You be the judge. Re-write history. Part III.

[liebot]

If 2004 Cavaliers could (and they did) then 2002 also could.

I think '02 Cavies would easily beat BD '04, but I still think BD '04 would take brass, also easily.

[jake_the_hydra]

I think '02 Cavies would easily beat BD '04, but I still think BD '04 would take brass, also easily.

agree to disagree

[cat699]

if somethings worth doing its worth doing properly lol so here we go!

1, Cavaliers (2002) 98.9 (visual) (G.E tie)

2, Cadets (2005) 98.6 (G.E tie) (drums)

3, Blue Devils (2004) 98.1 (Horn) (guard)

4, Phantom Regiment (2006) 96.7

5, Spirit of Atlanta (1984) 93.2

6, SCV (2000) 93.1

7, Velvet Knights (1988) 91.5

8, Blue Knights (1992) 91.2

9, Crossmen (2002) 88.5

10, Magic of Orlando (1997) 86.6

11, Bluecoats (1987) 86.4

12, Colts (1993) 83.5

[contrajedi8]

1. 2002 Cavaliers- high vis, high color guard

2. 2005 Cadets- high GE, high perc

3. 2004 BD- high brass

4. 2000 SCV-

5. 1984 Spirit

6. 2006 Phantom- i saw this show a lot. i never understood what the big deal was about it.

7. 2002 Crossmen- just plain fun stuff!

8. 1997 Magic

9. 1992 BK

10. 1988 Velvet Knights

11. 1993 Colts

12. 1987 Bluecoats

[bluecoats88]

I totally agree !!

Im gathering the next set of twelve for later today !!

~G~

You should do like twelve corps that placed 7th - 9th from different years and see how people rank them against each other

[Phantom&Phitch]

I disagree with this . . . Cavaliers 2004 line almost beat Blue Devils (they did beat them in semi-finals) and the 2005 line beat the Cadets for the vast majority of the season.

I have a hard time imagining the 2002 line being beaten by Cadets 05 or Blue Devils 04.

could it be maybe Cadets had a harder horn book to clean?

more demand = dirtier in the begining, less demand = cleaner in the begining?

[jake_the_hydra]

could it be maybe Cadets had a harder horn book to clean?

more demand = dirtier in the begining, less demand = cleaner in the begining?

I generally don't pay attention to the difficulty of the book, but the sound that's produced Finals week.

I understand that some people are more concerned about difficulty than I am, so that's fine.

That said, I have no real measurement for difficulty- some things are made to sound harder than they are, some things actually sound easier than they are, often people don't take into account the visual demand that's going on (and it's often impossible to . . . the only people who really know how hard something is are the people doing it). Often people don't take into account what the goals of the ensemble are (I know I do that sometimes, especially when I find the results of those goals musically immature . . . but that's just MY preference and lots of people disagree with that, and for valid reasons).

Conversely, quality of sound, balance, colors . . . well, I can hear those regardless. Everyone has different things to listen for.

Edited February 22, 2007 by jake_the_hydra

[Loud-is-good]

I generally don't pay attention to the difficulty of the book, but the sound that's produced Finals week.

I understand that some people are more concerned about difficulty than I am, so that's fine.

That said, I have no real measurement for difficulty- some things are made to sound harder than they are, some things actually sound easier than they are, often people don't take into account the visual demand that's going on (and it's often impossible to . . . the only people who really know how hard something is are the people doing it). Often people don't take into account what the goals of the ensemble are (I know I do that sometimes, especially when I find the results of those goals musically immature . . . but that's just MY preference and lots of people disagree with that, and for valid reasons).

Conversely, quality of sound, balance, colors . . . well, I can hear those regardless. Everyone has different things to listen for.

I think you are missing his point. I believe that he was just suggesting that maybe the reason that Cavaliers beat 2005 for the majority of the season is that the Cadets book was harder to clean, and therefore they had some catching up to do, which they had done by finals night. Conversely, the Cavaliers style is generally, at least IMO, of a type that, regardless of whether you consider it more difficult or less, is usually gonna get there earlier (for example, tone quality is going to improve a lot less over the course of a season than technical accuracy). I think he was just saying that the Cadets had more to fix, which they did by finals, and that is why they were losing for awhile.

[triplefunk]

I think you are missing his point. I believe that he was just suggesting that maybe the reason that Cavaliers beat 2005 for the majority of the season is that the Cadets book was harder to clean, and therefore they had some catching up to do, which they had done by finals night. Conversely, the Cavaliers style is generally, at least IMO, of a type that, regardless of whether you consider it more difficult or less, is usually gonna get there earlier (for example, tone quality is going to improve a lot less over the course of a season than technical accuracy). I think he was just saying that the Cadets had more to fix, which they did by finals, and that is why they were losing for awhile.

I think what Jake was stating was his point of view, before we go down the old addage, of cavalier music is easy and such.

but what you stated is also true, and made me think, so thank you.

[jwillis35]

I generally don't pay attention to the difficulty of the book, but the sound that's produced Finals week.

I understand that some people are more concerned about difficulty than I am, so that's fine.

That said, I have no real measurement for difficulty- some things are made to sound harder than they are, some things actually sound easier than they are, often people don't take into account the visual demand that's going on (and it's often impossible to . . . the only people who really know how hard something is are the people doing it). Often people don't take into account what the goals of the ensemble are (I know I do that sometimes, especially when I find the results of those goals musically immature . . . but that's just MY preference and lots of people disagree with that, and for valid reasons).

Conversely, quality of sound, balance, colors . . . well, I can hear those regardless. Everyone has different things to listen for.

First off, Jake, you are right on. This was well said. I know that you were originally questioning my rationale for putting Cadets brass over Cavaliers, and although I didn't respond further back, I didn't feel I had to. Your point was very valid and well said.

But since all this debate is popping up, let me just say this:

My choice of Cadets brass in 2005 over Cavaliers 2002 was not easy. And when you throw a great line like BD 2004 in the mix, frankly it's downright crazy. When I chose my order of this top 12 the greatest question I had, largely because the other captions seemed easier to pick, was who would win brass, and the order that followed. I eventually had Cadets 2005 and BD 2004 tied, with Cavaliers 2002 in 3rd (due to the tie). But the spread would likely have been .1. I simply felt the Cavaliers of 2002, who were absolutely amazing in brass, would not have beaten BD or Cadets. My rationale was that Cadets had an edge in demand (which is not everything) and that they were just as clean and musical. BD had an edge in facility and demand as well. But when we talk musicality and balance and blend, we must remember that each corps goes for a unique blend and sound, and what they are looking for largely depends on the music and the type of impact. The Cavaliers are an amazing brass line with finesse, beautiful sounds, great demand, top notch training, and incredible shaping and balance. Demand should not be the end all of a great horn line, and the 2002 book had plenty of demand.

As I think about it more though, I still have Cadets just edging them, but I am not so sure Cadets 2005 would have tied BD 2004. BD 2004 was one heck of a line.