mfrontz

I can't decide - is the fact that the judges walk off the field when INT performs a slight to INT, or is it simply an acknowledgment that they are not worthy to judge INT?

Of course, there are an almost infinite number of variations upon this theme. 2007/08 Blue Devils may have been the most abstract shows yet put onto the field. But there are plenty of shows out there which I believe more evenly or accessibly combine the "representational" and "creative use" modes of arranging. For the Blue Devils, I think they did this well in 2004, 2002, and best in 1997. I submit that the some of the most "fan-successful" shows of the recent past have been Phantom Regiment 2006/08, Blue Stars 2008, Boston Crusaders 2002, Crossmen 1992, Crown 2007, Cavaliers 2004, Santa Clara Vanguard 2004/5, Cadets 2005. These shows and others like them knit charts which are recognizable as coherent "re-presentations" of musical material together into a whole which tells a story, sometimes with characters and plot. They combine musical material which people can recognize on a first hearing or as from a familiar genre or style with a artistic coherence of plot, style, and costume. There are other variations. Recently with the rule changes in voice, some corps have attempted to narrate a story and the music has become accompaniment to the story. No doubt the rule changes allowing electronics will bring further innovations in arranging. And there have been shows which pay only the barest necessary homage to "theme," with mostly representations of preexisting musical arrangements. Although all drum corps throughout history have "chopped" music to suit their needs, there has indeed been a sea change in arranging since the early to mid-90s. Some corps and programs still present musical charts, while others quote from or use musical elements from charts to create something wholly new. When art lovers go to New York, some head for the Met to see Rembrandt, others go to the MOMA to see Picasso's cubist creations. Hopefully you are an art lover that appreciates both. 1988 and 2007 BD: you may prefer one or the other. But both shows are great, and they are both drum corps.

The difference is this: corps in the 70s and 80s (and to some extent the 90s and 00s) are presenting a musical arrangement, with necessary alterations made to accommodate the instrumentation, time limitations, and genre-specific needs of a drum and bugle corps field show. The Blue Devils of the 1980s present Buddy Rich's version of "Ya Gotta Try." as closely to the original as possible. The 1982 Devils present "Pegasus." The 1985 Cavaliers present "The Planets" and it is recognizable as "The Planets." The 1987 Garfield Cadets present "Appalachian Spring." Yes, so-called 'chops' are made, but only because (for example) playing all thirty-one minutes of "Channel One Suite" would have entailed a timing penalty and the Devils would not have won their 1976 championship. But the corps is attempting to make the song, chart, or piece recognizable as such and to do a faithful job of interpretation. Well, so what? The 2007 Blue Devils have "Pegasus" in their show "Winged Victory." 2008 Crossmen includes Holst's "The Planets" in Planet X. "Chops" are made in the arrangements, just like yesteryear. Then is there a difference? Indeed there is. The difference is that DCI corps beginning in the 90s and more predominantly in the 00s no longer exclusively present musical arrangements. Rather, they often use the building blocks of songs, pieces of music, and charts and arrange them in and out of order. They do this freely, so as to set a mood, highlight a section of the corps, tell a story, or illustrate a theme. The 1995 Blue Devils use portions of Chick Corea's "Day Danse" to illustrate a section of their show "Carpe Noctem." The 2002 Cavaliers put the Frameworks melody through its paces not in order to present an interpretation of the chart "Frameworks," but to present a eleven-minute drum corps show with a coherent musical and visual theme, everything working together reinforcing the idea of a "frame." The 2003 Blue Devils freely use Dave Brubeck's material from "Blue Rondo a la Turk" to express the idea of "cool." The 2008 Crossmen use musical themes and motifs from "The Planets," in opposition to the 1985/95 Cavaliers who present an arrangement of "The Planets." The 2007 Blue Devils use Levy's "Pegasus," making the ostinato as a haunting backdrop for a dizzying array of visual and musical ensemble flourishes, including a brief quote of the melody as simply another aspect of a musical pastiche. "Pegasus" is the ideal choice for a themed show – it is an historical Blue Devils musical chart in an anniversary year, and its title contributes to the show theme "Winged Victory," also echoing Blue Devils visual and competitive history. "Chopping," or "cutting-and-pasting," rather than being necessary in order to accommodate an arrangement to the timing and instrumental limitations of drum and bugle corps, now becomes a way for the arranger or designer to most effectively express the theme, tell the story, or expose the technical proficiency of the performers for maximum effect. Perhaps a more charitable interpretation is that the arranger or designer feels free to use, combine, and adapt preexisting musical elements to create his/her own composition, without feeling obligated to repristinate the original arrangement. But whether for artistic or competitive reasons, the drum corps arranger of today is not a "representational" artist, seeking to faithfully depict an already existent piece of music. Rather, he/she is a "creator" who uses the already existent elements to create something recognizable but wholly new. She/he may work with the program coordinator, who is like a theatre producer who strives to make sure that every element of a production coheres artistically – costume, choreography, music, scenery.

Moderators, please close this thread. I have started a new related thread here.

Okay. I've been (re)thinking, and here's what I've come up with for now. I agree with those who have commented that the categories I've presented (for example, in this post) are subjective. Specifically, almost anything (theme, development, ostinato, a riff, a cadence) can be called melody from a certain perspective. I would have to both be a lot more fluent in music theory and have a lot more time on my hands in order to analyze more shows in this way and do a more cogent job of it. Moreover, upon reflection, the "percentage of melodic content" does not necessarily tell the entire story about how a show is arranged. In 88 and 07 BD, I purposely picked two very different styles of show and was able to show that there was a substantial difference in the percentage of melodic content. But what would I have done with 2002 Cavaliers "Frameworks," in which one might well make the case that most of the show is one melodic statement and one counter-melodic statement shortened, lengthened, played fast, played slow, played by the timpani, played by the trumpets, played over and over again? Would one say "Frameworks" is like 1988 BD? How about 2008 Crown, chock-full of melodic content but more like a K-Tel Hooked on Classics recording than anything else? Can we say it is akin to 1988 BD simply because both shows have lotsa melody? The benefit of doing the exercise was once I got beyond the statistical analysis it got me listening to lots of shows, listening to original arrangements, and thinking about exactly what is different (from a "form" perspective rather than a "percentage of melodic content" perspective) about DCI arranging today (in general) from what was happening 20 or 30 years ago (in general). When I was listening to Buddy Rich's arrangement of "Ya Gotta Try" (1980, 1981, 1989 Blue Devils) I think I hit on what is the important difference between most of today's arranging and most of yesterday's arranging.

Is there a mail-drop for INT? I want to send these kids a care package.

That Veni, Creator Spiritus is a real toe-tapper.

Ha, ha, gotcha! Without substantive criticism, I have no idea how to respond.

Is that INT's amp on the sideline?

Yeah, but we've already established that you like Mahler V. I think the ostinato would establish the continuity for whatever is happening over it. As I was reviewing basic musical form last night, it occurs to me that it is a "riff" or a ground bass which keeps the song going. If you listen to 81 or 82 Pegasus you have the same thing in the contrabasses. However, the theme comes in after two bars of this riff in 1981/2, whereas you have to wait for about a minute and a half in 2007. Lemme think about Phantom 2003.

In 1996, Phantom performed in the 3rd place slot and tied for 1st.

I am not satisfied with my categories. I am thinking about how to tweak them. Probably "theme" and "development" would be more accurate then "melodic content." Any suggestions, or is the whole project simply doomed to fail? BD 1988 and 2007 are actually easy shows to analyze using this framework, because they are so different. A much more difficult show would be "Frameworks," where one could make the case that the entire show (or at least the first part) is melody, and yet it is a four-bar melody which simply is taken apart and put back together about a bazillion times. And I don't believe I've suggested that "mood effect" music is somehow always inferior to the statement of a theme. I said I'd listen to BD 1988 more than 2007, but that doesn't imply that I think that "mood effect" is never valuable. My analysis does not imply a value judgment upon the music. The point I'm trying to make is this: those who say that drum corps arranging has always been "chop and bop" and there are no substantive differences are simply mistaken. BD 1988 and BD 2007 to my ear are clearly different. What I tried to do is show in some ways exactly how they are different. I don't know yet whether or not (and I may never know, it takes a lot of time) you can see a trend over time or just between two shows.

Please tell me exactly what my point is, and how I am spinning the data to prove it. Then I can spin the data better to prove my point. Your legitimate suggestion: Channel One Suite is an excellent idea.

No - it's ostinato. I think. And I could do twenty or more minutes of Mahler's Fifth without breaking a sweat...I know not this "Katy Perry" of whom you speak. Hummability is not the sine qua non of a piece of music, but it is an element which some people look for. Probably the folks who would rather listen to Katy than Gustav.

Sure, but I have to go to work today... Besides, I may have to tweak this: ideas keep popping into my head. If anyone has any ideas for improving the system, let me know.

To be precise, you can hum about 70% of 88 BD - and only about 18% of 07 BD. Now then, who is smarter, you for just typing that in twelve words, or me for taking the better part of six hours to figure that out? Don't answer that.

1991 BD...then I go to bed. Blue Devils 1991 Time Musical Actions (primary musical focus in bold type) Chart: Adventures in Time 00:00 SRhythm 00:10 BMldy, BOst, FSRhythm/Ost 00:40 BCad, FSRhythm 00:48 BMldy, FSRhythm 01:00 BMldy, FSRhythm 01:29 BCad, FSRhythm 01:33 BMldy. FSRhythm 02:00 BMldy, FSRhythm 02:10 FTech 02:17 BMldy, FSRhythm 02:24 BHmnc, FSRhythm 02:42 BCad, FSRhythm 02:47 BHmnc, FSRhythm 02:57 BCad, FSRhythm 03:00 BCad, FSRhythm 03:05 Break Chart: Bird and Bela in B-flat 03:15 Silent Drill 03:25 BSolo, BHmnc, SMood 04:00 BSolo, BHmnc, SMood 04:54 BHmnc, SRhythm 05:00 BHmnc, SRhythm 05:16 BHmnc, FRhythm, SMldy 05:29 BHmnc, FSRhythm 05:36 BMldy, FSRhythm 06:00 BMldy, FSRhythm 06:03 BSolo, FSRhythm 06:35 Break 06:47 STech 06:57 FTech, SRhythm 07:00 FTech, SRhythm 07:27 BRhythm, FTech, SRhythm 07:50 BTech, FSRhythm 08:00 BTech, FSRhythm 08:08 BFS Rhythm 08:18 BMldy, FSRhythm 08:52 BFS Rhythm 09:00 BFS Rhythm 09:04 FSTech 09:14 BSolo, FSRhythm 09:28 BFS Rhythm 09:33 BHmnc, FSRhythm 09:46 BCad (solos), FSRhythm 09:58 BMldy, FSRhythm 10:00 BMldy, FSRhythm 10:17 BCad, FSRhythm 10:21 End of Show BREAKDOWN (individual captions will not add up to 100%): Melodic Exposition – 5’47’’ 55.9% Technical Exhibition – 1’38’’ 15.8% Mood Expression – 0’00’’ 0.0% Break – 0’22’’ 3.5% Vocals – 0’00’’ 0.0% Other – 2’34’’ 24.8% Total: 10’21’’ 100.0% # of Solo Sections: 3 Total Solo Time: 2’15’’ 21.7% Number of changes in musical focus: 32 Avg. # of musical focus changes/minute based on 11 minutes: 2.91 based on 10 minutes 3.20 Max # of musical focus changes per minute: 6 (2x) This was closer to 88 than I had anticipated, largely because of the long ballad. But there are changes in the air. The technical exhibition section is 15% vs. 9% for 88. Keep in mind that BD had just gone to three-valve bugles either in 90 or 91. The temptation to do a soli section with the new three-valve sopranos must have been overwhelming. This bumps up the tech. caption even considering a worse-than-average year in BD percussion. "Other" which I classify as ostinatos, harmonic development, cadences, and so forth goes up to almost 25% over 12% in 1988. This is different music than 88 - much more symphonic. Some of the complaints about "jazz" in drum corps over the past few years have been that the charts are symphonic arrangements of jazz motifs or themes instead of actual songs. However, there is still no "mood" music. Some of the "mood music" today I think comes from the idea of accompanying the visual rather than the visual expressing the music (as a company front expresses a "high point" or "push). In this era we are not yet at that point of the visual taking center stage. Immediately it becomes tempting to venture into the "whys." Perhaps it should suffice to say that give or take five percent, even BD 91, a very out-there-show for its day, was 1/2 melodic content. Not as much like BD 07 as perhaps we might think at first glance.

It's a valid critique. I just made this up today. If a percussionist listens to a show, he/she might call a certain section "technical exhibition" rather than "rhythmic accompaniment." Would a soprano solo such as during BD 1989's "Ya Gotta Try" be "technical exhibition" or "melodic content?" But this is open source. If you've got other suggestions of criteria, I'd like to hear them. I'd also like to see if other folks would like to try doing other shows on the Fan Network using these criteria. For example, Phantom 08 got some bashing on the other thread for not being as melodic as some people thought. I think you can get reasonably close to the truth by fairly applying the categories. And it was a heck of a lot of fun going through these two shows.

My vote goes to Pickett's Division at Gettysburg, July 3, 1863. With me, boys, with me!

And are you implying with your link that every analytical approach is simply invalid because someone once created a "scientific" approach for speaking with the dead? That seems fallacious to me. Nonetheless, I await the reply.

Why do you say so? I'm not offended, I just am wondering what your reasoning is. The problem I can see with it is that everyone's classification of the "musical action" will be somewhat subjective. Thus, what you would call melodic material I might call harmonic development. You say toh-may-toh, I say toh-mah-tah. But is there any other glaring problem you see?

Based on the above statistics, we can say several things for certain (not simply how we feel) about the difference between the 1988 and 2007 Blue Devils shows. The 1988 show is almost three-quarters exposition of the melody of the songs which are played. You might quibble a little bit with my analysis and what I count as "melody," but I think I am pretty close. The 2007 show is not even one-fifth melodic exposition, and I think I was pretty generous with my granting of that category. The 2007 show has more than twice the amount of sections which are primarily technical exposition. If you go back into the categories, you will see that this counts brass, field perc. and sideline perc. technical exposition. I only noted field perc. technical exposition in the 1988 show. The 2007 show contains nearly 20% of what I call "mood expression." This would be primarily sideline percussion, but also brass, simply playing non-melodic or barely melodic content in order to paint a musical "picture" or provide an effect. I noted none of this in the 1988 show, although one could make an argument for some of the pit intros. to the different songs. These I counted as melody in the 1988 show. The 2007 Devils were at rest only 1.5% of the show time. The 1988 Devils were comparatively lazy ;) at 7.3%. Neither show had vocals or silent drill sections. There were 8 extended solo sections in 1988; zero in 2007 (Is that a BD first?) Over 40% of the 2007 show, according to my calculations, is either ostinato, rhythmic motifs, cadences, or harmonic development leading to a cadence point. Only 12.6% of the 1988 show falls into the same category. The audience needed to change musical focus 29 times during the 1988 show, an average of 2.64 times per minute based on an eleven-minute show, and 5 times during the most diverse minute of the show. By comparison, the audience needed to change musical focus 47 times during the 2007 show, an average of 4.27 times per minute based on an eleven-minute show, and 7 times during the most diverse minute of the show. Thus, in summary: Melody was predominant in 1988; rhythm and "mood" in 2007. Raw technical achievement and its exposition was more valued in 2007. The 2007 show required more mental effort of an audience in that it demanded more changes in attention. I believe that some of these changes can be attributed to changes in instrumentation and in the ability of the musicians to achieve technical brilliance. But in that, I have moved out of reporting the facts to interpreting them. I also think both shows are absolutely incredible, although if you had to ask me which I'd take to a desert island, I'd take 1988 every time. Comments and suggestions, again, are welcome.

Comparison of the two shows side by side: Melodic Exposition: 1988 - 7'54'' 70.7% 2007 - 2'09'' 18.6% Technical Exposition: 1988 - 1'01'' 9.1% 2007 - 2'28'' 21.4% Mood Expression – 1988 - 0'00'' 0.0% 2007 - 2'02'' 17.6% Break – 1988 - 0'49'' 7.3% 2007 - 0'11'' 1.5% Vocals – 0'00'' both years 0.0% Other – 1988 - 1'24'' 12.6% 2007 - 4'42'' 40.7% Total: 1988 - 11'08'' 2007 - 11'32'' # of Solo Sections: 1988 - 8 2007 - 0 Total Solo Time: 1988 - 2'52'' 25.7% 2007 - 0:00 0.0% Number of changes in musical focus: 1988 - 29 2007 - 47 Avg. # of musical focus changes/minute based on 11 minutes: 1988 - 2.64 2007 - 4.27 Max # of musical focus changes per full/partial minute: 1988 - 5 2007 - 7

The next analysis is Blue Devils 2007 (1st place, 98.0). Time Musical Actions (primary musical focus in bold type) 00:00 SMood 00:31 FS Rhythm 00:46 BHmnc, FTech, SOst 00:58 BOst, FS Rhythm 01:00 BOst, FS Rhythm 01:05 BHmnc, FS Rhythm 01:20 BRhythm, FS Tech 01:36 BMldy (Pegasus), FS Rhythm 01:51 BFS Rhythm 01:57 BCad, FSRhythm 02:00 BMldy (Pegasus), FS Rhythm 02:09 BCad, FS Rhythm 02:13 BFS Rhythm 02:17 FRhythm, SOst 02:32 STech 02:35 BMood, FTech, SMood 02:56 BCad, FTech, SRhythm 03:00 BCad, FTech, SRhythm 03:13 FTech 03:45 BTech 04:00 BTech 04:03 STech 04:13 BFS Ost (actually a simple diminution) 04:27 BCad 04:32 BHmnc, FRhythm, SOst 04:45 FS Inter 04:51 BOst, FS Rhythm 05:00 BOst, FS Rhythm 05:03 BHmnc, FS Rhythm 05:20 BCad, FS Rhythm 05:23 Break 05:34 SMood 06:00 SMood 06:04 BHmnc, SMood (you could make a case for melody, but it is not a "tune") 06:53 BHmnc, SMood 07:00 BHmnc, SMood 07:05 BMldy, SMood 07:47 BHmnc, FRhythm, SMood 08:00 BHmnc, FRhythm, SMood 08:18 BCad, FSRhythm 08:32 SOst 08:37 BHmnc, FRhythm, SMood 09:00 BHmnc, FRhythm, SMood 09:01 SOst 09:07 BRhythm, FRhythm 09:22 BMldy, FSRhythm 09:35 BHmnc, FSRhythm 09:43 BCad, FSRhythm 09:51 FTech, SRhythm 10:00 FTech, SRhythm 10:09 BMldy, FRhythm, FMdy/Rhythm 10:52 FRhythm, SMood 10:56 BCad, FSRhythm 11:00 BCad, FSRhythm 11:02 FRhythm 11:05 BOst, FSRhythm, SOst 11:16 BMldy (Ode to Joy) FSRhythm 11:23 BCad, FSRhythm 11:32 End of show BREAKDOWN (individual captions will not add up to 100%): Melodic Exposition – 2'09'' 18.6% Technical Exposition – 2'28'' 21.4% Mood Expression – 2'02'' 17.6% Break – 0'11'' 1.5% Vocals – 0'00'' 0.0% Other – 4'42'' 40.7% Total: 11'32'' # of Solo Sections: 0 Total Solo Time: 0:00 0.0% Number of changes in musical focus: 47 Avg. # of musical focus changes/minute based on 11 minutes: 4.27 Max # of musical focus changes per full/partial minute: 7

Blue Devils 1988 Time Musical Actions (primary musical focus in bold type) 00:00 BSolo, SRhythm 00:51 BCad, SRhythm 01:00 BCad, SRhythm 01:02 BMldy, FS Rhythm 01:31 BCad, FS Rhythm 01:36 Break 01:41 FRhythm, SMdy 01:58 BMdy, FS Rhythm 02:00 BMdy, FS Rhythm 02:58 BSolo, FS Rhythm 03:00 BSolo, FS Rhythm 03:05 BMldy, FS Rhythm 03:20 BSolo, FS Rhythm 03:33 BMldy, FS Rhythm 03:47 BHrmy, FS Rhythm 03:53 BCad. FSRhythm 04:00 BCad, FSRhythm 04:07 Break 04:22 SHrmy, 04:28 BSolo, FS Rhythm 04:55 BMldy, FS Rhythm 05:00 BMldy, FS Rhythm 05:16 BSolo, FS Rhythm 05:26 BMldy, FS Rhythm 06:00 BMldy, FSRhythm 06:16 FTech 07:00 FTech 07:04 BHmny, FTech 07:17 BMldy, FS Rhythm 07:43 BCad, FS Rhythm 07:50 Break 08:00 Break 08:10 SMldy 08:44 BSolo, SRhythm 09:00 BSolo, SRhythm 09:05 BMldy, FS Rhythm 09:27 BSolo, S Rhythm 09:46 BMldy, FS Rhythm 10:00 BMldy, FS Rhythm 10:06 BCad, FS Rhythm 10:21 Break 10:30 F Rhythm 10:35 BMldy, FS Rhythm 10:47 BSolo, FS Rhythm 11:00 BSolo 11:08 End of show BREAKDOWN (individual captions will not add up to 100%): Melodic Exposition – 7'54'' 70.7% Technical Exposition – 1'01'' 9.1% Mood Expression – 0'00'' 0.0% Break – 0'49'' 7.3% Vocals – 0'00'' 0.0% Other – 1'24'' 12.6% Total: 11'08'' 100.0% # of Solo Sections: 8 Total Solo Time: 2'52'' 25.7% Number of changes in musical focus: 29 Avg. # of musical focus changes/minute based on 11 minutes: 2.64 Max # of musical focus changes per minute: 5