Texas Marching Classic Schedule

[natertater21000]

I wouldn't call beating Leander by less than half a point a solid third that would make Leander over taking them in finals all that surprising

[Captain Obvious]

I agree that Leander's show is out there but to me it's one of the most artistical show's of the year. If are you saying you don't think Leander can medal at San Antonio I disagree with you completely.

 

No, I think they can medal at San Antonio.  I wonder if the judges like their music vs something more melodic.

 

To you experts out there -- is there a particular style of music or show that BOA judges prefer?  In other words, if you came out there with an absolutely perfectly executed show circa 1990 without all of the props and visualizations -- one with more marching, geometric patterns, symmetry, etc., would it stand a chance against one of today's shows replete with all of the electronic enhancements, dance moves, free flow (or random) movements, and plenty of visual camouflage for individual mistakes?  

 

I know the judges are supposed to score you against some type of standard, but in reality people have their preferences.  In BOA, does anyone have a feel for those preferences?

 

Just curious.

[principalagent]

So I just went through the whole BOA handbook because I'm really trying to put off work as a senior in college and the general gist I got is that BOA's performance captions work as a fluid mixture of achievement and execution. So it's not only how clean it is, but how clean it is in the context of what's being given to the ensemble. That explains why, in the context of last year, very hard and demanding but a little dirty - say CTJ - did better in visual than immaculately clean but not as challenging. Style however, does not matter for the performance captions if it's consistent and done well. General Effect is where a certain show style starts to matter. (I'm also not entirely convinced by the argument that today's general marching band design is actually easier / easier to hide mistakes than it used to be - I personally think body work and added responsibilities while playing as well as more complex music books (not in the number of notes) makes certain things harder to hide - but that's neither here, nor there)

 

For what's its worth, this contrasts with what UIL *was*, but I'm getting the feeling that UIL is also changing in what it likes to see in terms of its contests as well. I'm hoping that with a recent retirement, an adjudication change is soon to come.

[takigan]

So I just went through the whole BOA handbook because I'm really trying to put off work as a senior in college and the general gist I got is that BOA's performance captions work as a fluid mixture of achievement and execution. So it's not only how clean it is, but how clean it is in the context of what's being given to the ensemble. That explains why, in the context of last year, very hard and demanding but a little dirty - say CTJ - did better in visual than immaculately clean but not as challenging. Style however, does not matter for the performance captions if it's consistent and done well. General Effect is where a certain show style starts to matter. (I'm also not entirely convinced by the argument that today's general marching band design is actually easier / easier to hide mistakes than it used to be - I personally think body work and added responsibilities while playing as well as more complex music books (not in the number of notes) makes certain things harder to hide - but that's neither here, nor there)

 

For what's its worth, this contrasts with what UIL *was*, but I'm getting the feeling that UIL is also changing in what it likes to see in terms of its contests as well. I'm hoping that with a recent retirement, an adjudication change is soon to come.

 

No, I think they can medal at San Antonio.  I wonder if the judges like their music vs something more melodic.

 

To you experts out there -- is there a particular style of music or show that BOA judges prefer?  In other words, if you came out there with an absolutely perfectly executed show circa 1990 without all of the props and visualizations -- one with more marching, geometric patterns, symmetry, etc., would it stand a chance against one of today's shows replete with all of the electronic enhancements, dance moves, free flow (or random) movements, and plenty of visual camouflage for individual mistakes?  

 

I know the judges are supposed to score you against some type of standard, but in reality people have their preferences.  In BOA, does anyone have a feel for those preferences?

 

Just curious.

 

My thoughts have changed on this over time, and if I may tangent a bit on the concept of time before getting to my real point....I'm sure this applies to the increasing number of fans of this activity that accumulate year after year since the 80s; when high school marching band competitions became a celebration of achievement as much as a test or measure of achievement.

 

Audiences have changed....I was talking to Daniel about this at BOA Austin, but we both felt that in the time since we ourselves had been regularly attending BOA competitions (6 years for me, at least 10 for him), the audiences have gotten smarter. In 2005 there were multitudes of people who after losing would say things like "*grumble *grumble* Well THEIR show had props! That's why we lost!". If you look at forum posts from this era (90s - mid 2000s) this was a prevailing opinion. Now, you don't see it as much. If this were true, all the bands with props would be in finals, while the bands without them wouldn't....or at least there would be a concentration gradient that reflected that trend. In practice this isn't really the case...the distribution of props/no-props among bands in a prelims recap is actually pretty consistent 1st place to last. And the truly successful bands that only use props on some years still enjoy similar success on years where they don't use them. Social media made such observations accessible to everyone, and people became educated on the issue....and they quieted down about it.

 

There also was a lot more inflow/outflow of spectators after each band....most people didn't care about the activity much beyond that their children were into it. Now we're seeing a lot more parents willing to sit through huge stints of prelims, post about it on social media and read other's opinions on it who had more insight than their own, and learn from the experience. Some parents who were in band themselves in communities with a long tradition of BOA attendance (NEISD, LISD, Spring ISD etc.) who've also staggered their family planning (3 or 4 kids over 8-12 years) and raised all their kids in competitive band programs have become extremely educated on the events and process....some could probably judge a marching contest themselves and it would resemble a judge scoresheet.

 

But on to my point....my opinion has changed. I (and I assume many others) used to think GE had a lot to do with how "cool", "artsy" or "en vogue" the show was designed to be....that if you did something cutting edge, that it pushed the medium and raised your score. I now think it has more to do with how each moving part of a more complex show can serve to create a far more powerful, moving, product (visual or musical) if every student performs their specific role to its maximum potential....In the old days a single saxophone player had 3-5 separate short selections of music to learn that were part of an undefined overarching performance, and 40-70 sets of drill (averaging 16 counts per set) in a 7 1/2 minute "show" peaking at about 172 BPM....at the end of the season she might be given a half dozen different visual maneuvers to incorporate at various points in the show.

 

Nowadays, that same saxophone players is given a single packet of music divided into several parts containing musical ideas from 6-9 different composers that are woven into a single 7-11 minute "production"...she'll perform music for about 8 minutes of it, the remaining 3 minutes consisting of 4 separate silent ballet-esque subsets performed to different instrumental groups carrying the melody, 17 different horn visuals taught by 2 different visual techs and a 45 second long interpretative dance number taught by the choreographer in tandem with the colorguard containing 20-30 individual visual ideas...she'll have to learn 75-200 sets of drill (averaging 8 counts per set) performed at speeds of up to 190 BPM.

 

But I want to reiterate that it isn't the difficulty that makes these types of performances win out or the mere fact that there's "lots of notes" or "lots of different ideas".....it's that when executed at a high level, each small part resonates with the other small parts, which echo endlessly one idea to the next to enhance the effect the performance has on the audience moreso than a much simpler production. It's the broad spectrum of elements working together to create something more meaningful than what a single note or single step can do on its own. This applies to both every snippet of music written into every part by the show designer to give the most riveting grande climactic moment to the subtleist....and also to the drill and choreo; every step and every interpretive element written not only to enhance the music, but to portray the central theme, which, in turn gives meaning back to the individual parts.

[RenMacnary]

Definition of a good orchestra as well, or Band or indeed any musical ensemble: "each small part resonates with the other small parts, which echo endlessly one idea to the next the effect the performance has on the audience...."

 

Same thing with a good musical, or play, or rock band, or even church service.  Heck go back to gregorian chant...simple line, many voices, yet somehow the whole is more than the parts.  I really like your definition!