HockeyDad Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 no youre changing what i said....i didnt say engaging just the judges,...engaging anyone ..and shows do that...without baby throwin No, I'm saying that neither you nor I know for sure what was meant by introducing the term "engaging." We each have our speculation. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) I don't buy the original premise--that the stands were full back in the day and they're NOT now. Like TimK, I went to the CYO Nationals Craiga, you know I respect you man, but we can't be involved in revisionist history here to prove a point. DCI Crowds seem to be holding steady, and thats a good thing. But there is no value in trying to elevate the present by trying to paint a picture ( good or bad ) that is simply not accurate. Its serves no purpose and does not elevate the level of understanding needed to push us forward and grow this audience base that no doubt everybody wants. The past is gone, and it was not as idyllic as some sometimes make it out to be. Agreed. That said, accuracy is always the best way to approach these things. For example, the CYO Nationals in Boston used to be held at Boston College's Alumni Stadium. In the mid 60's, through the late 70's, this show brought in every year between 12,000 and 18,000 fans. I was there. I competed there. I went there other years as staff assistant, other years as a show coordinating volunteer and other years as a simple spectator. We read the press releases each year after the show to confirm our audience estimates. Those are the numbers, trust me on this. The CYO Nationals this year was a wonderful show. I enjoyed it immensely. But there were maybe 5,000-6,000 fans in attendance. Not bad by current standards. Not bad at all. But for clarity sake the crowds were nowhere near what they were at the CYO Nationals in Boston in the 60's and the 70's, and for clarity and accuracy needed to point that out to you. That said, I appreciate your insights and analysis on most things here and this is simply is one of the few, and rare times we simply disagree on something from the past... ie, audience attendence at specific shows over the years. Edited September 5, 2012 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actucker Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 No, I'm saying that neither you nor I know for sure what was meant by introducing the term "engaging." We each have our speculation. That's all. You're playing with words here. The term engaging is not ambiguous. Who's to say that the term has to be specific to the audience and the judges. When its all said and done, everyone in the stands, judges and spectators alike are all fans of the activity, or they wouldn't be there. So engaging for the judges should mean engaging for the fans and vice versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 No, I'm saying that neither you nor I know for sure what was meant by introducing the term "engaging." We each have our speculation. That's all. im trying to give you the explanation as it was explained to me by Michael, as the way the 2 staffs I am on have interp. it but you seem to not want to hear it or buy the explanation. thats cool...no prob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 the big issue with what youre asking is that enjoyment, entertainment, good, bad,like, dislikes are all subjective and will vary from show to show, and person to person. So what? Judging is subjective to begin with! You demonstrate exactly what the problem is here....this attitude that contest results should not be permitted to vary from show to show, or from person to person (i.e. judge to judge). It is an old 1970s-era myth that any inconsistency must = bad judging, and so to fix it, all judges must conform to a consensus. That's how slotting was born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Actually I was alluding to the idea that people view the present through rose-coloured glasses too. Your reply proves the point. You couldn't acknowledge that there are problems. Everything old = bad, everything new = good. I disagree with the premise. I loved when I marched...and I love the shows of today. Drum corps was changing a lot all through my era of marching, teaching and judging...1964-80. There was nothing 'wrong' then, and there is nothing 'wrong' now. Each era brings new and exciting elements to the activity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 You're playing with words here. The term engaging is not ambiguous. Who's to say that the term has to be specific to the audience and the judges. When its all said and done, everyone in the stands, judges and spectators alike are all fans of the activity, or they wouldn't be there. So engaging for the judges should mean engaging for the fans and vice versa. So when BD's shows this year were met with a lot of silence (go ahead and disagree with me on that.."where I was sitting there was lots of cheering" ... ok); that means that.....the fans were engaged. Sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 So what? Judging is subjective to begin with! You demonstrate exactly what the problem is here....this attitude that contest results should not be permitted to vary from show to show, or from person to person (i.e. judge to judge). It is an old 1970s-era myth that any inconsistency must = bad judging, and so to fix it, all judges must conform to a consensus. That's how slotting was born. not true.....bitd when there was alot of movement it was a hot mess ....subjective even more than now even though it was a so called tic system......movement is fine BUT..you cant leave this to an audience with no criteria..thats insane..and how would you do that them...what would make the judging fair at all? judging has many flaws but leaving it to and audience is another can of worms.....if thats what people want then do away with judging all together..i would venture to say that would be the death of drum corps and fast for many reasons 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 im trying to give you the explanation as it was explained to me by Michael, as the way the 2 staffs I am on have interp. it but you seem to not want to hear it or buy the explanation. thats cool...no prob. I thought it was 2 dci and 1 dca staff, you've repeated it so many times I have it memorized. Yes, you know it all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Agreed. The old justify-and validate security blanket. It's comforting. Except that "need to evolve" can't explain or excuse the 90%+ decrease in sheer numbers since the DCI evolutionists ended the Golden Age. That particular ghost isn't as easily explained with "need to evolve", and so the stalwarts ignore it, just like a kid whistling past a graveyard. (Whoops ... wrong choice of words.) Except you ignore that almost all of those corps that folded over time had very little, if anything, to do with DCI. They were the small local corps people are extolling. 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.