It's a Blue Devils world...

[perc2100]

How does one distinguish innovation from 'different for the sake of being different'?

I would say there are maybe two ways:

1) critics praise it. This is consistently happening with Blue Devils. While it's true that in the general 'art' world (visual, performing, etc) critics can be a crapshoot, it is not uncommon for the educated, experienced critics to appreciate and applaud innovative art even if the less experienced/educated critics don't (think the difference between, say, Roger Ebert's Pulitzer-Prize winning criticism vs the film critic for the Columbus Dispatch).

2) an artists' peers strive to emulate or top the new trend. This definitely seems to be happening with Blue Devils IMO if you look at the less corps. To truly compete for the World Class Championship in DCI, you truly have to generally be individualistic. I honestly believe Blue Devils, Crown, Phantom, SCV, Bluecoats, Cavaliers constantly do their own thing, even if they do their own unique "formula" of design trend. Getting further down the competitive ranks it gets murkier, as lower-achieving corps often try to emulate trends that are proven successful by the trend-setting Champion winners/contenders. Some to a better job than others of maintaing a consistently unique identity (like Blue Knights, for the most part), but it seems like several lower-achieving corps do their slightly diverging take on an already established trend. When a corps has a distinct design style that others try to emulate, they are innovative. Cadets in 2006-2008 were arguably "different for the sake of different," (which one was the MPR esque show?) and tellingly not generally emulated en mass. But I think that there are plenty of designers in DCI who try to emulate BD's show design "formula;" heck, there have been plenty of folks on DCP who seem to think that Crown's show this year is their attempt to emulate BD a little bit more in order to have a better chance at winning

[Fred Windish]

Seriously tired of dealing with the dullards on here! I really am!

Duuhhhh it aint on "mericin Idle and in 4/4 I gone hit em own the head! they hate us fur are freeedums! duuuuuuuuhhhhhhh!

Dullards, and yet paying customers. One and the same? I think not.

[tja273]

I honestly don't mean this is a snarky sarcastic or facetious way:

what is wrong with having to think about a show?

Are you the type of fan of the arts who doesn't like to expend a lot of thought when it comes to their entertainment? Do you feel that Blue Devils' shows are so deep you have a really hard time following everything?

I'm honestly curious. I've been the type that as I grew older & was in college I FAR started preferring shows that challenged me, made me think, gave me several layers to ponder, sometimes outright force me to do research or talk to others to understand subtleties or a design aspect. For example, there was something in BD's 2007 show that was based on a 1930's film that the corps mimicked/paid homage to. Previously I had not picked up on that homage, and after having it explained a little bit and doing a bit of research, it I dug the subtle tribute.

Conversely, I tend to really not like shows that seem to pander to the least amount of thought, like tribute shows. I was never a big fan of Cadets 2009, as I really feel like WSS has been over-done to the point that if a corps is going to do a straight-up WSS show without bringing anything new to the table, why bother? I felt the same about Surf last year, and while it can be argued that at least they might've turned younger generations of fans onto Bridgemen, other than that all it did was pander to nostalgia without adding anything new or providing any substance (FWIW, and way off-topic, I feel the same way about most JJ Abrams films).

Obviously most of USA arts audience prefers spectacle over substance: Transformers films have done LIGHT YEARS better than far superior indy films at the box office.

And again, that's fine: it is what it is. Folks can enjoy diving head-first into Blue Devils show, wasting time on the internet doing research to learn what the eff they're doing, or even just try to appreciate what they can understand (incredible execution on all sheets of some pretty dang difficult material at times). Folks can also enjoy easier-to-understad stuff, like SCV's interp. of Les Mis. There are different styles for different folks, and while there is a bit of 'grey' in between the ranks where mid-level corps often seem to emulate each other (or more aptly emulate the top dogs), there are a lot of different design concepts and enough subtle difference corps-coprs to make things enjoyable for a lot of fans wiling to come into a show with an open mind

I am with you on this. I will go home after a show and pull it up on Fan Network just to watch some of the corps again. Sometimes because I want to see an amazing part again. This year, I went home after Stanford to watch BD again. Why? Because I had no idea what I had just seen live. After the second viewing I couldn't get it out of my head.

Maybe it isn't for the casual fan that goes to one show and that is it. But I love a show that makes me want to see it again...for whatever reason. These are the shows I have on my computer, DVD shelf and iPod.

[srb30a]

I'll preface by saying that I'm more often not a fan of BD's shows, but this year in particular I was intrigued with their show from the first performance. I too find myslef going back to the video to watch again. I'm intrigued with the concept and each time I see it I become more so. It seems, to me, at least that every year the designers are getting better and better with the direction they are taking the corps. It may be too intellectual for some, but so be it. I think it's going to do nothing but push other corps to strive to venture into new directions.

I think it will be really interesting to see this show at finals!

That said, there are several other corps that have some really great shows this year. I think the top six is going to be a horse race this year.

Edited June 27, 2013 by srb30a

[saxfreq1128]

I feel that the majority DO enjoy it.

As much as I'd love this to be true, it's only June; "the majority" still haven't seen BD's show, so it's really too early to say.

That said, I see no reason for this show not to have mass appeal. I think it's BD's most straightforwardly entertaining show in recent years, not least because there's not much to "get" -- we all know what Rite of Spring is and what it's about (or we should), and we all have an idea of what pagan rituals look like, even if we've only seen Indiana Jones. And "Rite" is a famously stirring, exhilarating piece of music (riots!), and I think BD's take on the jazz adaptations of it will be (once they're performing it well...) pretty darn exciting for a wide range of people.

Also, the show is undeniably difficult -- you simply cannot make the case that performing an adaptation of "Rite" is easy and still seem like a reasonable person.

The show's not there yet, though. But again, its only June.

Edited June 27, 2013 by saxfreq1128

[cixelsyd]

I honestly don't mean this is a snarky sarcastic or facetious way:

what is wrong with having to think about a show?

Are you the type of fan of the arts who doesn't like to expend a lot of thought when it comes to their entertainment? Do you feel that Blue Devils' shows are so deep you have a really hard time following everything?

I'm honestly curious. I've been the type that as I grew older & was in college I FAR started preferring shows that challenged me, made me think, gave me several layers to ponder, sometimes outright force me to do research or talk to others to understand subtleties or a design aspect. For example, there was something in BD's 2007 show that was based on a 1930's film that the corps mimicked/paid homage to. Previously I had not picked up on that homage, and after having it explained a little bit and doing a bit of research, it I dug the subtle tribute.

Conversely, I tend to really not like shows that seem to pander to the least amount of thought, like tribute shows. I was never a big fan of Cadets 2009, as I really feel like WSS has been over-done to the point that if a corps is going to do a straight-up WSS show without bringing anything new to the table, why bother? I felt the same about Surf last year, and while it can be argued that at least they might've turned younger generations of fans onto Bridgemen, other than that all it did was pander to nostalgia without adding anything new or providing any substance.

I had the exact opposite reaction. I thought it was fascinating to hear how Surf would re-arrange the couple of familiar Bridgemen tunes they selected, and how they would convey the Bayonne groove with other songs Bridgemen never played. And since I do not follow pop music, I was prompted to do a little research of my own to find out how cleverly Party Rock Anthem was arranged, and how the visual choices fit with it... and ended up appreciating the show more as a result.

I have no problem with a show having many layers and subtle design features to challenge those of us who are deeply engaged in the activity - as long as the first layer is not omitted.

[cixelsyd]

I would say there are maybe two ways:

1) critics praise it. This is consistently happening with Blue Devils.

That is not true. Certain critics (judges) may offer praise, but other critics (audience) have opposing reactions.

2) an artists' peers strive to emulate or top the new trend. This definitely seems to be happening with Blue Devils IMO if you look at the less corps.

Having trouble with this contention too. Even though intuitively, corps usually do mimic what wins, I do not see other corps mimicking the unique design aspects that have characterized recent BD title winning shows. Maybe some examples would shed light on this.

[Plan9]

So here's what kills me - you could say, "some people have different tastes from other people". But no, you wrap it up in a condescending tone, as if liking a melody line means you oppose "progress" . This seems a pretty common argument I read time and again. The whole - drum corps needs to "evolve" meme. Right now it's evolving into all the laughable things you get embarrassed by when you watch a garden variety marching band.

Who will step forward to say, the Emperor has no clothes????

The Emperor's mother!

I don't think too many on here are suggesting that drum corps needs to evolve, just open up it's field of vision. The truth is that their are very few corps designing "progressive" shows, but the impact is enormous strictly because of their placement. If BD and CC were placing 3rd or 4th at these shows, there would be a whole different dialogue. The anger would go away and the talk about progressive designs would dry up. So it's not so much about the designs as it is about the outcomes.

[cixelsyd]

Not to mention that many of corps' folded well before electronics, brass in any key 150 members allowed, and amplification we approved.

Has anyone done any actual research to find out how many World Class corps on a year, or every-five-year-basis or something, to map out when the peak of drum corps' folding was? I would bet at worst it is consistent from a per-capita stand point (for example, the percentage of corps lost is fairly consistent 70s-80s-90s-00s), or maybe even more corps per-capta folded in the 80s-early 90s than mid/late 90s-now. I wouldn't be surprised if in fact WC corps numbers have stabilized since amplification & electronics were implemented.

Why would numbers on just WC be more informative than the overall activity numbers MikeD refers to?

World class status is an arbitrary distinction made by activity insiders via frequently changing policies. For those unaware, here are examples of how dramatic those changes have been.

- Until around 1994, corps were free to choose what class to compete in, and thus "open class" was the label assigned to the top class BITD. DCI had no class divisions in their first three years. In 1974, the East Scarborough Kinsmen, a class C corps from Ontario that did not even have a full length show, competed in the DCI Championship prelims, taking an undertime penalty and finishing in last place. Were they "world class"?

- From 1975 to 1982, DCI had open class and class A, but corps had to choose one or the other. However, each contest was different. In four seasons (1977, 1978, 1980 and 1981), the Bluecoats competed in class A at the U.S. Open, then competed in open class at DCI Championships. Were the Bluecoats "world class" in those years?

- From 1983 through 1993, DCI employed various class definitions which allowed the highest placing corps from lower classes to advance into open class prelims. Corps like the 1984 Florida Wave advanced farther, into the top 25 and DCI membership. The Ventures, an all-girl unit that had formerly competed in a separate class when all-girl corps were more numerous, made top 25 five years in a row while competing annually in class A. Were these corps "world class"?

- From 1994 through 2002, the top class in DCI was no longer open for anyone to enter. Only member corps and a certain number of advancing corps from the lower divisions could compete in the division I prelims. The number of member corps was capped at an arbitrary maximum of 21, after having fluctuated between 12 and 25 over the years. The number of advancing corps was initially kept at 7, but later revised to just 5. At this point, the number of "world class" corps was clearly a number predetermined by DCI policy.

- After 2002, the top class was completely separated from the other competitive divisions. No more corps advanced from division II/III to compete in division I later in championship week. Division I (now "world class") and division II/III used separate sheets, thus not competing head to head at any other DCI contests during the season either. Advancement to world class became a process governed by a committee and a vote of the member corps. Again, the number of "world class" corps is now a number determined by the powers that be, not by whether corps are folding.

Naturally, when DCI governs how many corps are "world class", the number will be more stable. With 24 corps in world class in 2004 and 2005, the Blue Stars had to move heaven and earth to get into world class. When several world class corps folded after the 2006 season, DCI was remarkably accomodating to Academy in their promotion.

Had you posed this same question a year ago, I would have said that world class is undeniably more stable today. Recent events concerning Teal Sound and Glassmen, however, make that answer less clear.

[ShortAndFast]

I would say there are maybe two ways:

1) critics praise it. This is consistently happening with Blue Devils. While it's true that in the general 'art' world (visual, performing, etc) critics can be a crapshoot, it is not uncommon for the educated, experienced critics to appreciate and applaud innovative art even if the less experienced/educated critics don't (think the difference between, say, Roger Ebert's Pulitzer-Prize winning criticism vs the film critic for the Columbus Dispatch).

2) an artists' peers strive to emulate or top the new trend. This definitely seems to be happening with Blue Devils IMO if you look at the less corps. To truly compete for the World Class Championship in DCI, you truly have to generally be individualistic. I honestly believe Blue Devils, Crown, Phantom, SCV, Bluecoats, Cavaliers constantly do their own thing, even if they do their own unique "formula" of design trend. Getting further down the competitive ranks it gets murkier, as lower-achieving corps often try to emulate trends that are proven successful by the trend-setting Champion winners/contenders. Some to a better job than others of maintaing a consistently unique identity (like Blue Knights, for the most part), but it seems like several lower-achieving corps do their slightly diverging take on an already established trend. When a corps has a distinct design style that others try to emulate, they are innovative. Cadets in 2006-2008 were arguably "different for the sake of different," (which one was the MPR esque show?) and tellingly not generally emulated en mass. But I think that there are plenty of designers in DCI who try to emulate BD's show design "formula;" heck, there have been plenty of folks on DCP who seem to think that Crown's show this year is their attempt to emulate BD a little bit more in order to have a better chance at winning

DCI is not an art exhibition. It is a competition. So the fact that various corps are trying to copy the current BD formula is simply a reflection of the fact that the judges are rewarding it. And conversely, nobody copied Cadets 06-08 because it was not rewarded. So the copy cats tell you that DCI judges like BD's formula, but you already knew that. It doesn't tell you anything about whether the rival design teams found it worthy, just that they want to win.

Really, DCI has always been like this. Remember the "first we zigged, then everybody zigged..." t-shirt? The judges loved the 80's Cadets and everyone tried to copy it. Same for 90's BD. Same for 00's Cavaliers. Personally I think BD's current flavor is reaching it's expiration date. Crown, Cadets, et. al. would be better served figuring out the next "zag".