perc2100 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 To it's biggest fans it will. But to the Drum Corps community as a whole it will be remembered along with whatever show it was that beat Star '93. Maybe. It might be remembered as a show with FAR more depth than the competition, performed extremely well (again, FAR cleaner than the competition), and having a plethora of design/effect variety. I think the show will be remembered as a show that was never going to not win: a Finals outcome that wasn't "how will they win or will other corps close the gap" but more "how much bigger will the spread be?" I think it is a fan-friendly show, and while some will always have problems/be bitter with how high the show scored (and some will always argue about the validity of perfect Effect and Visual scores), but I think it will generally be remembered well, and respected 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Maybe. It might be remembered as a show with FAR more depth than the competition, performed extremely well (again, FAR cleaner than the competition), and having a plethora of design/effect variety. I think the show will be remembered as a show that was never going to not win: a Finals outcome that wasn't "how will they win or will other corps close the gap" but more "how much bigger will the spread be?" I think it is a fan-friendly show, and while some will always have problems/be bitter with how high the show scored (and some will always argue about the validity of perfect Effect and Visual scores), but I think it will generally be remembered well, and respected As well it should, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 (edited) It seems to me that there has been an increasing amount of verbiage and concentration given to terms such as "ground-breaking," "pushing-the-envelop," "original," and "innovative." Since "the sheets" are so often cited in support of specific arguments, I have to ask: Do "the sheets" contain these words or phrases as a basis for adjudication? The thought has crossed my mind a few times that we may be so concerned about judging the relative success or failure of a given show on the basis of whether or not it has "broken new ground," that we have missed the forest from the trees...that in the end, it is THE SHOW, and only THE SHOW, which is being evaluated. Breaking new ground is nice...it's interesting...and it's innovative, most assuredly. But...that's all it may be. And if the material programmed in a given show is innovative, yet is performed in a sloppy ("dirty") manner, what has it really accomplished -- other than to show us a new standard which is possible...albeit in a less than refined manner? If that is the reality, does (or should) it count for more than a program which is less "innovative" or "ground breaking", yet is performed in such a way to make us say "I can't believe how clean and precise that was!" I think that in the end, it might be suggested that some Corps would find more success if they concentrated on simply creating a show which is strong in its' visual component, and clean in its' delivery. Sometimes I wonder if the desire to "be original" has taken over in importance, and that has served to be a detriment to the Corps' aims and goals. I also think this extends to the viewer as well. A winner is a winner...and to me, should be accorded its rightful respect as such. Whether it has pushed an envelop, to me, is secondary. Edited September 17, 2014 by HornTeacher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geluf Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 It seems to me that there has been an increasing amount of verbiage and concentration given to terms such as "ground-breaking," "pushing-the-envelop," "original," and "innovative." Since "the sheets" are so often cited in support of specific arguments, I have to ask: Do "the sheets" contain these words or phrases as a basis for adjudication? The thought has crossed my mind a few times that we may be so concerned about judging the relative success or failure of a given show on the basis of whether or not it has "broken new ground," that we have missed the forest from the trees...that in the end, it is THE SHOW, and only THE SHOW, which is being evaluated. Breaking new ground is nice...it's interesting...and it's innovative, most assuredly. But...that's all it may be. And if the material programmed in a given show is innovative, yet is performed in a sloppy ("dirty") manner, what has it really accomplished -- other than to show us a new standard which is possible...albeit in a less than refined manner? If that is the reality, does (or should) it count for more than a program which is less "innovative" or "ground breaking", yet is performed in such a way to make us say "I can't believe how clean and precise that was!" I think that in the end, it might be suggested that some Corps would find more success if they concentrated on simply creating a show which is strong in its' visual component, and clean in its' delivery. Sometimes I wonder if the desire to "be original" has taken over in importance, and that has served to be a detriment to the Corps' aims and goals. I also think this extends to the viewer as well. A winner is a winner...and to me, should be accorded its rightful respect as such. Whether it has pushed an envelop, to me, is secondary. This is all well and good, and to an extent I agree with you, but *saying* "A winner is a winner and they should be accorded respect as such" is one thing...and it has no bearing almost at all on which shows end up being remembered by the fan base at large. The base likes what it likes, and judges aren't going to tell them otherwise. In the end, what makes a show "memorable" to the crowd as a whole is not solely dependent on who was cleanest or who won outright. To borrow an example from recent history, I would place real money that if you asked a sample of 100 people which show they remember best from, say, 2003, more people would say Phantom than Blue Devils...and Phantom finished 4th! But they made an audience connection on finals night that no other corps did. This doesn't take away from BD's achievement, but technical proficiency isn't always enough in the minds of the general fans. This thread doesn't have anything to do with how a show should be judged. It asks the question whether or not BD's show this year will be *remembered* 10, 20, 30 years from now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everyfan Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 To borrow an example from recent history, I would place real money that if you asked a sample of 100 people which show they remember best from, say, 2003, more people would say Phantom than Blue Devils...and Phantom finished 4th! But they made an audience connection on finals night that no other corps did. Wow. As soon as you said (I read) 2003, I thought of Spin Cycle. Then, it was Phenomenom of Cool. I guess I didn't "connect" with Phantom that year like you did or, as you claim, the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Rott Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Wow. As soon as you said (I read) 2003, I thought of Spin Cycle. Then, it was Phenomenom of Cool. I guess I didn't "connect" with Phantom that year like you did or, as you claim, the majority. I did...thought Phantom right away, with Cadets immediately after...but the general thought, I think, is accurate..we remember what we like, not necessarily who won... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Don-O Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) I did...thought Phantom right away, with Cadets immediately after...but the general thought, I think, is accurate..we remember what we like, not necessarily who won... I completely agree. My favorites are rarely the winners. This year it just so happens my favorites were the winner. It's the one show from 2014 that I can't seem to stop listening to. I foresee it being in my future list of all-time greats, but only time will tell. The brass line especially just blows me away. Edited September 18, 2014 by Super Don-O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I keep seeing this thread debated and, as I read the title, I keep wanting to ask: You mean as if they aren't already considered one of the greats? Maybe someone has already asked along the way... haven't read all the pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Wow. As soon as you said (I read) 2003, I thought of Spin Cycle. Then, it was Phenomenom of Cool. I guess I didn't "connect" with Phantom that year like you did or, as you claim, the majority. Me too. I honestly don't even recall AT ALL what Phantom did in 2003. Looking at Phantom's rep on Corpsreps, I still don't remember that show at all. I remember BD, Cavaliers, and Cadets (as well as BAC and SCV) but I honestly can't remember anything about Phantom's show Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Me too. I honestly don't even recall AT ALL what Phantom did in 2003. Looking at Phantom's rep on Corpsreps, I still don't remember that show at all. I remember BD, Cavaliers, and Cadets (as well as BAC and SCV) but I honestly can't remember anything about Phantom's show I guess PR 2003 was REALLY a Phantom show to you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.