Madison Scouts 2006, some thoughts

[phan77]

This post is by and large in response to the one made earlier titiled "What are the Scouts playing, and why?"

After the 2002 season, I spent a lot of time feeling bad for Scouts and trying to come up with how I would try to re-establish that giant. I think many posters here, fans, and Scouts alumni forget that just three seasons ago, the corps was 14th place. Follow the history of great DCI icons that have had similar departure from the top twelve and you'll discover most of those corps gone from the activity. Of all of the current active drum corps, if asked which one I would not want the responsibilty of making a champion again, it would be Scouts. Most of the legend corps have now been through their six/eight year change of format that has allowed them to keep some idenity and yet move forward competitively. Scouts are currently at the start of that journey, and many people have an opinion, with one formula as to how to make that corps a competitive giant again.

One formula that is not negotiable. These "problem solvers" also seem the most angry and quick to criticize.

Off the field, Sal has done a great job of making the brotherhood traditions stronger than ever. When I meet these guys, they are very outgoing and eager to share their pride. I have experienced too many pre 2003 Scouts alumni who are eager to share snide comments and gossip. They forget that they are not talking about an inanimate object, they are talking about 135 young men who came to Madison to be a Scout, just as the pre-2003 alumni did. I undertand that Sal and his staff spend no time preaching about these alumni issues, the corps moves forward while embracing its past. Find a Scouts after a show and ask them about the nail around their neck....VERY COOL. These nails are some proof of the current staff's attitude toward issues off of the field. Well done Sal!

On the field....WOW, this is the really hard part. How to keep Scouts the same, yet competitive? Remember SCV's transition years in the 90s, Phantom's, Boston's ?

So Scouts are in that transition stage after being out of top twelve just three seasons ago. Without writing paragraph after paragraph of what you want a Scouts show to be,

could a fan narrow that down to a few sentences? Could we support the staff to find their way? Could we maybe narrow our requests down to a word or two?

I have. I want the Scouts to be aggressive and entertaining. These two words can be explained and defined many ways by many people. Some of what is entertaining in drum corps has changed. Expectations are different. So I leave it to the staff the try to create an aggressive and entertaining Madison show. These two words best describe all of my best experiences watching that corps for many years. So competitive, aggressive, entertaining Madison would be on my description sheet.

I am sure no staff sits down to write a poor show or a show that will make fans angry just to make them angry. From all accounts, the staff seems to be trying to do something along the lines of what I describe. The talent on the staff is deep, experienced, and hard working. I am happy to support their efforts to reestablish the corps identity and to do so competitively.

PS Isn't this about the members first and foremost? Isn't it also universally understood that all organizations that produce alumni want their support in many ways?

Isn't it also universally understood that all organizations that produce alumni change? Isn't it also better to recognize, praise and encourage the positive so that suggestions for change are not meet with hard feelings, but an open mind that is convinced of one's honest motivation to support?

[festive]

The show sounds competitive, aggressive, and entertaining, to my ears.

I totally dig Scouts every year. I know a lot of the criticism is done out of love, particularly from former members, but I'm enjoying that APD I bought today. I've listened to it three times since I bought it.

And my response is: :)

I'm sure those guys are having a great summer out there with this show. It just sounds like they are. It's a neat production with significant potential.

[Slow Adam]

I am sure no staff sits down to write a poor show or a show that will make fans angry just to make them angry.

Well, one staff team did that in 1993...they produced a masterpiece.

[BigBadMadMan]

Amen. I too was upset when I saw the decline beginning in 2000, but I knew this was in my blood...and my identity with the corps is unbroken. When I called about an open driver position before tour last summer, they seemed floored that a Mid-90's vet would WANT to come back and drive for the corps. They had become used to getting the snub from vets of this time period. Being my first time back on tour since '96, something awakened inside me. I found myself a member again. Imagine my surprise when I started to get a little depressed come May when I knew I wouldn't be able to come back for this season.

Are the Scouts of today the same Scouts corps that I marched in? no. But I decided a long time ago that I'll take the good with the bad...because what I love about this corps is so deeply intertwined with each of my emotions, that I know I could never ever walk away.

[Old Geezer]

This post is by and large in response to the one made earlier titiled "What are the Scouts playing, and why?"

After the 2002 season, I spent a lot of time feeling bad for Scouts and trying to come up with how I would try to re-establish that giant. I think many posters here, fans, and Scouts alumni forget that just three seasons ago, the corps was 14th place. Follow the history of great DCI icons that have had similar departure from the top twelve and you'll discover most of those corps gone from the activity. Of all of the current active drum corps, if asked which one I would not want the responsibilty of making a champion again, it would be Scouts. Most of the legend corps have now been through their six/eight year change of format that has allowed them to keep some idenity and yet move forward competitively. Scouts are currently at the start of that journey, and many people have an opinion, with one formula as to how to make that corps a competitive giant again.

One formula that is not negotiable. These "problem solvers" also seem the most angry and quick to criticize.

Off the field, Sal has done a great job of making the brotherhood traditions stronger than ever. When I meet these guys, they are very outgoing and eager to share their pride. I have experienced too many pre 2003 Scouts alumni who are eager to share snide comments and gossip. They forget that they are not talking about an inanimate object, they are talking about 135 young men who came to Madison to be a Scout, just as the pre-2003 alumni did. I undertand that Sal and his staff spend no time preaching about these alumni issues, the corps moves forward while embracing its past. Find a Scouts after a show and ask them about the nail around their neck....VERY COOL. These nails are some proof of the current staff's attitude toward issues off of the field. Well done Sal!

On the field....WOW, this is the really hard part. How to keep Scouts the same, yet competitive? Remember SCV's transition years in the 90s, Phantom's, Boston's ?

So Scouts are in that transition stage after being out of top twelve just three seasons ago. Without writing paragraph after paragraph of what you want a Scouts show to be,

could a fan narrow that down to a few sentences? Could we support the staff to find their way? Could we maybe narrow our requests down to a word or two?

I have. I want the Scouts to be aggressive and entertaining. These two words can be explained and defined many ways by many people. Some of what is entertaining in drum corps has changed. Expectations are different. So I leave it to the staff the try to create an aggressive and entertaining Madison show. These two words best describe all of my best experiences watching that corps for many years. So competitive, aggressive, entertaining Madison would be on my description sheet.

I am sure no staff sits down to write a poor show or a show that will make fans angry just to make them angry. From all accounts, the staff seems to be trying to do something along the lines of what I describe. The talent on the staff is deep, experienced, and hard working. I am happy to support their efforts to reestablish the corps identity and to do so competitively.

PS Isn't this about the members first and foremost? Isn't it also universally understood that all organizations that produce alumni want their support in many ways?

Isn't it also universally understood that all organizations that produce alumni change? Isn't it also better to recognize, praise and encourage the positive so that suggestions for change are not meet with hard feelings, but an open mind that is convinced of one's honest motivation to support?

Thank you Phan77 !!!! My thoughts as well !

[festive]

Well, one staff team did that in 1993...they produced a masterpiece.

I know that was their intent, but I think that intent was overshadowed by the deft use of the materials of drum corps to produce something truly unique and evocative. It was a drum corps show, first and foremost, and they respected their canvas, but they were right on the edge of what a drum corps show was. To me, some parts of it are so hauntingly beautiful--I wasn't ever really "angered" by it. I was awed by it.

Back OT, I think this Madison show is different. I'm not hearing any designer rage. :)

[Lance]

I just listened to their apd and thorughly enjoyed it. The opener is the same piece as BD's '97 closer. Both Ginastera pieces sound great, especially the Malambo from Danza Finale...a very nice take on a piece that Phantom ('93) and BD ('99) did as well (though I still think Phantom's version of it is about as good as drum corps can get :) ). And I've been looking forward to somebody doing his Harp Concerto for awhile. The Morricone piece is timeless and beautiful. Overall, a nice musical show with lots of room for growth. :)

[vferrera]

I'm an alumnus and I'll always support the Scouts. However, I do feel that the organization overreacted to the competitive problems that started in 2000. The one thing that really needed to be fixed was the color guard. This still has not been fully addressed. Things that were lesser problems were visual design, visual performance and percussion. These areas have been addressed and the corps is making good progress.

The one thing that was definitely not a problem was the music program. The new staff has completely changed the Madison sound, and not in a positive way. Why anyone would do that is beyond my comprehension.

Then there was the business with the uniforms. I think this is a minor issue, but again, there was nothing at all wrong with the old uniform and the changes they made were not really an improvement. This was more a matter of putting their stamp on the "new" Scouts rather than addressing a problem that needed to be fixed.

I applaud the new administration for addressing some of the Scouts competitive problems. I have enjoyed them over the last three years and will reserve judgment till I see them this year. However, I do feel that the new staff is more interested in playing the game than in changing the game. This is a strategy for a perennial 6th place, not a contender.

[bawker]

I'm an alumnus and I'll always support the Scouts. However, I do feel that the organization overreacted to the competitive problems that started in 2000. The one thing that really needed to be fixed was the color guard. This still has not been fully addressed. Things that were lesser problems were visual design, visual performance and percussion. These areas have been addressed and the corps is making good progress.

I applaud the new administration for addressing some of the Scouts competitive problems. I have enjoyed them over the last three years and will reserve judgment till I see them this year. However, I do feel that the new staff is more interested in playing the game than in changing the game. This is a strategy for a perennial 6th place, not a contender.

I think you expressed what some of us (as fans looking from the outside in) who witnessed the changes from 2003 on feel.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Scouts are great...but I often wondered why there wasn't just a change to the failing color guard and visual numbers. Brass scores were still pretty decent, even on G bugles...and Scott and company had taken the corps back up from the "down" years placement-wise of 89/90 with the 1994-1999 products ...so I think there could have been some compromise.

Of course, I'm not privy to the inside of the Scouts organization...whether there was some sort of politics at work, if the financial cionsiderations of not making Finals were a part of it, or anything like that.

I still think Sal Salaas and everyone there have their heart in the right place concerning the Scouts identity, but it's a herculean job to try to follow Scott Stewarts tenure.

I can say that even though 2002 was a down year...that was the last year I really "felt" the Scouts. That's not a knock on anyone...just that I've tried since, and it's not the same. I can't describe the intangible that's missing.

Perhaps it's just me, which is fine...but I do hope to recapture that feeling again. :)

Edited June 29, 2006 by bawker

[gellio]

I'm an alumnus and I'll always support the Scouts. However, I do feel that the organization overreacted to the competitive problems that started in 2000. The one thing that really needed to be fixed was the color guard. This still has not been fully addressed. Things that were lesser problems were visual design, visual performance and percussion. These areas have been addressed and the corps is making good progress.

The one thing that was definitely not a problem was the music program. The new staff has completely changed the Madison sound, and not in a positive way. Why anyone would do that is beyond my comprehension.

Then there was the business with the uniforms. I think this is a minor issue, but again, there was nothing at all wrong with the old uniform and the changes they made were not really an improvement. This was more a matter of putting their stamp on the "new" Scouts rather than addressing a problem that needed to be fixed.

I applaud the new administration for addressing some of the Scouts competitive problems. I have enjoyed them over the last three years and will reserve judgment till I see them this year. However, I do feel that the new staff is more interested in playing the game than in changing the game. This is a strategy for a perennial 6th place, not a contender.

Wow, we have a difference in opinion. I feel they were too slow to re-act to the tremendous visual woes of the 2000 season. Look at the opening set in finals - there's a guard member over 5 years out of the form - on the opening set. That is just unacceptable. If the alarms didn't go off after 2000, they should have knocked people over with their force after 2001. Everyone was shocked when Crown beat them at finals in 2001. I wasn't. Sure Madison blew them away brass wise (IMO) but Crown more than blew Madison away visual - and their design was exceptionally better - musically and visually.

Visual design and performance problems were not "lesser problems" from 2000 to 2002 - they were severe, enormous, huge! They couldn't have been much bigger, especially for a corps who had a great visual design in 1999. In 2000 the design was good, the execution woes kept them down. 2001 and 2002, it was both! No only was the design behind everyone else in the top 12 (at least in 2001), the execution was very poor.

I think the musical design of 2001 was great, but was a blast from the past. 2002 - not good! 2000 - awesome! 2000 was interesting and something new, which I admired and appreciated. I didn't care for 2001 or 2002. I sat their at finals in 2001 just stunned. Stunned in disbelief at what I saw and the placemnt received. (I didn't see 2000 live or the DVD until after 2002).

I applaud and support the changes that have happened in 2003 going forward - all of it (with the exception of this year's guard uniforms - CHANGE THEM). They are beginning to have the design, experience, and talent needed to compete at the top levels in this activity - which is where I want them to be.

I thought last year's show was extremely entertaining, and I'm excited to hear the 2006 edition. I appluad them for attempting a very demanding show this year, regardless of placement. I think that's key to getting back in the top. The Cadets, BD, and Cavies win because they have the design, the difficulty, the experience, and the talent. Scouts are on their way back IMO.

Edited June 29, 2006 by gellio