IanKShields

Absolutely! Almost. Obviously, this is an activity -- oh ######, an ART FORM -- that has the potential to work like a complete fusion of Music and Dance, with the rather cool aspect of pretending to be a marching band as it does it. No argument there. I would still contend that it is currently out-of-balance in its fusion, though. As a result of being overly chopped and gerrymandered to fit the visual elements, Music is not being allowed its greatest strength -- to bring continuity to the whole thing. Music is the back-of-the-brain stuff. It can carry a listener from indifference to eruptions of joy, just from building energy naturally. No visual element has this kind of continuous evocative power. And this is not an insult to visual designers either -- even the most spectacular of Wagner opera stagings have always paled in comparison to the sounds coming from the orchestra pit, as stage designers have freely admitted. To understand how to completely fuse the visual and the musical, a show designer has to respect how different the elements are in their effect, and then find the marriage that doesn't stifle either of their powers -- the spectacular visual ones, or the sublime musical ones. In drum corps, I believe, this skill is mostly yet to arrive, but I can't wait to experience it when it finally does.

He wasn't condescending. He was right. And it's not about liking melody -- it's about being incapable of hearing anything else. This is not a difference in taste; this is an inability to taste the difference.

Good point your guests made about "longer-playing" music -- and finally we hit the button about what's really irksome in today's drum corps activity. We've falsely made it into an argument about "innovation" vs "accessibility", when the problem is just basic musicality. When visuals are driven by complete musical phrases, anyone can be swept along -- that is the power of Music. It doesn't matter how "modern" or "traditional" or "familiar" or "unfamiliar" it is; if the Music comes first, you're generally in good shape. Where we are now, it often seems that Music is given the short end of the stick. We don't trust it enough to let it drive the visuals anymore, and we're too impatient to allow it to breathe (or even catch a breath). There was a time when DCI could sell LP records of just the sound of the great corps performing, and we snapped them up because it was (and is) absolutely killer music -- it had continuity and normal musical development, and the energy was incredible as a result. I don't care whether a corps is doing original compositions, Billy Joel, Stan Kenton, Stravinsky, or Edgar Varese. If the music is respected, played with natural continuity and flow, and isn't chopped to bits to complement rifle throws, it can work now and forever. I...M...O.

I'm certainly glad you've clarified your point, which is that Music should be no more restlessly creative or forward-looking than a foot-sport.

Best argument for being a grumpy stick-in-the-mud that I've read yet, but it's still an argument for being a grumpy stick-in-the-mud.

Oops there, Brasso -- basic logic error! If you re-read the post, you'll see that the writer said "without deviation from the norm, there is no progress". They did NOT say "deviation from the norm always results in progress". It's just like saying you need liquid to make soup. Of course not all liquids can wind up as soup -- some liquids are deadly. But the right liquid is still a prerequisite if you do want soup. (So glad I bought that book about Logic...lol...)

I'm torn. On the one hand, I've got plenty of criticisms of BD's (and other corps') scatterbrained, impatient, and visuals-obsessed shows these past several years. On the other hand, I'm not ready to spin around and put audiences in the driver's seat yet either. Most of the time, the "general audience" everybody seems to worship doesn't even know what the hell it's saying about music. For instance, all the yakking about "hummable tunes" -- what is that? (Try getting Joe Audience to hum the Madison Scouts' 1982 crowd-favorite classic "Strawberry Soup" sometime, and you'll see what I mean.) Certainly, there's plenty that can be done to get the old excitement and musicality back, and it may take another generation of show planners to do it, but please let's not deify "the crowd". Audiences are a useful indicator of some things; but they also react unpredictably -- even stupidly -- towards great things that challenge them, and often badly mis-state or misunderstand why they like some kinds of Music over others. It's like dealing with a schizophrenic sometimes, except that the schizo doesn't have the false impression that he bought the band when he bought a ticket.

I've always been amused and dismayed at the same time, when I see statements like the one I've highlighted in red, above. "Recognizable"? All people are recognizable. We just don't recognize most of them. And, so it is with people in music -- we throw around words like "recognizable" and "popular", as though they meant far more than they do, when judging the quality of people's work. Who cares if they're "recognizable"? Are they GOOD? Anyway, glad you like the programs this year, whether you've heard of the composers before, or not.

First, many thanks for your thoughtful reply -- I've gotten a LOT of slams for what I wrote to you from some other writers here already. I'm overjoyed that the Scouts seem to be re-discovering themselves, and can't wait to see their special mojo working even better this next few years (I'm personally hoping for a re-birth of "Strawberry Soup"...lol..). I love getting fired-up by a great show, and have always felt that Madison, historically, has had a real Midas touch for sophisticated, swinging shows, played with both insane firepower, and consummate style. And, in spite of spending 4 years of my life in a hoity-toity music school, I've never once heard anyone, "intellectual" or not, begging for a purely "cerebral" drum corps show. Believe it or not, everybody likes a thriller done well. We're on the very same page, boss.

No, not until you get some cojones and answer the question, lol...

Which part -- the part about the Scouts exciting a crowd (which I agreed with heartily), or the part that insulted anyone who bothers to use their head a little (which was plain freaking stupid, ignorant, unnecessary, and hurtful)?

And you just mis-read the point of an entire post. Congrats.

"Self-proclaimed intellectuals"? "Haters"? Who? What are you talking about? Who here has ever gotten on here, announcing that they're intellectual, or "hated" the Madison Scouts? I mean, it's great that the Scouts get you fired-up -- I'm a fired-up old Scouts fan myself -- but how does this turn into a dismissive smear against smart people, or well-trained people, or people who don't only go to concerts to scream and shout? Maybe you've read some critiques that had some in-depth observations in them... you have a problem with that? It's like you think music has to be a mindless mob-scene in order to be thrilling... I hope that's not really what you mean. Face it -- some of us can be enthusiastic and thrilled, and still have our brains completely engaged! ENOUGH with the anti-intellectualism already. You know better. Peace.

Is that meant as an insult to the musical intelligence of "most people"? (If so, it worked!)

We all "call it how we see it" -- who doesn't? lol Do you call it how you don't see it? (I've always thought this was kind of like when people try to get respect for patently silly opinions, by saying "I don't know anything about ______, but I know what I like!")