cowtown Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 100 Trees? That’s a lot of stuff on the field. If they set the stage and them lose them, it could be cool. But I don’t like props. I think corps should get dinged for poor use of props yet they never do and since 2008 BD prop MO has been to use them as a visual reference point for drill – run to that tree in 2 counts – which isn’t’ ‘marching’ in my book so they are a visual cheat But, we’ll see – I’m less nervous about these than Cadets 16 towers of junk hogging the field Oh, I think BD got robbed in 95 –I was there, loved the Cavies show but BD was way better – I’d had Cadets in 4th though, Madison over them maybe even put Scouts in second with a GE/ Horn line bonus - that Cavie show was dirty at the end and that hornline was weak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammaster Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 100 Trees? That's a lot of stuff on the field. If they set the stage and them lose them, it could be cool. But I don't like props. I think corps should get dinged for poor use of props yet they never do and since 2008 BD prop MO has been to use them as a visual reference point for drill – run to that tree in 2 counts – which isn't' 'marching' in my book so they are a visual cheat But, we'll see – I'm less nervous about these than Cadets 16 towers of junk hogging the field Oh, I think BD got robbed in 95 –I was there, loved the Cavies show but BD was way better – I'd had Cadets in 4th though, Madison over them maybe even put Scouts in second with a GE/ Horn line bonus - that Cavie show was dirty at the end and that hornline was weak the 95 show had one serious drum line! BDB is playing a tune from that show as their closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 100 Trees? That's a lot of stuff on the field. If they set the stage and them lose them, it could be cool. But I don't like props. I think corps should get dinged for poor use of props yet they never do and since 2008 BD prop MO has been to use them as a visual reference point for drill – run to that tree in 2 counts – which isn't' 'marching' in my book so they are a visual cheat But, we'll see – I'm less nervous about these than Cadets 16 towers of junk hogging the field It appears to be more like 50 (5 in each line front-to-back and splitting yard lines -- at the start at least). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammaster Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 [/size] It appears to be more like 50 (5 in each line front-to-back and splitting yard lines -- at the start at least). yea maybe so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Again, it's perfectly reasonable for an uninformed audience to guess as to the purposes of the show before them, and judge the show accordingly. Anyone who has a better way to describe BD's intentions is free to offer that to the conversation. If you think Stu's interpretation is wrong, suggest a different one. Herein is the huge disconnect between the way the audience reacted to the show as opposed to the judges; it is also an indication of what I believe is a huge problem with the current state of affairs within DCI. The typical, and I would say overwhelming number, audience members had no clue whatsoever about the historical aspects of Cabaret Voltaire and Dada, nor did they really care; all they wanted, and why they paid the big bucks to attend, was to be entertained (not educated). Whereas the judges were being fed continuous verbal and written data from the BD design staff concerning the show concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Whereas the judges were being fed continuous verbal and written data from the BD design staff concerning the show concept. Well, to be fair, that's been happening for several years. It's something most, if not all, corps are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) The point is that they are bantering back and forth with definitive statements about what the BD staff did and did not take into account when designing their show, as if they really knew what the BD staff was actually thinking. I have no idea what YOU are thinking on this, let alone what the BD staff was thinking when they designed their 2012 show. I only picked up on a previous posters remark that it was meant " to offend ". I have no idea if it was designed " to offend audiences " or not. I only responded to IF it was meant to offend. The notion that somebody thinks that I know what BD was thinking when they designed their 2012 show gives me WAY more credit as an outsider than they would give to me, or I would even bestow upon myself. So there is no further confusion on this, let me be perfectly clear that I have no idea whatsoever as to what the BD staff were thinking when they got together somewhere to hash out what their theme and show design for their 2012 production would be. I don't think I can be any more clearer now on this. So I hope this clears up any confusion out there regarding what the BD staff was thinking. I don't have a friggin clue what they all were thinking regarding this production. Edited May 31, 2013 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) Whereas the judges were being fed continuous verbal and written data from the BD design staff concerning the show concept. I agree. There was time when a show theme needed no explanation to either audiences or judges. The Corps was able to communicate their theme in a coherent manner to both audiences and judges alike. But things change. Audiences today are easily confused with many Corps shows and themes that today's Corps are attempting to convey in on field performances. But it would be folly to criticise alone the upwards of 300,000 estimated audience attendees that get to observe some of these confusing shows, when its quite apparent that most in judging community these days don't have a clue on what many of the Corps are attempting to convey on the field either. We have arrived at a place and time where it is imperative for Corps staff to sit down and verbally explain to the judges what it is they can not do effectively with music and visuals alone. As such, the staffs now sit down with the judges across a table with perhaps a cup of coffee to explain things to them. Is this particular " change " good for Drum Corps and its quest to grow an audience base ? I guess the answer to this question is of a personal nature. If people are happy with this " change ", then we will probably get more of this in the future. Whether this " change " will lead to audience growth is speculative at best, and I certainly believe that its not a good thing when many in the audience and judging community are clueless about these shows. If judges now need to have the show explained to them now these days, then perhaps the train has gone off the rails a bit here of late. Maybe, just maybe, we might want to consider " changing " this. They say that " music and dance are the universal language". This means that no matter where you go, nor no matter the audience, the music and dance itself conveys the central theme and its message intended. Music and dance are the unspoken word. If you have to" splain it ", then you really don't need the music and dance performers at all. You need instead an Orator or a Story Teller or some such. Edited May 31, 2013 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 This is semantics. You and everyone else who read Stu's or BRASSO's posts know perfectly well that they're not psychics who had read the minds of BD staff--which means everyone was well aware that Stu's and BRASSO's statements were their interpretation of BD's purposes (in the lack of any clear explanation from the corps). Stu no more needed to add weak qualifying phrases like "I suppose" then anyone should ever need to use "in my opinion" when stating something that is obviously not a fact. Again, it's perfectly reasonable for an uninformed audience to guess as to the purposes of the show before them, and judge the show accordingly. Anyone who has a better way to describe BD's intentions is free to offer that to the conversation. If you think Stu's interpretation is wrong, suggest a different one. That is my point...I have no idea what they think when designing a show. I don't make definitive "they are doing this or they mean that" or other similar statements. IMO it is not just semantics. I don't think people should have to use IMO either, but I also don't think posters should speak as if they know something that they just have no way of knowing. They don't like the BD show...that is fine, and they are certainly free to give their opinions of the show. But to pretend to be inside the heads of the BD staff...and assign them such lousy motives out of thin air...is something I do not agree with, hence my comments. It is demeaning to the staff, again IMO. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Someone help me out - I may just be missing the obvious, but what do trees have to do with Rite of Spring? Mike Actually, what does nature have to do with the Seasons anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts