Jim Schehr Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, AoEnut said: As far as size I came away from the show feeling positive about the health of the eastern corps of DCA. Were all full? No. The majority prepared? Yes. Building for the future? Yes. Quality? stronger. Member experience better? Yes. I think that experience is key. Give them a great experience and they will recruit for you. AoE CT has taken to this approach too. The 2017 season version of CT is a full 65 members, more talent and experience, more prepaired, better equipped (King and Pearl) with dedicated staff and administration. All sections show improvement and the members are enjoying the experience. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 11 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said: I dunno Jeff. I think if you drew up a graph comparing membership size to placements, you'd find they lined up more often than not. It could be a coincidence, but here, for instance (because I have the figures handy), are the sizes of the DCA Open Class corps in 2015 (at least as I noted them at the time): 1st -- 128 2nd -- 124 3rd -- 114 4th -- 127 5th -- 116 6th -- 124 7th -- 124 8th -- 79 9th -- 102 10th -- 73 11th -- 104 12th -- 80 13th -- 73 Average size is 105. Median size is 114. Every corps at or above either the average or the median is in the top seven. Every corps below the average or median is in the bottom six. I think most years, that is the trend. So not just the fans? well with more bodies you can hide dirt. But, IMO the problem isnt the judges...it's the designers. they have a smaller corps, but they design beyond their size. trying to stretch the field, mismatched sizes of sections leading to horrid balance issues that never ever seem to get fixed. Until they opt to design for what they have, not what they want, they'll place lower 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Just now, Jeff Ream said: Well, with more bodies you can hide dirt. But, IMO the problem isn't the judges... it's the designers. They have a smaller corps, but they design beyond their size. Trying to stretch the field, mismatched sizes of sections leading to horrid balance issues that never ever seem to get fixed. Until they opt to design for what they have, not what they want, they'll place lower. Gotcha. That makes sense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob P. Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 14 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said: I dunno Jeff. I think if you drew up a graph comparing membership size to placements, you'd find they lined up more often than not. It could be a coincidence, but here, for instance (because I have the figures handy), are the sizes of the DCA Open Class corps in 2015 (at least as I noted them at the time): 1st -- 128 2nd -- 124 3rd -- 114 4th -- 127 5th -- 116 6th -- 124 7th -- 124 8th -- 79 9th -- 102 10th -- 73 11th -- 104 12th -- 80 13th -- 73 Average size is 105. Median size is 114. Every corps at or above either the average or the median is in the top seven. Every corps below the average or median is in the bottom six. I think most years, that is the trend. So not just the fans? I haven't done the math yet, but, statistically I think we would find that there isn't a strong correlation between corps size and placement. And we would need about 20 years data to see if there is a correlation for one to draw the conclusion that you have drawn. Also, the corps size number should on a relative basis, not not on an absolute basis, i.e. % size of average that year. Then the data would be equivalent from year to year. Again, quality in design and execution trumps quantity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, Bob P. said: I haven't done the math yet, but, statistically I think we would find that there isn't a strong correlation between corps size and placement. And we would need about 20 years data to see if there is a correlation for one to draw the conclusion that you have drawn. Also, the corps size number should on a relative basis, not not on an absolute basis, i.e. % size of average that year. Then the data would be equivalent from year to year. Thanks. I'll bear that in mind should I ever decide to investigate further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 27 minutes ago, Bob P. said: I haven't done the math yet, but, statistically I think we would find that there isn't a strong correlation between corps size and placement. And we would need about 20 years data to see if there is a correlation for one to draw the conclusion that you have drawn. Also, the corps size number should on a relative basis, not not on an absolute basis, i.e. % size of average that year. Then the data would be equivalent from year to year. Again, quality in design and execution trumps quantity. you go back 20 years and you'll see corps with only 42 brass in the top 5. granted some had huge guards which upped the membership count ( thinking Bucs 2000....42 brass, I think 40-44 guard...) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 23 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: you go back 20 years and you'll see corps with only 42 brass in the top 5. granted some had huge guards which upped the membership count ( thinking Bucs 2000....42 brass, I think 40-44 guard...) Has there perhaps been a shift in recent years, such that larger corps are beating smaller corps more often now than in the past? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 7 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said: Has there perhaps been a shift in recent years, such that larger corps are beating smaller corps more often now than in the past? possibly, but little of the reason has to do with size. Design and performance trumps all. I forget the corps, but I remember sitting in Annapolis watching a small A class corps try to power thru Fire of Eternal Glory as if they had 60 brass....way too spread out, parts written for 2nd and 3rd voices that only one person was playing in the brass...and then coming online a few days later saw people from said corps complaining about their score. They should have complained...to the people that gave them that show. Look at Govies...in many of their championship years, they were small for A class, and won. Why? They dont try to be more than they are. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 14 hours ago, AoEnut said: As far as size I feel there is always creative and constructional balance here and that in the past the best decisions have not been made. Something bush, cabs and fusion have done is construct to the actual membership they are getting and using them in a creative and balanced way. In the DCA world you can get away with not having a full corps and still put on a great show. Bush is a perfect example of this, great decisions were made by this corps staff and admin team to set them up, they will not be filling holes all summer only perfecting what they have. By focusing on the members experience Bush is investing in the future. It seemed that for many years the corps would march blanks and try to play catch up to get to that magical XX brass number. I think that philosophy hurt more than helped, looks like they've turned the corner regarding this. Ultimately we are looking for full brass, percussion and guard sections, but is that really doing the members justice when you can't get there? In the not so distant past, it seemed many of the corps were trying to run before they could walk and not building. Fusion has been an excellent example of building and creating an experience that for the members is excellent. This is because of great decisions that are being made behind the scenes. I came away from the show feeling positive about the health of the eastern corps of DCA. Were all full? No. The majority prepared? Yes. Building for the future? Yes. Quality? stronger. Member experience better? Yes. I think that experience is key. Give them a great experience and they will recruit for you. As far as MBI Minnesota has many good people who care immensely for there to be concern and because of those people they will be great, maybe a little smaller in the brass area but they will be great. They also have an indoor drumline that competes on the world class level at WGI and an indoor guard that competes at the WGI level. I'm not sure how that's exactly translating into membership for MBI, but it is getting their program out into the world and that can't hurt. I have to think that these programs offerings are helping keep their heads above water and I do think it shows the strength of their organization. In the slice of MBI's history this will be a minor speed bump, they clearly have a track record of creating a great drum corps. AoE Well said. I am coming to believe that the real future of the activity may be in the indoor side of it, with ensembles performing in arenas like they do in Japan. Percussion and Guard have made quantum leaps in ideas and capability via the indoor medium, the Brass is behind in this era. The only way for them to really catch up and "get with the program" is to also go year-round and go indoor. I've been coming more and more to this conclusion over the past 4-5 years, this isn't a shoot from the hip reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Reading some of the recent posts and given my work experience with setting people up for failure day after day- design teams are really trying to provide success to the performers more and more and not giving them impossible goals to meet. Thank God. Now if some HS Teams can learn this- the world would be a better place. 1 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.