Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps
Subject: Re: Money, net get-together, etc.
From: eputnam@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:34:14 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

In article <1992Jul27.185233.7365@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, dci@cs.washington.edu (Donald Chinn) writes:> 

> Star and money: I have to add my voice to the group of people
> who say that money is not everything.  Talent, organization,
> management, and teaching are the keys to success in drum corps.
> Money is just one aspect in all four of these areas.  Clearly
> all other things being equal, it is better to have more money
> than not, and presumably corps with less money have to work
> harder to achieve the same placement.  But (as was said by
> someone else) the judges are supposed to judge what is on the
> field, not by corps' financial situations.

Could you clarify this?  "ALL other things being equal" implies that a tie
would occur (unless you believe the judges favor corps with more money).

> It is not true that DCI didn't want Star to buy them off in the
> early years.  Star's performances (certainly in 88, 89, 90 -- I never
> saw the Star shows before 87) were not championship caliber (although
> I might add that the show design in 1990 might have won it if performed
> just a little better).
> 
> Once again, since we place such a high value on winning, we see Star
> as an "enemy" because they have money and other corps don't.  Why not
> just admit that the judges thought they were better.  Instead of
> blaming Star or having bad feelings toward them, why not blame the
> SYSTEM of rewards in drum corps and try to come up with a better one
> (good luck if you try ...)?

The judges and a LOT of fans think that the show is better.  Once again, the
vocal minority (read Cavaliers' fans) gets the attention.

> Net get-together: will we be able to enter the stadium at 1:30 (or 3:30,
> or whatever early hour people have decided on) and then leave and
> come back (i.e. will they let us back in)?  How will the ticketing work?
> 

Good question.  Anyone else feel shafted at Buffalo when they announced that
people would not be allowed to leave and reenter the stadium?

> I like the idea of meeting away from the actual seating area (which
> I proposed originally).  How about just meeting at the DCWorld Booth
> at the Expo or something?  It seems that the concourse might be a little
> too confusing.  I don't know.  As to getting together for lunch or dinner,
> we can always meet for lunch/dinner on Saturday.

Usually the EXPO is VERY crowded.  If we could get into and out of the 
stadium, meeting backfield would be good (depending on stadium design).  I
haven't been to Camp Randall before, so gettin backfield might be harder than
at the stadiums which I am used to.

> 
> Drill: I'm sure many people will respond.  My one-and-a-half cents:
> it is not necessarily true that a more difficult drill executed well
> will necessarily score better.  This is because while the field visual
> judge may ooh and aah at the technique and execution, the general effect
> judge may not be impressed by a drill that is difficult, but does not
> make "sense" (i.e. fit in with the musical presentation).  However, it
> true that a "winning" drum corps show has to be on the cutting edge in
> brass, percussion, and visual, meaning that a blah drill tends to mean
> a blah score.  Advances in drill design have been incredible in just
> the last few years.

True that intricate drill doesn't mean better drill.  However, I don't think
that a corps must be on the cutting edge to win the championship.  Take the
Madison victory in 1988.  Great show, but it didn't push the activity in a
new direction or even continue the current motion (any more than any other
top 6 corps).  In fact, cutting edge usually gets fewer points just because
it is so different.  I know that the Cadets in '85 are an exception (and of
course STAR), but I am talking in general, not absolute, terms.  I personally
prefer cutting edge corps even though they are not as initially exciting as
the others.

Eric L. Putnam