Phantom Regiment 2018

[tim_brandt]

57 minutes ago, year1buick said:

So I talked about this briefly on the Finals thread but it’s still bugging me. When Will Pitts and Rondinero were going through a run down of all the corps and got to SCV, Pitts said something to the effect of, (referring to their show) “It’s incredible  what they’re asking their members to do.” (I’m sure that’s not exactly what he said but I think I’m close enough— it was being impressed on member demand.)

I nearly jumped off my couch. WTH? I don’t know it it was just him having trouble thinking of something to say or what, but... Does that mean Regiment isn’t designing to win or push the members? What are we aiming for, exactly?

I’m definitely not trying to be an one of “those” alumni— I’m still pulling for the guy and trying to stay positive. But what in the blue hell did that mean?

Honestly, the comment in question aside, I think this is all part of a greater discussion on goals and values and what we aim to be.

If the aim is to BE the Phantom Regiment, and stay true to our roots in our show design and execution. Fine.

If the aim is to bend to be as competitive as possible, regardless of what it takes. Fine.

My guess is that it would be somewhere in the middle, but my greater point is I believe that defining those values are important in terms of what is judged as "Success" for the Phantom Regiment. I mean, maybe those values are already defined, I am not sure. Hopefully, I am making a point, here. 

I guess what I am saying is that in this hyper-competitve world of drum corps, not everyone can win (obviously), or even be at the top, so I think it's important to define what looks like winning for the PR fans, alumni, members & staff. My guess is a program that stays true to the Phantom Regiment while pushing the envelope of creativity and competitiveness. All incredibly vague terms, but hopefully my point comes across.

Edited August 12, 2018 by tim_brandt

[tim_brandt]

On 8/12/2018 at 11:17 AM, Brian Tuma said:

It’s kind of ironic that Crossmen had a more “phantom” show than Regiment and the two performed back to back. 

 

Edited August 19, 2018 by tim_brandt

[tim_brandt]

On 8/12/2018 at 11:51 AM, EricS said:

Maybe a GoFundMe account should be set up to afford a top notch Program Director/Artistic Designer  :)

 

 

Edited August 19, 2018 by tim_brandt

[EricS]

Just now, tim_brandt said:

Honestly, if the fans / alumni were asked to step up in order to afford a salary of a 'big name' designer, I guarantee you it would be funded very swiftly.

 

Totally agree!

[tim_brandt]

On 8/12/2018 at 11:35 AM, RADIO3 said:

For Regiment, they need to be the corps that, if you are out at the burger van and you hear the name announced you SPRINT to get back into the stadium. In recent years the traffic has been going the other way. And that CAN start with the music choices.

 

Edited August 19, 2018 by tim_brandt

[year1buick]

6 minutes ago, Tim K said:

I'm assuming you're speaking about his being a commentator when scores were announced. When Will Pitts is commenting on other corps, it is not his job to be speaking about Phantom. He needs to be speaking objectively about the corps In question. Back in the day when PBS had Gene Rayburn host, Pete Emmons gave commentary. He was with SCV and I don't recall his speaking about SCV when another corps was being discussed. Perhaps Will Pitts should no longer be a commentator when Phantom is involved, something I have thought at the premiere event at the cinema, but his stating what most people feel does not mean Phantom has lower expectations.

That makes sense and I agree that he’s got the unenviable position of trying to speak publicly about his corps and a competitor— helmed, in part— by someone who held his position not too long ago.  From an objective point of view, no less.  So I probably shouldn’t read too much into it. But I guess I just had a reflexive reaction to the comment— why aren’t you giving Regiment that kind of demand too? Maybe an unfair question, I know. 

[RADIO3]

2 hours ago, year1buick said:

Care to elaborate?

Just that I agree with you and am somewhat incredulous. Our ambition needs to match anyone's.

FFS … For F*** Sake (definition, expression of incredulity!!!)

[year1buick]

56 minutes ago, RADIO3 said:

Just that I agree with you and am somewhat incredulous. Our ambition needs to match anyone's.

FFS … For F*** Sake (definition, expression of incredulity!!!)

Oh, I knew what the letters stood for, I just wasn’t sure if you were agreeing or not. (I looked back through the thread and figured you probably were.) I was genuinely curious if I was off base (and reading too much into it) or not.

[Mello Dude]

On 8/11/2018 at 11:36 AM, DCI-86 said:

Think about th huge modernisation that took place after 86 (very traditional show that didn’t score well) to 87 (all white uniforms etc.)

Can they make the same dramatic change again or will they continue their directionless decline?

I don't have to think about it I was there.  Of course they can.  There is no reason to not still be the Phantom Regiment.  The change doesn't necessarily have to be as dramatic as you think as opposed to simply getting their show design right.

[Mello Dude]

19 hours ago, year1buick said:

That makes sense and I agree that he’s got the unenviable position of trying to speak publicly about his corps and a competitor— helmed, in part— by someone who held his position not too long ago.  From an objective point of view, no less.  So I probably shouldn’t read too much into it. But I guess I just had a reflexive reaction to the comment— why aren’t you giving Regiment that kind of demand too? Maybe an unfair question, I know. 

No that is a GREAT point.  There is NO reason that they shouldn't be challenged if your instruction staff is worth anything.  The talent is there, now DO something with it.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Mello Dude