Madison Scouts 2007

[scottgordon]

I think you mean Les Etoils

No, I mean Les Eclipses.

[masterfitter]

I think the new ED, horn arranger and staff were actually an effort to do just that. They are trying to maintain that balance between entertainment and scores. Number of issues creating challenges however. First of all as I understand it almost the whole battery defected to Glassmen to follow McNutt. This years group is almost completely new so they will have to grow into their roles. I'm not a percussion guy but when I can hear dirt you know there are issues they need to resolve. Visual wise they have opted for another insanely difficult drill. In fact I put it on a par with Bluecoats. Phantoms was actually less difficult (IMO) and this may need to be addressed as championships approach. But to be fair Ive never seen ANYONE do what Phantom does in the last 30 seconds of Firebird which was an entire corps sprint while playing.

Madison has definitely taken a page from Cavies book with this years show concept, begininng and ending with similar moves and tone. And the guard unis are very reminiscent of Cavies a few years back as well. Funny thing, Phantoms guard is heavily male now and are wearing uniforms that at first glance look much like Scouts much maligned unis from last year. I mean WTF?? In my non guard opinion, Scouts guard does too much dancing and not enough equipment work.

Beautiful as Faures Requiem is, to me it occupies too much time and represents kind of a "hole" in the middle of their show. I think Scouts are going to be rewriting more than usual this year and top 12 appears to be a daunting challenge.

Something that happened in Rockford after the show reinforced the idea that drum crops just is a whole different animal now(going hand in hand with the idea of Scouts battery just up and changing corps) Phantoms age outs were being announced and it seemed like 75% or more of them were rook outs. Whatever happened to corps longevity?

Regarding Colin McNutt - he is with the Cadets now, NOT Glassmen (along with Ian Moyer the pit arranger). Many other percussion staff from 06 and previous (Lee Beddis, and many techs) went to Crown. While there may be a percussion member(s) from 06 in Glassmen, I know for fact you will find a few in Cavaliers (including the gentleman that was the center snare), Bluecoats, and Crown.

Seven out of 9 from the Madison 06 brass staff are with the Glassmen, as is Sal Salas, where they are doing a fabulous job (no surprise to me). There are 3 from the visual staff at Colts (including Jeremy Hunt).

There are approximately 20-25 vets from the 06 Madison Scouts marching in the 07 edition. Having been at the show in Rockford, I took the time to connect with as many of the 06 Scouts as I could. The 03-06 staff is history, but those members we worked with will always be a part of us.

[The Nagging Cough!]

So, the Scouts may have an off year...or two...or even three.

That's fine with me. I'd rather have a financially stable Scouts in 12th-17th place than have a group that bets the farm just to make it to Saturday night again one year.

I agree. (And so does the Magic of Orlando.)

I'd like to see the Scouts eventually build their way back up to being a contender, but sometimes I wonder if they have a ceiling. If it means opening up the potential talent pool and bringing in exceptional contributors that otherwise wouldn't have made it in, I'd have no qualms about the Scouts going co-ed. Talented male guard members, just like any aspect of a corps, are a limited commodity, and the best of the best are generally in the Cavaliers. It's no secret that the guard has been considered a weak spot for the Scouts in recent years, so maybe the best way to address this would be to go co-ed and bring in female dancers and spinners who otherwise would be going to the Cadets, Blue Devils, Phantom Regiment, and elsewhere. And why stop there? Maybe there are girls who could bring a lot to the table in other aspects of the corps as well. Sure, tradition is great, but I'm a huge Scouts fan, and it's more important to me that they're a top-flight corps than an all-male corps languishing in 17th place. That's just me, though.

Edited June 25, 2007 by The Nagging Cough!

[masterfitter]

This may sound like sarcasm but Im at a loss as to why they couldnt do a better job with Scouts. Personally Ive never been a big Sal fan as corps director(he was an instructor when I marched) and it seemed for all the world to me when I came around in the last couples year that Cesario was the director not Sal. You would know better obviously being on the volunteer staff. But 25 vets only? Can that be right??? That would certainly explain alot.

Well, I guess you did not stick around long enough or close enough, but Sal was totally in charge and Michael worked for Sal. I am very good friends with both and know this to be a fact from being there. You need to know that there was much going on behind the scenes (as in the Board) that caused all kinds of chaos. Bad decisions made by the Board - things that were forced upon Sal. The Board forced the first part of everydays 06 to be at the Alliant Center, where there were no practice fields and only asphalt lots. Result, loss of 10 very good brass players due to injuries. FYI to all, the corps did have screamers last year, it is just that 3 were injured as described above and 2 had to leave due to personal issues. Other examples of rediculous things we had to deal with - those on the support vehicle had to pay $3 an hour to have the air conditioning running while the vehicle traveled down the road in the motor home that arrived in San Antonio. Needless to say, A/C in a motor home while in TX, LA, etc. was rather necessary. Or, when we did uniform laundry, having to contribute out of our own pockets because the Board did not raise the funds they committed to raise (that is the job of a Board of Directors after all). ln case anyone wonders, yes, some of us on support staff did ride the staff bus for a week when we were without a motor home while the Board decided if we needed one (Sal and Cody paid out of their pockets for the first motor home) - due to space issues, others were on other vehicles - all in cramped quarters - and we made do without causing a fuss because what else could we do. The corps is leasing the same busses with drivers for the 07 corps as we had in 05 and o6 (with 2 of the same drivers - great guys by the way). Another tidbit that many may not know is that Myron Rosander is (and was) very ill which as you can imagine impacted his ability, even though he gave 150% of himself. Sal chose the uniform the corps wore in 06 because he felt the alumni would identify with it since it was designed to reflect the 90's uniform. There was another uniform that the rest of us preferred that we felt would have better represented the show (funny thing, it involved a lot of the dark green that was only on the 06 jumpsuits - go figure). Sometimes a show simply does not gel, sometimes it is at least partly due to decisions arrived at due to pressures from outside forces that 'appear' to have the best interests of the organization at heart. Frankly, I don't understand all this negativeness from supposed 'brothers' towards other 'brothers'. I'd quite frankly like to also know where all these alumni were from 03-06 - I was present most of the time and certainly did not get to see or meet many - and I sure saw a lot of new faces (old past members) wearing their green Madison jackets in Rockford. Believe me, we would have loved to have more alumni participation in all areas - I personally enjoyed learning all I could about Madison before I got to be on the inside.

[bawker]

I remember a year when someone posted the annual budgets of both Madison and Regiment....it had to be in the late 90s. Madison was touring with like a $150K annual budget and Regiment's was over $400K. So, in short, Scott was a miracle worker.

This is what I don't get...why do people have to throw out every vestige of a previous director/creative team in order to say "mine"? It seems similar to what happened at SCV after Mr. Royer retired, and as I understand it, people still have hard feelings about the changes (or attempted changes) that took place there.

If Scott Stewart had figured out a way to tour the kids for half what others did, they got a great summer out of it and the fans were happy...then where was the problem? Why change that financial model for short term benefit?

Good lord, we look at ways to figure out how to fund corps all the time...now, here was someone who was doing it for less and putting out a product that was pretty #### good over the years.

I understand people need to put their stamp on things...but when you're an non-profit, every two pennies you can rub together is important, right? :)

[lnavis]

I don't think that being all-male has anything to do with being competive. There has been talk of the Scouts going co-ed since I marched in the CapitalAires in the 70's. I feel it is important to the tradition of the corps to stay all-male.

[FrankBeMe]

Not having seen the Scouts, but relying just on history, this may be one of the reasons of what they are going through now:

From 1938-2002, 65 seasons, they had three executive directors. 2003-2007, they've already have had three. You can see the same thing in sports. For example, Alabama after Bear Bryant retired took a while to come back up, same with the Packers between Lombardi and Holmgren and Starr to Favre. It's a lot to go through organizational changes, especially that many in so few years. It took the Packers from Lombardi/Starr five head coaches and eleven starting QBs before they got into the playoffs on a regular basis and the Super Bowl again. The same may happen in Pittsburgh with Cowher gone after many years.

That's what I see happening in Madison....with all the turnover since Scott, it just may take a while for them to get back to where they were. This many changes so fast just doesn't do much for continuity.

[Tom Brace]

This is what I don't get...why do people have to throw out every vestige of a previous director/creative team in order to say "mine"? It seems similar to what happened at SCV after Mr. Royer retired, and as I understand it, people still have hard feelings about the changes (or attempted changes) that took place there.

If Scott Stewart had figured out a way to tour the kids for half what others did, they got a great summer out of it and the fans were happy...then where was the problem? Why change that financial model for short term benefit?

Good lord, we look at ways to figure out how to fund corps all the time...now, here was someone who was doing it for less and putting out a product that was pretty #### good over the years.

I understand people need to put their stamp on things...but when you're an non-profit, every two pennies you can rub together is important, right? :)

But, I think in both cases, the people who left could not easily be replaced. Someone new (at least in business) usually wants to make their own mark on the new organization. It's only natural. I have witnessed this in two different organizations and in one case, the folks who were successful, took time away, and when things weren't working well at all, stepped back in to right the ship. I'm not sure that's in Scott Stewart's current plans, but I will say again, those corps in the 90s did not suffer because of a $150K budget. They flourished and gave me and other drum corps fans many incredible memories season after season.

Still my favorite story was a bus wash day for them when all the other corps were practicing so hard. Here come the Scouts to watch the last couple of hours of another corps rehearsal. They had the time off that afternoon and were still jonzing for drum corps so they checked out another corps. By the way, they also whipped that corps that evening...icing on the cake. Can you imagine that other corps...they watched us all afternoon...they didn't rehearse at all....then they went out and whipped our butts. That was Madison. But hey, I'm a fraud and a troll so what do I know.

[vferrera]

This is what I don't get...why do people have to throw out every vestige of a previous director/creative team in order to say "mine"? It seems similar to what happened at SCV after Mr. Royer retired, and as I understand it, people still have hard feelings about the changes (or attempted changes) that took place there.

If Scott Stewart had figured out a way to tour the kids for half what others did, they got a great summer out of it and the fans were happy...then where was the problem? Why change that financial model for short term benefit?

Good lord, we look at ways to figure out how to fund corps all the time...now, here was someone who was doing it for less and putting out a product that was pretty #### good over the years.

I understand people need to put their stamp on things...but when you're an non-profit, every two pennies you can rub together is important, right? :)

This was discussed extensively on RAMD. The Scouts board had "philosophical" differences with Stewart's leadership. They tried to get rid of him after 2000 and finally succeeded after 2002. The main issue was that Scout staff were not required to go to critique and many of them did not, which caused some friction with the judges. The Scouts position was that they wanted control of the creative aspects and did not really care for judges telling them how to design their show. If you look at the shows they produced under Stewart's leadership (1980-1999), you can see their point. Those shows reflected a consistent creative vision, not bits and pieces shoved together to satisfy requirements on the score sheets.

There were other issues, e.g. 2000 was subpar from a visual design standpoint, and is when the color guard program started to falter. The board blamed Stewart's reluctance to hire non-alums for some of these problems. The bottom line is that Scott saw the Scouts as a fraternal organization where the members and fans came first. He also saw DCI as heading in a bad direction - fewer corps, less fan-friendly shows, less true competition, more politics, more game--playing. The board felt that it was paramount to be competitive within the DCI system, regardless.

So they hired Sal. He made all the changes the board wanted and then some. Changed the uniform, switched to Bb horns, etc. This got them back into finals for a few years. It's just that when the board saw the price tag for this level of success, they realized it was not sustainable. They needed a new approach with new leadership. Which brings us to the present.

The real question is whether a corps that really puts the members and fans ahead of scores, judges and politics can survive in the current DCI. So far, it's not looking good.

Edited June 25, 2007 by vferrera

[bawker]

Thanks for that post.

Although I had heard this piecemeal in other threads and elsewhere, I think this may be the first time I got a picture of the whole process since 2002.