It's a Blue Devils world...

[chaddyt]

Cadets 06-08 average placement: 4.0

BD 08-12 average placement: 1.4

Pretty obvious which show style was rewarded more by the judges, no?

I also don't see "This I Believe" and "E=mc2" as very similar designs, although both use voice. Notably, Cadets 07 had its own script and frequently would pause the action so that actors could recite their lines. The generally terrible quality of the script and the way it chopped up the source material (e.g. turning Blue Shades into a simulated Cadets rehearsal) make me pretty happy that this didn't catch on. Crown's use of voice this year is pretty similar to BD 12, where it's mostly a "percussion" voice that's not necessarily the musical or visual focus at any given moment. It's also taken from the EotB source material, which I think is wiser than a drum corps instructor having a go as a script writer.

The script is taken from EotB, yes. The music it's being spoken over is from a completely unrelated work. Personally, I think Bud's brief monologue from the Abyss better sums up what Crown is trying to do this year....

Virgil: G--d-----, you #####! You never backed away from anything in your life! Now fight!

[slaps Lindsey]

Virgil: Fight!

[slaps Lindsey again]

Virgil: Fight! Right now! Do it! Fight G--d-----! Fight! Fight! Fiiiiight!

Very romantic.

[chris ncsu]

Cadets 06-08 average placement: 4.0

BD 08-12 average placement: 1.4

Pretty obvious which show style was rewarded more by the judges, no?

I also don't see "This I Believe" and "E=mc2" as very similar designs, although both use voice. Notably, Cadets 07 had its own script and frequently would pause the action so that actors could recite their lines. The generally terrible quality of the script and the way it chopped up the source material (e.g. turning Blue Shades into a simulated Cadets rehearsal) make me pretty happy that this didn't catch on. Crown's use of voice this year is pretty similar to BD 12, where it's mostly a "percussion" voice that's not necessarily the musical or visual focus at any given moment. It's also taken from the EotB source material, which I think is wiser than a drum corps instructor having a go as a script writer.

Not sure why you don't include 05 in that Cadets period. That's a gold and silver right there.

Not sure how "12341234123412341234" is much different from Cadets' or Coats' drumspeak, perhaps mixed with a little Cadets 06 singer. Not sure how the ballad narration this year is much different from what Cadets did in 07 and 08.

[garfield]

Whether BD's "current flavor" expires soon or not, there is sufficient proof that designing outside of the norm is very competitive and smart designers will look to improve on the effort. Having said that...BD is not likely to depart in some other direction unless their productions and reception get stale....and there is no indication of that happening.

Not going to let this one get away, Plan. There is no proof what-so-ever that BD is designing "outside the norm". In fact, I think their success is due to exactly the opposite.

Every corps out there is designing for the sheets because it's obvious that BD excels at designing for the sheets. The norm is designing to the sheets so BD excels at designing INSIDE the norm.

BD's shows will change when the sheets change and their demonstrated ability to "Zig" when the sheets "zig" and zag when the sheets zag, all but guarantees that BD's winning ways will continue.

If there's a secret to their success, it's that, but it's surely not their ability to design "outside the box". It's just the opposite.

It's also the source of the concern by those who are afraid of a stale, unexciting activity as every corps attempts to follow BD's lead to sheet dominance.

The corps that can claim the "outside the norm" label will be the one who can design to the sheets without looking, smell, tasting, or sounding like BD (and I would suggest without looking like any of the top 3 or 4).

Edited June 27, 2013 by garfield

[garfield]

Not sure why you don't include 05 in that Cadets period. That's a gold and silver right there.

Not sure how "12341234123412341234" is much different from Cadets' or Coats' drumspeak, perhaps mixed with a little Cadets 06 singer. Not sure how the ballad narration this year is much different from what Cadets did in 07 and 08.

Just for clarity, it's 123412345612345678.

:w00t:/>

[actucker]

No, he did NOT state " that if there is never deviation from the norm, then there is no possibility for progress". He did not state this at all above. You need to reread what he said, as this was not it at all. As such, I did not respond to what you believe he stated above.

Nice try though.

What he originally said:

"Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible."

What I said he said:

"if there is never deviation from the norm, then there is no possibility for progress."

What you tried to claim he said:

"deviation from the norm always result in progress"

Now, lets break that down. The first 2 statements can easily be broken down into 2 parts, one referring to deviation from the norm, the other dealing with progress. "Without deviation from the norm" assumes the condition that the status quo is always adhered to, or conversely that there is an absence of deviation. The condition in my statement specifically says, there is no deviation from the norm. Those two conditions are exactly the same, with slightly different wording. Now, for the second half of each statement. "progress is not possible". Seems simple enough. It makes the assertion that progress is not possible, or that "there is no possibility for progress".

So, semantically, the two statements are the same. Essentially, there are a variation on a conditional statement (if p then q), in which deviation from the norm (or deviation for short) is represented by p, and possibility of progress (progress) is q. In each statement, the argument is made that if NOT P, then NOT q.

if not deviation, then not progress

Notice that logically, there is no causality implied. "If not p then not q" does not logically assume "if p, then q". That would be a logical fallacy. For example, take the statement if "I don't audition for the snare line, I won't earn a spot". The meaning is clear. "If not p (audition), then not q (earn a spot)." Truth or no, the argument can not be made that the statement implies the opposite: "If I audition for the snare line, I will earn a spot".

Now, lets look at your statement. "Deviation from the norm always results in progress." You've inferred the same opposing conditional statement from the original statement that we just demonstrated can't be inferred logically.

So which one of us has a better handle on what was originally said?

[BRASSO]

Cadets opened the door in many ways during 06-08....they paid somewhat of a price but it paved the way for many of the designs we have now.

I see no evidence that supports the contention that a winning Corps the following year has Corps change their styles to mimic that of the previous years winning Corps. If so, logically we would have had Corps change their styles in 2009 to that of the the Phantom Regiment's DCI winning ( and fan winning ) 2008 stylistic production of " Spartacus ". When the Cavaliers won their Titles back a few years ago, I did not see Phantom Regiment, Carolina Crown, Blue Devils, Cadets copy their style of show at all. BD won in 2009 with a show " Happy ", playing " happy days are here again " and so forth. How was this effected in any manner, shape, or form by the 2008 Phantom Regiment show revolving around slave brutality leading to slave uprising ? What visuals or music did BD do in their DCI winning 2009 show production that mimic that of Phantom of 2008 ? The only trend I see of late is that BD shows are winning because the judges like these shows of late. Period. I don't see the Cadets show, nor Phantom's show, mimic that of BD. And I don't see BD's shows the last 2 years that mimic that of the "Angels and Demons" Cadets winning show with its visuals and music of 2011 either. Nor Cadets engaged in a mimic of the BD style of shows of late. I don't see any connections at all as a matter of fact, and never have. But thats probably just me.

Edited June 27, 2013 by BRASSO

[BRASSO]

What you tried to claim he said:

"deviation from the norm always result in progress"

Now, lets break that down. The first 2 statements can easily be broken down into 2 parts, one referring to deviation from the norm, the other dealing with progress. "Without deviation from the norm" assumes the condition that the status quo is always adhered to, or conversely that there is an absence of deviation. The condition in my statement specifically says, there is no deviation from the norm. Those two conditions are exactly the same, with slightly different wording. Now, for the second half of each statement. "progress is not possible". Seems simple enough. It makes the assertion that progress is not possible, or that "there is no possibility for progress".

So, semantically, the two statements are the same. Essentially, there are a variation on a conditional statement (if p then q), in which deviation from the norm (or deviation for short) is represented by p, and possibility of progress (progress) is q. In each statement, the argument is made that if NOT P, then NOT q.

if not deviation, then not progress

Notice that logically, there is no causality implied. "If not p then not q" does not logically assume "if p, then q". That would be a logical fallacy. For example, take the statement if "I don't audition for the snare line, I won't earn a spot". The meaning is clear. "If not p (audition), then not q (earn a spot)." Truth or no, the argument can not be made that the statement implies the opposite: "If I audition for the snare line, I will earn a spot".

Now, lets look at your statement. "Deviation from the norm always results in progress." You've inferred the same opposing conditional statement from the original statement that we just demonstrated can't be inferred logically.

So which one of us has a better handle on what was originally said?

I have neither the interest, nor the time to revisit this topic with you. I've moved on from it after repling in the manner and fashion that I intended to. I'm content with my reply to him. As such, I see no need to regurgitate neither his, nor my remarks any further with you. I have since moved on from it. He apparently has as well. Thats good enough for me. Have a nice day.

Edited June 27, 2013 by BRASSO

[cixelsyd]

Cadets opened the door in many ways during 06-08....

I think the "door" was in their 2005 show.

[ShortAndFast]

I see no evidence that supports the contention that a winning Corps the following year has Corps change their styles to mimic that of the previous years winning Corps. If so, logically we would have had Corps change their styles in 2009 to that of the the Phantom Regiment's DCI winning ( and fan winning ) 2008 stylistic production of " Spartacus ". When the Cavaliers won their Titles back a few years ago, I did not see Phantom Regiment, Carolina Crown, Blue Devils, Cadets copy their style of show at all. BD won in 2009 with a show " Happy ", playing " happy days are here again " and so forth. How was this effected in any manner, shape, or form by the 2008 Phantom Regiment show revolving around slave brutality leading to slave uprising ? What visuals or music did BD do in their DCI winning 2009 show production that mimic that of Phantom of 2008 ? The only trend I see of late is that BD shows are winning because the judges like these shows of late. Period. I don't see the Cadets show, nor Phantom's show, mimic that of BD. And I don't see BD's shows the last 2 years that mimic that of the "Angels and Demons" Cadets winning show with its visuals and music of 2011 either. Nor Cadets engaged in a mimic of the BD style of shows of late. I don't see any connections at all as a matter of fact, and never have. But thats probably just me.

I don't think recent Cadets or any edition of Phantom could be said to have dominated DCI. Cadets 83-87 (average placement 1.6) certainly did dominate, and lots of corps "borrowed" from their designs. Cavaliers 00-06 (average placement 1.3) certainly did dominate, and again many borrowed. BD 08-12 (average placement 1.4) is just as dominant as those two examples. It would be very surprising if nobody was trying to learn from their successes.

I see a lot of BD influences in "Side by Side". The props as the centerpiece of the show design. The slower and stylistically different drill. The emphasis on blending multiple pieces of music to communicate the visual theme, rather than playing straight-up charts as Cadets have tended to do in recent years. Maybe associating those things with BD is all in my head, but there's no denying this year is a pretty noticeable departure from the design style of recent Cadets efforts.

[drilltech1]

I don't think recent Cadets or any edition of Phantom could be said to have dominated DCI. Cadets 83-87 (average placement 1.6) certainly did dominate, and lots of corps "borrowed" from their designs. Cavaliers 00-06 (average placement 1.3) certainly did dominate, and again many borrowed. BD 08-12 (average placement 1.4) is just as dominant as those two examples. It would be very surprising if nobody was trying to learn from their successes.

I see a lot of BD influences in "Side by Side". The props as the centerpiece of the show design. The slower and stylistically different drill. The emphasis on blending multiple pieces of music to communicate the visual theme, rather than playing straight-up charts as Cadets have tended to do in recent years. Maybe associating those things with BD is all in my head, but there's no denying this year is a pretty noticeable departure from the design style of recent Cadets efforts.

Cadets have overlayed musical selections several times going back to the 1980's. I can think of WSS and Les Mis as two examples right off the top of my head. Blending music is not merely a BD contribution to the activity by any means. Even Angels and Demons overlayed themes leading to visual development.