At what point do corps accept their fate?

[DWilliams]

What? No. Inside a corps, placements matter far less than they do to us on the outside.

Not necessarily true at all.

[HornTeacher]

Fine line between "fate" and "acceptance."

The phrase "accepting one's fate" has, in our society, been misconstrued by many as "giving up" or "quitting." Early on in the season, I think most corps, directors, MM's, and staffs have at least a pretty good idea whether that corps is a championship-winning corps or not. If a group is ranked 10th by the 4th of July, I think it's fair to say that the corps is, by-and-large, out of championship contention. Is that "accepting their fate"? Not in the least. All they are saying is "we are not going to delude ourselves into thinking that we can still win the whole shebang." They have made no comment or indicated a philosophy about where they will eventually finish. Could they, with dedication and hard work, still medal? Probably not -- but taking an attitude that "hey -- we can still medal this year!" would also not be totally delusional. Improbable -- yes. Delusional -- no. And even though they don't medal, they still have a shot at 4th, 5th, or 6th. And if they DO eventually climb to one of these positions, I hardly think that anyone could accuse them of "accepting their fate."

I also think that when you say "corps," you are referring to a collective. Yes, I'm sure that there are individual members who may feel "we've achieved as much as we're probably going to achieve" at some point in time. It's just human nature. But even if some may, down deep, feel this way, I hardly think they are going to express it. And those individual feelings don't, in and of themselves, speak for the "corps."

Last, if a corps fails to climb the standings through the year, does that automatically indicate that they threw in the towel at some point? Not in the least. Is anyone out there going to accuse Pioneer of quitting at this point? I doubt it. I would like to believe that those kids are fighting just as hard now as they did on July 4th. I may be wrong -- but again, I doubt it.

Edited August 2, 2014 by HornTeacher

[jwillis35]

Everyone seems to have it correct. The marching members are simply working to maximize their show for Finals. The staff and the members want that last performance to be their best. That is what will be on the CDs, DVDs, and Videos. Regardless of placement, it's about performing your best.

As others have stated, and I agree, to most of these kids and the staff, placement doesn't matter that much. It's icing on the cake. But as The Cadets director noted in a nice tribute to the Bluecoats for bouncing back when in mid-season it seemed they were heading the wrong way (iit was a tweet if you hadn't seen it): competition is not the main reason we do this, but it is fun to play the game providing we keep bigger-picture items in check (paraphrased obviously).

This has always brought up a different issue for me. Many of the drum corps continue to make changes to the show to squeeze every last tenth out of their shows before finals. Some do a great job and there have been some successes, but often we get distorted and/ or cheesy renditions of what the show used to be. In trying so hard to squeeze those last few points out of the show many corps kill-off the artistic quality of the show. We begin to get too much of the cliche moments like:

• the extra long chord
• more body movement
• let's storm the sideline
• let's include even more narration to really get our point across (as if the audience hadn't figured it out by then)
• let's include some whiplash drill for demand's sake just because...even when it doesn't really go with the theme or the music

My question to show designers and staff: at what point do you say "This is the show we want. This is what we planned and anymore or less would derail the quality of this show. We're not changing anything and we'll take it as far as we can with the performances our members are capable of."

That would be my question.

[Tim K]

My question to show designers and staff: at what point do you say "This is the show we want. This is what we planned and anymore or less would derail the quality of this show. We're not changing anything and we'll take it as far as we can with the performances our members are capable of."

That would be my question.

Full disclosure: I'm not a staff member, and have no inside connections with any corps with any staff members other than knowing a few by name who likewise know my name (and these people I know from outside the world of drum corps) but I'd like to share what could answer your question, or at least partly answer it.

In 2012, I was in Indy. After finals, I went to talk with a volunteer of a corps (a parent, not an instructor or designer). In order to see this person, I had to pass by certain corps . This was after retreat. We'll keep this nameless, but a corps I passed that did not place in the top three thought they were robbed and there was no way the top three corps were better than they were, and the people who were angriest were staffers. At breakfast at the hotel the following day, people associated with the corps that did not place first or second did not agree with their placement.

My guess: resignation and acceptance starts a month or so after finals and they begin making concrete plans for the following year. They wouldn't be able to compete during the season otherwise. Keeping up adrenaline is critical in competition and a feeling of let's just do the best we can with the show we have doesn't make for competition.

[HornTeacher]

My question to show designers and staff: at what point do you say "This is the show we want. This is what we planned and anymore or less would derail the quality of this show. We're not changing anything and we'll take it as far as we can with the performances our members are capable of."

Very well-stated post, jwillis35. And expressed much better than anything I could write. Of that, I am extremely jealous. That being said...

I do have to chuckle (and not in an unfriendly way, Sir -- more so from the apparent dichotomy) over the comparison between your words which I've highlighted above, and the quote from Bloom which is in your signature ("Education in our times must try to find whatever there is in students that might yearn for completion, and to reconstruct the learning that would enable them autonomously to seek that completion."). I feel that sometimes the mere performance of a given piece of music (or in the case of a drum corps, the "program") can be a viable vehicle for learning. After all, I can sit with a student for two hours and express to him everything I feel is important in being a successful trumpet player, or express every minute detail of the acceptably proper and correct golf swing. But until the student actually puts the mouthpiece to the lips, or actually takes a golf club in his hands and actually swings, little can be accomplished. Sometimes (or often) the learning is in the doing. With this in mind, is it not conceivable that an alteration to a "program" could be the very reconstruction necessary for Bloom's autonomous seeking of completion? What it really comes down to, in my eyes, is the rationale for the change/alteration. If it is done merely to pick up those few extra tenths, then I fully agree that it is often a fruitless exercise in futility. If, however, such alteration is done for the purpose of enabling an understanding of the final product within the individual student, then (and only then) could I see it not only as justifiable. but educationally crucial.

Edited August 2, 2014 by HornTeacher

[Fred Windish]

The question, at what point do designers remain 'content' with their present production?

Ideally, NEVER !

[soccerguy315]

most corps have already accepted that they have no chance to win DCI next year.

[drumno5]

I can't speak for everyone, but all the corps I have worked with have kept pushing it right through their last perfomance. I've never been associated with a group where the mentality was that we couldn't make it better, take it little further.

Fred O.

[Kamarag]

most corps have already accepted that they have no chance to win DCI next year.

And most of them are correct in assuming they don't, because they are not willing to put in the work (at all levels of the organization, and generally over a number of years) needed to put themselves in a position to win. The formula for competitive success isn't a state secret, but the willingness to implement it might as well be.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Kamarag

[drumno5]

most corps have already accepted that they have no chance to win DCI next year.

But I don't think that this really answers the o.p.'s question. Achievement and/or success exist at all points up and down the competitive heirarchy. If it was only about "winning DCI," the activity would be an exercise in futilty, because only one team can "win" in any given year.

Peace,

Fred O.