JulesBry Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Interesting. And If I were to "start now", what should I do, follow the current elements of modern drum corps, or do I re-start what was popular pre-2000? Better yet, why don't you do what is popular now? Which, by all popular and anecdotal accounts, doesn't include strange props with no relationship to the chosen music or themes, synthesized music, pre-recorded sound effects, and anything other than brass, percussion, and motion. Strangely enough, what was popular for drum corps before 2000 still seems to be popular after 2000--so much so that fans are willing to tolerate pure #%(&^ just to get a glimpse of the amazing stuff we used to see in almost every show. Again, I ask, how often do you hear people walking out of a corps show complimenting the synths, amplification, and props? Compare that to the times you hear them complimenting the snares, trumpets, drill, marching, guard... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 The past is past. If people want new, lower-cost, less-time commitment corps, they're going to have to accept the fact that people who would get excited about starting corps like that aren't going to be the old parish priest or scoutmaster types - they'll be men and women who already have experience with contemporary drum corps and WGI, and will be looking to go even further than they did before. My question is whether some of the roots movement supporters could stomach a new version of drum corps that's even less traditional than the version out there now. I understand your point, but your comment has been bugging me since I read it this afternoon. The whole connotation that the artists start the corps part. I hope that's not the case. The people who start the next Star or Crown or BD will be the people who have the ability to separate themselves from the arts-fartsy crap and, instead, run the business of the corps. They will be the people who are smart enough to hire the program director to put on a show that puts BITS. He's not going to get bogged down in the details of the show program. Hence, his or her's prior experience with "contemporary" and WGI productions is nearly, NEARLY, useless and irrelevant. The only requirements are that he be a successful business-man or woman, and have a passion for the activity that motivates him enough to take action. If the activity is to remain vital it takes a full-time business person to manage just the finances and business, and another to handle technology (among many other business requirements). He shouldn't care what the artsy-fartsy guys argue about - he enjoys the shows anyway. And, sometimes, he drives a bus. But he doesn't need to know WGI from WD-40 to have the necessary passion. He has to know how to make money, period. It may take a kid bugging his Dad to take him to a show, or it might also take a Legacy fan who's reached the point of wanting to give back. It doesn't take a billionaire, and probably shouldn't. Bill Cook made no secret that he felt DC is a black hole you throw money down. But it requires, absolutely requires, that the business be built and in place before a show is even considered. Once funded, let the designers argue about what should be done. My .02 is the the next successful corps will not be started by a "band geek" of any stripe, be it corps, WGI, indoor, or any other who has the "program direction of the activity" as the forefront issue that determines if it is successful or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Better yet, why don't you do what is popular now? Which, by all popular and anecdotal accounts, doesn't include strange props with no relationship to the chosen music or themes, synthesized music, pre-recorded sound effects, and anything other than brass, percussion, and motion. Strangely enough, what was popular for drum corps before 2000 still seems to be popular after 2000--so much so that fans are willing to tolerate pure #%(&^ just to get a glimpse of the amazing stuff we used to see in almost every show. Again, I ask, how often do you hear people walking out of a corps show complimenting the synths, amplification, and props? Compare that to the times you hear them complimenting the snares, trumpets, drill, marching, guard... Ahhh...and the argument comes down to its purest form, naked for all to see: the definition of "popular". For the record I'm in agreement with you on this point, but it seems that at least as many people feel otherwise. Then add in the influence of the directors and our numbers would have to be quite a bit larger than just half to even have a voice. This current crop of DCI Board members seem willing to push against the tide of past dominance. But if someone finally did a poll among all fans on what they think is popular with today A&E, design, and arrangements, there would be a consensus opinion that would finally put the argument to bed. So as a new corps starter-upper, which path do I take? Our side or theirs? And don't forget that it's hard to find a good buggy salesman these days, no matter how much you'd like to see a shiny buggy in your driveway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 So here's the thing. If people want to start a new marching circuit that isn't drum and bugle corps, then I wish them well. I might even go to see the shows. But that ISN'T Drum and Bugle Corps. It's something different. When I buy orchestra tickets, I don't want to hear a Jimmi Hendrix guitar solo. When I buy tickets to a musical, I don't want to see a ballet. When I buy DCI tickets, I don't want to see woodwinds or synths or standing still. I want to see percussion, brass, and movement. When you leave those three elements behind, you have fundamentally changed the art--it is no longer drum corps. If you want to change the activity, change the name. Why is this such a difficult concept? 'tis not a hard concept at all. In fact, it's been on Hopkins' mind since 1997 when he wanted to rename it "Music On The Move" or MOTM. Everyone gets that part today because that's exactly what was proposed by the G7. Problem is, unlike what you're talking about where they go off and leave DCI behind, they decided to take DCI with them, rename, rip it to shreds, and reformulate it in their vision. The odds are too high that what they'd get otherwise is Blast all over again, and many of these guys are still young men. Hence, TOC! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 You and Danielray will probably get along very well then. Personally I'm far more excited about the growth of drum corps from the bottom up then the same old "will Cavies beat BD beat Cadets" blah blah blah every year. I marched in the Garden State Circuit in 68-69 and taught and judged there from the mid-70's to around 1980...attendance at shows was sketchy at best. Many a show was held to an audience of friends and family of the competing corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I understand your point, but your comment has been bugging me since I read it this afternoon. The whole connotation that the artists start the corps part. I hope that's not the case. I appreciate your point of view, but mine comes as someone who has spent 20 years of my career involved in setting up and managing performing arts non-profits, from start-ups to $4 million orgs, and my experience tells me that the product definitions (aka "what they do" and "how well they do it") are the single biggest factors behind finding public support for any new or expanding organization. The days of a few large donors getting together and deciding to create a symphony or theatre in their city have pretty much come and gone; since the 70s, the newest generation of major performing arts orgs are artist-driven, and that horse ain't going back in the barn any time soon. Even more to the point, people like to feel good about programs that get kids off the streets or provide performance opportunities for disadvantaged kids. But they're much less interested in funding programs for middle-class kids to do the same thing. Why? Because for most middle-class kids in the US, there ARE programs designed to give them musical or arts training and performance opportunities - they're called "school music and performing arts programs", and for most communities, they're already funded via tax dollars. So the basic purpose that old school drum corps served - organizing kids into groups and giving them performance opportunities - has been taken over by programs under the auspices of the local school board. That being the case, what possible rationale would Company X or Community Benefactor Y have to give money to someone to start up a program that will be, if anything, a LESS refined than the program already happening at the local high school? They won't. I'm good with pitches and angles, but I couldn't come up with a pitch for that concept if you put a loaded gun to my head. The only way you're going to get someone to put major money ($150k in start up costs if you do it on the super cheap) into starting a new youth performing arts group would be to have the vision for said organization be unique, something unlike anything else afforded to the young performers in their community. Necessarily, that would mean that the format for the activity would have to be unique too, and I'm afraid that "drum corps like it was 40 years ago" isn't a great marketing position. It's not likely to attract new donors and more importantly, it won't hold much appeal for the real end users of the idea; the performers themselves. Old timey drum corps was fun, but the menu of available activities for kids has changed drastically since the 60s and early 70s. The knowledge base of the kids who are most interested in doing this type of performing is also vastly different; they can see what's out there, and for most of them, they look at BD or Crown then look at the local 14-member parade corps, and decide to pass. That being the case, the local corps is going to have to offer something that the WC corps can't, and like it or not, when you're the little guy fighting against the big dog, the last thing you do is say "oh, we'll we'll just keep our heads low and stick to his old basics." If you want to compete for the customer, you have to offer her something that's even cooler, in its own way, than what the Big Dog can offer her. All that's a long way around of saying that, comes down to it, the "artsty fartsy" element would be key to a new format surviving or not. Doing "regular drum corps, but small and spare" has very little appeal to any potential member, and if it's not about THEM, then what are any of us talking about anyway? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 So here's the thing. If people want to start a new marching circuit that isn't drum and bugle corps, then I wish them well. I might even go to see the shows. But that ISN'T Drum and Bugle Corps. It's something different. When I buy orchestra tickets, I don't want to hear a Jimmi Hendrix guitar solo. When I buy tickets to a musical, I don't want to see a ballet. When I buy DCI tickets, I don't want to see woodwinds or synths or standing still. I want to see percussion, brass, and movement. When you leave those three elements behind, you have fundamentally changed the art--it is no longer drum corps. If you want to change the activity, change the name. Why is this such a difficult concept? It is all marching band, so why make artificial limits on the instrumentation permitted? Nothing wrong with hearing a Hendrix guitar solo set to movement on a football field. There are many elements of ballet in musicals, by the way, going back to 'Oklahoma'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) When I buy tickets to a musical, I don't want to see a ballet. So I guess you'd object to Oklahoma!, since there's a d_mn ballet right in the middle of the sucker. Edited August 2, 2011 by mobrien 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 So I guess you'd object to Oklahoma!, since there's a d__n ballet right in the middle of the sucker. Look at the post I wrote JUST above yours! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Other Mike Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 So I guess you'd object to Oklahoma!, since there's a d_mn ballet right in the middle of the sucker. Poor corps is dead, poor drum corps is dead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.