At what point do corps accept their fate?

[soccerguy315]

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.

oh, I agree.

I think the 12th place corps each year might feel more accomplished than anyone else, perhaps aside from the 1st place corps.

[jwillis35]

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.

No doubt you are correct. Nice on noticing my Bloom quote. And I think the conclusion of your argument above is how I see it. What is the rationale. If there is a change to be made that enhances the show, then by all means (Phantom 2008 comes to mind). But a lot of what I see is the nickle-and-dime crap in order to get a few tenths here and there. I think that's what I'm after. Was it really worth artistically destroying your show over a few tenths that ultimately might not have any bearing on your placement?

I realize that this is an odd way to look at it. If you were sitting in the 13th slot and close to 12 I can imagine you'd want to try anything to break into the top 12. If you're in a close 2nd or 3rd place and not far from the leader I'm sure your tweaking to the end. But at what point does the staff allow an artistically well-crafted show to be mucked up because they decided to chase a number (placement) versus quality of production?

I realize it's competition, and someone else eluded to, often it's the staff who don't truly believe their show is worse than another. They develop an arrogance and a swagger that sustains them through the season, allows them to fight to the end. I get that. But in reality making a few tweaks here and there isn't going to help the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th place corps this year catch BD. It almost seems like they are playing mind games with themselves thinking that all they have to do is jack-up some tempo, tweak some ending, hold a chord longer, add more narration, a bit more synth, do an extra body pose, etc. and all of a sudden (like magic) they will be better than BD.

It's definitely why I don't play this game. I enjoy watching it, but I could not play it. I would only want to add to a show for the right reasons (artistic reasons that make the show better), not competitive reasons in which we "ram" some cliche changes down the throats of the performers and fans and try to make the judges believe we've improved. If you've mucked up your show, then yes you have changed it, but not for the better. I'd like to see judges slam some of these "muck-ups" into the ground with GE scores that make it clear your show is getting worse, not better.

Edited August 2, 2014 by jwillis35

[theCHEZman]

I really don't think Cadets, Bluecoats, SCV or Crown are modifying their shows to try and beat BD. Its possible someone will come from behind (Cadets or Bluecoats) but not highly likely given that each panel consistently ranks BD on top in everything but brass and percussion and even that can be argued. All other corps have panels that are inconsistent at best while assigning numbers. My point is these corps still listen to tapes and address areas of their shows that perhaps can be made more effective or performed better. Cadets have more changes to be put in and I'm sure is to max out the product they have more than anything.