InHiFiStereo Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Pirates just might work. There is some good stuff in there. Either way though a pirate show would rock in '07! YARRRR! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dciguy1987 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Hint: Madison will place much lower with their "championship-pursuing" show this year than they did with any of their spectacular, entertaining, audience-friendly shows of the '90s. Hmmmm... WOW, I'm impressed! You can tell all that even thought the show is still very ditry, the ballad was re-staged and most of the closer re-written? You should go design some where, or better yet, apply for DCI judges training and do that. The guys tell me that this show has a lot to it that will not be clear until all of the little details are in place. I guarentee you this, no one is challenging their members more musically or visually than the Scouts. I believe they know what they are doing and have done an amazing job bringing the corps back from the mess they were in in 2000, 2001, 2002 where a lot of talent went elsewhere and the corps was is pretty bad shape from a traditional Scouts standpoint. The thing about change is that intelligent people know how to deal with it and the uneducated who long for doing things the way they were always done only know how to ##### about it and point fingers. Do us all a favor, keep your negative energy to yourself and let these guys work. The members deseve support, not trashing their show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dciguy1987 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Are you kidding? 1999's show would not place well? Let's say the Madison Scouts had the same exact skill level they did in 1999 and performed their 1999 show for the first time in 2006. They would still place 6th, if not higher (probably around 4th or so), because they would have a better show design than everyone else. Seeing as they will place 10th, 11th, 12th, or won't even make finals this year, which would you prefer? That show was perfect from start to finish. The way competition works is simple--judges reward the entertainment factor of shows not just through the GE caption but also indirectly: the more entertaining your show is, the better the audience reacts, the "bigger" the show seems, and the better the kids perform it because they know they have something great. I don't want the Madison scouts to recreate their shows from 10 years ago. I want them to play well-written, entertaining, in-your-face music like they used to. Sorry to say, the musical integrity and maturity of the '95 through '99 programs is on a completely different level than their 2006 program. I want them to start performing on that level again.Like it or not, the audience reaction to a show is directly proportional to how good a show is. Because the audience reaction is nowhere near as positive to the 2006 show as it was to the shows of the '90s, we know for a fact that the Madison Scouts are performing worse shows now than they used to. It's as simple as that. Funny, the crowd reaction the I heard at Indy was way bigger than Devs or Cadets. Hmm, need to get your ears checked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMadMan Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 (edited) Before I get too deep into this, please note my signature below for obvious bias. Now that that's out of the way...Dan, as you mention, we could go on for days (in another thread) about Scott not wanting to play the game. However, I feel the need to point out a nuance in your statement that invites a response; namely, your line that "Sal is emblematic of a philosophy at MDBCA that excellence and winning is a primary goal of the organization." Excellence and winning are not one and the same -- especially in this subjectively judged activity. A corps can be excellent and still not be declared the winner by the judges. I just want to point that out because I never saw anybody more committed to pursuing excellence than Scott Stewart. Scott had the unique ability to choose exactly the right time to lay into the corps when he felt that we were getting a little off our game. If we had a subpar performance (whether in practice or under the stadium lights), it was not some speech from Scott about "the judges don't know what they're talking about," or "the activity doesn't reward entertainment." No -- Scott would lay into us because we weren't maximizing our own potential, both as individuals and as a corps; we weren't achieving excellence. Were we competitive? You better believe it -- we wanted to have the most well-designed, well-performed product in the activity; we wanted to have the most palpable connection with audiences; we wanted to make members of the corps that had to perform after us wet their pants, etc. Those were things that we could control; therefore they needed to be done perfectly. You could maybe have simply said in your comment that Sal has placed winning as a primary goal of the organization. It may be a different philosophy, and not one that many of us from the mid- to late-'90s Madison corps will heartily endorse, but there's no denying that it's a valid philosophy. As an alum, I wish the Scouts nothing but the best this year and in the future, and I can't wait to see their 2006 program. Thanks for your last comment about the true Madison Legacy. Great, great stuff. I look forward to seeing ALL the corps in Madison. MYNWA Well said, Joel (at least I think that's who this is...lol). I agree whole-heartedly. To everyone else...having marched under Scott myself, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the man. He was wonderful at drawing the absolute best out of the membership. It's a shame that things happened the way they did, but that's our reality now. I absolutely hate that this corps has to "play the game" to try to be competitve or win in today's arena, but that's also our reality. I want nothing but the best for this corps, but it's awfully hard to try to "change" the activity when you're sitting in 14th place. There's no doubt that people like David Gibbs and George Hopkins have influenced more change because of their status as corps directors of 2 of the "big 3". There's also no doubt that they have DCI's ear when it comes to direction of the activity. To be in the place to influence POSITIVE change, you have to break into that circle...so I think there's more to be gained in the long run by "playing the game" than there is to lose. At least, I hope... Edited July 11, 2006 by BigBadMadMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scerpella Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 (edited) Before I get too deep into this, please note my signature below for obvious bias. Now that that's out of the way...Dan, as you mention, we could go on for days (in another thread) about Scott not wanting to play the game. However, I feel the need to point out a nuance in your statement that invites a response; namely, your line that "Sal is emblematic of a philosophy at MDBCA that excellence and winning is a primary goal of the organization." Excellence and winning are not one and the same -- especially in this subjectively judged activity. A corps can be excellent and still not be declared the winner by the judges. I just want to point that out because I never saw anybody more committed to pursuing excellence than Scott Stewart. Scott had the unique ability to choose exactly the right time to lay into the corps when he felt that we were getting a little off our game. If we had a subpar performance (whether in practice or under the stadium lights), it was not some speech from Scott about "the judges don't know what they're talking about," or "the activity doesn't reward entertainment." No -- Scott would lay into us because we weren't maximizing our own potential, both as individuals and as a corps; we weren't achieving excellence. I apologize if you got the wrong impression from my remarks and I thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify them.. The way I phrased that statement, "excellence and winning" was meant to convey that excellence has always been the aim of the Scouts program. The phrasing was meant to now add the added goal of winning in competiton. Scotts philosophy (to me) in the past 20 years was that Scouts would do their job which was to pursue excellence and a superior formative experience for the members and entertaining show for the fans, and then placing was something he had no control over so whatever it was, it was. I hope you didnt understand me to say that excelllence was not a part of the Scouts program. I know as you do from personal experience that it is the foundation of the program. Edited July 12, 2006 by dans24103 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scerpella Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 There's no doubt that people like David Gibbs and George Hopkins have influenced more change because of their status as corps directors of 2 of the "big 3". There's also no doubt that they have DCI's ear when it comes to direction of the activity. To be in the place to influence POSITIVE change, you have to break into that circle...so I think there's more to be gained in the long run by "playing the game" than there is to lose.At least, I hope... Hear that? That was the sound of a big fat can of worms being opened! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S. Pearson Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 uh oh Scott, this doesnt mean I have to pay you I hope!! Well, one beer! :) (if you want to...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Hear that? That was the sound of a big fat can of worms being opened! :P Maybe so, but there's validity to the statement, no matter how you come down opinion-wise on the changes they produced. Fiedler/Acheson put woodwinds into I&E, Gibbs was largely responsible for pushing the switch to Bb, and I think we know who spearheaded the amplification issue. :) 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.