A Dinosaur's Lament

[ContraFart]

49 minutes ago, jjeffeory said:

 

A CANVAS?

What a beautiful way of presenting this, but they're ALL on the SAME FOOTBALL FIELD.

One man or woman's canvas is EXACTLY the same as another's drill sheet. Calling a burlap bag a silk dress does not create "haute couture", it just comes off as pretentious.

The one thing that the Blue Devils do better than the other corps is their unique visual technique. Thanks Todd Ryan! It feeds the visual scores. It augments the GE scores. Everything else is comparable to the other corps.

 

My question is what technique are they using? Since so little of their visual program is form to form marching, are they being rewarded for dance positions and body carriage? They use a fundamentally different visual vocabulary and skillset than the rest of DCI, which you really cannot do with other captions, so to me it becomes comparing apples and oranges. 

To use your example, wouldn't calling staging, marching come off as pretentious as calling a burlap sack "haute couture?"

[jwillis35]

On 8/16/2023 at 11:23 PM, hostrauser said:

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?

This was really well written. I agree with some and disagree with other things...but I like that it is written in a non-offensive tone. I think even die-hard BD fans would have no issue with the way you have crafted this even if they disagree. 

[resipsaloquitur]

4 hours ago, jjeffeory said:

 

A CANVAS?

What a beautiful way of presenting this, but they're ALL on the SAME FOOTBALL FIELD.

One man or woman's canvas is EXACTLY the same as another's drill sheet. Calling a burlap bag a silk dress does not create "haute couture", it just comes off as pretentious.

The one thing that the Blue Devils do better than the other corps is their unique visual technique. Thanks Todd Ryan! It feeds the visual scores. It augments the GE scores. Everything else is comparable to the other corps.

 

When I was young, all I wanted to read were pretentious little books. Camus and Tournier and Calvino. If it had a plot, I hated it. I'm tired of 'pretentious' just being used as an excuse to dismiss anything that expects you to have a brain.

[Jeff Ream]

15 hours ago, Tim K said:

This is where the Legacy DVD’s can be helpful. Lots of corps experimented in the tic days. Blue Devils, Phantom, SCV, 27th, Bridgemen, Guardsmen, are just some who took risks. Watch 1976 Blue Devils, the first year they won a title. That show is way ahead of its time. It’s also impeccably clean. Look at what 27th Lancers did with its color guard as early as 1976 or what 27th or Phantom did in the late 70’s. While it is true that some corps focused more on being clean than innovative in the tic years, including some finalists, your best corps often pushed the boundaries and they were clean.

Something that was common at the time was where risky things could be found in a show, at least in theory. Corps had 11 1/2 to 13 minutes to perform. After the timing gun was shot at 11 1/2 minutes and on field judges left the field, corps were said to try things that would no result in a tic, but I can’t think of any examples, at least not from a top corps where this was the case.

risk? SCV in 80. but that wasn't the only reason they were 7th.

 

in 82 Cadets jumped on the risk SCV took in 80 and took it was futher...and ended up 3rd. a year later they won

 

and while the tic system is the most commented protion of the OP, lest we forget the tic system was even more subjective than whats there now. no 2 judges viewed a tic the exact same way

[Mello Dude]

9 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

risk? SCV in 80. but that wasn't the only reason they were 7th.

 

in 82 Cadets jumped on the risk SCV took in 80 and took it was futher...and ended up 3rd. a year later they won

 

and while the tic system is the most commented protion of the OP, lest we forget the tic system was even more subjective than whats there now. no 2 judges viewed a tic the exact same way

Sorry, have to disagree.  YES the tic system was subjective but nearly as so now.  EVERYTHING is based on what is going through their little heads now.  At least on the tape you could HEAR the tic.  My problem today is the sheer amount of un-judgable content that will be solely based on what a judge thinks or worse assumes.  Personally I like the build up tear down method best.  A mix of both that was only briefly done.  What the activity needs, IMHO are compulsories like ice skating used to have.  Minimum ensemble playing etc.  Marching and playing;  like more credit given to those marching AND playing while playing a hard lick.

[Boss Anova]

1 hour ago, Mello Dude said:

Sorry, have to disagree.  YES the tic system was subjective but nearly as so now. 

 Both the Tic System and the Build Up System are very subjective systems.

 Overall, judging Drum Corps show today ( imo ) is FAR more subjective for the judges than BITD, for the simple reason that unlike earlier eras in Drum Corps the very use of the instrumentations utilized in the competition can be vastly different among the competitors now, compared to back in the day.

 By its very nature, a trombone sounds different than an oboe, that it turn sounds different than a harmonica, and all three sound vastly different than a concert french horn, or a baritone. Add in a singer's voice ( or a spoken voice ) to a show, and the disparate sounds heard up in the GE booth  for the all important GE judges are very dissimilar by this factor alone. Add in disparate props from among the judged competitors, and use ( or non use ) of things such as tarps, stagecoaches,  revolving optical devices, spinning units, imitation spoons marchers slide down etc, or climbing walls/ platforms, and the like, and then naturally the judging of such disparate things utilized in competition today make the job of the judges,... especially the all important GE judges.... FAR more difficult, challenging and FAR more subjective than ever before, imo. Hats off to them. Drum Corps has evolved to items utiilized in judged competition now that makes their job more challenging than ever before, imo.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Boss Anova

[TheOneWhoKnows]

On 8/16/2023 at 11:23 PM, hostrauser said:

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

Things could change for the activity once someone realizes they have to design like BD to 1) knock BD off their perch 2) Force BD to change their approach because at a minimum 2-3 other corps have figured it out and are designing like them. 
 

The closest corps to design like BD this year? Bluecoats. I said from the very second I saw their preview show “this is the only show that has the design to beat BD”. But as you stated, it comes down to cleanliness. BD is always outstandingly clean. I have said time and time again I do not know how they brainwash their performers to move exactly in the same way as everyone else. It baffles me. 

[jjeffeory]

On 8/18/2023 at 7:34 PM, resipsaloquitur said:

When I was young, all I wanted to read were pretentious little books. Camus and Tournier and Calvino. If it had a plot, I hated it. I'm tired of 'pretentious' just being used as an excuse to dismiss anything that expects you to have a brain.

I'm equally tired of the Uber intellectual crowd who militantly try to make things sound more important and grander than they are.

Balance...

My brain has earned me a couple of STEM degrees, but I don't try to belittle people who don't have that background. 

All these corps put immense thought into their shows.

The difference between them is visual technique and getting judge buy-in, not artistic genius. 

Just my opinion...

Edited August 20, 2023 by jjeffeory

[dcsnare93]

On 8/17/2023 at 10:26 PM, Lance said:

30 years from now (if DCP and DCI are still around) somebody will say something pretty much verbatim about today's drum corps vs 2053 drum corps. 

If DCP had been around in in 1993, you would find a thread pretty much verbatim about '63 drum corps vs '93 drum corps.  

For the record, I'm in lockstep with the op regarding personal preference for the activity.  The early 90s are my favorite era of DCI by far as well.  But even early on in the days of the internet (late 90s early 00s) there were "dinos" trashing the era that I loved and propping what they loved up as superior.  Same as it ever was.    

 

 

 

Yeah, I remember similar commentary about the state of drum corps when I marched in '93.

There's always been one generation trashing the next as the activity continues to evolve.

 

[Jeff Ream]

14 hours ago, Mello Dude said:

Sorry, have to disagree.  YES the tic system was subjective but nearly as so now.  EVERYTHING is based on what is going through their little heads now.  At least on the tape you could HEAR the tic.  My problem today is the sheer amount of un-judgable content that will be solely based on what a judge thinks or worse assumes.  Personally I like the build up tear down method best.  A mix of both that was only briefly done.  What the activity needs, IMHO are compulsories like ice skating used to have.  Minimum ensemble playing etc.  Marching and playing;  like more credit given to those marching AND playing while playing a hard lick.

i'll gladly disagree having spoken to many people who judged both. the sheets today have specific criteria, and with the advent of digital recording, every judges sound file can be accessed by admin at any time from anywhere. before tapes were made...well...god bless you. even when tapes first came out, oversight wasn't nearly what it is today. 

 

and again...could you hear the tic? your tic may not be the same as my tic. take drums...some corps tuned fuzzy on purpose to make a judge wonder was it a tick or just the tuning? same thing happens today. there was NEVER a universally defined and agreed upon version of what a tic was on any sheet in any circuit that existed.