Criticizing the "Kids"

[Slingerland]

What's the point of criticizing the marchers? They don't write the show, they don't teach the show, they have no ability to control anything except their individual performances.

The work of the adults, on the other hand, has become a preponderance of the score these days (rather than the performance of the members), and as such, they should be fair game for criticism when they fail to execute.

[chaddyt]

I'm not sure I would know where to start criticizing individual marchers even if I wanted to. Unless they're a soloist, it's all but impossible to single a particular person out. They don't have jersey numbers on after all. We also see them so infrequently compared to college athletes.

I guess I'm curious as to what kind of constructive criticism the OP is suggesting.

[Brian Porter-Szucs]

I think the parallel is closer than it might seem at first glance. Fewer than 5% of NCAA Div-1 athletes ever play professional sports, and a great many of those flame out after one or two years. Conversely, a certain percentage of DCI members end up with careers as professional entertainers--OK, probably not 5%, but some. An even better parallel might be Olympic sports. Consider the way fans and commentators discuss a gymnast's routine: usually with kindness and compassion, but without any hesitation to say that so-and-so messed up her landing or needs to work harder on her technique. Those who have pointed out the difference between an individual performance and a collective performance have made a good point, but again: that's not a distinction that matters as much in team sports. We criticize both the play-calling by the coach and the failure of the second-string receiver to make the catch. As for the distinction between sports and arts, I don't find that persuasive. DCI advertises itself as "Marching Music's Major League" and emphasizes the competitive aspect at every opportunity. Here on DCP people write a lot about which corps will finish in which position this year, and people frequently say that they are looking forward to a particular event because it will pit corps X directly against corps Y. Plenty of sports involve judging, and DCI is no less a sport than gymnastics or ice-skating. Maybe some would say that gymnastics and ice-skating aren't "real" sports, but just try saying that to a gymnast or skater. Anyway, when it comes to criticism the arts are hardly immune: just consider theater reviews, music criticism, book reviews, etc. Please understand that I'm not suggesting that anyone should be rude, aggressive, or hostile; that's wrong whether we are dealing with a loudmouth screaming at the dropped catch or the troll who posts a mean-spirited remark on this forum. The criticism in all cases should be constructive criticism, both motivated by good intentions and phrased with care so as not to offend or cause offense. But an intelligent discussion of a DCI performance can, in my opinion, include observations about the performances themselves, and not just the show design. I'd love to read (for example) more commentary about what constitutes good or bad execution for the color guard, because that would help me become a more informed viewer of an aspect of the show that I don't know much about.

[Brian Porter-Szucs]

I'm not sure I would know where to start criticizing individual marchers even if I wanted to. Unless they're a soloist, it's all but impossible to single a particular person out. They don't have jersey numbers on after all. We also see them so infrequently compared to college athletes.

I guess I'm curious as to what kind of constructive criticism the OP is suggesting.

For just the reason you state, this sort of commentary would usually apply to sections rather than individuals. As to what sort of criticism, here's an abstract example: if someone says that the snares from a particular corps are the best this year, I'd love to know what they are doing (and thus by implication, what the others are failing to do) in order to win that label.

[chaddyt]

For just the reason you state, this sort of commentary would usually apply to sections rather than individuals. As to what sort of criticism, here's an abstract example: if someone says that the snares from a particular corps are the best this year, I'd love to know what they are doing (and thus by implication, what the others are failing to do) in order to win that label.

Fair point.

I think in a subjectively judged activity though, the criticisms would be equally subjective to some degree. It's not like we can say BDs snare line shoots poorly from the free-throw line, while SCV's hits 90% of their shots. Not to mention, the kids have no control over what they're given to play.

[31rabbit]

But an intelligent discussion of a DCI performance can, in my opinion, include observations about the performances themselves, and not just the show design. I'd love to read (for example) more commentary about what constitutes good or bad execution for the color guard, because that would help me become a more informed viewer of an aspect of the show that I don't know much about.

There is a double standard at play, because I for one definitely have these conversations on a human-to-human level. in the bar after the show, I'll be as critical of who dropped the ball and who which sections from which corps aren't carrying their weight as I am complimentary of who did what well. Doubt I'm alone or even in the minority. As reasonable and objective and furthering as those 'insights' may be, I'm not going to put anything negative on paper where just anybody can come across it. partly for sympathetic reasons on account of parents and active members who may roll across me calling them out from the safety of my chair, partly because of the public scrutiny posters here come under if they cross the imaginary negativity line.

DCI can get very amorphous depending on who you are talking to. If I'm chatting up a parent, it's young person's recital. if I'm talking to a hardcore fan, it's a high-level competition. Putting something on print means trying to talk to both of those groups with the same language, and the risk/reward says that I'm going to err on the side of playing nice.

[2muchcoffeeman]

One distinction I try to keep in mind when evaluating drum corps: It is, at bottom, an educational endeavor. Kids pay the money in order to learn, to have that incomparable drum-corps bonding experience, and to perform at a professional level. Check the mission statements of DCI corps. Their purpose in life is to provide young people with an opportunity to pursue performance excellence, instilling in them the virtues of discipline, teamwork, dedication, and the relationship between work and reward. Their customers are the members, and they serve members first, or should.

This same values probably are at the heart of NCAA Div I athletic programs, too -- though I am no so naive as to forget that athletics also serves the very important, if unspoken, goals of attracting revenue, raising the school profile, pleasing alums (read: donors), elevating prestige, etc.

In DCI, competition is the agreed-upon measuring stick to measure excellence, and humans are naturally competitive, so we tend to focus on that aspect of the activity as much as we do on the artistry and entertainment. We devote more energy than perhaps is healthy to analyzing how this or that corps can or should squeeze out an extra tenth of point. In doing so, we criticize. Criticism can be constructive or destructive. It's on us to keep it constructive -- and to remember that the activity is, first, for the member, not for the fans.

Yes, of course: Without the paying fans, there would be no activity for the kids, who wouldn't want to perform on empty fields in front of empty stands anyway. But the reason a drum corps exists is not to provide the public with an entertainment alternative. If it did, then the kids would be paid, not charged tuition. Instead, a drum corps exists for the benefit of the members. DCI exists to provide the competition structure and to help corps share that experience with fans, whose ticket and souvie revenues are used to help keep the activity afloat, for the benefit of both sides of the equation -- the kids and the fans. It's a virtuous circle, but it starts with the members and their benefit.

That distinction makes all the difference, to me anyway, when I have the urge to criticize.

Edited July 7, 2015 by 2muchcoffeeman

[BRASSO]

What's the point of criticizing the marchers? They don't write the show, they don't teach the show, they have no ability to control anything except their individual performances.

.

I don't even know what we are discussing an issue, that as far as I know, doesn't even exist. When have we ever had anyone on here " criticizing the kids " ? I've been on here for a few years now, and don't ever recall reading that on here. All the commentary I've read has been nothing but complimentary of the efforts of all these marchers in these Corps... as well it should be.

[Nachfolger Christi]

I never criticize the marching members. They pay for the experience. The staff is paid, under most circumstances. It is a job for them and they should be held to a high standard.

[luv4corps]

Wow, this is an interesting and thought provoking thread - meaning I had to tilt my head and ask myself, with point of index finger resting against cheek - just who is being criticized when people say things like "well it looks like that corps is going downhill" or "guess those staff changes didn't amount to much this year" or "What a disappointment corps X is - after all the hype at the beginning of the season" and so on.

I think it's naive to assume these criticisms stop at corps directors, designers and staff. There is a blurred line there for sure. Some corps attract top talent and some don't. Everybody knows that. That being said, the bulk of the criticism should be and is directed at upper level management. They are the ones who put the final stamp of approval on all that makes up a corps, from show theme to design to staff to members.

Edited July 7, 2015 by luv4corps