Downingtown Review

[Shenandoah Vibrato]

Can't say enough about how well this show went.....superb performances and good to see old friends and meet new ones.....thanx Jeff for sitting off to the side so I could see, oh maybe I'll share my 1st time ever (in 55 years) of experiencing a soundwave....holy lutte fisk.....nope not them......Buc's trumpet line :worthy:/> :worthy:/> :worthy:/>

Guido

Hey Guido! If you're so short, why were you the first one I spotted in the crowd from the 50? Bonjour Mon Ami

[Centurions PR]

Drum corps is a great community and the bond between all performers is something that is hard to describe. I know, I've been trying unsuccessfully to explain it to my wife for years. She still can't understand why I would subject my aging body to such abuse as a long bus ride to the east coast. But, she's never been standing on the starting line waiting to perform a program into which you've invested a lot of blood, sweat and tears together with a group of people that in many respects may be closer than most blood relationship families. You don't even need to say anything to one another, just look into each others eyes as you prepare to enter the field and it is almost like reading minds. You just can't explain some things in words.

Very well said, this really sums up our activity so well!!! :worthy:/>

[Jimbalaya]

lolol.....probably because my big 'grand bouche' was open, eh mon ami??? good to see you and the corps, sorry that we didn't catch up, but will see you in Annapolis

Guido

Hey Guido! If you're so short, why were you the first one I spotted in the crowd from the 50? Bonjour Mon Ami :thumbup:/>

[Sayre Kulp]

Reminds me of a corps last year that would just take any parent or sibling that was around and put them in a pit. The pit was practically bigger then the other sections combined it seemed.

I hate the 35 member rule. I guess I understand why it's there, but when I worked with Shenandoah Sound back in 2008, I said at EVERY SINGLE post-show critique that we could have put on a much better show if we could simply focus on the 28 or so people that are always there, instead of having to give "basic training" to a few ringers and parents every show day just so that we could qualify to get a score.

[Jeff Ream]

I hate the 35 member rule. I guess I understand why it's there, but when I worked with Shenandoah Sound back in 2008, I said at EVERY SINGLE post-show critique that we could have put on a much better show if we could simply focus on the 28 or so people that are always there, instead of having to give "basic training" to a few ringers and parents every show day just so that we could qualify to get a score.

it's there because fans complained to sponsors. IMO, many of those corps under 30 members were just bad, and people didn't want to see them. I know I've sat at prelims and watched corps with 20 people stumble around on the field and barely produce sound

[BigW]

Agreed, Jeff.

I can think of a few names of corps who kinda showed up at one or two DCA competitions and then went under who were not very good.

Everyone likes to talk about the halcyon good ole, most awesome, best "EVAR" days where a bunch of corps would appear at DCA prelims, and I won't mention names, but some of them weren't very good at all, sad to say. Sub-40 numbers, even sub-30 ones. My guess is those would translate to sub-60 scores with today's sheets. And that's at Prelims, not at an early season show. And before people think I'm a kid saying that, I competed against some of them. And we're talking a 40 point spread between Westshore and those corps. Totally insane to even imagine that. The way the system is set up now, a 5 point spread is a notable difference. Anything exceeding 10 is serious.

I know some of the stuff I have heard in the stands when a small corps struggles, and it makes me cringe. I prefer heckling corps that get a bit too presumptuous in DCI myself, at least there's quality even when the show itself is a pompous, over blown train wreck.

Seriously, there is a solution to Sayre's issue. You need to bring on to the staff a mad scientist/insane genius who basically works on integrating those individuals and making them look good and makes them useful. so the rest of the staff can do their main jobs and tasks. Someone like..... Hmm...

[ShutUpAndPlayYerGuitar]

Just curious: when did the 35 member rule come into effect? Mid 00s?

While I understand and appreciate Sayre's point (there comes a point when you want to clean, not teach), a minimum membership requirement encourages better recruiting practices.

Since I started following/participating, the performance level of Class A has gotten higher each year. I think the minimum membership rule, plus having a small field for Class A finals, is part of the reason.*

*Which is why I want Open Class finals down to the top 2/3, which would be a finalist field of 8 if done this year.

[Kyle B]

I hate the 35 member rule. I guess I understand why it's there, but when I worked with Shenandoah Sound back in 2008, I said at EVERY SINGLE post-show critique that we could have put on a much better show if we could simply focus on the 28 or so people that are always there, instead of having to give "basic training" to a few ringers and parents every show day just so that we could qualify to get a score.

I'm sorry, I think the 35 member rule is absolutely necessary. It's great if you want to have a drum and bugle corps and have a start-up, but if you can't provide that many members, then stay on the parades and build up the program. I can't see how having less would even make business sense.

The audience doesn't want to see you try to have a program. We want to see a program.

As much as it's interesting to have a corps people in the audience look at themselves and wonder what just happened, it's embarrassing.

[Sayre Kulp]

I'm sorry, I think the 35 member rule is absolutely necessary. It's great if you want to have a drum and bugle corps and have a start-up, but if you can't provide that many members, then stay on the parades and build up the program. I can't see how having less would even make business sense.

The audience doesn't want to see you try to have a program. We want to see a program.

As much as it's interesting to have a corps people in the audience look at themselves and wonder what just happened, it's embarrassing.

Like I said - having seen numerous corps of the type you describe, I understand the purpose behind the rule. I also realize that the idea the of an arbitrary cut-off point (like 35 in this example) is just that. Having 35 members doesn't necessarily make you better than if you have 28. And in the case I described earlier, we would have been able to spend more time cleaning and refining the 28 musicians we had if we didn't have to "play the game" to be allowed to receive a score.

And I don't mean to sound rude or like a "know-it-all", but your comments about a small corps not making business sense has no basis. A good business plan is designed to make use of what you have and be successful. Size is irrelevant. Case-in-point: you wouldn't suggest that a "mom & pop" diner is less successful than a franchise like McDonald's just because it has fewer employees, or a smaller budget, would you? Good is good. Bad is bad.

A tragic outcome from this rule is the Austin Stars. Who (if you ever saw them) we're actually a very good small drum corps once. Now there may be other reasons why they never made it to the competition field, but I know they were unable to compete a few years ago when I saw them because they failed to meet the minimum. And as I said - they were good.

One other thing people seem to forget is that it is hard to build a drum corps. It's even harder if you tell members that you can't go compete, but rather do parades all year. Because we all know how much people in competitive corps LOVE doing parades, right? Can you imagine if that was the highlight of your entire summer? Would you stick around?

I guess my point is that there may be a better solution out there. Maybe corps that are historically small have to have a re-evaluation from season-to-season to make sure they are field worthy. Arguing about the number is pointless. Everyone has a different opinion on what it should be.

[BigW]

Problem is---

Again, as Jeff said, fans complained.

There are good smaller organizations, very good ones, but the fact is that many people who see marching organizations equate good with big and loud. The dreaded college band effect. Seen it. Been a part of it. Played like crap at a major band circuit championship when I was in college, parents from one of the top bands told us we were great because we were "LOUD".

Got high fived off the field for one of the most "grotesque performances EVER!" by one of our fan-boys, Director told us in the Tuba section we sounded like "Elephants in heat", we did... but the fans dug it.

In certain big city regions, the "good" bands are the big, loud ones backing great football teams. Just ask anyone who lives out there. They'll tell you. Most of them are pretty lame, but... they're BIG and LOUD. That's what Joe hot dog digs. Doesn't matter they play the same old crap Jenson arrangement of "On Broadway" over and over until you want to run away and escape the torture, it's LOUD, therefore it is GOOD.

The other problem is this: So... you see a good small corps under 35 peeps. What do you drop it to? What's the magic number? Otherwise, you leave the door open for some of the fly by night operations that plagued DCA BITD. You also leave fans and contest sponsors grumbling.