Visual Schmizual

[Stu]

3 hours ago, cfirwin3 said:

I think about it like film production.  Bernard Herrmann would say that a good musical score makes the sequence of film seem inevitable.  I think that you can say the same thing about the visual and musical relationship here.  There really is a wide variety of possibilities to choose from when designing the production.  Just like in film, you can have great visual content and a mediocre score and it will work, provided that they are mutually supportive (and vice versa).  The great designs have packages that are independently captivating and yet vastly more impactful by operating symbiotically... causing each other to be inevitable.

It's not about what you are doing, so much as it is about the phenomenology of what is happening.

Why are the Bluecoats allowed to violate MOST of the gripes that purists make... and yet win the support of most purists?

They put the experience ahead of the method.

1) If he was alive Bernard Herrmann, since you used him as an example, and other major film composers would inform you that if an audience member leaves the theater emotionally affected from the visual and dialogue yet does not remember a single solitary note of music they have done their job extremely well.  This is because the music in movies is designed to be subliminal giving more of a depth to what is being projected on screen and not supposed to be enjoyed as music.  There are a few exceptions like opening and closing credits, but within the movie itself this is overwhelmingly true for most major movies.

2) When movie composers like Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, James Newton Howard, would have a symphonic audio recording produced, or performed by a live symphonic orchestra, they would actually have to do major re-writes of the soundtrack music in order for it to come across to the listener as organized and musically understandable.   The reason is that movie-music is written to a strict time-line code based on what is happening on screen that rarely lends itself to producing understandable phrasing. This was actually proved to me by Jerry Goldsmith when I attended a Film Music Composers Forum a number of years ago.  Again, he upheld that in most cases the real meaning of the music in the movie is to be completely forgettable but is mainly there to subliminally support enhance the on-screen visual.

3)  And here is the actual fallacy: DCI is a ‘live’ musical and visual performance; an entertainment vehicle which is akin to ‘live’ Broadway Stage Productions or ‘live’ Rock Stage Productions where music and visual exist in an even marriage.  DCI is not a visual projection on a screen where all attention is to be placed on the dialogue and action.  And in ‘live’ Stage productions the music takes on a very important and integral role of its own.  The music is designed to be comprehensible, meaningful, and powerful on its own merits and can be recorded as audio in which listeners can enjoy/understand without having to go through major re-writes.   This is why the singing of “I Dreamed a Dream” is so powerful and poignant even apart from the stage production (see/hear Susan Boyle).   This is also why we can listen to a BD, for example, audio recording pre-2k, enjoy the musical melodic lines and phrases, while being utterly confused by listening to an audio recording of their 2008 or 2012 shows.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Stu

[cfirwin3]

40 minutes ago, Stu said:

1) If he was alive Bernard Herrmann, since you used him as an example, and other major film composers would inform you that if an audience member leaves the theater emotionally affected from the visual and dialogue yet does not remember a single solitary note of music they have done their job extremely well.  This is because the music in movies is designed to be subliminal giving more of a depth to what is being projected on screen and not supposed to be enjoyed as music.  There are a few exceptions, but overwhelmingly this is true for most major movies. 

I don't think Herrmann would agree with this wholesale.

In that video that was posted, Elfman (who idolized Herrmann, not that it matters) points out that this idea that film music should not be noticed is a fairly odd recent assertion.  The music can certainly be noticed and identified... It's the entire point of a thematic motif to provide an identity in advance of a character or situation.  Herrmann is responsible for some of the most recognizable thematic material in cinema.  It's important not to confuse incidental/dramatic underscore as being the only or most important function of music in film.  I have an audio recording of a lecture that Herrmann gave on this very subject (I think it was given at Eastman).

And that's a good example of the problem with this argument as it pertains to drumcorps.  The true fallacy is that parties to the argument are quick to put all of the proverbial eggs in one basket.  The truth is that the combination of music and film is complex... as is a DCI show.  Good design is not a formula of functions in a predetermined ratio.  Good design is whatever is necessary to achieve the desired audience response... placing the audience response as the priority.

... This is a tangent discussion.  My point was that film music and the visuals of film are inseparable, and must be more than merely complimentary.  They must have a mutual reliance.  Such is the case in good drumcorps design... visual or otherwise.

Edited June 30, 2017 by cfirwin3

[Stu]

34 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said:

I don't think Herrmann would agree with this wholesale.

In that video that was posted, Elfman (who idolized Herrmann, not that it matters) points out that this idea that film music should not be noticed is a fairly odd recent assertion.  The music can certainly be noticed and identified... It's the entire point of a thematic motif to provide an identity in advance of a character or situation.  Herrmann is responsible for some of the most recognizable thematic material in cinema.  It's important not to confuse incidental/dramatic underscore as being the only or most important function of music in film.  I have an audio recording of a lecture that Herrmann gave on this very subject (I think it was given at Eastman).

And that's a good example of the problem with this argument as it pertains to drumcorps.  The true fallacy is that parties to the argument are quick to put all of the proverbial eggs in one basket.  The truth is that the combination of music and film is complex... as is a DCI show.  Good design is not a formula of functions in a predetermined ratio.  Good design is whatever is necessary to achieve the desired audience response... placing the audience response as the priority.

... This is a tangent discussion.  My point was that film music and the visuals of film are inseparable, and must be more than merely complimentary.  They must have a mutual reliance.  Such is the case in good drumcorps design... visual or otherwise.

That is why I put in that there are exceptions like opening/closing credit music in film; and you are correct in what Elfman stated concerning movie music as the art moved forward became more and more incidental.  However, even the motifs of which you speak are not normally placed in the movie with musical phrasing cohesiveness; they are structured specifically along a time-line driven by the motion/dialogue on the screen and if listened to ‘with the ears of a musician’ the music is rather confusing.  Also the way DCI shows are designed today is not say the way the music of Death Hunt was utilized by Regiment, which was re-arranged similar to a live symphony performance with coheasive musical phrasing.  The music in DCI today is mainly written in a way that emulates the ‘incidental music’ found in movies where the visual time-line drives the construction so that even the motifs are confusing to the ear as music; yet they do enhance as well as are inseperable from the visual (take the shower stab scene from Psycho as an example).  But, you seem to have missed my real point.

It is my point that DCI is Not a movie on a screen where dialogue and motion are what it is all about and the underlying sound cannot and should not be 'inseparable' from the visual.  DCI is a ‘live’ performance akin to other ‘live’ musical/visual performances like Broadway or Rock concerts where music and visual are to be 'equally important and independent' yet extremely complement each other when placed together.  The music can and should be enjoyed in the audio realm (just like 'live' Broadway Musicals and 'live' Rock-Operas).  Again, the Fallacy is to treat the music in DCI like it is incidental subliminal sound on a movie screen.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Stu

[Fred Windish]

Excellent and instructional discussion here! Both Stu and cfirwin3 have far more knowledge of this than I do.

The Opening Theme of a movie is used to SELL the film, I believe. It also sets the "tone" of the entire film. This is well beyond just being a supplement to the visual. I'm glad Jerry Goldsmith has been mentioned. His movie themes are the best!  I'd love to see a corps concentrate on his work. Probably better suited to a DCA corps, though, considering the tendency DCI music is moving by re-creating everything. Sometimes beyond recognition, unfortunately.

[cfirwin3]

28 minutes ago, Stu said:

The music can and should be enjoyed in the audio realm (just like 'live' Broadway Musicals and 'live' Rock-Operas).  Again, the Fallacy is to treat the music in DCI like it is incidental subliminal sound on a movie screen.

I think this is a mistake to generate such rules.

There are wildly successful and audience impactful programs that do not follow those arbitrary conventions.

Most of the championship Cavies shows from their dominant decade don't work as you say.

If the audience is the foremost concern, then you should have a diverse collection of effective programs that follow a wide variety of effective conventions.  You seem to be merely stating what you, yourself consider to be good design (the classic instance of a stand-alone music book, with a complimentary visual program).  I don't think that has been well-demonstrated for the past 20 years.

[Stu]

5 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said:

I think this is a mistake to generate such rules.

There are wildly successful and audience impactful programs that do not follow those arbitrary conventions.

Most of the championship Cavies shows from their dominant decade don't work as you say.

If the audience is the foremost concern, then you should have a diverse collection of effective programs that follow a wide variety of effective conventions.  You seem to be merely stating what you, yourself consider to be good design (the classic instance of a stand-alone music book, with a complimentary visual program).  I don't think that has been well-demonstrated for the past 20 years.

The DCI show design of today by the top corps, with few exceptions, are designed to the sheets and judges interp not for the enjoyment of the audience and the audience by these designers is considered rather irrelivent other than educating them to the art form combined with the corps quest for the ring. The exception is like 2008 where Regiment appealed to those seeking musical edification but most top shows, such as the Cavalier shows you referenced, could not care less whether we enjoyed the music or not.

[cfirwin3]

8 minutes ago, Stu said:

The DCI show design of today by the top corps, with few exceptions, are designed to the sheets and judges interp not for the enjoyment of the audience and the audience by these designers is considered rather irrelivent other than educating them to the art form combined with the corps quest for the ring. The exception is like 2008 where Regiment appealed to those seeking musical edification but most top shows, such as the Cavalier shows you referenced, could not care less whether we enjoyed the music or not.

This is the crux of our disagreement.  I don't observe this to be true.  I would posit that the most successful and winningest designs (with very few exceptions) have been widely loved and enjoyed by an entertained audience.

That was a big observation made by Cessario (discussed in the Cessario thread) in 2011, that winning shows are almost universally highly entertaining and appeal to a wide audience (despite the critical claims to the contrary).

The observation continues that the best way to contend is to put the audience first.

That doesn't involve a formula... In fact, programs that appeal to the audience tend to be diverse from each other.  Note the years when we had ties at the top or very close finals placements.

Edited June 30, 2017 by cfirwin3

[Cappybara]

7 hours ago, StarWasOverrated said:

That sounds incredibly boring. You must like Phantom Regiment.

I do like Phantom Regiment. Is there an issue with that?

[Chief Guns]

45 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

I do like Phantom Regiment. Is there an issue with that?

Cappy he is a troll. Don't take the bait. He was in the DCI West thread Sunday night contributing nothing but hate and discontent. The second he was exposed he went away. 

[phd-student-TTU]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

The DCI show design of today by the top corps, with few exceptions, are designed to the sheets and judges interp not for the enjoyment of the audience and the audience by these designers is considered rather irrelivent other than educating them to the art form combined with the corps quest for the ring. The exception is like 2008 where Regiment appealed to those seeking musical edification but most top shows, such as the Cavalier shows you referenced, could not care less whether we enjoyed the music or not.

Of course they're designed to the sheets because the designers create the criteria. 

 

But I'm wanting to know specifics on design...what's difficult? What's excellent about the visuals now?