Who would love the Cadets again?

[ApocalypseTissue]

Your correct in these are all assumptions. However, these assumptions are probably correct.

To prove my point, I plan to poll as wide an audience as possible who saw the Cadets this year about what they thought of the show, and which elements of the show caused them to think that way.

This is something I've always wanted to do, but I see no way as of yet to poll the people who saw the show who don't visit DCP. If I did though, I'm fairly confident my assumptions would be supported.

(By the way, if the crowd loved the Cadets so much this year, how come they got booed when their name was announced at retreat? That didn't happen to any other corps.)

It's november, Hmm drum corps auditions for 2007 have begun, why do you still talk about 2006's abomination so frequently.

I'm asking this as a serious question. Do you keep talking about 2006 Cadets because you don't think people yet understand that people had mixed or negative reactions towards it?

[Hrothgar15]

It's november, Hmm drum corps auditions for 2007 have begun, why do you still talk about 2006's abomination so frequently.

I'm asking this as a serious question. Do you keep talking about 2006 Cadets because you don't think people yet understand that people had mixed or negative reactions towards it?

I talk about it because using vocal amplification so heavily, as was done in the 2006, seems to be the trend the Cadets are taking for their future shows. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

[crashhelmi36]

Why "need" anything? It fit the show, and the young lady did a marvelous job.

I'm not questioning the performers. They performed very well, and I'm not arguing against that. I just really didn't like the heavyness of the characters in the show design.

Why must you consider things a "mistake"? Personally, I liked the Cavies show this year better than the Cadets, though my faves are Crown and Blue Knights, but that doesn't mean they made a "mistake". Every year people will tend to rank the various shows as they like them...in 05 Cadets were at the top of my list...06...not...04...WAAAY not. Doesn't mean that any of them were "mistakes".

It was a mistake to me, at least. It just was so far out there from normal shows, it seemed like an experiment, and to me, that experiment failed.

And for all intents and purposes, I loved 05 Cadets. Took a couple of viewings to get it (just like Blue Knights this year), but I loved it.

[Orpheus]

"Abomination?"

[ChicagoFan]

The average of every opinion about the quality of the show of every person who saw the Cadets in 2006 is significantly lower than that of many other corps performing that same year, and one of the lowest compared to the average opinion on other Cadets shows throughout the past 25 years. That is, the Cadets pleased a lower proportion of the audience and to a lower degree relative to the other corps that year, and an even lower proportion to an even lower degree relative to other Cadets shows.

I'm amazed that you were able to illicit the opinion of EVERY person who saw the Cadets during 2006. But, even more astounding is that you've somehow managed to do the same for a TWENTY-FIVE YEAR period. Quite an accomplishment.

I know you'd very much like to believe that most people disliked the 2006 Cadets as much as you did but, other than non-scientific, anectdotal evidence, you have absolutely no way to prove such an assertion. Furthermore, by making such unsubstantiated, biased claims you do nothing to strengthen your argument; in fact, it has the opposite effect.

[Hrothgar15]

I'm amazed that you were able to illicit the opinion of EVERY person who saw the Cadets during 2006. But, even more astounding is that you've somehow managed to do the same for a TWENTY-FIVE YEAR period. Quite an accomplishment.

I know you'd very much like to believe that most people disliked the 2006 Cadets as much as you did but, other than non-scientific, anectdotal evidence, you have absolutely no way to prove such an assertion. Furthermore, by making such unsubstantiated, biased claims you do nothing to strengthen your argument; in fact, it has the opposite effect.

I know, these are just assumptions, but based on a sample of about 100+ fans sititng in my area at finals, I believe these assumptions are true. I would, however, love to collect actual data from a large (5000+) random sample of people who saw the Cadets show to back up my claims.

[ApocalypseTissue]

I'd be pretty statisfied if I had designed 2006 Cadets, seeing how that show gets more attention than the world champion corps. Positive or Negative, art does its job simply when a person gives complementary or disdainful thoughts upon it.

[dbc03]

But the argument is this:

1. The Cadets want to please the biggest portion of the audience possible to the biggest degree possible.

Possibly, however an ever growing portion of the audience is made up of band kids who have no clue that they aren't supposed to like amplification. It's still a large assumption to assume that pleasing the biggest portion of the audience is the goal though.

2. The average of every opinion about the quality of the show of every person who saw the Cadets in 2006 is significantly lower than that of many other corps performing that same year, and one of the lowest compared to the average opinion on other Cadets shows throughout the past 25 years. That is, the Cadets pleased a lower proportion of the audience and to a lower degree relative to the other corps that year, and an even lower proportion to an even lower degree relative to other Cadets shows. Many thought the show was spectacular and one of their best; however, we're considering all opinions averaged together here.

Even assuming that you could somehow back this up with something other than circumstantial evidence, it's no huge surprise that corps have off years sometimes. However it's a huge assumption to talk about every opinion of their show this past year, or every opinion of their previous shows for 25 years, or anything at all about what the majority of the audience is thinking.

3. The reason for such a low proportion of the audieneced pleased to such a low degree is undoubtedly due to the electronically amplified vocal elements of the show.

Is it?

4. Therefore, if the design time were not to include such elements in the future, a much bigger portion of the audience would be entertained, and to a much larger degree, thus accomplishing the goal in point 1.

A conclusion built upon pure speculation. You are creating what is known as a false dilemma. "Everyone who disliked the Cadets 06 disliked them because of the vocal elements. Therefore there are only two choices, do not use vocals or have shows that nobody likes"

Hate to break it to you, but it's not that black and white. Plenty of people liked 05 (Yourself included, or so you said at the time), and it had a large vocal element as well. In fact, a survey of DCP, probably the most biased drum corps community in existence, said that something like 75% of the people here liked 05. Plenty of people like Crown 04 too, and again, the vocal element is there. For most people I would wager that whether or not a corps uses the human voice is not their deciding factor on whether or not they like a show. The performance, design, and concept integration levels are much more important.

Notice how this says nothing about fact, only people's opinions.

You are stating other peoples opinions for them as if you know them as fact.

It is in the best interest of the corps, if they do indeed want to achieve the goal set forth in point 1, that they not use vocal amplification anymore, regardless of how many people truly enjoyed the 2006 show.

Lets take a closer look at this statement...

regardless of how many people truly enjoyed the 2006 show.

Translation: The Cadets need to do what I like, and to hell with what other people like

If they don't want to accomplish that goal (which is definitely not the case, as that is what the Cadets have always strived to do since their inception), they there's no reason not to continue using vocal amplification.

It's good that you've done such a study of the Cadets in their 70+ years to know their exact goals.

[Hrothgar15]

I don't think it's the fact that there were vocals, just the fact that they were so prevalent. 2005 I didn't have a problem with (other than the opening narration, which took 5 seconds to edit out of the MP3) because the Bjorkspeak and drumspeak weren't ACTUAL WORDS. Also, corps could use drumspeak before amplification (a la Blue Devils 2003), whereas having a soloist sing throughout an entire ballad was not possible without amplification.

[dbc03]

I don't think it's the fact that there were vocals, just the fact that they were so prevalent. 2005 I didn't have a problem with (other than the opening narration, which took 5 seconds to edit out of the MP3) because the Bjorkspeak and drumspeak weren't ACTUAL WORDS. Also, corps could use drumspeak before amplification (a la Blue Devils 2003), whereas having a soloist sing throughout an entire ballad was not possible without amplification.

The Bjork speak was in fact real words.

Something like clatter crash clack, rattle smash bang, etc.

I guess I missed out on the gene that makes shows with understandable words unappealing.