bawker Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 . . .also, big deal if shows swing back towards the audience and being big, dumb things that hit the lizard-brain first. Change it back in a few years if things start to stagnate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Scott Stewart? Is that you? HH Yea, sure it's me. Impersonating an old financial guy from central Ohio. Don't you think he could have come up with a better alias than that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) Huh? Frankly, some of the things that were most "entertaining" were hits because of their fresh new approach. Corps like '73 SCV, '83 Garfield and the Cavaliers of a decade ago didn't win by following the established playbook. They took design chances that scored with audiences as well as judges. Your sorta proving my point here. Right, those corps took design chances and scored with audiences. Did they KNOW before hand that they were designing a audience winning show? Probably not, they designed a show and crossed their fingers that the audience would fall in love with it. They took risks that payed off. If those designers had this proposal at their back they would be MORE apprehensive to go against the game and NOT follow the "established playbook". See what I mean? The proposal says. "Sure do what you want... but it BETTER make the audience happy." That's a little threatening... "Well, we were not going to play TWO tunes at the same time with different tempos... but I don't think the audience will dig it... let's just do a company front at gorilla forte, that's safer." If drum corps has managed to make extrememly fan friendly shows in the passed WITHOUT this judging change then it certainly can continue to make fan friendly shows without this judging change. Sure, corps need a reminder on who pays to see them, lets make sure that message gets across in anyway we can but I do not think this proposal does that in the best way that benefits the activity as a whole. I think we might see more design risks rather than less, under this proposal. This isn't true. If this was true, then I wouldn't be against it! (jk) Well, this is where we disagree... that's fine. Edited January 14, 2011 by charlie1223 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 . . .also, big deal if shows swing back towards the audience and being big, dumb things that hit the lizard-brain first. Change it back in a few years if things start to stagnate. LOL. I think some people read entirely too much into what is actually going on. You should hear what some people think they hear or see after a show then sit with a designer sometime to get a few laughs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Your sorta proving my point here. Right, those corps took design chances and scored with audiences. Did they KNOW before hand that they were designing a audience winning show? Probably not, they designed a show and crossed their fingers that the audience would fall in love with it. They took risks that payed off. If those designers had this proposal at their back they would be MORE apprehensive to go against the game and NOT follow the "established playbook". See what I mean? The proposal says. "Sure do what you want... but it BETTER make the audience happy." That's a little threatening... "Well, we were not going to play TWO tunes at the same time with different tempos... but I don't think the audience will dig it... let's just do a company front at gorilla forte, that's safer." If drum corps has managed to make extrememly fan friendly shows in the passed WITHOUT this judging change then it certainly can continue to make fan friendly shows without this judging change. Sure, corps need a reminder on who pays to see them, lets make sure that message gets across in anyway we can but I do not think this proposal does that in the best way that benefits the activity as a whole. This isn't true. If this was true, then I wouldn't against it! (jk) Well, this is where we disagree... that's fine. Without rules changes this won;t happen. With money/scores/judging sheets/judges driving the activity, without rules changes there is no incentive. I don't see the conflict. Those that can do it all well, will win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Without rules changes this won;t happen. With money/scores/judging sheets/judges driving the activity, without rules changes there is no incentive. I don't see the conflict. Those that can do it all well, will win. Then tell me, what was the incentive in the 90's 80's to make fan appealing shows? Was it money? Was it judging? NO, it was just designers wanting to enjoy drum corps. Instead of this silly games with scores, change the designers to corps that are "consistently" not entertaining. I don't think anything will change my mind that this proposal is a bad idea, but if a good enough argument comes along... I"m all ear's and haven't stuck my feet on the concrete on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 . . .also, big deal if shows swing back towards the audience and being big, dumb things that hit the lizard-brain first. Change it back in a few years if things start to stagnate. Good point. Honestly....IMO.... compared to the "legit" music world (classical, orchestral, etc.... I don't include Miley Cyrus on this list....LOL)... ALL drum corps is a "big, dumb thing." I absolutely would prefer not to see a show with 10 corps doing nothing but Sousa marches, or some such thing.... but I also don't think drum corps fans/performers/staff members (myself included) can afford to be musical snobs, or place drum corps on a level that it is not at, or perhaps never was meant to be at. It's people marching around on a football field, doing their best to perform their shows at the highest level they can... not rocket science or high art. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I don't agree with this. I don't agree that the rule proposed will result in increased attendance any more than I agree that BD's 2010 championship will hurt attendance. If anything, it is BD's high-risk 2010 vision and excellence that is the more likely draw over time. You're misreading this. The intent is not to create an increase but hold off a decrease. Anyone who runs a public event where the audience "sits on their hands" for the headliner is going to be concerned about their ability to get those customers to return. I don't disagree with you that "excellence" attracts fans. Compulsories in figure skating exhibit excellence. Hard core fans like watching them. But they're not televised because the audience enjoys the excellence packaged up and accessible. Does the packaging somehow remove the excellence? Not at all. Will excellence still prevail? Absolutely -- so long as your packaging keeps the audience interested in what your doing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Then tell me, what was the incentive in the 90's 80's to make fan appealing shows? Was it money? Was it judging? NO, it was just designers wanting to enjoy drum corps. Instead of this silly games with scores, change the designers to corps that are "consistently" not entertaining. I don't think anything will change my mind that this proposal is a bad idea, but if a good enough argument comes along... I"m all ear's and haven't stuck my feet on the concrete on this one. That was then, this is now. If you are having issues of keeping the audience (as a whole) into it then you need to address this in a valid way. It's always been silly games with scores, where have you been for the last few decades? I don't see the problem with an excellent show that is very entertaining and accessible to most if not all people in some way. Sounds like a win/win to me. Quite honestly I'm not worried one bit. If the designers are worth their salt they will make it happen. FYI..I had the Cavaliers a point OVER BD last year on demand and exposure alone...not simply crowd reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 why did they get rid of them? Explanation on dci.org There were two other procedural changes that were approved by the voting membership after all the rules were voted upon. Post-show critiques, when corps staff members used to discuss their productions with the judging community on a periodic basis, have been replaced by more informal pre-show discussion opportunities with the judges. Another change is that corps are now encouraged to send in synopses of their productions prior to the season. They will be shared with adjudicators so they can research the show concepts and listen to source music, allowing them to become familiar with the shows prior to the competitive season. 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.