caviesfan8p Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 wow to say that the cadets are in the company of the cavaliers for having the best integrated shows the past two years is ignorant ...the whole reason the cadets won last year was because it was so different, many people would argue that it was a poorly designed show at best, with zero integration of the elements, just dripping with talent Hey, I'm the biggest Cavies fan as well, but give The Cadets their due. YOU might not have liked last year's show but winning EVERY caption INCLUDING both general effect captions does not indicate a poorly designed show lacking in integration. Why people feel that integration means that the color guard has to be mingled into the corps proper for most of a show is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlamInvert122 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 And my point was that you don’t HAVE to understand the show or what’s going on to enjoy and appreciate the MANY obvious, in-your-face aspects of the show that are simply amazing and well executed. So why did you post this thread then? If the show can be appreciated for what it is, why did you feel the need to explain it to all of us? I'm seeing a contradiction here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 I'm sorry; I missed most of that when I was trying to listen over the crackle, hiss, and cutouts of the vocals... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_S Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 You make some interesting observations in the Cadets show that this poster ( and probably others ) missed when we saw the Cadets. I intend to watch for some of these subtle nuances the next time with the Cadets. You mentioned the multifaceted layering to the Cadets show, and that certainly has merit. There is a fine line however it seems to me between " layering " and a " cluttered " show. I'm not saying the Cadets show is cluttered, but if one reads your post, one not familiar with the Corps competition timeline might conclude that the Cadets show was 110 minutes in length, not it's current time in competition. The onus should not be on the audience to " get " the show concept and it's execution. That onus in the performing arts rests with the performers and show designers . Judges have multiple opportunities in the course of a season to witness the multi tasking of the Cadets that you so articulately put forth for us. Most fans get only one chance to see the Corps. Thus it's entirely reasonable that the judging community has seen and heard what you have layed out for us, and the general audience member has missed most of these things in the Cadets show. That's why we have the apparent disconnect between the judging community right now and much of the nation's audience. As for the appreciation of layering and multitasking, my wife is an expert on that. She wrote the book on " multitasking " doing several things at once with her job, her kids growing up, the house, etc. She understands that concept as well as anyone alive in my mind. She can watch the kids, the stove, me, the house, the checkbook, etc all at once. She understood what the Cadets were trying to communicate to her, and she really appreciated all that talent, innovation, different cadences, weaving into the show the characters, the layering, the guard integration etc. But she's like many Fans, ( young or old ) the show ultimately left her flat, despite the effort , innovative creativity, and the wonderful execution. That fault is not the fault of the fans. That said, the Cadets have all the elements neccessary to win DCI again this year in my opinion. ack! hard return, hard return!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justafan Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Exactly what I thought. People don't like this show because they have to think... It isn't " ohhh that tune I know... ok they are marching to it."BS... people don't like shows these days cause they have meaning that isn't black and white... what a stupid reason to not like a show . No, it doesn't have to be black and white. You simply shouldn't have to have a PHD in Pagentry to appreciate a good show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpt43 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Most fans get only one chance to see the Corps. That should be the most important point. I think that may be the reason some fans are leaving DCI. IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_S Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Hey, I'm the biggest Cavies fan as well, but give The Cadets their due. YOU might not have liked last year's show but winning EVERY caption INCLUDING both general effect captions does not indicate a poorly designed show lacking in integration. Good post (though I do feel that perhaps Vis GE was their one weak caption last year). Anyone who's read me knows that I lean far to the side of Cavaliers, when it comes to this rivalry. But 2005 was a pretty great show, and no doubt an excellent performance. It fully deserved the championship, and you don't get that kind of praise if you have a poorly designed show. Sure, there were some things I would have changed, but I can say that about a number of shows. That doesn't take away from what the designers and performers were able to achieve. As for this year, I'll withhold commenting until I see it for myself this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madscout96 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 So why did you post this thread then? If the show can be appreciated for what it is, why did you feel the need to explain it to all of us? I'm seeing a contradiction here... Very good point. The show should speak for itself. Shows that are complex and have alot of "layers" are not a bad thing at all. They are great for those people who get to see the show several times live during the course of a season, and from different angles. It can make for a good DVD, too. However, when putting "layers" onto a show, designers should never ever neglect that all important FIRST "LAYER". That's the one that grabs your attention, and makes you WANT to see the show again. And then when you see the show again, you start to discover things you didn't notice before. Use Star 1993 as an example. That was a very complex show, and when I first saw it live, I thought "what on earth is this crap?" But there were also some moments in there that truly wowed me, and made me want to see the show again. I haven't seen Cadets yet, so I don't know if their 1st layer does that or not. But I do know that I wish they wouldn't drown out great music with lots of amped vocals. I'll see them at the end of this month and I'll keep an open mind, as usual. I'm sorry; I missed most of that when I was trying to listen over the crackle, hiss, and cutouts of the vocals... hehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 (edited) I'm not concerned with the design of the show as much as I am with all the silly amplified vocal crap. It's just bringing in things that AREN'T drum corps. Drum corps is completely unique; you never hear those sounds in any other activity. There's just so much stuff in this show that's just not drum corps. Like singing rock and roll. Or spouting off lines. That's not what I come to drum corps shows to see. Take all that stuff out and the show will be amazing. This just a bad case of pushing the envelope of the cliff and having it torn to pieces. Edited July 3, 2006 by Hrothgar15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madscout96 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 So I’m in the Museum of Fine Art and there are two paintings on the wall. One is by a great master and the other by one of the top modern artists of our times. The great master’s work is obvious in its simple depiction of a heavenly scene whereas the modern artist’s work needs to be studied and interpreted on a personal level. Does the need to view it for a more extended period of time or many times make the modern painting less than? What makes you WANT to study that modern painting in the first place? Do you feel obligated, because the artist worked so hard on it? Or does something about it really catch your attention, initially? The great master's work may be "obvious" in that there's something that gets your attention right away, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have "layers" that can be studied just as much as the modern painting. A great drum corps show should have something for those who are viewing it for the first time, AND something for those who are viewing it for the 15th time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.