NR_Ohiobando Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I agree, but mostly in terms of stuff the battery could do. Their ideas never caught on consistently with other corps, mostly because the stuff they tried is incredibly difficult. (see 1998 percussion scores for more details) Almost every 90's Madison show had some pretty challenging choreography/instrument switching in the battery that even today would be considered crazy. 1990 had those odd looking Tenors 1991 had a cymbal rack, and even a totally different tuned set of tenors 1992 had the infamous snare to cymbal feature 1993 had the snare+tom add-on feature in Strawberry Soup (while marching) 1994 had another snare+cymbal feature, some marching latin instruments, and a "double battery" feature much like the 2011 Cadets show 1995 had a snare+cymbal+latin drums feature 1996 had 8 TENORS. ... 8 OF THEM. okay. 1997 had the "rotating-pirate-fight-rack-of-cymbals-and-metal" 1998 had players switching from snare to tenor and back again during each movement of the program. At points in the show there were 12 snares and 9 Tenors 1999 ...well... was fairly normal aside from the large battery size So yeah, I give Madison credit for at least trying some crazy stuff during the 90's with their battery. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 innovators isn't the right word, imo. but they were pretty amazing in the 90s. I have to agree with you. Raw, powerful and exciting entertainment shouldn't be considered an innovation...it should be the norm. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 innovators isn't the right word, imo. but they were pretty amazing in the 90s. I have to agree with you. Raw, powerful and exciting entertainment shouldn't be considered an innovation...it should be the norm. I don't have to agree with Lance. But I will:-) Madison was unfiltered excitement in the 90's. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swine Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 What were the comparative points to this "innovation?" Where was the State of the Art? The Hornline was _______ than any other corps. ("Louder" is not an answer... see Crossmen 1990) The Drums were _________ than any other corps. The Guard was __________ than any other corps. The drill was __________ than any other corps. The Book was ___________ than any other corps. Madison spent its bank on style rather than substance. Standing O's are fantastic, but there has to be more to a corps in order to win championships. E.g. 1995--certainly one of their most bombastic efforts. Musically, the writing equaled the effectiveness of the program (and face it... they were FAR better than the Cavaliers in Brass Perf. and Repertoire). Visually, it was their typical fourth-rate 1980s drill with an average drumline. 1988 was the exception to their own rule, and they won w/ wonderful design and execution (even though they were MUCH better in Semis). Plus, they had a lot of help from SCV's foul hornline and BD's lifeless visual program. They won by default that year (as did Cadets '90, Cavies '92 and Cavies '01). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Madison spent its bank on style rather than substance. Standing O's are fantastic, but there has to be more to a corps in order to win championships. Maybe that's the OP's point..... if "style" means entertaining as heck, and "substance" means winning championships, then give me "style" 24/7. Many times, for me, "innovative" = booooring. I miss Scott Stewart's presence in the junior circuit. When I read, "Standing O's are fantastic, but...", I don't get it. I don't go to drum corps shows for intellectualism. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 .......Standing O's are fantastic, but there has to be more to a corps in order to win championships........ You are assuming winning a championship was the absolute all ending factor; whereas the forefront was seemingly always ensuring a positive/uplifting experience for the members, striving for personal and group excellence within the membership, and thrilling the fans..........overall, good things tend to happen when the focus is geared towards that particular type of philosophy and sounds like a plan for success to me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TastyWaves Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Amazing. Fun. Chills. Excitement. Power. Flare. Pizzaz. And a lot of other words describe the scouts. But "innovation" is probably the least descriptive word for any of the 90s Scouts corps. They did "already been done" over and over, but did it AMAZINGLY well. In many cases, did it better. But they didnt "innovate" anything. And that shouldnt be taken as an insult. I dont think they were TRYING to innovate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammaster Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think "the place is electric" sums it up pretty much when thinking of 90's Scouts shows. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutMello Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Madison spent its bank on style rather than substance. Standing O's are fantastic, but there has to be more to a corps in order to win championships. You missed the point of what Madison was trying to achieve then. The program was extremely successful in many ways: 1) They were consistent finalists 2) They were consistent crowd favorites 3) Their year to year membership retention rates were extremely high (90% zone IIRC) 4) They were able to consistently bring in more than they spent on tour The membership loved what they were doing, the audience loved what they were doing, and they were financially and competitively successful. As a performing ensemble, how much more really matters? Edited March 5, 2012 by ScoutMello 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller30 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 What's sad is that I haven't seen Bill Zeir, Jeff Schultz, Chris Harmon, or Van Mathews mentioned in a thread specifically about the 90's Madison Scouts. 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.