DCISuperfan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 And I dont want this to include just Drum Corps either, as marching band season is underway and having many siblings and family members in marching bands, I would like to include both of these forms of competitive marching music. As the title suggests, why are some corps/bands just mind blowingly better than other groups? There are a LOT of (relatively) constants in marching music. I would argue (even moreso in marching band than DCI) that time spent working on a show, the talent pool of the marching members, the staff teaching the ensemble, and the support given from outside sources are all VERY similar (unless im just blind...) in the top 12 drum corps. And yet we see a rather substantial disparity in performance from a 12th place corps on a given year and a 1st place corps. Why do groups suffer and others succeed so much? Do you truly believe that the best corps and marching bands just have so much more talent in their members? Do they spend more time on the field practicing? Is the staff just THAT much better? I just have a hard time believing that Blue Devils spend more time on their show than say Madison did this year. And yet BD beat Madison by roughly 10 points. Now im not going off and crying foul saying that madison was as good as BD, because they obviously werent, but with so many constants, why are some groups so much better than others? I was sitting down at a marching band competition this last Saturday and a band entered the field with 150 members. Roughly the size of a drum corps, and they just tanked... Their performance was just almost painful to watch it was so dirty and the performance level was just lightyears behind the groups in front of them. I was shocked to see just how little they were achieving on the field. So I went to their band internet page when I got home and looked up their Calendar and compared it with the group that took first place. The two calendars were almost identical. Four, four hour rehearsals a week with individual 2 hour sectionals once a week and one, twelve hour cleaning Saturday once a month... I was awestruck. The 150 member band scored 250 points (for some reason Marching band is judged on a 1000 point scale out here...) lower than the first place group, and yet they had almost the same amount of staff, only 30 kids less, and they practice the same amount of time... Whats the deal here?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thriving11 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Well, in high schools, it's a matter of two things: instructors and money. With high schools where everyone can participate as long as you show up with your horn, there will always be both fantastic and not-so-fantastic musicians. Instruction is so crucial in the high school setting. When my friend was in high school, his freshman and sophomore years were fantastic. My friend's band would leave crowds speechless, and sophomore year they won a national championship as grand champions (I forget which circuit... either USSBA or BOA). Their band director was outstanding. The very next year, they got a new band director. Immediately, they were nothing in comparison. Just a simple change in directors completely altered the success of the band (3/4ths of the kids were still the same, so it wasn't the members that changed). Also, money is a big thing. Not only can a band from a rich school afford many things that others can't (like an incredible electronics sound system with microphones and synthesizers, or new instruments, or higher quality instructors), but it also tells the students something. Members of a band that have nice instruments and skilled instructors and a good practice field and a quality stadium are subconsciously told that what they do is important. Members of a band that have teenagers as instructors and crappy (or no) practice fields and old, worn down instruments and recycled guard equipment are subconsciously told that what they do isn't important. So even if there is the same amount of rehearsal time, the members of the first band will approach that practice time thinking, "What I am about to do is valuable," where the members of the second group will approach the practice time thinking the exact opposite. Does that make sense? A lot of the success of the group has to do with psychological/mental strength, not just the amount of rehearsal time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contrajedi8 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Well, in high schools and drum corps, it's a matter of two things: instructors and money. With high schools where everyone can participate as long as you show up with your horn, there will always be both fantastic and not-so-fantastic musicians. Instruction is so crucial in the high school setting. When my friend was in high school, his freshman and sophomore years were fantastic. My friend's band would leave crowds speechless, and sophomore year they won a national championship as grand champions (I forget which circuit... either USSBA or BOA). Their band director was outstanding. The very next year, they got a new band director. Immediately, they were nothing in comparison. Just a simple change in directors completely altered the success of the band (3/4ths of the kids were still the same, so it wasn't the members that changed). Also, money is a big thing. Not only can a band from a rich school afford many things that others can't (like an incredible electronics sound system with microphones and synthesizers, or new instruments, or higher quality instructors), but it also tells the students something. Members of a band that have nice instruments and skilled instructors and a good practice field and a quality stadium are subconsciously told that what they do is important. Members of a band that have teenagers as instructors and crappy (or no) practice fields and old, worn down instruments and recycled guard equipment are subconsciously told that what they do isn't important. So even if there is the same amount of rehearsal time, the members of the first band will approach that practice time thinking, "What I am about to do is valuable," where the members of the second group will approach the practice time thinking the exact opposite. Does that make sense? A lot of the success of the group has to do with psychological/mental strength, not just the amount of rehearsal time. Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCISuperfan Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share Posted October 5, 2011 Yes, money is a factor, but these two schools where both from very similar areas and circumstances financially. Money was very similar between the two. I appreciate the feedback from the marching band perspective, but what about from the drum corps perspective? You mentioned that instruction is absolutely critical and inferred it is the most important thing, do you think that BD's staff is THAT much better than Madisons??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thriving11 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Yes, money is a factor, but these two schools where both from very similar areas and circumstances financially. Money was very similar between the two. I appreciate the feedback from the marching band perspective, but what about from the drum corps perspective? You mentioned that instruction is absolutely critical and inferred it is the most important thing, do you think that BD's staff is THAT much better than Madisons??? Well, I don't really know the answers because there isn't really an answer. If there was a knowable, definable answer, people would be able to fix it. Instead, there are a lot of opinions and guesses. A very important difference between drum corps and high school band is that drum corps is auditioned, meaning that if you aren't good enough, you don't make it. A corps' recent history of success has a direct correlation to how many people come out to audition for the following year, as well as the musicianship level of the people auditioning. If a corps does very well, generally a lot of people will come out to audition for the corps. I can almost guarantee (I can't fully because I don't actually know for fact) that more people audition in the winter camps for Cavaliers, BD, Cadets, and Carolina Crown than in the winter camps for Spirit, Pioneers, Blue Knights, etc. It's easier to find 150 outstanding members in a group of 450 people than to find 150 outstanding members in a group of 250. You know what I mean? Another thing - lots of people use the "lower down" (I hate using that term, but I don't know how else to say it) corps as transition seasons into a "higher up" corps, meaning the "lower down" corps are literally younger. The average age of corps like Cavaliers, BD, Cadets, and Crown is usually about 20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerriTroop Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 I can't speak for the current marching band scene. That's pretty foreign to me at the moment. My take on the drum corps scene: Staff consistency - it's not just about talent, it's about chemistry. If they work professionally together, if they share a vision, if they inspire each other daily - those things are just as valuable as pedagogical experience and ability. Member talent - factors like true rookies in the corps (vs. rookies with corps experience), numbers at auditions, things of that nature. When you're BD, you may have a few very green people at your auditions, but most likely you've got a rather large talent pool of people with agility, endurance, grace and musical ability on your doorstep. The top-of-the-heap corps likely all have that advantage. On the other hand, corps that struggle to stay in semis, or finals, or world class don't have that same draw. They are often the fall-back corps. "If I don't make my dream corps I'll just show up at Corps XYZ in March because I know they'll have holes." (Sometimes those holes aren't there, though.) So then you have the pack in-between - the 3 or 4 corps who don't often crack the top 6 but don't fall out of finals. I'd say their talent pool is similar to the top pack, but maybe they don't have the programming strength, or arranging strength, or they have a particular weakness somewhere in their organization. Or, perhaps, they are trying to make their move and it's just that hard to find the weak spot in the current armor of the top tier. Next, I think there is something about DCI rules changes that actually set this up, quite by accident. When the sheets started to acknowledge more design decisions, the topsy-turvy placement potential dissipated. Now you've got the ability of a corps to rise or fall based on design because, as you noted, the talent levels aren't always so different. Lastly one should look at the money factor. Nobody is getting rich on drum corps as far as I know, but there IS a lot of good money management behind the stronger organizations. That doesn't happen overnight, and it happens because someone got smart about how to expand the operation and generate revenue without having to rely almost entirely on the beat of the "donate, donate, donate" drum. When your organization isn't limping from one fundraiser to another, you can focus your energies elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphplayer07 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Staff.... Period. The "big 3" corps may have members that aren't as green like Territroop mentioned but at the end if the day they are still kids that mess up on horn manuals, miss step offs, etc just like every other corps. They aren't machines. The best staffs get the best performance quality out of their members. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCISuperfan Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share Posted October 5, 2011 ^ I just have a hard time believing that the staff of the upper echelon corps are that much superior... The staff at blue knights have the same music degree's, previous DCI experience, talent pool, and a healthy budget that Carolina crown has... And yet blue knights have never cracked the top 6. They just arent up to snuff and put in so much time and dedication with an extremely talented staff and yet their programs just arent as innovative and as clean as the corps above them. It just doesnt make much sense to me that the staff is THAT much better in the top 6 than in the less successful corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruckner8 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 [snip] Whats the deal here?? Click here to see the answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Doherty Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Superfan, I think all the responses you received have merit. As mentioned, the auditon process can have a great bearing on player quality and the fact that the top 5 draw 450 auditioners vs. less for other corps gives them a huge pool to draw from. I also think staff and their practices can make a difference. . You questioned that if all staff factors are relatively equal, how can they be a differentiating factor? I would offer an analogy: if all college football coaches come from the same background - degree, playing experience and the like - why are the staffs of Nick Saban, Bob Stoops, Les Miles etc. consistently producing National Championship caliber teams? They are superior coaches with superior staffs and superior player talent. Good question. Keep participating. Kevin Doherty (kdoh) 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.