What's more important for placement?

[drumcat]

Feel free to justify your votes.

[markdewine]

I voted the most important as the combined effort of kids and staff. TEAMWORK RULES!

I voted kid's talent least important. Attitude means SO much more than talent.

I voted 'before tour.' I believe in the Marine boot camp adage that says,"The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war." To me that transposes, in drum corps, to, "The harder you work BEFORE the competition season, the less-hard you'll have to work DURING the season." Period.

[SCVsopAaron]

I marched in two corps... SCV and Colts... Was the talent level THAT much different? Nope. Not by a long shot... Could a kid from Colts march SCV? Yes, no brainer... So what's the difference? Mostly attitude and the instructors... The instructors are the MAIN difference between the best of the best and the others... Then the creative team... I mean, just look at the show designs... You know which is going to be more entertaining, exciting, better music, etc etc before the season even starts usually... Just my opinion...

[Piper]

I voted the most important as the combined effort of kids and staff. TEAMWORK RULES!

I voted kid's talent least important. Attitude means SO much more than talent.

I voted 'before tour.' I believe in the Marine boot camp adage that says,"The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war." To me that transposes, in drum corps, to, "The harder you work BEFORE the competition season, the less-hard you'll have to work DURING the season." Period.

I'd like to agree more with that, but it would be impossible. I wish I had a dollar for everytime our instructors screamed at us in practice yelling : "THIS IS WHERE YOU WIN YOUR SHOWS!". Talent is great to have, but if it doesn't come with the proper attitude, then it's not a complete package. I've seen kids make a corps over less talented individuals because they had a PMA and the instructors were more inclined to teach them.

[DrumCorpsRadio]

I think the creative team is most important. You can have kids perform a show to near perfection, but if the show is poorly designed it's not going to beat the top corps. I also agree that attitude and drive trumps ability so long as everything else in place.

[Piper]

. I've seen kids make a corps over less talented individuals because they had a PMA and the instructors were more inclined to teach them.

That's 25 with my face in the dirt....I meant MORE talented.

[drumcat]

It seems like the kids don't matter to most people... if that's the case, then why do people complain about how the "big corps" recruit from, say, Texas? Why is that so important?

[Alabaster Box]

It seems like the kids don't matter to most people... if that's the case, then why do people complain about how the "big corps" recruit from, say, Texas? Why is that so important?

Having kids who already know basics of articulation, style, flexibility and blend isn't going to hurt you by a long shot. I just means that the staff is that much further ahead with what they have to teach.

I think a good example of staff talent versus member talent is the Cadets. No doubt there's talented kids there, but I know of kids who got cut from other Div1 corps and then got spots at Cadets....and then the Cadets ended up beating or placing close to those other corps.

I know of other examples where a corps has been filled with talented kids and not placed well. Boston 2001 comes to mind, as they actually attracted people from others corps who had rings and ended up falling in placement.

For me it's a toss up between the design team and the instructional staff, however. I mean, you get the most points in the GE caption so I would say that having a strong design team is actually more important, because it's going to net you more points then strong execution. I think a good example of this would be 2003 Cavaliers. That show was definitely hard as f***, and you can tell the kids got worn out because there are some pretty egregious execution errors, especially in regards to timing in the feet. BUT that show was designed to take GE to the max and they still ended up in second place even though they may not have executed as highly as a couple of the corps who placed below them. Execution or no, it's still one of my favorite shows ever. As one friend said, "It was an over-designed show for a corps already peforming at the maximum highest level." I think that sums it up nicely.

So I would rank, in order, Design Team, Instructional Staff, and Members. Obviously the stronger the members are, they easier it is for the staff to clean the show and add things. And obviously, the stronger the instructional staff is, the more the design team can throw at them. And really, the attitude of the kids has more to do with how they perform than their talent level.

[oldbandguy]

It seems like the kids don't matter to most people... if that's the case, then why do people complain about how the "big corps" recruit from, say, Texas? Why is that so important?

I don't think anyone is saying the kids don't matter. As you point out, Texas has some

great band programs, thus some talented kids. I think most people agree that the

talent level of today's performers is at an all time high.

Almost all of the D1 corps have very talented kids in them. I feel the big difference

in the more successful corps is more an EXPERIENCE advantage than a TALENT advantage.

That being said, I would vote for the DESIGN STAFF being the most important element.

Usually the folks that have the better designed shows are the ones that sit at the top of the rankings.

[cire]

most important.. instructional staff

least important.. talent

placement.. while on tour.

of course, i think to get the high score you can, youll need the staff AND the talent.. they definently work off of each other.

there have been many corps who solidy their placement after hitting the road. before shows even start it way too early to state any placement.. for any corps. because anything can happen.