Cavalier dominance 2000-Present

[justanopinion]

Pardon my ingorance on this one, but what part of a machine wears a headset?

um....the head?

[Michael Boo]

Pardon my ingorance on this one, but what part of a machine wears a headset? Let alone a NONfunctioning headset. I don't get it, but I do get that guard outfits are getting WAAAAYYYYYY out there. Not necessarily bad, but very different.

They were robots.

And besides, what kind of a machine marches?

What kind of a machine hops on buses and travels around the country every summer? (Okay, a mobile GPS device, perhaps.)

[Marlin Hunter]

The Cadets march and play much more than the Cavaliers do by the way.

Many times the faster moving lines will be played standing still as opposed to marching and playing them. Watch 2002 Cavaliers and 2006 Cavaliers to a Cadet show out there. You'll probably see that the Cadets move and play at the same time way more frequently than the Cavaliers

wasn't it '05 when the cadets did not play for about 2 minutes while that narration went on? i believe i remember them walking around the field and doing poses or something at a very slow tempo.

i always hear people talking about "corps X marched at 220 bpm, or corps Y played this 32nd note run." while i appreciate 10 seconds of 220 bpm, it's not quite that challenging. look at 007, the ENTIRE latin piece was over 215 bpm; 4-5? HA! piece of cake! i've personally marched 3-5...backwards! oh yeah, that 007 show had 250 SETS....not including sub-sets. (no i did not march 04)

I'd rather watch a brass line work hard for 11.5 minutes than one work smart for only 8 or 9. That's all I meant.

see above. also, i don't believe a brass line is working as hard when they march their ballad at actual tempo. Frameworks, while not as physically demanding as 01, 03, and 04, did march much of their ballad 160+. Cavaliers are famous in the 2000's for marching large portions of their ballads as "double time." imho, when you're marching your ballad at 120, as a performer, it gives you sort of a "down time."

Edited March 7, 2007 by Marlin Hunter

[Mouthpiece1234]

wasn't it '05 when the cadets did not play for about 2 minutes while that narration went on? i believe i remember them walking around the field and doing poses or something at a very slow tempo.

I think you mean 2006.

But then again 2006 had an opener that was constantly played with very little if any breaks in the hornbook for each song except for those 2 minutes of percussion. It's harder playing continuously with only one long break than playing and marching something with periodic rests in it. That's just my opinion.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Mouthpiece1234

[raphael18]

that 007 show had 250 SETS

That doesn't really mean much - the Cavaliers tend to only have about 4 counts per set. At least personally, the corps I marched corps had very few moves that short, most were 6, 8, 10, 12, even up to 24 or 32 (with subsets).

I will give you this though - the Cavaliers require their members to be as athletic or more so than any other corps. Think of the energy you have before a show as a set amount, say 100. As you progress through the show visually you will use a lot of energy. Also, the higher the volume you play at - that also requires more energy. So, by tapering back the volume and allowing for frequent rests the designers have allowed the corps to perform their drill more efficiently.

[Well, it made sense when I typed it]

So, while the Cavaliers do not play as much, they move a lot more. It's simply a slight skewing of the scale. Consider this, Regiment kicked up the visual demand big time this year, consequently they added in more pit and battery features (partially because those sections were so strong) to allow the hornline more breaks in order better handle the increased visual load while performing the demanding drill.

So, of all the things mentioned prior in this thread, I believe the people advocating the importance of design and pacing for the Cavaliers have really nailed what sets them apart.

The rest of the top 4 have great talent, full corps, comparable music, are fed well, have great staffs, have comparable equipment, etc. I think the big difference really is in the design (and it is a lot deeper than just cool drill).

[raphael18]

when you're marching your ballad at 120, as a performer, it gives you sort of a "down time."

Most people will agree that marching slower is actually more difficult. Think about it - higher risk for visible phasing, really puts your technique on display, and forms take longer to develop - requiring the corps to depend on its musical ability to carry the GE.

These are things that the Cavaliers are not good at - thus, it makes sense that they wouldn't want to show them off. However, corps like Cadets, BD, and Regiment thrive on these moments to show off these same things.

Ballads are the exact opposite of downtime for the hornline - usually it requires the highest musical demand of the show.

[Meaghatron]

Most people will agree that marching slower is actually more difficult. Think about it - higher risk for visible phasing, really puts your technique on display, and forms take longer to develop - requiring the corps to depend on its musical ability to carry the GE.

These are things that the Cavaliers are not good at - thus, it makes sense that they wouldn't want to show them off. However, corps like Cadets, BD, and Regiment thrive on these moments to show off these same things...

What is your evidence regarding the Cavaliers not being good at what you said? Is it because of the musical ability carrying GE? Just curious...

[siLk]

wasn't it '05 when the cadets did not play for about 2 minutes while that narration went on? i believe i remember them walking around the field and doing poses or something at a very slow tempo.

i'm having a hard time understanding the rationale behind claims that cadets '05 wasn't a difficult show. really?

[chris ncsu]

Yes, darn the Cadets for standing mostly still during the Philip Bliss ballad in 1993! Such a low-demand show, I tell you...

:-p

I think there are probably valid arguments to be made about the ease or difficulty of performance of any corps in any particular year, but I'm not sure where it gets you when the CHIEF argument about the placement merit of any corps has more to do with execution and 'effect'.

[shostahoosier]

The flaw in this argument is that the audition numbers are not evenly distributed across all DivI corps. The 17-22 place corps were struggling to field 135, and few will ever get to 150. The new rule just makes them that much less competitive and pretty much guarantees that 1 or 2 of them will not survive, or will drop into DivII. So in the long run, more kids are not served.

The real argument for increasing Div1 corps size is economic. For a nationally touring corps, it just makes sense to take advantage of economies of scale. But you only reap those economies if you can fill all the spots. DCI's BOD realized this in the 70s and that's why they limited corps size to 128. It was to maintain a semblance of competitive parity.

Increasing corps size is great for the top 6, bad for everyone else. Unless DCI comes up with a draft system or some other way to achieve parity, the activity will likely continue to contract, no matter the increase in audition numbers.

I think drum corps should allowed to continue with their free-market system style of recruitment.

If drum corps paid kids to march...then I could see DCI stepping in to help the have-nots achieve some parity with the top echelon of corps. However, as it stands now, corps are not paying kids. Who are we to tell someone who is spending their hard earned money that they cant march X corps because it wouldnt make it fair for the rest of the field?

The death of Div II/III corps is a lot more complex then the Div I corps having their membership limits increased. Do you think going back to 128 members would help start a flurry of smaller corps?