Why The Cavaliers Won

[mellodramatic]

Nobody really has to "get it" for a corps to do better than another. The Cavies obviously, from the judges' perspective, did what they did better than everyone else did. Who cares if anybody "got it" or not; as long as it's clean, it wins. Now if you're talking about audience reaction and how much people LIKE the show then yea people would have to "get it".

[badmatchespartdos]

yeah. let's be dumb and not explore the meaning of life. i hate art anyway.

[jake_the_hydra]

Too many corps go for "meaning of life" productions that, often, do not connect. They make up words and complex "themes' that now require the viewer to try and figure out how the product portrays the theme, and in most cases, we just don't get it.

Either that, or it just comes across as boring or poorly-executed. That happens, too, I've noticed.

[Dave]

yeah. let's be dumb and not explore the meaning of life. i hate art anyway.

What? Who said anything like this? And since when does not liking something artistic equate to anything like this? If anything, this is the sort of attitude that's driving a lot of people away from many junior corps shows, this "Well, if you don't like it, then you're just uneducated" business. Contrary to what a lot of people think, it's not that hard to sell something complicated to the average person--just don't talk down to them. That's what we're getting a lot of, and many folks at all levels of understanding don't like it.

[sburstall]

Announcer to crowd at Camp Randall: "all of you that know the story of Faust, please stand up." (Regiment staff rises in unison) Announcer: "Thank you very much, you may be seated. All of you that know what a machine is, please stand up." (The entire crowd, including the Regiment staff, and the people selling souvies, rises). See, it wasn't that complicated.

BTW, this was a joke, with just a hint of truth. The shear simplicity of the Cavies production made it a winner with the average "Joe Six Pack" fans in the stands. The Regiment, on the other hand, while producing a great show, actually has to do more to draw the average fan in.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, I just recognize the genious of thought behind the Cavaliers production, beyond even even the actual execution of the program.

Too many corps go for "meaning of life" productions that, often, do not connect. They make up words and complex "themes' that now require the viewer to try and figure out how the product portrays the theme, and in most cases, we just don't get it.

Why can't you just tell me what you're playing, and leave it at that?

Entertain me, don't (try to) educate me.

ampssuck

RM - stupid is as stupid does.

ampssuck

I just thought thier check cleared the bank first.

[Matt_S]

Someone should have told the Cavies' guard that machines don't friggin' smile, either.

Machines don't breathe either, I guess you think the guard should have held their breath for eleven minutes, as well.

[bluecoats88]

Thankfully I could catch the shows on ESPN2 - I thought BOTH corps were great at what they did.

What worries ME, as an old school/pre-DCI drum corps type, is that DCI has managed to reduce the number of competitive drum corps in the USA to a mere handful, and that each year, we're looking at Cavaliers, Cadets, Blue Devils, SCV, sometimes Madison, Bluecoats, Crown, Boston Crusaders, and instead of dynasties that "the few and the proud" members of these great drum corps are and should be, there aren't other corps available in the country that could/should/would be competitive enough to make the finals.

This is not to take anything away from these great corps - they all are great and I congratulate all members and staff - but seems to me that there just aren't enough competitive drum corps nationwide to provide the "competition" needed to make drum corps "competitive" as I used to understand competitiveness.

Does this make any sense?

I understand what you are saying, but answer this. How many college football programs in the US today have a realistic shot at playing in the national championship game, or even one of the BCS bowl games? maybe 8-10, so even though there are hundreds of College football programs only a small handful ever have a realistic shot at the title, and that small handful is usually made up of the same 15 or so schools every year.

[alto92]

What? Who said anything like this? And since when does not liking something artistic equate to anything like this? If anything, this is the sort of attitude that's driving a lot of people away from many junior corps shows, this "Well, if you don't like it, then you're just uneducated" business. Contrary to what a lot of people think, it's not that hard to sell something complicated to the average person--just don't talk down to them. That's what we're getting a lot of, and many folks at all levels of understanding don't like it.

It seemed to me the point you were making was that "too many corps" try to explore the meaning of life, and that to do so was not a good thing. To me, some of the best shows educate AND entertain, thus pushing the envelope of drum corps performance. Drum corps is a forum just as much as DCP: art is a conversation. Art and life are partners, and to say that corps performances shouldn't reflect that, or to imply that the corps' shows who do aren't going to entertain, is...well...contradictory to what drum corps is all about. Like it or not, corps is an art, just as much as it is a show or a sport. Corps and their staffs SHOULD treat the activity as such, and DO. You can derive a lot of philosophy from what the Cavaliers put of the field this year - just as much as PR's show.

Every step, note, or toss was deliberately decided upon to create a certain aesthetic. That's art, and it's free.

Also, how would a corps "talk down" an audience...I really doubt Star 93 was put together with the intent to create that kind of a relationship with the audience.

Edited September 13, 2006 by alto92

[Matt_S]

Also, how would a corps "talk down" an audience...I really doubt Star 93 was put together with the intent to create that kind of a relationship with the audience.

Hehe, from Bill Cook's memoirs at StarofIndiana.com:

JIM MASON'S PSYCHE IN 1992

For Jim, 1992 was a pivotal year because the show was designed for a broad audience appeal and the result was a hostile crowd. At that time, he decided to explore different directions. His frustrations led him to the 1993 Medea program because he wanted to give the organization a vehicle where they would be in control of their performance from beginning to end.

Looking back at Medea, there were no opportunities for the audience to react until the show was over. This concept made some of the audience uncomfortable and created even more controversy. I guess that was Jim's vengeance.

.....

THE SUMMER OF 1993, THE YEAR OF THE #####

The "Medea" show was music by Bartok and Barber. Again, Jim decided to experiment with body motion executed by the entire ensemble. He asked the visual people to design a stark show which would be portrayed by contrasting colors and shapes--triangles and straight poles. The 1989 uniforms were replaced with a cream and black uniform. He did not want visuals to detract from the drill or body sculpting; the music was to be arranged to enrage and anger. It was not supposed to be sweet and lilting. Suffice it to say, the audience responded properly

Edited September 13, 2006 by Maedhros

[Piper]

PR enjoyed (and enjoys) a great crowd response because the average person turns on the radio everyday and all they hear is pop and rock, so when they see and hear a great classcal performance like that they ape out. It should be noted though, that if their perc line didn't come out smokin' with their tails on fire, they probably wouldn't have topped BD. The Cavs? They were unreachable. They had their show broken down to a science (no pun intended).