garfield Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 {Name redacted} routine included selections from Beethoven, Ticheli, Mackey and Ginastera. It featured kaleidoscopic whiplash drill movements, modern dance body movement and an innovative use of electronics, Quillen said. Can you identify the corps? (No fair if you already read the article). Couldn't this just as well describe virtually any corps? An excellent example, IMO. (This from the thread on the kids who marched Oregon Crusaders this year, a show I enjoyed much more than I thought I would on Thursday. (Even went to the warm up area to watch them. It was great!) Congratulations Crusaders!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 I think there was a much bigger change between the shows of 2009 and 2011 than 2010 and 2011 but drum corps has always been follow the leader so I doubt much will change – in order to really change things, judging standards need to be opened up and different sorts of demand need to be rewarded more equally which, may have to be achieved through cleanliness of overall programs which doesn't necessarily speak to fan friendliness I got this strong feeling while comparing 2009 Bluecoats vs. 2011 Bluecoats, and it was most-stark from 2009 to 2010. Unfortunately, I think the 2011 design was mostly a rehash of 2010's design. My hunch is you'll see a turn in Bluecoat's design next year. I think you're right, at least as 'Coats are concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) ... Because neither you nor I were actually in the room when MC addressed the troops (except for the video shots on DCI earlier this year), how do we verify that there was a change a-foot before MC arrived on the scene?... Here's how I see it. Most of the 2010 corps were trying to entertain. I'll start with the C's. Cavies were. A darker theme, to be sure, but lots of elements designed for crowd appeal, which mostly succeded. Crown succeeded less (how's that for diplomacy?) not because they weren't trying to be entertaining but because their creative juice was mostly expended the year before. The reprise failed to entertain as much as so many second acts do. Cadets surely set out to entertain and mostly did though hindered by lesser levels of execution and a few design flaws. Shifting fromt the C's to the B's, Bluecoats were more entertaining than the year before (albeit with a style following BD's lead), Blue Stars had an entertaining program as did Boston. Blue Knights maybe a little less entertaining but you must admit they were trying. BD was trying something new and not trying to entertain in the classic sense. The rest of the alphabet? Madison went for the sure thing even though they're usually a sure thing anyway. SCV seemed more in the BD vein. Phantom put a premium on entertainment but like Cadets were lacking in certain execution and design areas. Well that's most of it. You're right. I wasn't in the room. What I imagine happend is Cesario said y'all should be more entertaining. And in response, the collective directors were thinking to themselves: "That's what we've been trying to do." The difference in 2011 isn't intent, it's execution. Some who failed to one degree or another in 2010 (maybe Cadets, Phantom and Crown) succeeded greatly in 2011. Some who succeeded mostly in 2010 (Boston, Madison) succeded even more in 2011. Others lost a step from 2010 to 2011 (Blue Stars, Bluecoats). BD is the only one, to my mind, that stands out as a different approach - and then I suspect many would argue that. So yes, I'm comparing corps to corps from 10 to 11. To my mind, any failure in 2010 was more in execution than intent. Cesario is a fact. I just don't think he was a factor. HH Edited August 31, 2011 by glory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan9 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) I've gone back and re-read your comments (beginning with my masterful use of emoticons!), Plan, and I'm beginning to be convinced that I may not be arguing the same point you are. I've also watched both the '10 shows and this year's, but I'm not sure that my "proof" will ever be sufficient to convince you. But, again, I'm not sure that's what you're arguing. This posts sounds like your argument is that there is only one offender of "non-entertaining" shows, BD, and that torques some people's screws. Is it really your point that the whole "MC" endeavor was in response to the outcry about BD's show? Really? My contention is that the FTL phenomenon is alive and well (I agree with Glory [HH] that FTL has been in DCI for years). Yours seems to be that it's only BD who guilty of the litany of examples I listed earlier. That everyone follows them and it torques people off. Is that right? Would you have the same explanation if next year a half-dozen corps come out wearing angel wings? I don't know if this is an 'or' or an 'and', but are you suggesting that the powers-that-be didn't like the direction the "leader" was taking the activity? And that's why they created the MC potentate position? If, as you contend, it's only BD who's garnering all this criticism, and if you could agree that the powers-that-be could be the fans themselves, wouldn't you agree that that force must surely be a mighty one? Maybe a plurality, or even a majority, of fans? And, if it is a "mighty force" of fans (and others, maybe) who disagree with the direction the leader (BD, in your mind) is taking the activity, isn't that how it's supposed to work? And even if it could be any leader of the activity, and it now is only coincidental that it's BD, aren't you being a little defensive in your honkish-ness? Isn't it entirely possible that the powers could be attacking any corps that was taking the activity in a direction it didn't want to go? And, finally, my friend (and glory, too) do you really not see the distinction in corps design this year over last? Maybe we're looking at different things (this is a "perspective" activity, after all!), but I see clear differences in show design this year that were simply not there last year. The similarity of design last year was stark compared to this year, to my eyes. And yes, I suppose it's possible that I'm seeing what I'd hoped for. But is this point really the one you're making, or is it strictly a BD issue for you as your post seems to imply? If so, I need to change my stance because we're addressing two different things. See, I'm not always snarky! This post was quite revealing G, and I do believe that you have been seeing my argument a bit askew! First off, glory's post #85 kind of sums up my general feeling about last year and I think it can be said that it was a good year for DC, lot's of good vibes and not so much angst. Lot's of reasons for that, none of which have a thing to do with fingers in the chests of DC Directors. Briefly stated: 2011 brought us no dominant corps, no winning streak, no avante garde anything (SCV a little), several different corps at the top during the year, multiple winners in the captions and one of the crowd favs wins it all........well duh! Do the math! So how do we attribute that to show design (or by extension, MC waging his finger)? Simple......I don't. Now here's my point about BD...hopefully clarified. I was being accurate yet tongue in cheek in my suggestions about BD and your list of violations. That's simply the way I see it and I think including other corps as you have is a huge stretch. So he's my point......turn the clock back 3 years, same shows, same everything EXCEPT BD comes in 2nd or 3rd in 2009 and 2nd or 3rd in 2010 (along with several losses during each tour including regionals). If that happened my dear G man......MC and the whole conversation DOESN"T HAPPEN.....period! No saving DC from doom, no heading to hell in a hand basket, no what are the judges smoking, no politics are controlling DC, and sure as hell no cigar filled rooms with Michael the Masher threatening the cowering directors. I hope you make the connection......it wasn't about what the corps were doing (so called trends)....it was about dominance, avante garde design and outcomes that made some fans feel that had lost control. Then, the only way to make it change without seeming too specific was to blame everyone! Edited August 31, 2011 by Plan9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Here's how I see it. Most of the 2010 corps were trying to entertain. I'll start with the C's. Cavies were. A darker theme, to be sure, but lots of elements designed for crowd appeal, which mostly succeded. Crown succeeded less (how's that for diplomacy?) not because they weren't trying to be entertaining but because their creative juice was mostly expended the year before. The reprise failed to entertain as much as so many second acts do. Cadets surely set out to entertain and mostly did though hindered by lesser levels of execution and a few design flaws. Shifting fromt the C's to the B's, Bluecoats were more entertaining than the year before (albeit with a style following BD's lead), Blue Stars had an entertaining program as did Boston. Blue Knights maybe a little less entertaining but you must admit they were trying. BD was trying something new and not trying to entertain in the classic sense. The rest of the alphabet? Madison went for the sure thing even though they're usually a sure thing anyway. SCV seemed more in the BD vein. Phantom put a premium on entertainment but like Cadets were lacking in certain execution and design areas. Well that's most of it. You're right. I wasn't in the room. What I imagine happend is Cesario said y'all should be more entertaining. And in response, the collective directors were thinking to themselves: "That's what we've been trying to do." The difference in 2011 isn't intent, it's execution. Some who failed to one degree or another in 2010 (maybe Cadets, Phantom and Crown) succeeded greatly in 2011. Some who succeeded mostly in 2010 (Boston, Madison) succeded even more in 2011. Others lost a step from 2010 to 2011 (Blue Stars, Bluecoats). BD is the only one, to my mind, that stands out as a different approach - and then I suspect many would argue that. So yes, I'm comparing corps to corps from 10 to 11. To my mind, any failure in 2010 was more in execution than intent. Cesario is a fact. I just don't think he was a factor. HH Your opinion is certainly a valid one, H, but it doesn't jibe with the MC project as iterated by his directives to the directors. Andy Cook, the judges liason, paraphrased MC's words "in the room" on the YT video as "Each corps has their own identity or tradition...and I think he wants that back in a more modern way." He talked of "...getting the fans back into the stadiums, to enjoy the shows again..." This is my point, and the one associated with the OP, IMO. It's the basis for my suggestion that the MC initiative is, in a substantial way, responsible for resurrecting the variety of "identities" that corps can have if they stop playing FTL. He DIDN'T say to provide entertainment by doing what the predominant winner is doing, as it appears to me was much more the case in 2010 show design than 2011. There may have been a movement in place for several years, H, but I think it was too many corps simply trying to duplicate the design of the winner. I would even say the FTL trend was accelerating until the MC initiative put the exclamation point on ending it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcorpsfan11 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 1st Place - Madison Scouts 2nd Place -The Cadets 3rd Place - Boston Crusaders Honorable Mention - Carolina Crown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Your opinion is certainly a valid one, H, but it doesn't jibe with the MC project as iterated by his directives to the directors. Andy Cook, the judges liason, paraphrased MC's words "in the room" on the YT video as "Each corps has their own identity or tradition...and I think he wants that back in a more modern way." He talked of "...getting the fans back into the stadiums, to enjoy the shows again..." This is my point, and the one associated with the OP, IMO. It's the basis for my suggestion that the MC initiative is, in a substantial way, responsible for resurrecting the variety of "identities" that corps can have if they stop playing FTL. He DIDN'T say to provide entertainment by doing what the predominant winner is doing, as it appears to me was much more the case in 2010 show design than 2011. There may have been a movement in place for several years, H, but I think it was too many corps simply trying to duplicate the design of the winner. I would even say the FTL trend was accelerating until the MC initiative put the exclamation point on ending it. who tried to copy a winner..i didnt see alot of BD clones..or maybe i misunderstood you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) The FTL discussion is interesting, I think, and deserving of its own thread. So I'm going to start one rather than further divert the purpose of this thread. Garfield, feel free to grab the wheel if I've started off the FTL thread in the wrong direction. EDIT: I added that new topic here. HH Edited September 1, 2011 by glory 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.