Why do the Cadets suck in even years the past ten years?

[skywhopper]

I think a lot of corps have the same issue in a way. It may vary between corps, but a lot of times I get the impression that when the design team is successful in one year, they try to duplicate the success, but they choose the wrong things to copy. Examples:

Cadets 05 was incredibly successful, so the designers took the form and tried to just amp it up, and ended up (IMO) overdoing it, and missing that a big part of The Zone's success was just its complete novelty. Doing The Zone Part 2 is exactly the *wrong* strategy to take out of winning so decisively with The Zone.

Crown 09 was a huge leap forward for the corps, coming in second, and in a lot of ways it was a really special show. So in 2010, they designed a show with a lot of the same elements, but they felt forced the second time around. Puck was incredible, so we need another section like that. Only the music didn't really fit. They copied drill from their 2007 and 2009 (at least) shows, and ended up using the ending from 2009 as well. I think the "Second Chance" theme might have worked had they not tried to make it work both visually and using "second" symphonies and movements. They just pushed that theme too far.

Bluecoats 10 - Bluecoats 11 felt very similar to the Crown 09/Crown 10 sequence. A year of success followed by an attempt to duplicate the success using very specific design elements, even if they don't quite fit the second time around.

Just my thoughts on the general topic. With Cadets, I think that explains 06 and 08, not so much 10.

Edited August 14, 2011 by skywhopper

[behold888]

I was looking at the recent drum corps seasons like one would look at a baseball season or player (I suppose it makes as much sense why a pitcher can strike out more people at home vs. away as to why the Cadets are better certain years).

i was also thinking about starting this thread, but not using the word "suck" lol

I think of it more as "hitting the mark" than suck, and yes, it is relative to other corps.

As an alum, I will speak candidly and brutally honestly in the next few sentences about the even numbered years. 2004 was an experiment in a new direction, after a member poll was administered. then came 2005, still experimental, but the corps had work ethic and talent, and it was avant garde enough to impress the judges.

2006, IMO, was a "let's ride this wave and try to be INNOVATIVE" and at times, it seemed like they were throwing around that I-word just for the sake of trying something different, kind of fell out of drum corps mentality --- which i kind of respect, Sully was trying to make a work of art on the field... and if you look at it from that perspective, and you know what every drill picture means, it makes sense and is rather beautiful, with a cadet-style closer. however, the whole idea to do a part two show was IMO rather indulgent on the part of the designers. If outsiders think Cadets are snobs, that gave them every reason to confirm that suspicion.

2007, the corps was hungry to get back in the hunt. we played, had an interesting idea for a show, was risky, controversial, but we could play. a good year

2008, coming off the success of 2007, was another indulgent year. George loves NPR and had a need to share it with the world. I like NPR too, and maybe it would have worked if the show were put together properly. a format change was needed, and i was a spectator at this point, so i was just frustrated on the sidelines. however, IMO, the trouble started when he realized the show wasn't working and started ripping out stuff without regard for what was left. right after the opening fanfare, there's a trumpet thing, after which there used to be speaking, and in finals it ended up as empty space. i was embarrassed.

2009, if you remember was in the planning stages in what seemed like the end of july 2008 lol. of course it was the 75th anniversary, so they had to make sure they did it right. I think it was a great year. Crown surged with a great show, otherwise, cadets would have been in a safe 2nd place, i think.

2010, i thought this was a good year, actually, but it was probably too safe (and perhaps dirty?) to contend with the medals. i heard that a lot of members aged themselves out after the 75th, so it was a young corps.

2011, a classic idea with some interesting twists and some risks taken and pulled off beautifully.

in 2012, i think we can expect lots of rookies, hopefully NOT a part two show!!!, maybe something more experimental, and who knows, maybe they'll place 4th. back to the baseball analogy, the cadets (except for 1983-1985) have never won after a championship year. after 2000, they came close, at least they medaled.

[84BDsop]

"Suck" is a relative term....BD's 5th place in 91 is the worst placement for for corps since 1974...but most corps wouild KILL to "suck" at that level.

Another example....re placement, 92 Glassmen sucked....but the show itself (especially the music for me)?? Definitely NOT suck!

(now the Spaceman Spiff unis....those are another matter!)

[behold888]

I think a lot of corps have the same issue in a way. It may vary between corps, but a lot of times I get the impression that when the design team is successful in one year, they try to duplicate the success, but they choose the wrong things to copy. Examples:

Cadets 05 was incredibly successful, so the designers took the form and tried to just amp it up, and ended up (IMO) overdoing it, and missing that a big part of The Zone's success was just its complete novelty. Doing The Zone Part 2 is exactly the *wrong* strategy to take out of winning so decisively with The Zone.

Crown 09 was a huge leap forward for the corps, coming in second, and in a lot of ways it was a really special show. So in 2010, they designed a show with a lot of the same elements, but they felt forced the second time around. Puck was incredible, so we need another section like that. Only the music didn't really fit. They copied drill from their 2007 and 2009 (at least) shows, and ended up using the ending from 2009 as well. I think the "Second Chance" theme might have worked had they not tried to make it work both visually and using "second" symphonies and movements. They just pushed that theme too far.

Bluecoats 10 - Bluecoats 11 felt very similar to the Crown 09/Crown 10 sequence. A year of success followed by an attempt to duplicate the success using very specific design elements, even if they don't quite fit the second time around.

Just my thoughts on the general topic. With Cadets, I think that explains 06 and 08, not so much 10.

That's just it. When it's forced, you don't think clearly and things don't quite add up. I mean the design team, not the members. When Cadets announced their music as "Angels in the Architecture" I was glad to see them involve some other music as well because it's limiting or too literal otherwise. Likewise with the second symphonies, etc. The judges don't care about that... use whatever music fits. A name is just a name (on a piece of music).

[Jeff Ream]

Show design

[skywhopper]

2008, coming off the success of 2007, was another indulgent year. George loves NPR and had a need to share it with the world.

Wait, that show was about NPR??

[Kyle B]

Suck, of course, used relatively. But since '03, they haven't placed below 3rd in odd years. They haven't placed above fourth in even years.

Theories?

Yes, instead of starting with 2003 (8 years ago) start with 2002 and what place did they finish?

[whitedawn]

Good year competitively --> License to do something "innovative" that doesn't work.

I'd argue that this has been going on since 2000, where 2002 was not a particularly amazing product, but top-tier competition was not present.

[euponitone]

I was looking at the recent drum corps seasons like one would look at a baseball season or player (I suppose it makes as much sense why a pitcher can strike out more people at home vs. away as to why the Cadets are better certain years).

i was also thinking about starting this thread, but not using the word "suck" lol

I think of it more as "hitting the mark" than suck, and yes, it is relative to other corps.

As an alum, I will speak candidly and brutally honestly in the next few sentences about the even numbered years. 2004 was an experiment in a new direction, after a member poll was administered. then came 2005, still experimental, but the corps had work ethic and talent, and it was avant garde enough to impress the judges.

2006, IMO, was a "let's ride this wave and try to be INNOVATIVE" and at times, it seemed like they were throwing around that I-word just for the sake of trying something different, kind of fell out of drum corps mentality --- which i kind of respect, Sully was trying to make a work of art on the field... and if you look at it from that perspective, and you know what every drill picture means, it makes sense and is rather beautiful, with a cadet-style closer. however, the whole idea to do a part two show was IMO rather indulgent on the part of the designers. If outsiders think Cadets are snobs, that gave them every reason to confirm that suspicion.

2007, the corps was hungry to get back in the hunt. we played, had an interesting idea for a show, was risky, controversial, but we could play. a good year

2008, coming off the success of 2007, was another indulgent year. George loves NPR and had a need to share it with the world. I like NPR too, and maybe it would have worked if the show were put together properly. a format change was needed, and i was a spectator at this point, so i was just frustrated on the sidelines. however, IMO, the trouble started when he realized the show wasn't working and started ripping out stuff without regard for what was left. right after the opening fanfare, there's a trumpet thing, after which there used to be speaking, and in finals it ended up as empty space. i was embarrassed.

2009, if you remember was in the planning stages in what seemed like the end of july 2008 lol. of course it was the 75th anniversary, so they had to make sure they did it right. I think it was a great year. Crown surged with a great show, otherwise, cadets would have been in a safe 2nd place, i think.

2010, i thought this was a good year, actually, but it was probably too safe (and perhaps dirty?) to contend with the medals. i heard that a lot of members aged themselves out after the 75th, so it was a young corps.

2011, a classic idea with some interesting twists and some risks taken and pulled off beautifully.

in 2012, i think we can expect lots of rookies, hopefully NOT a part two show!!!, maybe something more experimental, and who knows, maybe they'll place 4th. back to the baseball analogy, the cadets (except for 1983-1985) have never won after a championship year. after 2000, they came close, at least they medaled.

This is pretty close to the mark, and I can speak for what I know

2005 was when it got really obvious, and for better or worse, when a corps wins with a record breaking show, and taking every caption, a lot of folks feel like there is nothing more to accomplish. In 2006 we had a grand total of 6 vets in the ENTIRE low brass section - and the fact that a 2nd year member was the tuba section leader, and I, as a 3rd year member (and just a decent, but not amazing marcher) was the bari section leader, kind of shows how young we were. Yeah, show design played a big role in it, but a better and more motivated corps could have pushed that mess into 3rd or 4th at least. To be blunt, the rookies that year were NOT great, and the vets, myself included weren't the best leaders. The positive that came from all that was...

2007 - all those 'crappy' rookies grew up really fast, and came back with an attitude (the good kind). Narration aside, that was an angry corps that had something to prove, and prove it they did. Probably the loudest hornline i've ever heard, to the point where I lost cell reception while standing in front of them at a victory concert in allentown (and got it back when they were done playing)

2008 - another of those 'pushing it too far' years. The talent wasn't quite as depleted as it was in 06, but it wasn't an amazing corps. IMO, the worst show design of the 'narration years' - but by all accounts, the corps still managed to have a good time and perform well. Oh - and their last 2 minutes may have been the most impressive audiovisual moment of the season, and they knew it and took pride in it.

2009 - anniversary year....duh. If anything they took on too much too fast too loud, etc... but i loved it. Placement aside, i may actually like it more than this years show. (more musical, even harder drill, just a little dirtier and simpler theme)

2010 - wasn't really involved with this corps, but they seemed young, and wrote a relatively (for cadets) safe show, and were placed accordingly...

[Corbin]

"Suck" is not even a term I would use for the Cadets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A corps that has not dropped out of the top 5 in two decades does not "suck." I would not say that I have enjoyed every show they have produced, but this is unbelievably disrepectful.