2005/06 Cadets Positive Contributions to the DCI Arena

[dbc03]

ZIP <**>

Wait, what?

That's not even from this thread

[Lafalot]

...... :spit:

[Mark Walton]

:spit: :OT:

[perc2100]

Cadets proved this year that a mediocre design will not get GE points just because it has a ton of gimmicks (backdrops, props, tables, costumed characters, etc). If for no other reason, I thank Cadets for reminding judges that there is more to show design than gimmicks (albeit in a way that probably was not appreciative of The Cadets).

Hopefully corps designers have learned that a semi full of props, or creepy costumes will not make up for design flaws. IMO, that is a GREAT contribution to the DCI Areana, and I'm greatful for Cadets' competitive drop if it "helps" designers in the future.

No, I'm not intending for this post to be snide, or whatever. Sometimes the best learning experience comes from a mistake.

I truly expect Cadets to hit in from another direction next year, and come out on fire.

[SCdrumcorpsfan]

Cadets proved this year that a mediocre design will not get GE points just because it has a ton of gimmicks (backdrops, props, tables, costumed characters, etc). If for no other reason, I thank Cadets for reminding judges that there is more to show design than gimmicks (albeit in a way that probably was not appreciative of The Cadets).

Hopefully corps designers have learned that a semi full of props, or creepy costumes will not make up for design flaws. IMO, that is a GREAT contribution to the DCI Areana, and I'm greatful for Cadets' competitive drop if it "helps" designers in the future.

No, I'm not intending for this post to be snide, or whatever. Sometimes the best learning experience comes from a mistake.

I truly expect Cadets to hit in from another direction next year, and come out on fire.

Umm...... I don't know about this statement. I wouldn't go as far as to call The Cadets 2006 design a mistake.

To say that the design was a mistake means to say that it failed at achieving a specific attempted result. I question your criteria my friend..... I gather from your quote that you put alot of weight on the fact that the judges didn't reward The Cadets with the GE points that the corps is used to getting, or better yet the fact that The Cadets were rewarded with scores that were much lower than the Corps that they are essentially competing against.

If that is your criteria, then you are correct. The 2006 Cadets design was essentially a big mistake.

HOWEVER, I would make a strong argument that The Cadets at this point in their history could REALLY CARE less about what the judges think at all. I am very very serious about this statement.

*Read carefully, this is very important to my argument.........I would even go as far as to say that at this point, The Cadets have made a commitment to a goal/idea/dream that in their opinion is MORE important than winning another World Championship........ and definitely higher than apealling to DCI Judges and Fans.

I am ABSOLUTELY sure that The 2006 Cadets design staff knew that there would be a significantly large group of people that strongly disliked this show; Fans and Judges alike. Despite this fact, The continued with their vision. The same can be said for Jethro Tull & The Zone #1. The Cadets' decision to continue with their vision three times in a row, in my opinion, is basically a public announcement saying "WE DON"T CARE WHAT YOU EVERYONE THINKS!!!....."WE ARE CREATING OUR ART"........"IF YOU LIKE IT, GREAT!!!.......IF YOU DON"T, SORRY FOR YOU.....WE HOPE YOU LIKE THE NEXT CORP"

Don't get me wrong, Of course I think The Cadets want to win, but I also think that if they have to jump through someone else's predetermined set of hoops to do it ( hint hint, DCI Judges and Fans expectations), I think the Corps would rather not have any part of it. Yeah this might hurt The Cadets competitively, but I really think that they can afford to lose for a while, especially if they believe it helping accomplish a bigger and more important goal. (besides, they are the oldest and most awarded Drum Corp is history......yeah I Know BD has 11 DCI Championships.....but DCI only started in the 70's..... Cadets: Established in 1934.....do the math )

OK, enough babble. I say all of this to support the notion that I believe it is very very unfair for people to say that The 2006 Cadets Design was a mistake because it failed to win high GE or even come close, it didn't appeal to the judges, and many people didn't like it if (....a large resounding IF!!!....) The Cadets 2006 Design team didn't make JUDGE and CROWD appeallment a priority in the first place. You can't call someone a failure at doing something if they didn't try to accomplish it the first place.

George Hopkins often talks about his competitive desires, but his vision of expanding the benefits of Drum Corp to a larger group of people always is appartently paramount. I think Hopkins & The Cadets are prepared to do whatever they can do to help achieve this vision of expanding drum corps to all people. ( They started expanding this year in their own organization...... Fact: Amy Hernandez is the first vocalist to gain a Cadet Experience. If the 2006 show was designed differently, there is a good chance that she would have not been afforded that opportunity )

If making drum corps more accessible to non-drum corps fans was the paramount goal, I have to say from personal experience that The Corps has been successful at least to a small degree. On 3 occassions I took 2 people to DCI shows this year that had no previous experience to Drum Corps ( total of 6 people ). They ALL said that The Cadets were the most interesting drum corps to watch. Some quotes include "They were the coolest", "The did so much stuff", and "I can't believe they jumped off of those pink things. That was awesome". These people can't wait to see another DCI show in large part to The Cadets 2006 program.

Maybe.....just maybe......The Cadets design staff knows exatcly what they are doing, and most of us are the ones missing the boat.

[chaos001]

so this isn't nice. because i don't have anything nice to say.

largest positive contribution - increased sales for the makers of tums, prilosec, zantec, and maalox?

Hmmm...sounds like a JOKE to me!

Edited September 4, 2006 by chaos001

[chaos001]

Edited

Edited September 4, 2006 by chaos001

[jaylogan]

I liked the way the music, drill, and guard worked together during the '06 ballad to recap the '05 show (when Alice was finding the various props). It took me a second viewing to notice it, but once I did, I thought it was extremely effective and unique.

In '05, I also liked the way the guard stage left mirrored stage right during the beginning of the ballad. I didn't like that ballad to the degree that some of the people on this board did, but the guard really did something special during it.

[perc2100]

Umm...... I don't know about this statement. I wouldn't go as far as to call The Cadets 2006 design a mistake.

To say that the design was a mistake means to say that it failed at achieving a specific attempted result. I question your criteria my friend..... I gather from your quote that you put alot of weight on the fact that the judges didn't reward The Cadets with the GE points that the corps is used to getting, or better yet the fact that The Cadets were rewarded with scores that were much lower than the Corps that they are essentially competing against.

If that is your criteria, then you are correct. The 2006 Cadets design was essentially a big mistake.

HOWEVER, I would make a strong argument that The Cadets at this point in their history could REALLY CARE less about what the judges think at all. I am very very serious about this statement.

A few things:

1. The Cadets placement in 2006 was it's lowest since their 6th place finish in 1991. For those math impaired that makes this year's show their worst placement in fifteen years. In fact, it is only the third time they have placed lower than 4th going back to 1982. So in almost 25 seasons, the 2006 placement is in their Top 3 lowest. While that says a TON about The Cadets competitive nature, the fact is this was not a good year placement wise, one of their worst in the last 24 years.

2. I have both experienced first hand, and heard MANY stories from various DCI corps staff members about Cadets in critique, and their agressiveness with judges regarding placements. Not necessarily about "we're doing 'x' amount of difficulty and should be getting more credit," but a lot of "I can't believe you would score Corps X over us." This took place in 2004 during the Jethro Tull year, as well as other years. If they aren't as concerned with winning, they have an interesting way of publically showing that. And I won't even go into great detail about Hoppy's Blog, where he spent a nice chunk of the summer complaining about judges and placements.

3. All of that aside, perhaps you misinterpreted by original post. I honestly believe that judges sent the 'message' to Cadets that over reliance on props, backdrops, costumes, singers, insert-other-gimmicks, is not enough to compete for a Championship. Cadets placed fifth because of their talented members. If, say, other corps did a show like that I wouldn't count on them making finals. Do I think some of 2006 Cadets' ideas could work in a Championship calibur show? Of course: see Cadets 2005 (what I thought was a good 'marriage' of gimmicks, show design, and performance). But Cadets went quite a bit overboard in 2006 (IMO, as well as many fans and what appears to be the majority of the judging community), and paid for it with their lowest placement in fifteen years. I was trying to point out that I would bet other DCI show designers, as well as Cadets' designers, can learn from the design mistakes Cadets arguably made in 2006, and remember that there is more generating effect than having a bunny prancing around the field.

I totally agree that Hoppy and other design members are #### bent in changing the 'game,' and doing more than pushing the 'accepted' boundaries of design. They've been that way as long as I've been a drum corps (and Cadets) fan in the early 90's, and longer than that. Is it not still possible to push the design boundries and compete (I'd say yes, as Garfield proved from 83 - 87, and Cavaliers have proved from 2000-06).

We can agree to disagree, and I think we believe a lot of the same things. I think for as many people as you say were turned onto drum corps due to Cadets' show last year, I can make the same argument for people turned off of drum corps from Cadets' show. People have different opinions of what they like and dislike, and that's one of the things I love about drum corps: different shows for different folks. I love the fact that I might not like Cadets at all this year, but may love their show next year. I can't really say the same thing about any other musical genre: either I like a band or I don't. I look forward to what Cadets (and others) put out next season.

Edited September 5, 2006 by perc2100

[jwillis35]

Great points everyone.

This is a touchy subject for some because not all of us like the direction the Cadets are heading. When I think entertainment today I think Bluecoats and Phantom. I think Crown and Spirit, and BD. I used to love what the Cadets brought to the activity. I loved 1992 - 1998, I loved 1982 - 1990. Of course, part of that for me is my love for 80s and early 90s corps. I could watch these guys perform their 1984, 85, 87, 90, and 95 shows year after year after year.

But all of drum corps today really is a different beast. Even my hometown Bluecoats were criticised for their, as some saw it, overly sophisticated show this year.

I think sometimes we have a hard time watching a show because we have a vision in our head about how a particular corps should perform, and what they should perform. Sometimes we do not care for the product because simply do not like the direction (amps, vocals, props, acting, narration, and more).

To give some credit where it is due, here are some positives about these past two years with the Cadets.

1. Although they did not innovate, since the props and singing, amps, and more have all been done before by bands and corps, they did give each show a unique spin and they managed to weave together a story line that perhaps in and of itself is one of the whackiest and most interesting I have ever seen in the activity. While all of the elements of their past two shows have been done, the combination of those elements are certainly unique to the activity. Not an innovation as some would call it, but stretching the envelope, YES!!!

2. They still manage to incorporate some fairly in-your-face drum corps moments in their productions. The past two drum features have been excellent, even if this year's line was not quite as good as the 2005 line. The ballads continue to be amazing and musical, and this year's ballad was a particular high for me. That and the drum feature were the two moments in their show that I liked. But that's more than what I found to be appealing in some other corps.

3. I applaud their effort, as I do all the corps. I think they show a lot of guts when they try these kind of shows. They are taking big risks, and while this year's risks did not seem to pay off, we will not fully know the answer to that until a year or two from now. It's not always good to be at the forefront of change. But in the long run it will come down to how they adjust. Considering all that they did that was viewed critically by many, and considering that they had 80+ rookies in the corps this year, they still managed to be a TOP 5 CORPS. Not exactly an easy thing to do.

Despite the many views we see and hear about Hopkins and the direction this corps has taken the past 2 or 3 years, the one thing you can't deny is that these guys are good at adjusting, fixing, and competing. They have been great Chameleons over the years. I think you will see adjustments for next summer.