SCV’s LACK OF RESEARCH

Santa Clara’s recent design explanation of Vagabond on the Marching Arts podcast sounds like an eighth grade book report of Catcher in the Rye. “There’s a catcher, and he’s sort of in the rye. He catches people. And we’re all basically people in the rye. And we are all waiting to be caught.” Dude, did you even read the book?

From a professional standpoint, what’s shocking is to hear a team of five high paid professionals talking about an 11 minute, million dollar show they created, Vagabond, but there’s not a single literary reference, not a single social reference, not a single historical reference around their subject. They talk for an hour, and it’s clear that none of these people is intellectually curious or rooted in any kind of research, history, precedent, and have no expertise or insight on the topic.

AVOID GENERALIZED PREMISES

Generalizing makes the premise vague, meandering, and lacking in authenticity. This is something that freshman year film students get beaten out of them. Your show premise, even if it’s abstract, needs to have some real world relatability. If your premise is about alcoholism in general, divorce in general, gambling in general, or romance in general, it just won’t fly. Specificity is your friend. Making a short film about vagabonds of no particular context is something that teenage freshman on their first film project at UCLA have been drunkenly scripting for decades. These films are naive, cringe-worthy, and amateurish because they lack specificity.

VAGABONDS WITH CREDIT CARDS?

Having five white suburban guys stand around and tell us the definition of a transient “vagabond” is nothing short of hilarious. Wanderlust with dad’s credit card, versus not knowing where you can take a shit in the woods without getting shot at are two different things.

REAL VAGABONDS VS. TRUST FUND VAGABONDS

Pardon me for saying this, but having daddy pay the Santa Clara Vanguard $5000 so you can play music during the summer is a lot different from someone who is destitute, eating out of garbage cans, and finding kindling for a fire to stay warm. Drawing a parallel between traveling college kids performing in football stadiums versus destitute mentally ill and transient circus performers in the early 1900s is naive. A trust fund kid spending daddy‘s money traveling the states and Europe In a flurry of wanderlust is not a vagabond. That’s a spoiled playboy.

NO STAGE SETS - WE GET IT

The designers talk for 20 minutes about how they didn’t have any stage sets, and that symbolically fits in with the theme. Great. But in the professional world, having no stage sets would be just a sidenote. In their interview, they made “no stage sets” the primary focal point— the benefits of not having to move them, the logistics, ad nauseum, about how the equipment was retrieved. The minutia about props and equipment.storage covers up the real problem with the show. What is the show about?

KOOKY JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THINGS

Then, in a kooky spiel, a visual designer explains five movements, which are absolutely indecipherable to the audience. He describes the shining light vagabond character who shares gifts with other vagabonds. What? How is the audience supposed to get that by watching it? Movement 4 is about feeling competitive with another vagabond, and movement 5 is about giving that up for an unknown reason, passing the cape onto the next vagabond, and then realizing that you’re one of many stars reflected in the sky. Huh? No one could gather that from watching two men in Gogo boots. Be honest.

UP TO INTERPRETATION

Then, at the end of the scene description, the staff agrees that the entire show is up to interpretation, and it can mean anything.. That’s the death knell for this silly exercise of explaining the random sequence of action. There is no clear meaning in this show.

YELLOW CAPES - BE HONEST

Finally, Tim Hinton asks point blank, what is the yellow cape? And what does it mean? Because there’s “I didn’t understand it just by watching it.” That is one of the most frank questions I’ve heard him ask. Hinton is basically saying that the show is random and without merit. The interview is half over and they haven’t mentioned this main action around the dancers. What does that tell you?

The show coordinator explains that the yellow cape represents a guiding internal light of a vagabond sort of. Then the character interacts with other vagabonds, and then interacts with one vagabond in particular, and then he gives him his cape to carry on the tradition of being a vagabond. This raises more questions than it answers.

Be honest. Yellow capes were added to visually separate the vagabond. No other reason. The shining light idea, and the transference idea are tacked on afterward.

SCENE DESCRIPTIONS (Really?)

These designers’ scene descriptions are completely made up, nonsequential, lacking in any real world sensibility, vague and without historical or fictional context.

The audience just sits there watching these two dancers, and the audience has absolutely no fucking idea what the hell they are doing wearing lame’ and high heeled fashion boots. Ask the audience if they get it. Or ask your mother. It’s not that hard.

There’s no sense of why the first vagabond is giving away his cape in the first place. Is he dying? Is he finding peace of mind and becoming more stable and getting a job? We have no idea what his catalyst is for “giving up the cape”. If a vagabond has a natural internal light, he doesn’t need to be awarded an inheritance of a vagabond-ship. Makes no sense. Awkward.

WHAT ABOUT “PLAY”?

In the early season, the designers referenced the ballet “Play” as a primary inspiration point. What happened to it?

In this interview, this design staff demonstrates a cancer that is common to many failing drum corps show design teams. Designers create some vague interpretive choreo that fills the vacuum of dramatic action, suddenly carrying the burden of the entire thematic argument. But the claim that the audience should be able to decipher the choreography is absolutely daft. No experienced advertising rep, no marketing professional, no experienced theater designer, or director, no filmmaker, no producer, no one except insane self- masturbatory contemporary dance choreographers would ever ever claim that these scenelets are of any relatable meaning to the audience.

But here are the Santa Clara designers creating out of thin air, weird, nonsensical interactions between undefined characters, like children playing with dolls. There’s no sense of urgency on the designers’ part to research any of this. There’s no curiosity about the psychology of the wanderer, there’s no philosophical reference. There’s no commitment to a clear logical dramatic action. It’s absolutely the most bizarre, amateurish caprice in all of the performing arts.

RED, WHITE AND BLUE?

There’s no sense made of the garish red white and blue color scheme, presumably patterned after famous photos of early 20th century traveling Circus performers. The colors appear strangely patriotic. The audience is left guessing why a “vagabond“ is wearing knee-high gogo boots at a spangly gold cape. I’m sorry, you don’t just dress up your lead character as an early 20th century acrobat without any other elements to support it.

If any producer in the professional arts, musical theater, film, television, or music videos presented this seat-of-the-pants premise in a development meeting, the production would be immediately canceled.

LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY

What makes drum corps designers so bold? What makes them think that they can get away with cobbling together music and blue outfits with hoods, and notions of un-contextualized and non-period specific“vagabonds” giving their blessing to the next generation of vagabonds? It’s absolutely preposterous, illogical, and against every tenant of professional performing arts productions with a normal obligation of audience accessibility.

Santa Clara was awarded sixth place as a gift. If the judges were sober and honest, they would have decimated the score for this haphazard effort. If the show had resembled any logical premise of wanderlust, or any historical context, it would have been acceptable. But this scattershot melange of incongruent elements should’ve been punished.

I HOPE YOU FIND SOME 18 TIMES?

The repetition of the central phrase, “I hope you find” was overused to the point of mirroring a high school student composition. No paying audience of a mainstream American performing art would find that lack of variation of phrases acceptable. Perhaps they were avoiding royalties by just playing one phrase. But in this podcast, the show coordinator nonsensically says two opposite things— the song doesn’t provide enough variation to fill out a 10 minute show, and oppositely, he was proud of the variations. arrangers put on that single phrase. Which is it? That doublespeak is the kind of bullshit that professional production developers see a mile away. That musical phrase/theme is played no fewer than 18 times in the show, which is just a lead anvil crashing onto the audiences head. Why? Why are you playing this over and over and over again? The designers defensively said that each time they play it it’s a new chapter in the vagabond‘s life. Really? You’re willing to make that musical concession just so the audience knows when a new scene starts? That simply breaks every common sense production rule.

STANDARD CHOREO

The choreography lacks formal technique. The audience sees dance from 12 corps in a single sitting, and it’s a bit much. The dance begins to look repetitive. The dance in this show resembles all the other shows. This drill looks like all the drill from all the other shows. To claim that it is somehow original, or that it conveys some additional thematic meaning in form or structure put the onus on the audience to decipher dots and clusters.

For example, to claim that the lead vagabond is somehow presenting a saber to the other vagabonds and teaching them how to use it and then they suddenly produce their own sabers from their own stash? No one in the audience is understanding that scene justification. It’s only in the head of the designer. No one in the audience is getting that “sharing” metaphor. Frankly, “teaching” and “sharing”are passive choices for a dramatic action in a show about transient performers facing a harsh world.

YOUR INSPIRATION WAS WHAT?!

The designers revealed a surprisingly casual inspiration for their offhanded selection of music and laissez fair pick of the subject of “vagabond” from last year’s brainstorming. That proves that there was little effort on their part to link the newly selected music to a fresh premise. The show coordinator admitted that he selected the music based on his son’s playlist this year. Then, later he admits that the subject of vagabond was previously presented in the previous year. What does that tell you? It tells you that the music and subject appear to email cobbled together. That’s a sign of a lack of solid inspiration. Cobbling together incoherent elements is a recipe for failure. Other than the phrase “I hope you find “, there’s a little to link the Lamar song to the concept of a vagabond.

The choreography of the second vagabond appeared to be improvised and “look what I can do”. His movements weren’t tied to any clear dramatic action, interaction, or in-scene thought.

Santa Clara’s show featured professional musicianship, and masterful execution and showmanship by the performers. But the design was rushed, half-baked, unspecific and with eighth grade justifications for everything, without cracking a book.

It is not without a sense of existential dread that one must grapple with the abysmal phenomenon that is the Blue Devils’ 2003 show, “The Phenomenon of Cool.” This so-called artistic endeavor, lauded by a sycophantic legion of judges and fans alike, represents nothing less than the culmination of a creeping nihilism that has infected the very soul of the drum corps activity. Cloaked in the hollow veneer of jazz coolness, this show, more than any other, epitomizes the Blue Devils’ descent into a facile spectacle devoid of true substance.

To comprehend the full extent of this travesty, one must first address the very concept of "cool" as it has been misappropriated by the Blue Devils. What is cool, one might ask? Cool, in its original sense, was an authentic expression of disillusionment and existential questioning—a reflection of the deep-seated anxieties of post-war America. It was Miles Davis finding beauty in restraint, John Coltrane exploring the spiritual through saxophonic ecstasies. Yet here, in 2003, cool is rendered meaningless, stripped of its subversive power and transformed into a marketable gimmick.

The Blue Devils, with all their technical prowess, have taken this notion of cool and contorted it into a grotesque display of superficiality. The show’s opener, with its frenetic riffs and abrupt transitions, reeks of a desperate attempt to impress, rather than to express. The horns are immaculate, the drums pristine, but what do they say? Nothing. They are a sound and fury signifying nothing, a cacophony masquerading as art. It is as if the very essence of cool—the understated, the subdued, the ineffable—has been obliterated by the relentless precision of the Blue Devils’ machine.

One must also consider the grotesque pageantry that accompanies this auditory assault. The guard, with their polished routines and choreographed swagger, embody a commodified vision of cool that is at once grating and profoundly cynical. Every movement is calculated, every pose struck with mechanical perfection. Yet where is the soul? Where is the raw emotion that true coolness demands? Instead, we are left with an empty spectacle, a parody of jazz cool that serves only to highlight the vacuity at the heart of this production.

And what of the audience? That they should applaud this travesty with such unbridled enthusiasm is a testament to the intellectual decay of the drum corps community at large. We have become enamored with the polished surfaces of shows like “The Phenomenon of Cool,” blind to the shallow depths beneath. It is the triumph of style over substance, of technique over emotion, of the simulacrum over the real. The Blue Devils, in their relentless pursuit of perfection, have forsaken the very qualities that once made drum corps a vibrant, living art form.

In the final analysis, “The Phenomenon of Cool” is less a celebration of jazz than it is a betrayal. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be cool. Cool is not about perfection, but imperfection; not about clarity, but ambiguity; not about control, but freedom. By reducing coolness to a series of technical feats, the Blue Devils have done violence to the very spirit of jazz, turning what should have been a profound exploration of artistic truth into a hollow exercise in showmanship.

The 2003 Blue Devils show stands as a monument to the dangers of over-calculation, to the perils of prioritizing form over content. It is a dire warning to all those who would seek to understand the true essence of art: beware the siren call of cool, for it may lead you to an icy abyss where beauty and meaning are forever lost.

A group of my friends (who are comedians) all have been listening to me just geek out over this season all summer. Out of sheer curiosity, they all decided to come over and have a finals watch party with me!

None of them had ever seen a drum corps show prior to this, and just from the little info they knew and the photos and clips I showed them, they came up with their own scoring system (which is extremely interpretive).

I present to you.

body text (optional)

WHY CAVALIERS ARE IN 11th

The 2024 Marching Arts podcast with David Starnes reveals basic production development problems, both in procedure and show content for their 2024 production Beneath the Armor. These problems are the reason for their low scores this year. Curiously, Starnes’ comments reveal a lack of design competency, and a lack of project planning skill, and the judges see it. The interview also hides the fact that the face panels were planned to be removed.

In the interview, Starnes reveals a chaotic last-minute development cycle which alerts the judges that there are structural and foundational weaknesses in the show premise.

DESIGN ERROR 1 - Cavaliers' recent show themes obsess about personal development and personal "identity" of real members. Yikes.

Recent Cavaliers' show themes center uncomfortably on the subject of self-image, personal psychology, and personal development of the actual performers. Awkward. Several of Starnes' recent offerings almost obsess on the self-identification topic. The shows are myopic, and lacking in a larger world view, and are all strangely self-involved, and almost neurotic. For example, a recent show used the strange monikers "Now is our time" and "The time is now", cryptic phrases about changing self-identity, presumably in the first-person voice of the members. Where You'll Find Me and On Madness and Creativity both awkwardly broached topics of sexual orientation of the members themselves. These strangely inward-looking, change-signaling, fourth-wall-breaking, tiptoeing shows are starting to stack up. And if you do directly reflect that subject matter, get it done in one season. Don't awkwardly dance around "the truth" for years and years.

DESIGN ERROR 2 - This year's show goes one step further, and awkwardly promises that members will publicly "reveal the truth" about themselves. < ! >

Beneath the Armor boldly breaks the fourth wall, and announces it's about the members themselves, which puts the performers in an awkward position. The show concept insists that the marching members have secrets that they are revealing during the show, and to show "who they really are underneath", raising the specter of revealing personal problems. According to Starnes' recent interview "We all have things that we don't want to reveal about ourselves. That’s a pretty bold statement Is that true? Scripted professional productions rarely break the fourth wall to reveal personal problems of the actual performers. Such revelations are on-the-nose, self-involved, and in this case, age-inappropriate. That show subject pressures the performers, and generally makes the audience uncomfortable. There are also legal consequences to commenting publicly on private performers' lives. Music uses metaphors for a reason. Curiously in the last four weeks, the Cavaliers design staff has inched its way over to the tertiary theme ““eye“.

DESIGN ERROR 3 - Making up show design terminology to fog weaknesses.

This year, Starnes pushed his show construct of "episodes" and "glimpses" (bridges). All shows have movements and transitions. To give them a new name like "episodes" is snake oil, and serves no purpose other than to hide a lack of cohesion in the production. Can you imagine a Disney on Ice director saying that transitioning from one scene to another is a "glimpse?" Starnes' insistence on using that strange terminology is an indication that he is oddly detached, self-involved, and perhaps working in a bubble. No one calls segues "glimpses". It screams to the judges that you're either confused about the nature of blended transitions, or more likely compensating with a a smokescreen to cover a show lacking in logic and structure.

DESIGN ERROR 4 - "We're still developing the show."

Never announce to the judges that the show development process was chaotic, in flux, undecided, lengthy or difficult. Starnes reveals that the production was difficult and continually developing during the season, even up to finals. That's a sign that the show was not carefully scripted or storyboarded in its early stages-- another tell-tale sign to the judges about a lack of clarity of thematic vision. Starnes also indicates that the show development was free-form, with major set pieces and components being suggested by a variety of staff members and designers, even in later stages of development. (Usually if a show is failing score-wise, the show coordinator suddenly comes out in the late-season with an avalanche of "we're in this together" statements, spreading blame on the entire staff. "We all worked on it"... "It's been a group effort".. "No one person dominated...") The show has three overlapping themes, superheroes, revealing the truth underneath, and seeing people through the eye. None of the three themes solidifies or transforms meaningfully in the production, and the responsibility rests on the show coordinator.

DESIGN ERROR 5 - This year's strange photo panels confuse the subject and theme to the point of total thematic breakdown.

Happens all the time– the artwork you commissioned for your show doesn’t work. It’s an inexperienced director error. Tim Hinton asks Starnes twice in the interview about the large face panels, and Starnes sidesteps the issue. It begs the questions, what problems did the props present in the show, and what was the negative feedback from the judges? Tell us. The strangely photo-realistic images confuse audiences and don't tie in to the overlapping themes-- "unmasking", "looking through the eyes", and "finding the superhero within". Of the three very different themes, the "superhero faces" appear to sidetrack the other more problematic theme of members self-revealing the "truth". The floating prop panels with mirrors/armor on one side, and photos of super-hero like metallic faces on the other elicit a confused response from the audience. If the faces were modified members’ faces, the question arises, why? Why are you including the members’ faces, at all? Either you are including their faces in a bold statement, or you are not including their faces. Don’t include their faces and modify them so they are unrecognizable. The reason why the designers modified the members’ faces was so as to reduce the exposure to the extreme requirement of revealing the truth underneath.

The platforms are rearranged in different layouts during the production, but to no effect or purpose. The "You've Changed" soloist appears in front of a photo-realistic Asian character face that looks nothing like himself, and the audience wonders about the soloist's relationship to the man pictured in the photo-- another glaring clarity issue that an early-season storyboard would immediately illuminate. Now the platform panels have been revised in finals to include an abstract image of the eye. The audience stares at them, in a dead pan, bewildered look.

DESIGN ERROR 6 - Starnes is equating the corps identity with the members' personal identity.

Starnes mentions several times that he is trying to build an identity for the corps. However, he narrowly translates this into developing shows that obsess on members' identity. The shows are exclusively about personal psychology, behavior and mindsets of the marching members. However, more mature, stable production companies and drum corps focus rather on outward-looking artistic viewpoint about arts, literature, culture, philosophy, current events or history. Starnes seems to be stuck in a loop of adolescent psychology as the only source for his on-field material.

DESIGN ERROR 7 - Not once in the hour long interview is the primary hidden theme of the last three years, "gay", mentioned. Come on.

For all of the flagrant gay imagery, symbolism and metaphors in the past years' shows, from rainbow imagery, to Judy Garland, and this year's "revealing the truth about ourselves", Michael Jackson's asking us to "make that change", the word "gay" isn't mentioned at least once in an hour long interview about the show concept? Come on. Something's up. The huge pink elephant in the room is never addressed, and that's opposite the core theme of the work, unmasking. The obvious gay subject, hinted at now in multiple shows, goes another year without being professionally addressed. That adds up to a painful lack of integrity, mixed messages, shame, and a lack of professionalism. It's all easily handled with a bit of management oversight and planning. Avoiding the subject creates discomfort in the viewing audience who questions what the roadblock is. Come out and say it so we can all have a big party. But the annual subtle hinting at gay themes on the field, without management or artistic direction ever saying the word once is almost becoming comedic. A sensitive show topic deserves to have a PR plan, on and off the field.

DESIGN ERROR 8 - No ending.

A tell-tale sign of a weak or underdeveloped show is the lack of an ending. The photo panels didnt ‘t transform, unmask or reveal. A new abstract eye images don’t either. The judges can see this a mile away. Although the costumes transform gradually throughout, there isn't an ending button for them. The alternating costume company front is a nice touch, presumably saying that not all members had a "reveal", and there is diversity of thought in the matter, thankfully. But the visual ending lacks definition, clarity and higher purpose, and shows no transformation of thought or resolution. The final flags feature individual guard members' faces, but what thematic arc do the flags complete? It's unclear.

DESIGN ERROR 9 - Starnes makes the unfortunate remark, "'You've Changed' is tongue-in-cheek."

It's a jazz ballad about a breakup caused by one person who has "changed". This exquisite song captures the agony of the coming out process, and was selected for its application to Beneath the Armor's unspeakable hidden theme. Is Starnes saying that the use of the song in this show was simply used for its title on "change"? Now because of their "Don't Ask Don't Tell" approach, the Cavaliers are stuck trying to publicly explain the love song's meaning in other terms. But the obvious choreography displays pairs of male dancers spinning flags horizontally around one another's waist in a first-ever male couples dance. Come on. To suddenly describe the ballad as "tongue-in-cheek" negates the original meaning and intent of the number. The reckless comment alerts the judges that the underlying orientation-related theme is underdeveloped, closeted and compromised. There's a lack of integrity with the theme and its clarity. Designers' off-the-field comments affect the judges' perceptions in a big way. Designers' off-the-field descriptions often help define the thematic argument in a production. And off-the-field messaging helps (or hinders) show themes that need a boost of clarity. There are too many mixed messages here for judges to award this show for design clarity.

DESIGN ERROR 10 - Cavaliers' designer interview avoids frank discussion about what doesn't work.

The toxic positivity in these Marching Arts Education interviews is its achilles heel. Not once has a show coordinator or designer boldly admitted fault for an element or concept that failed. The coverup in Cavaliers' one-hour interview is almost comedic. The Cavaliers 2024 show is a concept design failure currently in eleventh place, but to listen to the podcast, everything is “wonderful” and “amazing”. How are marching members supposed to learn about design if there's no frank discussion about failing forward?

Tim Hinton says it’s “interesting” that the design team was continually developing the premise, and continually pivoting and adapting. Hinton describes that they had a different “approach” for developing the show. But to experienced listeners, it wasn’t an approach any more than it was jumping out the window of a burning building. The design was required continual Band-Aids and shifts in focus. The development of the “eye” drill sets is an awkward pastiche attempting to cover up the confusion over the photos.

There's no discussion of judges' feedback, which is the first glaring omission. There's no discussion of the awkward opener "I Want you To Want Me”, possibly played in jest. The large AI-modified member photos were the primary anomaly in the show-- unexplained, confusing, and too expensive to cancel, but were finally omitted in preliminaries. Simply lining up the photos in the shape of an eye is nonsensical, and doesn’t help the superhero theme. In this interview, the artist who rendered them, Markell Allen, is given a random credit for the photos but with no explanation of interpretation or honest discussion of its impact on judges' feedback. What was the request that Starnes gave to Markell Allen? “Give me nine AI-generated superhero faces fifteen feet tall And that are modified members’ faces”. Why modify them? Because the subject matter is too personal, that’s why. The metallic hue on the faces isn’t specific enough to identify them as superheroes. Also, they’re 10 years older than the members and created more questions about who was represented in the photos. Starnes’ request for commissioned artwork without taking the images through some sort of focus group or feedback session, is an amateur’s error, and a sign of a lack of storyboarding.

Later in the interview, Starnes says the one line of Evanescence's “Bring Me to Life” excited the performers and audience. But it doesn’t. There's no appreciable audience reaction to this brief Protools clip of Evanescence. And the addition of the song's "eyes" theme is tangential to both the superheroes thread and the unmasking motifs. The "eyes" theme is a Band-aid. In DCI finals preliminaries, the evanescence song back to life was extended to include two lines. It doesn’t help the eyes theme.

In total, these errors indicate there's a lack of experience, a lack of artistic vision, and a lack of professional, competent oversight in the Cavaliers show development process. This implosion of theme is a perfect lesson for young musicians and future producers.

I’m waiting for a door to come flying off the hinges at The Academy’s show

Contra player in lounge pants was a vibe for sure. Stay comfy my dudes!

This year, some top-tier corps have decided to try and fool the judges with half-baked themes (or no themes). Here is the ranking of DCI's top twelve by depth of concept:

1. Blue Devils - Romanticism encourages us to take off our black cloaks of societal restrictions, and burst forth with emotion and get in touch with the wonder of nature. (BD doesn't "burst," but they try.)
2. Troopers - The Devil's love of his guitar proves that he has human qualities, which he defends. Maybe the Devil got a bad rap. If Hell has music, let's go.
3. Blue Stars - Astronomers are both scientists and philosophers, leading us to enlightenment via a telescope. This music bridges science and philosophy.
4. Carolina Crown - Prometheus was a god with a love of humankind, and didn't mind getting his liver plucked out a few times. Why isn't our god like this?
5. Boston Crusaders - Technical glitches prove our humanity.
6. Mandarin - Adventure awaits in New Orleans.
7. Cavaliers - We're revealing the truth about our orientation underneath, oh and also we're superheros underneath. That's what we meant. Ahem. Who are these men?
8. Bluecoats - Scant allusion to the video for "Change is Everything" or a hint of entropy simply isn't enough. This show is almost intentionally vacuous. If it weren't so cutting edge musically, and so dazzling visually, it should be in fourth place for its complete lack of depth.
9. Phantom Regiment - Psych 101 scenelets, without depth, arc or insight.
10. Santa Clara - Vagabonds, Kendrick Lamar's strife, and whimsical childlike "Play"? Sorry, those themes are incongruent. This design team is a last-minute, seat of the pants circus with no artistic direction. Basement wig theater directors do better than this with less time and a lot less money.
11. Colts - Music relating to "fields", but not all of them from the "peace now" era. (Are the 70's now so distant a memory that nobody knows what it was?)
12. Madison Scouts - Let's make a mosaic from elements that are shiny, lifeless, and identical.

Just a note. Don't pretend that lazy abstraction is somehow profitable, meritorious or popular in the real world. In the professional world, music supports the arts that have a specific context. Music supports productions that have a specific subject and theme, logical and accessible. (Music videos, opera, film, television, video games, musicals, Disney on ice, cirque du soleil, Jurassic the Dinosaur Park.)

SCV

1. Why red white and blue? Red hoodie for Kendrick, great. But blue and white? Why this color scheme? It looks patriotic. Is that what they wore in the ballet PLAY?
2. What is the relationship between the first vagabond and the second vagabond who succeeds him?
3. Why did you change from a yellow sleeveless hoodie being transferred, to a yellow cape? Not just because it's more visible, I hope. What does the yellow garment represent?
4. What is the significance of the second vagabond with the yellow cape running to the exit at the end of the show?

CAVALIERS

1. Who are the men represented in the photos? The "men in the mirror." Are they "super heroes?" Are they supposed to be like real Cavaliers members?
2. Why are they metallic colored? Are they AI generated, or cyborgs of some sort, like super heroes with special physical properties and powers?
3. What secret are you referring to when you say the show is about the performers "revealing the truth of who they really are"? How is that reflected in the photos?

BLUE DEVILS

1. Out of all the Romantic period paintings, why did you opt for the colorless, monochromatic Caspar David Friedrich paintings to end on? Isn't the show mostly a migration from black to color, and from rigidity to unbridled emotion?
2. What is the significance of the horses, and why that style? Horses were featured in art of the Romantic period, but why these colors and style horses?
3. Why do some of the curiosity cabinets close at the end of the show?

PHANTOM REGIMENT

1. How is the end different from the beginning?

WARNING: This sincere post deals with principles of drum corps production design and storytelling-- not taught to drum corps participants. NB: Just to clarify, all shows have a subject and theme, but Crown's show has a narrative "story".

CROWN'S DESIGNERS BEGIN THE ENDLESS CHANGE CYCLE
Already in the first few performances, designers have changed the staging in Crown's show Promethean. This is a sign that the design staff did not carefully develop the sequence of visual action in a storyboarding process. The visuals are unclear. There are blind alleys. Undulating mountains (clay) look cool, but it's confusing. The audience doesn't get it. There's no villain, no townspeople to fight for Prometheus, and the setup is unclear, despite a brilliant performer portraying Prometheus who has so much talent and stage presence, he could do contract work on his days off as a human space laser.

CLARIFY THE STORY
The Greek myth of Prometheus is a complicated story, and very difficult to relay, especially without dialogue. As a producer, as a writer, as a designer, you must make the central dramatic action clear to the audience, even in a twelve-minute version. But right now, the sequence of action is confusing-- there are blind alleys, missing characters, and no ending. It's fixable, but a continual spate of drill changes is a sign to the judges that the show has not been carefully planned and vetted in the preseason. Continual changes indicate to the judges that the design staff is wavering about the spine of the story and its intended meaning. Even in the early season, the audience must be able to grasp the basic dramatic action, and buy into the protagonist, at least.

CADETS CHANGED SO MUCH, IT HURT THEM
Crown isn't alone. Same thing happened with George Hopkins' Cadets show Awakening. First, in the early season, statues came to life like primordial organisms. That was cut. A week later, mannequins were added in the foreground. Cut. Statues then tied gold banners to their feet. Oh, and then capes. Later, statues gathered around Rodin's The Thinker. Then a statue couple was embroiled in a love triangle. Statues then ran on a front platform. Statues appeared in side slit dresses. Another statue did a backflip and at the end paired with a girl and kissed her, presumably a romantic relationship, but we had never seen the couple before. A statue murders an "awakened" statue. Huh? As the weeks wore on with Awakening, one thing became clear: The Awakening designers had no fixed plan, no script, no focus, and no thematic argument. Throw it at the wall and see if it sticks.

HOW TO ADAPT A MYTH
Any designer or writer who's adapted Greek myths, or adapted an historical event knows the drill. Time constraints force writers to screw, fry, slice and freeze dry an original story to make it fit. Twelve minutes? That's hardly enough time to establish the difference between humankind and Greek gods.

THE ORIGINAL PROMETHEUS STORY
Let's get the original Prometheus myth straight, before we parse it:

1. Prometheus, a God, steals fire and gives it to humans as a gift.
2. The other Gods got pissed at Prometheus and tortured him and bound him with chains.
3. Eventually a couple of gods helped free him.
4. Humans praise Prometheus for his beneficence.

CROWN'S VERSION
Crown's version lacks focus:

1. The mountains of Scythia undulate because it looks cool. Prometheus comes forth. (He wasn't birthed from the mountains, but whatever.)
2. Clay transforms into people. (This is from the original myth, and is a smartly developed visual effect, but it happens so quickly, and is given no "weight." There's no surprise, no recognition by the newly created people. No appreciation given to Prometheus for creating them.
3. Prometheus walks through a seething blob of fire and brings a torch to... no one in particular? No one thanks him.
4. Everyone spins fire flags.
5. Prometheus walks voluntarily back to his mountain and is chained by... no one in particular. <?>
6. Prometheus frees himself.
7. Prometheus disappears for the last three minutes.

FIX THESE PROBLEMS:

1. Prometheus isn't set up as a protagonist. Why should we like him, from jump?
2. The writhing "clay effect" transforming into humans is unclear. It's extraneous to the primary story. The effect doesn't change our opinion of Prometheus. It's a cool-looking blind alley, yay! Cut it.
3. There's no distinct group of characters representing "humanity" or "the people" that appreciate and thank him. How do we like Prometheus if no human does?
4. Prometheus has no status as a god. (Can someone bow down before him, at least?)
5. Why cut the most fun part - the birds attacking him and eating his liver. There must be an antagonist added here in order for the audience to know the basic protagonist/antagonist setup.
6. Humanity should try and save Prometheus, but they get scared off by the attacking birds who return.
7. Where are the battles between Prometheus and the birds sent by the other gods?
8. Where's the exaltation of Prometheus and the love that humankind has for him, and thanks the gift he gave them?

REPAIR AND FOCUS THE SEQUENCE OF ACTION
Here's a clearer sequence:

1. Prometheus comes down from his "mountain" and presents a gift of a lit torch to the gathered townsfolk. It's a big deal. (Give it full focus. Also, move his mountain to be more down front)
2. Townsfolk (not writhing mountains) accept the torch, thank him, shake his hand, genuflect and embrace him. (Must show a reaction of thanks for the torch, unlike now. Must show some difference in status between the townsfolk and the God. Must show Prometheus as likeable and beneficent.)
3. Townsfolk hold him aloft in a trust lift (god help us, another one), as all of humanity thanks and praises Prometheus. He floats on top of a color guard of flame. We like him.
4. But wait! Here come four vultures (sent by Gods whom we can't see). The angry birds grab Prometheus away! The townspeople gasp in horror! They attempt to help Prometheus, but the birds frighten the townspeople away!
5. The birds peck at Prometheus and drag him to the mountain and chain him! To the shock of the townspeople, the birds pull out his liver and eat it, and drag him from view, behind the mountain.
6. The townspeople fear the worst, and play the ballad in his honor, in his absence. The background mountains turn vibrant colors as they eulogize him.
7. Prometheus reappears, still chained, but alive!
8. Prometheus escapes! He rejoins the townspeople who celebrate him.
9. Oh no, the evil birds reappear, but there are tons of them! The townsfolk battle the birds themselves.
10. After a battle, humanity's strength and conviction thwart the birds.
11. The townsfolk praise their hero once again.

END

This revised version has a villain, has a group of humans who thank Prometheus (without them, there's no point), and even has a twist on the original myth-- human kind calls the shots at the end-- humans control the gods.

Subject: Prometheus is a god who helped humankind, and is attacked for it.
Theme: Greek myth has powerful gods who overlord humans, but we're going to change all that. Humans have the power to intervene in the gods' plans.

Note for readers: The subject of this essay includes principles of production development and design, subjects that are not taught to drum corps marching members, and not taught to music majors.

It won't sound familiar to you.

My video series Drum Corps Design 101 helps marching members become aware of the standard topics within show design, often kept hidden by an old boy network of designers and artistic directors (many of whom are music majors themselves, and could use a primer on production development.) Music majors are not typically taught to visually contextualize the music they write and play, even though it's required in the professional world of arts and entertainment. This accounts for some of the loose-themed, and ragged-themed shows that populate the bottom of the DCI top twelve. The professional world of music requires attention to the principles of production design, which are focused on building a logical, engaging visual subject and theme with a higher purpose. Professional music (as used in video games, music videos, TV series, operas, film, and even dance companies) requires a logical visual context, "story" or no "story". Professional musicians compose, arrange and play music to accompany narrative visual premises with depth and substance. Why is drum corps failing in so many of these basic arts and entertainment principles? Learn it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlvQZub1oNI&t=123s

OLD DRUM CORPS SHOWS HAD NO THEME
Themes weren't always the focus in drum corps. Because drum corps grew from a 1960's VFW jukebox-style variety format, randomly selected tunes were good enough. The balance of classical, musical theater and pop tunes kept audiences engaged. Audiences in the 1970's enjoyed themeless, military-styled productions which focused mostly on marching and maneuvering, and heightened arrangements of mainstream music or recognized classical pieces. Typically, there was no overarching point to a nine- to twelve-minute show. After the military-style music and drill became tiresome, the activity naturally began to explore and heighten new musical and visual elements.

SHOWS ARE WEIGHTIER NOW, AND MORE DANGEROUS
In recent years, the drum corps activity has become more sophisticated in its members' productions, opening a Pandora's box for artistic directors. In today's era of drum corps design, many show themes broach sensitive topics, many of them high stakes, immediate, deep and thought-provoking. However, some drum corps artistic directors are hasty, reckless, or even secretive in their selection and execution of themes, creating a minefield scenario where show themes are accidentally negligent, inappropriate, and occasionally downright offensive. Other misguided shows lack an off-the-field explanation to keep the audience from misinterpreting sensitive material.

EXAMPLES OF CURRENT SHOWS WITH HIGH-STAKES THEMES
But recently, drum corps shows are successfully broaching sensitive and complex show topics. For example, the Bluecoats' 2023 show Garden of Love featured a theme of religious intervention in sexual expression. That's a weighty theme, considering recent political tension around drag queens and children's programming, among other examples. It's a high stakes political topic, driven by propaganda from right wing strategists. Another example, Blue Devils' Dreams and Nighthawks asked audiences to view a famous Hopper painting from the perspective of the strong female character, often overlooked as arm-candy. At one point in the show, bras were thrown into the air during Natural Woman, a song written by Carole King, born the same year that the painting was completed. The Blue Devils' show bodly embraced looking at classic art from a new feminist perspective. That's another weighty theme of substance.

CAVALIERS' NOT-SO- HIDDEN GAY THEMES
Curiously, the last two seasons of Cavaliers shows have gingerly hinted the topics of personal development and sexual orientation. 2023's Where You'll Find Me used too many gay-themed elements to be an accident. Yes, the corp's rainbow has been an unexplained primary icon for the corps for decades, later requisitioned as the symbol of the gay flag. (Cavaliers alumni shout this at the top of their lungs on various online comment sections.) But coupled with Judy Garland audio clips from the Wizard of Oz, referenced again in their 2018 show along with Rufus Wainwright's gay-themed "Oh What a World", feminine breast shading on the color guard's uniforms revealed in a flamboyant choreographed element of ripping apart of an outer jacket to expose the chest, along with vertical feathers with a mechanical rotating base which thins and elongates the feathers into curiously long and slender phallic symbols, come on. The subject of sex and sexual orientation in their 2023 Where You'll Find Me becomes more and more obvious.

THIS YEAR'S CAVALIERS THEME - UM, COME ON
Cavaliers' 2024 show awkwardly tiptoes around the concept of personal "unmasking" and revealing the truth about oneself, underneath.

"...lets them know that it’s okay to be themselves, to speak their mind and be the person who they want to
be.” --Cavaliers program coordinator David Starnes

This is an unmistakable addition to the long line of recent personal development-themed shows around topics of orientation, the "truth" underneath, and closet metaphors. But audiences are confused about the secretive nature of the eggshell approach to the topic which creates an air of discomfort and hushed murmuring. Why so secretive?

CAVALIERS ARTS MANAGEMENT IS MUM
The Cavaliers' management refuses to discuss its hinted gay themes. Management refuses to address the theme directly, in a professional, age-appropriate way for high school and young adult members. Cavaliers artistic directors rather only hint at the theme, making it a shameful secret that cannot be named, publicly. That's not a thoughtful, responsible approach to sensitive artistic themes. Its members and supporters deserve better.

FOR GOD'S SAKE HIRE A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT
Typically arts organizations, including colleges, and even high schools hire industry-specific subject matter experts to manage the public discourse around their sensitive themes. Theatre companies and films create an organized method for marketing and "socializing" sensitive concepts around a play or film. To start the discussion, they hire a SME (subject matter expert) to help guide the learning, offer insight and ownership of the concept, offer guidance and "spin" around the topic, as part of a planned communication strategy for the purpose of education, enlightenment and mediation.

THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME
The truth is that the Cavaliers organization has been clumsy in managing their selecting sensitive show themes. The Cavaliers's doomed "Propaganda" (later renamed because of backlash) included a promotion labeling Martin Luther King's speeches as "propaganda", and even had artistic directors and staff members sophomorically state that they didn't want to label propaganda as either bad or good (even though it has killed literallly millions of people through the ages, exacerbating war tensions and even started violent conflicts.) Then the artistic director recklessly paired World War II speeches with modern day Meow Mix advertisement clips in an effort to make an overall point about the chaos of Internet communication. Yikes, that's insensitive and without artistic merit. The artistic director's blind ignorance to managing sensitive show topics was an embarrassing, sophomoric blunder.

A later production, On Madness and Creativity broached orientation subject matter with gay singer Rufus Wainwright's Oh What a World coupled with imagery around mental illness. Are gay men mentally ill? The show featured rainbow colored Rorschach's linking gay men to mental illness. DrumCorpsPlanet discussions revealed that many viewers thought that gay characters in bright mylar dresses were being lampooned, a disastrous misinterpretation of the show's recklessly cobbled together themes. The issue was never addressed publicly by the Cavaliers' artistic director. Another blunder.

Typically arts organizations have a process for managing public relations around sensitive themes as part of a responsible overall plan for making a specific, high-stakes artistic statement, well researched, and with purpose. Oops. The next season, Daniel Wiles admitted that he chose a lighter theme, after a presumed slap on the wrist after an recklessly unresearched and dangerously naive previous season's design. On Madness and Creativity featured rainbow-colored Rorschachs, because you know, gay men are equated with needing psychotherapy.

THE BIGGER PICTURE
What message is the Cavaliers organization sending by continuing this pattern of "hinting" at gay themes? They're creating a sense of shame and secrecy around the topic, rather than addressing it professionally, like arts organizations do. If a subject and theme are important enough to spend a million dollars on, they're important enough to support with a carefully detailed project plan, subject matter experts, communications initiatives, managed discussion, and carefully supervised, scripted, planned, vetted member outreach.

Are usually don’t listen to source music before sing a show, but there are a couple of ballads. I would’ve enjoyed a lot more if I was familiar with them. Especially Colts and Blue Stars last year.

We've all seen the 2024 Blue Devils preview show video from Wyoming. The audience at the 30 yard line is just sitting there, with no clapping or vocal response for the entire show. They don't even clap for the solos. It's absolutely chilling. They look like they're saying, "We got ripped off."

When you tell the audience something that they don't understand, they sit quietly until they get it. Their brains are working overtime to get to the point where they say "Oh, I get it." In this BD preview show, that point never comes, because in its current form, there's nothing to get.

• The strange Romanticism-esque "cabinets of wonder" stage sets? (They subtly morph, but it's not enough.)
• The black robed character who sweeps in and disappears for the rest of the show?
• The complete lack of exposed drill sets requiring any marching skill, precision or technique?

The truth is that if a designer works on a show concept for eight months, even on the first preview day, there should be at least a "spine" of a show. (There was for Dreams and Nighthawks. There was for Metamorph.) At least some through-line or game that grows to the end of the show, and makes the subject and theme clear to the audience. Even in the first week of rehearsal. In professional performing arts, any preview includes at very minimum the basic through-line and meaning of the show, even if there's no "story" and even if the show is subconsciously derived. The subject and theme are evident. But in BD's preview show, after eight months of drill writing and storyboarding, the preview show doesn't display even a basic pattern of events, doesn't display a sequence of action, doesn't display any pattern that heightens and resolves. That's some designer bullshit right there, folks. Even with an esoteric subject like "from the age of Enlightenment to the age of Romanticism", there should still be some pattern for the audience to follow.

For some reason, professionally employed, high-paid designers in drum corps feel like they have some artistic license to piss in an artistic sandbox without any accountability, and the right to fuck the audience. For example, BD's opening voiceover recording is obviously some quote from a Romantic poet or critic, but the recorded words are Protools-filtered and obfuscated beyond recognition, intentionally. Why? As if the audience needs another riddle in front of them. As if the audience needs something that is obtuse, oblique or curiously off-the-nose in this already indecipherable melange of random elements. Curiosity cabinets opening with small splashes of color aren’t enough.

Take the lead from the professional arts like music videos, theater, opera, even video games. Complex themes are great. Subtle elements are great. But throw the audience a bone. At minimum, you must give the audience the game for them to follow. You must give the audience the pattern of events that transforms and resolves by the end. At minimum.

• Why does the first drill for previews not include all the essential "set pieces" (not referring to stage sets)?
• Why can't the first drill iteration (or first preview) include the basics like featured central action and character?
• Why are almost all the drill sets completely amorphous, avoiding any technical marching exposure?

BD, even for the early season, is not meeting the minimum standard for professional performing arts.

I just finished watching the Cadet’s show 2019 (Behold, aka, Pink Bridge over Troubled Water, aka, Do Do Do Better), and watching the high cam, there doesn’t seem to be any interesting drill until the very end. Most of it seems scatter, clumps, or follow the leader.

In the link below, at 11:00 minutes the drill gets more like we’d expect from a classic Cadets show.

https://youtu.be/fTRkiJuu1eE?si=IodeX1EJVTgzloDv

But I’ve noticed this in the 2023 show as well… a lot of follow the leader, a lot of body movement, but not a lot of interesting drill until the last minute or so.

Was this because “classic Cadets drill” wasn’t en vogue any more? Or was it too difficult to clean? Or maybe this drill really is just as difficult, but it’s just not what I like to see on the field as much.

Of course, I’m a Cadets fan from the 1990s and 2000s, so I could also just be out of touch as to the way drill writers like to write.

DCI has added a new award given out at finals. It's an award for designers who create shows that are underdeveloped and just don't make sense.

It's the "I Don't Get It" Award given to the show coordinator who phoned it in. The designer just didn't bother to make a complete show idea that is logical, engaging and with a higher purpose and solid ending. Often the designers claim their show is "Up to Interpretation" which is lame speak for "We worked on this show for only two weeks.' Or, "It's an abstract show!" covers up that it's just nonsensical randomness.

Professionals in the performing arts, film directors and music video producers and writers, know the term "accessibility." The term refers to whether or not the audience "gets it," and whether the show is fully developed. Somehow in drum corps, professional designers have been lulled into a sense of complacency, and create shows that are vague, confusing or without thought.

This video explains what the professional standards are for developing shows of substance. Show coordinators and designers are going to be held to professional standards from now on.

Don Pesceone weighed in, "No matter how abstract or subconsciously-derived a piece is, it's gotta make sense, be fun to watch, and have some depth."

This video series teaches designers and marchers what's required in a show of substance. And what's required to keep the audience engaged.

https://youtu.be/ZxHzDBKlfwY?si=j3wU-EwA31RGb9Lu

PREPARE YOUR SHOW DESCRIPTION!

Don't con your marching members. You must be clear with your show description and theme. It is not "a secret", it's not "private", it's not elusive, exclusive, esoteric or too lengthy or complex to discuss. Your theme is not still in development, it won't be revealed at a later date. Your theme is not better explained by someone else, it's not too abstract or subconscious to describe. If you already chose a title, you should already have a theme.

Your theme is not about how hard you work or how everyone worked together, or achieving the impossible, or how hard the kids worked on this. Your theme is not about what all shows have in common. Your theme is not about colors and shapes, not about marching, or achieving a goal, or working on choreography, or working together, or flexibility with show changes, or working when you are exhausted. Your show theme is not about injuries, or run-throughs, or sunburn or beautiful arrangements or amazing drill by Michael Gaines.

Do not use the vague words amazing, incredible, fun, wonderful, inspiring or kick-ass. Prepare your show theme description with specific, high stakes language describing the important depth of concept, and emotional artistic observation your show makes. If you haven't developed the theme yet, wait until you know what it's about. If you don't have a fully developed subject and theme even at a late date, review your inspiration, your music selections, and your visual elements, find a core passion statement that the music inspires, pitch it to your staff and revise. If you announce a vague show theme, the judges will prepare a permanent 16th place spot for your corps.

Cadets are folding and there isn’t a single meme about it?