A Dinosaur's Lament

[hostrauser]

2023 was the first time in over 30 years that I was not a DCI spectator in any way, shape, or form. I didn't go to any shows. I didn't go to Big, Loud, Live in the theater. And I didn't purchase video performances (live streams now, replacing the DVDs and VHS tapes of yore). Because the drum corps atmosphere--not the corps themselves, but the overall drum corps environment--has gotten truly, stiflingly...

Boring.

1992 was the year I was introduced to DCI. 1993 was the year I became a super-fan. I think I still have those 1993 tapes memorized. In 1993, the build-up style of judging was only about a decade old. I remember the interviews with Jeff Fiedler and Gene Monterastelli on those tapes, and Monterastelli in particular pointing out the big flaw of the tick system: it was beating down corps trying new things in favor of corps who weren't doing as much stuff but were doing it cleaner. And it really did lead to a revolution in drum corps design. From 1988 to 1992, five years, there were five different champions with five different and distinct styles. And 1993 promised to continue that trend: Cadets, Star of Indiana, and Phantom put out three fantastic drum corps shows that were completely and totally different from one another. It was an exciting era. It was partly because you didn't know who was going to win from year to year, but even more so because you didn't know HOW that corps was going to get to the top. The Blue Devils won in 1994, 1996, and 1997 with three entirely different show designs.

Ah, the Blue Devils. So much dislike of that corps and resentment of their recent success from the peanut gallery. To hear some people talk, the Blue Devils are everything that is wrong with modern drum corps. And that's KINDA right, but probably not in the way you'd expect.

The 2005 Blue Devils changed drum corps probably even more than 1993 Star of Indiana did, though it's not recognized as such. After that lackluster season (by their standards), the Blue Devils changed. The Blue Devils have the smartest design staff in DCI, have for a long time. 2005 made them re-evaluate everything they did in show design, whether it was a conscious decision or a subconscious recognition of reality, I do not know. But the Blue Devils were the first, the fastest, and the best at recognizing what DCI judges do and do not want, and they simply trimmed everything outside of that from their shows going forward. They found the one major, hard and fast rule of modern DCI judging and had it pretty much locked in by 2007. They've finished 1st or 2nd (by tiny margins) every year since.

What is this magic rule that the Blue Devils learned over 15 years ago, that other corps either haven't figured out or refuse to abide by? Simple:

THERE IS NO EXTRA CREDIT IN DRUM CORPS.

There's no extra credit! Don't do anything you can get away with not doing if you want to score well. Judges want variety of demand and cleanliness, the Blue Devils provide that in spades every season (it's usually the SAME variety of demand... but I get ahead of myself. More on that in a moment). Anything beyond that, difficulty for difficulty's sake, is just going to drag your score down unless you can get it as clean as the Blue Devils. Which, let's face it, you probably can't. Look at 2023. The Bluecoats had, in this idiot's opinion, a lot more visual difficulty in their show. But the Blue Devils were LOADS cleaner. The miniscule spacing and timing problems that popped up here and there in the Bluecoats' show simply weren't present in the Blue Devils' show. And, of course, the Blue Devils guard was near flawless. I think corps feel the need to try to do MORE than the Blue Devils to beat them, but I think it's the exact opposite. They need to do LESS, and make it CLEANER.

The Build-Up judging system has fallen into the same pitfall the old Tick system had: it is beating down corps trying new things in favor of corps who aren't doing as much stuff but were doing it cleaner. Full circle.

Now, this next sentence will probably surprise you, so I hope you are sitting down. I love the Blue Devils. Seriously. 1994 Blue Devils remains one of my Top 5 shows of all time. I CHOSE to audition for the Blue Devils over any other corps (back when I had that youthful naivete that hid from me just how awful of a visual performer I was). And I love the Blue Devils design concepts. I just wish it weren't pretty much the same thing, year after year after year. The same staging concepts. The same visual elements. The Blue Devils are a truly awesome sports car, but all they do is change the paint job each year. Because they know (consciously or subconsciously) they can't do much else without getting hammered for it.

Who's to blame? The Blue Devils? DCI judges? I feel it's kind of a chicken and the egg situation. On one hand, the Blue Devils have heavily influenced the course of DCI judging. On the other hand, many of their design features became mainstays solely due to positive reinforcement from the judges. I would absolutely LOVE to see what the Blue Devils staff would come up with if the judging system gave any signs at all that something different would be acceptable. Even the most recent non-BD champions (2018 Vanguard and 2016 Bluecoats) have strong Blue Devils influence on their design styles.

And that's why 1993 and the years surrounding it remain such a fond memory for me. Sure, those G bugles sounded dreadful, and even the top corps made performance fracks that you wouldn't see or hear in ANY finalist corps today. But year after year after year you not only had no idea who was going to win, you had no idea HOW they were going to win. Cadets' style? Star of Indiana's style? Phantom's style? Blue Devils' style?

But today, there is only one winning style: the Blue Devils' style. All other styles have been judged and found wanting. Everyone is trapped. Even the Blue Devils.

And that makes drum corps boring.

**************

"It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it." --Maurice Switzer

"Hold my beer." --Hostrauser

[hostrauser]

Heh, I realize now there is a potential confusing contradiction in my story: I claim to have not participated as a spectator in the 2023 DCI season yet I reference 2023 shows.

Clarification: I watched the Finals performances of the three medalists on The Site That Shall Not Be Named. This is the first year in over 30 that I have not spent any money supporting DCI.

[Dynamike]

34 minutes ago, hostrauser said:

I claim to have not participated as a spectator in the 2023 DCI season yet I reference 2023 shows.

Yeah I was confused for a second!

 

Personally, I couldn't care less about scores and which corps wins. I want to be entertained and moved by a performance, and the most cohesive shows are the ones that do it for me. If I have a gripe with show design, it's either that the music and visuals clash instead of coordinate, or that I just don't "get" the concept. But if I have a gripe about execution, it's whenever a corps draws attention to their skill level -- poor execution is distracting, sure, but some of the corps that shoot for extra credit seem like they're doing it at the expense of the story they're trying to tell.

 

Which also means I get to fall for most of the gimmicks! Case in point -- I couldn't tell you what they were playing if you paid me, but seeing the Cavies playing upside down back in 2011 is still one of the all-time highs for me as a fan 😃

Edited August 17, 2023 by Dynamike

[greg_orangecounty]

32 minutes ago, hostrauser said:

The Build-Up judging system has fallen into the same pitfall the old Tick system had: it is beating down corps trying new things in favor of corps who aren't doing as much stuff but were doing it cleaner. Full circle.

That is a misconception.  The tic system did not "beat down" corps that tried new things.  You had to work within the specific requirements at the time (starting from the side line, color pre, etc.) but corps could and did try new things.  That's how we progressed from playing mostly Yankee Doodle Dandy & Battle Hymn.  If a corp didn't want to do much stuff for the sake of being clean (no one did that) their GE score would suffer.

I'll save my rebuttal for G-bugles for another time 🙂

[Jeff Ream]

i had no problems with anything this year. some years i like more than others, but this year...yeah i'm good with it. it's no 1992, but it's #### good

[cixelsyd]

9 hours ago, hostrauser said:

I remember the interviews with Jeff Fiedler and Gene Monterastelli on those tapes, and Monterastelli in particular pointing out the big flaw of the tick system: it was beating down corps trying new things in favor of corps who weren't doing as much stuff but were doing it cleaner.

That is compoundly false.

First, corps have never been systematically punished for trying new things.  The entire history of organized field competition is filled with corps trying new things, and (not by coincidence) competing at the very top while doing so.

Further, using the terms "tick system" and "build-up" as if antonyms is a misconception.  There has always been a build-up component in the judging system, ever since there was a system (i.e. 1920s).  The final "tick system" of DCI, if memory serves, was only 55% ticks; the other 45% were build-up captions rewarding content and general effect.

Also, "new things" and "difficult things" are not always the same things.

[BlueStainGlass]

Another one of these? 🥱

[OldSnareDrummer]

1 hour ago, BlueStainGlass said:

Another one of these? 🥱

Dino Lives Matter. 

You go, @hostrauser. 

[MikeRapp]

12 hours ago, greg_orangecounty said:

That is a misconception.  The tic system did not "beat down" corps that tried new things.  You had to work within the specific requirements at the time (starting from the side line, color pre, etc.) but corps could and did try new things.  That's how we progressed from playing mostly Yankee Doodle Dandy & Battle Hymn.  If a corp didn't want to do much stuff for the sake of being clean (no one did that) their GE score would suffer.

I'll save my rebuttal for G-bugles for another time 🙂

Yeah but…

Compare show designs today to show designs using the tick system. They literally don’t compare. The creativity and general excellence is off the charts now. Literally.

The theory of the tick system is one thing; the unintended outcomes are something entirely different.

[2muchcoffeeman]

Got your back, @hostrauser. Your central thesis (people are being distracted by your comments about the tick system) is a fascinating one: The current system, purported to unleash unlimited creativity, has paradoxically driven itself into a cul-de-sac.

Granted, it's hard to see evidence for your assertion on the surface. Bloo is a riot of unconventional thinking. Crown has blown people's minds several times this decade. There is no other word for Mandarins this year than creative.

But if I follow you correctly, your diagnosis is more directed at the creativity of method, not at the content of the performances. BD has mastered the method, and thus need only apply the thinnest of new washes over the top each season to collect another gold medal. Surely this can't be what the visionaries had in mind in the 1980s when the tick system was abolished. It's worth thinking about.

Speaking of the tick system: I'm even more of a dino than you, and it was drum corps' obsession with perfection that generated my fascination with it and motivated me to march. It was precisely the pristine clarity of uniform performance -- group precision -- that set drum corps apart and made it, in my mind, worthy of attempt. The precision was the cool. The ability to send a judge back to the sideline with an empty clipboard was the thrill. The pursuit of tickless was energizing, not constraining. There was plenty of creativity within that system; 1982 drum corps was well advanced, creatively speaking, from 1972 drum corps. But at least as far as I was concerned, I didn't get into drum corps for the creativity; I got into it to be part of a dazzling music ensemble.

Not that I long for a return to the tick system. But I share your sense that something is lost when how you build your show means more, competitively speaking, than how you perform on the field.

Edited August 17, 2023 by 2muchcoffeeman