Hrothgar15 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I don't want to start a flame war, but I wanted to bring up this topic. Ever since following drum corps, I've noticed that some shows are designed in a more "mature" way than others. Consider this: I just listened to Crossmen 1992 after listening to Crossmen 2006, and it seems to be night and day to me. I think part this issue is that there seems, to me, to be much more "depth" to the 1992 show--layer, upon layer, upon layer, with hundreds of nuances working together in harmony. Looked upon as a whole, it seems epic, glorious, beautiful, subtle, and humble. Without any offense to any members of the staff or marching members, the 2006 show seems to have far less depth, and, due to the amplified vocal radio segments, seems very, very immature. As a whole, it seems to have far less lasting value than the 2006 show; it doesn't seem there is as much "meat" there at all. But most of all, the show concept, elements used, and musical arrangements (without regarding visual design) just seems, for lack of better words, immature and cheesy, in contrast to a beautiful, serious 1992 show. Just wanted to see how people felt about this issue. What are your thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjdavistuba Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I can bob my head to narration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I do agree that some shows are more mature than others. Don't think I'd call Crossmen 2006 "cheesy" although I get your point on the comparison to '92. Actually, I thought the '06 show had a more intregrated ("mature"?) use of amplified vocals than any to this point. I'd prefer they weren't in there at all, but if it must be, I prefered their use than some others in that is was better integrated and not so in-your-face obvious and out of place. Anyway, back to the Maturity issue -- I've used this word to describe the progression of Bluecoats shows over the past 5 years or so. Each year, they're show just seems a bit more grown-up to me. Not that every one has been my favorite, or even that I necessarily enjoyed each show over their previous year's, but I definitely saw in each one an increasing maturity and integration that is driving them towards title contention. The way their solos are integrated into the shows both musically and visually, the way the music moves around the field along with the marching -- a corps maturing before our eyes, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NR_Ohiobando Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Well, I'd like to think the 1992 Crossmen were filled with a little more talent than the 2006 edition of the Crossmen as well, so they were able to give a mature product to a corps that they knew could handle it. Had the 2006 corps been handed the 1992 show, I don't think it would have placed any better. It might have been received better by the audience, but I don't think it would have helped the corps placement. I agree with you though, some shows are just "immature" in comparison to others. The 2005 Madison Scouts program was a pretty good example of having both. The first part of the show was great, everything felt like it was held together by solid ideas and elements along with a little flare. However, I felt like the designers kinda gave up with the last half. I can bob my head to narration. You must be one of them up-and-coming white rappers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.mello Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Totally agree with Liam. Bluecoats, along with Phantom and more recently Crown, have been giving us progressivly mature shows. The amount of layers and integration these corps have been designing into their shows is definitly paying off. But I will also admit that as a whole, the activity is becoming more mature. Its unfortunate that finals is only Top 12 since more of the semi-finalists are stepping up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein On The Beach Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Woah woah woah woah! Lemme get this straight. I'm gonna go slow, I'm not brightest you know. So you're saying that some shows are well designed, and some AREN'T!? Amazing, this is incredible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 Woah woah woah woah! Lemme get this straight. I'm gonna go slow, I'm not brightest you know.So you're saying that some shows are well designed, and some AREN'T!? Amazing, this is incredible. No, not at all. Some shows are maturely designed, and some shows are immaturely designed. I'd classify Carolina Crown 2004 at being very well designed but very immaturely designed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein On The Beach Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 No, not at all. Some shows are maturely designed, and some shows are immaturely designed. I'd classify Carolina Crown 2004 at being very well designed but very immaturely designed. Well when you put it that way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brassdrumguard Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Intresting thread. I do how ever agree with you though and understand where your coming from. Some shows just seem, I guess, more mature than others ... like I would say top 12 shows from this past year were very mature ... 2005 not so many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashofthunder Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 (edited) I find that some shows should be taken for what they are. Not every show has to have layer upon layer of meaning, and be in F double sharp minor to be considered a good show. Some are just plain fun. Cadet's 2000, for example. Some of the fun shows from 2006 were Bluecoats, Crossmen, Spirit, Capital Regiment, and Cadets and Cavaliers to a certain extent. Some of the more "serious" shows were Boston, Cadets, Phantom, and also Cavaliers. I enjoyed every single one of those shows. That's not to say that some of the "fun" shows were not designed extremely well and performed very well. Possibly my 3 favorite shows from '05 were Crossmen, Cavies, and Bluecoats, with cadets and Phantom trailing closely behind. I personally do not think that the narration in Crossmen detracted from the maturity level of their show at all. I found the narration to be very well used, and it fit very well with the FUN atmosphere the show was presenting. Personally, I believe that some people may try to discredit the entire show based on their use of narration, and I find that in itself to be incredibly immature to not realize what the show designers are going for and accepting it for what it is: a show that was designed exponentially better than '05. Edited March 31, 2007 by flashofthunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.