Let the offseason begin: DCI 2006...

[bawker]

http://dci.org/news/news.cfm?news_id=9c842...64-63afb9a00e9e

(from George Hopkins) Next year, the Cadets will follow a familiar pattern in terms of the show. “I think we’re going to stay on a similar pathway, not this, but storytelling, something a little bit unusual I think, but we’ve only talked about it briefly.”

Thoughts?

The move away from "show, don't tell" appears to be taking place, especially taking these comments into consideration.

What do we see here, and from everyone else who will inevitably ape the Cadets (and/or Blue Devils) 2005 program in some fashion next year?

More attempts at a "cerebral" show, but with the caveat of a narrated explanation, steeped in trying to convey specifically what the designers feel we should "get"?

Or, given the scoring of the Blue Devils show ...not that 4th place is anything to be ashamed of, but try to frame this in the general idea of the thread... which was a great deal more contingent on narration, do we see corps take a "less is more" approach, and design shows as "big picture", with narration only as a accent?

On a personal note, I kind of feel bad that this is all I can really digest from Finals, but it appears that being more or less on the sidelines this year as a fan has distanced me from things somewhat. Anyhoo...

Long story short, though...do we take Cadets 2005, with the scoring gap betweem them and the Cavaliers... as a "revolution", on the scale of a 80's BD, a 90's Star, a early 00's Cavaliers? One that sends everyone playing catch up, as a new "age" in the idiom?

Or do we look at Phantom Regiments fairly straightforward show in 3rd, and the Cavaliers in 2nd (although the "Chicago" motif is more of a self contained "storytelling" than some others, albeit without narration) as contrary to that idea?

[Ben]

please phantom new world symphony B)

[Blackstar]

I don't see good things for 2006. But look at some of the thngs that are done this coming band season in the top ranks of BOA, USSBa, TOB etc and you will see the 2006 drum corps season.

More bands will have larger and more props on the field. Props will be the thing

for the next few years.

Corps will get away from the "fan friendly" music for the more "outthere" kind of music that must "grow" out you as the season goes on.

No more musicial, sensative, quiest endings. It's going to get faster (if possible) and crazier. 2005 shows that the shows like Phantoms Gershwin isn't going to win anymore. And it's a shame.

2006 will be upheaval in the top 14. One corps will take a year off. No names but I wish everyone luck.

Bluestars moving up to D1 on size alone but with talent lacking will score very low.

More corps in finals this year especially in D2/3. I think we'll lose 2 and gain 1 new corps next year. I would love to see Bandettes, LVK, and othrs back on the field.

I would like to see more "schoolastic" corps like Hawthorne Gold.

And for 2006 Vanguard back in the top 3, Phantom out of the top 3. Bluecoats in, and the winner in 2006 Madison, with a clean MUSICAL show.

[mobrien]

Ok, here's the deal for me.

Cadets show, while incredibly well performed, was a bit of an 'emperor's new clothes' situation. For all the talk about how 'esoteric' it was, it was really only music and moving around. If you took the girls in the outhouse out of the show, nobody would have missed them - because they REALLY didn't have anything to do with the rest of the program.

Watch their movement. Arbitrary waving in front of the snare line. Marching with a toolbelt in front of the tenors. Looking generally perplexed in a raincoat. NONE of those things had anything to do with how anyone else on the field reacted with them, and the musical selections had NOTHING to do with her supposed predicament (a quotation from the Twilight Zone is hardly enough to build an entire theme around...)

The outhouse of many doors was a large concealing device, but wasn't used as a visual element the same way Cavies did with the ladders. The ladders may or may not have worked, visually (personally, I thought they clutterred up the field), but at least the guys were utilising them in multiple ways to create a seres of visual effects. Should that be credited more than a black box on the 50 that ISN'T utiliised as part of the visual? Yes, though it appears that the judges didn't score it that way.

God bless the kids in the Cadets. They marched their arses off and played beautifully. But I hope no other directors look at this show as being 'cutting edge' in any way other than spin. As Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, "there's no 'there' there". Great musical effects, but greater meaning by dint of having the schoolgirls traipsing around? Nope.

Complex ideas and narratives simply go beyond the scope of what can be done on a football field. Complex emotions? Absolutely. Big stories? Not a chance.

As far as next year, they're going to have to come up with judging criteria for the narration effects and other amped vocalizations. Some were well done (Bluecoats), some weren't (no names, but some of the kids doing the narration sounded as if they'd had no acting or vocal training - which should have counted against them). Comes down to it, the quality of the equpment used should be judged (BD's narration at least sounded clear - some, like Cadets and Seattle Cascades never sounded as good).

Edited August 14, 2005 by mobrien