corp history is this a predictor for success at Phantom? It's hard enough coming in with a Drumline that doesn't compete for a championship but when expectations are high considering Rennicks legacy, does anyone expect Phantom to be in the top three in percussion? I suppose the same applies to Rennick but he will draw experience and former regiment talent. I don't expect him to start completely from scratch. Either way, you are talking about a very talented percussionist. I think both gentlemen have a great deal of success ahead of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 The idea of picking new corps members over veterans because they were better players just doesn't seem right to me. Maybe I've naive about the whole thing but there will always be someone who is better...what about those who have steadily contributed in past years? I would understand this in the case where someone was causing problems. Is this a standard practice in most corps now? All things being equal (such as reliability, honesty, work ethic, etc...) During the audition process if a vet scores an 89 and a rookie scores an 89, the vet should get the spot. During the audition process if a vet scores an 94 and a rookie scores an 89, the vet should get the spot. During the audition process if a vet scores an 89 and a rookie scores a 94; the rookie should get the spot. So, a vet has a 66% chance at the spot and a rookie has a 33% chance. Seems fair to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 All things being equal (such as reliability, honesty, work ethic, etc...) During the audition process if a vet scores an 89 and a rookie scores an 89, the vet should get the spot. During the audition process if a vet scores an 94 and a rookie scores an 89, the vet should get the spot. During the audition process if a vet scores an 89 and a rookie scores a 94; the rookie should get the spot. So, a vet has a 66% chance at the spot and a rookie has a 33% chance. Seems fair to me. that's exactly how I see it. Vets naturally have an advantage, but EVERYONE earns their spot year in and year out. And, of course, ALL the evaluation going on is subjective. Should be an additional advantage to the vet...unless the staff changes and the rook and new staff member have tight association. 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.