If BD Wins, We Riot!

[brichtimp]

No.. they can do something new, fresh, innovative that is also entertaining. For a frame of reference, lets not forget that in the earlier decades of BD 's winning success that you are mentioning, what they were doing at that time was new, fresh, innovative as well. Much of their music was also unrecognizable to sizeable numbers in national audiences at that time as well. BD took that unfamiliar music to a lot of people at shows and won them over in 12 minutes. Crowds erupted into spontaneous applause midway thru the show... at every show they went too... and at the end BD got thunderous applause. Some of these years they had already won 3-4 years in a row too. Its all in the presentation. There is nothing in any musical education training manual anywhere that stipulates that a requirement for performance innovation has to be that the performance needs to be confusing, boring, or obtuse. Drum Corps audiences by and large are not primarily made up of mouth breathing, uneducated, low IQ, dimwits. Most can appreciate cerebral shows that are abtract, if the presentation musically and visually is appealing. But if a show's tepid response by audiences is replicated throughout the country, its reasonable to conclude from this that the problem of the unappealing show, albeit performed to near flawless perfection, is not the fault of the audiences from coast to coast.

Brasso, what, in your opinion, would make BD's show "new, fresh and innovative?" What do you require to be 'entertained?'

[CQuinn]

The whole thread seems kind of stupid. All of it. Nobody is going to riot over a Drum Corps Competition. Ever.

[BRASSO]

I'm also amused by the other main argument - "you can't know" why people don't applaud. Why, it could be any of a number of reasons.

What silly logic if we think sbout it. If we apply all the myriad reasons why people DON'T cheer a BD current show, we likewise would have to go back to BD shows in the past where the audiences gave BD thunderous applause and conclude that a lot of times people in the coast to coast audiences maybe didn't REALLY like the BD show that much back then, they really were all giving BD Standing O's because.... well... 1) a friend is in the BD Corps 2) somebody next to them told them to cheer BD 3) They're parents of kids in the BD Corps 4) they don't have the personality to remain seated 4) they hate the Bridgemen... and blah, blsh, blah.

But of course, its absurd. Its clear as a bell that its " The show ", as the primary reason.

Edited July 31, 2013 by BRASSO

[MikeD]

You are suggesting that people that are inclined to boo the BD do so after the BD performance instead of at the announcement of the judges decisions at retreat ( which the booers do now ) ? This suggestion of yours makes no sense to me to me.

Here's why : If booers boo immediately at the conclusion of the BD performance it is unmistakeably clear that they disliked the BD performance, and this is what precipitated the booing. Judges are not involved at this juncture as receiving the wrath of the booers. No other Corps is involved at this juncture either. The booing is clearly BD show related if the booing ( as you are suggesting here ) takes place immediately after the conclusion of BD's finish to their show performance. On the other hand, when booing takes place at retreat, with the announcement of the judges decision ( scores ), after all the Corps have finished competing, the booing is viewed as BD and other Corps placement related, ( not show related ) and as it relates to placement of BD with others. For the first time here now in the evening, judges are principally seen as the recipients of the booers wrath with the booing. The booing is no longer BD show enjoyment related anymore, because at this juncture at retreat's judges scores,, it is principlally viewed as placement/ score/ other Corps/ judge related.

IMO someone who boos thinking the above is just trying to rationalize to themselves that they are not booing the corps. It makes the boo-er feel better, but IMO it is not at all true.

[sobe]

IMO someone who boos thinking the above is just trying to rationalize to themselves that they are not booing the corps. It makes the boo-er feel better, but IMO it is not at all true.

And you are entitled to that opinion. But I personally can differentiate between booing after the PERFORMERS perform, and after the JUDGES announce the scores.

[skevinp]

IMO someone who boos thinking the above is just trying to rationalize to themselves that they are not booing the corps. It makes the boo-er feel better, but IMO it is not at all true.

.

Why would you assume such a horrible thing about someone?

[GUARDLING]

And you are entitled to that opinion. But I personally can differentiate between booing after the PERFORMERS perform, and after the JUDGES announce the scores.

see the thing is many times ( not all ) members arent even there ( smaller shows ) and forget judges , they high tail it out and are having cocktails by the time scores are announced many times and I know they could care less about booing. So maybe the booing just makes those booers feel better. Cant send a message if theres noone there to get it.

[Granny Smith]

I think the point is that you don't know why they were sitting on their hands. Here are a few possibilities out of an endless sea of them with some being more likely than others, but all equally disprovable by you

There are literally endless options that YOU CAN'T PROVE without knowing what every single person is thinking. All of these are possible reasons (some more than others obviously) and all are different and it for sure doesn't prove that the show is boring to everyone or the vast majority like you all seem to trumpet..

I think some are suspending common sense.

[sobe]

see the thing is many times ( not all ) members arent even there ( smaller shows ) and forget judges , they high tail it out and are having cocktails by the time scores are announced many times and I know they could care less about booing. So maybe the booing just makes those booers feel better. Cant send a message if theres noone there to get it. :smile:/>

I didn't say a message was trying to be sent. It's two separate instances where people react.

One being a performance. One being a score. Whether or not people are present is irrelevant.

[BRASSO]

IMO someone who boos thinking the above is just trying to rationalize to themselves that they are not booing the corps. It makes the boo-er feel better, but IMO it is not at all true.

BD won a lot of titles in the 70's and 80's. No doubt there was jealousy because of that. BUT..... no boos were heard. Now I'm sure they'll be someone somewhere that'll tell us that they were at some show somewhere and heard a boo or two for BD's show. But for the most part, BD was not getting booed. They were getting mostly genuinely enthustiastic, loud ovations for most of these years with shows that they put out.

Fast forward to today, and BD is getting tepid responses to their shows of late, polite golf claps interspersed with a few good hands from a smattering of people at the conclusion of their shows. Its NOTHING like BD used to get from audiences coast to coast. We're hearing boos now. Does this mean we have more unruly, and rude and angry people at DCI shows than in the 70's and 80's and 90's ? I don't know the answer to this question. I suppose its possible that we have a few more uncivilized people at DCI shows today than in the 70's and 80's and so forth. But something tells me that the DCI audiences of today arn't more uncouth, uncivil, and unruly than past DCI audiences when the discussion is the Blue Devils and their shows.

Edited July 31, 2013 by BRASSO