Kamarag Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Heh... Sorry, that's what I see them as... A continuation of Star of Indiana.... If anything, they are more of a continuation of Suncoast Sound. That's where their roots are, and aside from Stat, the only other corps to really shift gears from year to year successfully. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) If anything, they are more of a continuation of Suncoast Sound. That's where their roots are, and aside from Stat, the only other corps to really shift gears from year to year successfully. Ok, Maybe they're more like a continuation of Suncoast Sound with Star-trained Brass staff and an arranger that the Cadets used ( who Star emulated a bit too).... At any rate, loved all those corps ( Suncoast and Cadets of the day), love Crown ( mostly) since 1990.... I can see visually, some of Suncoast ideas ( which basically comes down to staff and designers) coming through in there too. Either way, they're a mainstay near the top now. One of the few. Edited February 20, 2013 by jjeffeory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 My feeling is, previous rules WERE natural. But what does that mean? Nobody proposed them, nobody voted for them? What about the new judging sheets, first used for the ToC events in 2011 and then all season in 2012--is that change "natural" or "artificial", and why? It's just that no SINGLE corps was able to be determined BEST, under those rules, with such regularity as we see happening right now. If we're talking about just the top spot, that's just not true. We've seen the same streak, or a better one, before: --Blue Devils 2007-2012 - 4 wins in 6 years --Cavaliers 2001-2006 - 4 wins in 6 years --Blue Devils 1994-1999 - 4 wins in 6 years --Cadets 1983-1987 - 4 wins in 5 years --Blue Devils 1976-1980 - 4 wins in 5 years The stagnation, such as it is, is not among the very best corps. Life is cyclical. Today's Blue Devils could be tomorrow's Syracuse Brigadiers. Talk about a "fall from grace!" From your lips...? (No, I don't want BD to fold!) Again, create a system that enables ANYONE to be labeled "Winner." You will STILL have but one winner. You keep repeating this as if everyone else doesn't already know that. So, will you then create something different, yet again, for the coming year? I believe we already have a "natural" system that enables anyone to be a winner. So if the sheets just adopted are in fact "natural", does that mean the rules were not "natural" until 2012? To now create something else to specifically blow Blue Devils away DOES create an artificial outcome. Caps and boldface, really? I'm certainly not talking about BD specifically. But what about the figure from my original post, that I cited a few hours ago: 2011-2012 marked the first time in DCI's history that no Finals corps managed a new best placement two years running. Not to mention that it's been eight years since two corps managed to do so, and the only corps who have done so over the past ten years are Bluecoats and Carolina Crown. A disturbing trend? I do NOT believe we can ever create a different system that will take politics, human frailties out of influence. It is what it is. Which means the current system, which is not the exact same system as always has been used, is in fact influenced by politics and human frailties. And other systems, while like all of mankind's creations will be flawed, might be more or less influenced by those things, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 You are correct, N.E. A better way to put it would be this . . . No matter how many changes are made to the sheets, the probability of one corps, or small group of corps, going on a run and being continual winners remains the same. The only way to prevent that is to place restrictions on those who have been winning too often. For instance, no corps is allowed to win two years in a row, etc. That type of engineering is artificial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 actually, what Jeff said without taking the Lords name in vain has not been debunked, because at no time we have seen the G7 recant what they said in 2010 about Open Class corps. Having parsed, dissected and Zapruder filmed the slides in 2010 and since, it's quite clear how they feel about Open Class as a part od DCI, because it drains funds away from them. and it's hardly just Jeff, while also not taking the Lords name in vain, who has interpreted it that way. Far from it And it was not just in 2010. Back about 10 years ago, when Fiedler was either posting here or having interviews presented here, he made comments about how what we now call open class was being "subsidized" by the member corps, as if this was an undesirable state of affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 What was "said" was not really said at all. It was the interpretation of general bullet points from a leaked possibly incomplete proposal from a couple of corps. So if it was said in the DCI boardroom, and you were not there to hear it, it was not really said at all? What leads you to call the proposal "possibly incomplete"? All 66 pages of the PowerPoint were posted online. Also pretty sure it was seven corps, not "a couple". Says so on the first page. Some theorize, though, that only two authors really had meaningful input. There really never was distinct proof of G7 "ideology" in publicly released documentation in non-proposal form. We may make general inferences and agree/disagree on those inferences.So while you wait for the G7 to recant the ideas you feel they still hold and say that the fact that the don't is "proof". I will wait until G7 clearly state their ideaolgy about Open Class and use THAT as proof. Unless that also proves unpopular, in which case you will wait one day, then say that we cannot be sure the G7 still hold those views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I don't think lack of a recantment means full endorsement. How about the following - what do these mean? Page 1 of G7 Report: "ideas for change from 7 of the corps of Drum Corps International" Page 2 of G7 Report: "We have the backings of our boards, we have discussed matters in depth, and we are united in our goals." Sounds like full endorsement to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) How about the following - what do these mean? Page 1 of G7 Report: "ideas for change from 7 of the corps of Drum Corps International" Page 2 of G7 Report: "We have the backings of our boards, we have discussed matters in depth, and we are united in our goals." Sounds like full endorsement to me. They are ideas for change. Thank you for clearing that up. Everyone thinks they are mandates. Of course they endorse the ideas in the proposals at the time. However I'm speaking to the inferences made by DCPers based on the proposal... Specifically about open class corps. Edited February 20, 2013 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 So if it was said in the DCI boardroom, and you were not there to hear it, it was not really said at all? What leads you to call the proposal "possibly incomplete"? All 66 pages of the PowerPoint were posted online. Also pretty sure it was seven corps, not "a couple". Says so on the first page. Some theorize, though, that only two authors really had meaningful input. Unless that also proves unpopular, in which case you will wait one day, then say that we cannot be sure the G7 still hold those views. So you have a transcript of the DCI boardroom? Please share! Stop being stickler with "quoting" words and arguing their "intended" "meaning". The word "couple" wasn't meant to mislead anyone and you know that.... sheesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) And it was not just in 2010. Back about 10 years ago, when Fiedler was either posting here or having interviews presented here, he made comments about how what we now call open class was being "subsidized" by the member corps, as if this was an undesirable state of affairs. Are you Really trying to find a "negative" "connotation" to the word "subsidized"? It's hardly negative at all! Getting a subsidy doesn't mean that it's undeserible it means it's very desirable. See Farming subsidies and government subsides. Actual you may subsidize things which otherwise may not be productive under normal market conditions. Edited February 20, 2013 by charlie1223 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.