gellio Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Accoustically, not into a mic....... Amen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Accoustically, not into a mic....... Irrelevant to the original post about singing not belonging...it made no mention of mics/amps. I personally see no big deal about miccig something to make it sound better, as has been the case with pits and micced voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I would love to know how former Cadet members feel about this show. Have not seen it live...I will next week...the show sounds interesting...and the posted clips make me think I will like it...though only seeing it live will tell. Last year was my first year since 97 that I REALLY liked a total Cadets show from beginning to end...so we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensdawg22 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Do you feel bad for the producers, actors, crew, etc of a movie you say sucks?Do you feel bad for everyone involved with a theater production you think sucks? Do you feel bad for the chef if you think your meal sucks? I could go on and on and on...and it's the nature of the game. Put a product out there and some are going to love it and some (like me) are going to hate it. It's the nature of the game. If you can't take the heat stay out of ####'s kitchen! Big difference, the kids at Cadets don't get paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kusankusho Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Irrelevant to the original post about singing not belonging...it made no mention of mics/amps.I personally see no big deal about miccig something to make it sound better, as has been the case with pits and micced voice. Just trying to keep you honest - to the casual reader your post looked like we had been miccing singers for decades. Thankfully that is not the case. Mike - the chances of you and I agreeing on this haven't changed much, have they? Consistency is an admirable thing..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Big difference, the kids at Cadets don't get paid. Money doesn't matter. If you put yourself out there in any artistic former, you run the risk of people not liking it. Believe me, I think the Cadet members can handle anything they read on here. They are big boys and girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xballplayer21 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 well------fron the couple of times i have seen ----the cadets------i come away thinking----they are one great drum corp--------at least for the 5 or 6 minutes that they actually act like one ------an extention of last year for sure----but ----maybe they went -----one toke over the line !!!!!!!! w/Stp: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardman Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 This isnt a uniform. Its a costume, a poorly devised costume thats supposed to portray a character that many are familiar with in literary arenas. Phantom Regiments colorguard "uniforms" have been nothing but classy and nothing but flattering on all types of figures of their colorguard. Wether it be 1990, 1992, 1996...etc....Nothing they have ever worn was as tight and ill-fitted as what this "costume" is. A corps like the Cadets, who offer th best in marching and music shouldnt settle for anything but the best as far as "costuming" goes. They miss the mark entirely in this area. It doesnt help to inform the audience that she is the "queen of hearts: it is more like what its being called by most people in their reviews and impressions...I'll leave it at that, but in no way, in my opinion, can you even draw a comparison what Phantom Regiment or Blue Knights (?) wore to what this girl is wearing. And to stay on topic, its indeed one of the reasons whythey arent third: poor follow through on a concept from a design standpoint, and the inability to communicate with the audience. ~G~ Do you ever come down off of your high horse ?? Talk about getting your wrists slapped. YOu hate it when AudioDB and Dan do it, but its ok when you do it ?? You calling someone immature, wether warranted or not, is apersonal attack and against the guidelines in this forum. WHat happened to the "high road" you always take, or taking it to PM, if you have a problem with someone ?? It works both ways. Quite frankly, that costume is in poor taste, and it has ntohing to do with the girl, and you know that, you just want to rake someone over the coals. How are comments about a poor costume choice regarded as attacks on a human being. ? Maybe the designer huh ? Its not appropriate and when I have a daugfhter , if I do someday, she wont be on the field for thousands to see in a poorly designed costume. ~G~ Again, The ignore user feature is a wonderful thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cire Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 its funny how most everyone agrees with it, yet my (old) signature was considered as a "personal attack" when clearly its not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Time Fan Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I've done my best to stay out of this controversy because it is my nature and I have not seen the Cadets show live. But... I was listening to Dan Potter's interview on SP with George Hopkins (I think it is on DCI.org for free) and I heard something interesting. Here's the quote, "It's obviously not in line with the status quo I guess, obviously this show isn't. It's characterization, voice, singing. We obviously purposely set out to do someth... We feel the responsibility. We are the World Champions. You have to do something. Just can't comeback and do the same stuff over and over again." The line I found intersesting was the line that George swallowed and did not finish. "We obviously purposely set out to do someth..." Here is the issue. The Cadets design team decided to purposely do something with their show this year; make a statement to the Drum Corps world. You fill in your own idea of what that statement was. I personally think they wanted tweak the nose of those who had problems with their show last year by being even more outrageous, while executing the heck out of the show. I think their egos got too far in front. Someone esle labeled it correctly - sequel-itis. That is my opinion. Very possibly wrong. But what else did he mean by the half sentence that he thought better of saying? Why did he decide not to finish it? It is revealing in itself as it is. 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.