From: dci@cs.washington.edu (Donald Chinn)
Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps
Subject: Re: DCI Politics SUCKS!
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:05:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug17.142546.3199@ducvax.auburn.edu> cogwynn@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>
> Here's another idea. Go back and listen to Relable Rondo and Gowdy. When 
>the Cavliers went off we started to gather that there was going to be a big 
>change. We picked the correct order from the hints they were dropping during 
>the broadcast. All these years you thought the Reliable Rondo prediction was
>incredible was a lie. They probably knew from the begining who would win.

I must admit that Gowdy almost spilled the beans when he said something to
the effect that they would be crowning a new champion.  On the other hand,
they knew who won at that point (just before the awards).

"Reliable Rondo", at least for the 5 or 6 years I have taken note of his
prediction (which is the last 5 or 6 years), has always chosen the favorite
going into finals, which means he always chose the Semis winner.  This
means that he has been right for the past few years.  The last time I can
remember he missed was in 1988 when they kept the scores secret from
the audience in Quarters and Semis.  He predicted the favorites (BD) and
was rudely contradicted.

Does anyone remember whether he predicted SCV to win in 1987?  If he did
predict SCV, he was wrong then, too.

In retrospect, the Semis winner seems to me like a pretty good strategy
if you were to bet even money with someone on the outcome.


As to the Cavaliers beating BD, it seems perfectly understandable to me
that the Cavaliers beat them.  Their show is much more difficult to
pull off visually and musically.  BD had pretty much reached the potential
of their show weeks before the Cavies did.  The early season scores often
have no correlation to the final results because the shows are changing
constantly.  It doesn't take much rehearsal time to perfect a "rip off
our shirts" move, whereas it's very difficult to get the phrasing and
set the mood of a two-minute section of the music (I have no idea what
changes the Cavies made throughout the season, but I am assuming there
were a lot).

Just look at the Cadets.  They have a show that is difficult and is
always changing because Marc Sylvester sees a way to make the show better.
It is wrong that year after year they climb up in the rankings?  No.
They have a high risk philosphy of doing hard stuff.  Sometimes they
make it near the top ('87, '90, '92), and sometimes they don't ('86, '88,
'89, '91).

The Cavies have been doing this for years (doing difficult music and
only having it click until the last few weeks).  1989 is the best example
of how they started off really slow (scoring in the high 60's, I think)
and then having a killer show by the end.


I think I have said this before, but it is no surprise to me that the
judges rankings and anyone else's rankings of the corps is diffferent.
After all, they are looking for different things.  Plus, they have 18
eyes and we have 2.  Audiences tend to look for obvious visual effects
(cool color guard moves, big drill moves, company fronts) and obvious
musical effects (melody, volume, high notes, and volume).  Judges have to
consider that plus: musicality (which includes contrast as well as sheer
technical abilities), effect, integration of show concepts, showmanship,
role portrayal.

This is why I tend not to take anyone's (including my) rankings too
seriously.  Neither should the kids in the corps.  The comments are worth
a lot more.

-- Donald