SpartacusRocks

As a performing ensemble (brass especially), BD should have come out on-top in many instances; to my ears they have had the most consistently excellent hornline in DCI history. But as other's in this thread have pointed out, the judging (at times) rewards design over performance (rightly or wrongly). Politics (rightly or wrongly) will always factor into who wins and who loses. For the better of the organization, some come out on-top and others do not. Though it may be bad politics to say as much, there is a wisdom to this as it is not good for drum corps, DCI, or the individual corps to have any one (or several) corps dominate for too long. It stifles competition and the belief that "even the little guy can win if he works hard enough". That said, I have never particularly liked the BD's style (jazz just ain't my thing) and I for one have been happy to see the trophies go to SCV, Phantom and others whose styles excite me more.

Amen. Crossmen 1992.

I did not see the original comment to which you are referring so I am not defending the post you reference. However your thoughtful comments left me wondering about a few things and I share this now FYI, if you care to consider it. The line between "confidence" and "arrogance" is not always clean and the act of creating at the very least requires confidence (in vision, in articulation...) but that process of creating is often imbued with arrogance (think Beethoven, Liszt, Mahler, Schoenberg, et al) who rejected certain aspects of the past...indeed even mocked them...and interjected their vision or version of "right" over the current paradigm or practice. IMHO there is a certain arrogance amoung drum corps staff who create "artsy fartsy" shows at the expense of distancing their audience. As a fairly high-brow guy myself, I generally dig the "artsy fartsy" shows (long live Garfield, Blue Knights, Glassmen, Santa Clara, etc.) but that doesn't preclude an awareness that those with more ordinary tastes are being excluded. Does drum corps--as an entertainment--have a responsibility to common tastes or is it art which has a responsibility only to itself? Every year we see examples of corps which balance this line with amazing deftness and dexterity. Clearly drum corps benefits from the visions and energies of artists, but I wonder if the medium itself is really better off in the realm of "entertainment" making the need for "creating" far less important. It becomes a question of craft, not genius...skill, not invention.

DCI does a terrific job and I'm thankful that it came to be when it did as the VFW/CYO, etc. were clearly losing interest and commitment. That we still have drum corps today has alot to do with DCI's eagerness to take control. That said, I can imagine a different organization (or atleast a supplemental organization) which instead of focusing on end-result issues (types of instruments you can play, where the pit can be positioned, etc.), would focus on the general advocacy of marching brass and percussion. A group which is committed to spreading/building involvement at all levels of participation...big and small, touring and non-touring, middleclass and urban class, etc. A group which funds small corps with the simply goal of building interest. A group which gets as many kids as possible playing brass and drums and lets the creative end results fall where they may. A group which gets the kids playing and lets the resulting proliferation of corps take care of the creative details. Of course DCI has always done this to a degree (advocacy has always been part of its activity and mission)...but I wonder about redrawing the lines. DCI has typically been concerned with exisiting corps...particularly the most competitively successful. I am not convinced that this has raised an overall interest in marching brass/percussion music and wonder if it has instead insured a proliferation of elite corps. In a sense, it has reversed the purpose of early drum corps which was much more prolitarian (i.e. drum corps as social activity to "get the kids off the streets"). Today corps is largely an uber-bourgeois activity (which I love, don't get me wrong) but it's audience is declining and we've lost the social purpose.

I for one loved that show...descriptors like "breath-taking" and "stunning" come to mind. Another post asks us to record our "crying moments" in drum corps and I should add this show to that list. The passion and power of the final moments (as with the 1988 Madison show) are over-the-top wonderful. I've been moved to cry becuase the naive passion and conviction of the performers is so palpable it overwhelms. The show is a testament to the human spirit...male youth especially...and it simply screams testosterone. The show is beautiful in its raw power.

Crying moments for SpartacusRocks...mostly in repsonse to music, but some visual cues too. VISUAL: *the final "Z Pulls" in the 1982/1983 Garfield shows. That field coverage was just awesome and (for me) unprecendented. It was an inspired idea and shattered my conceptions of what drill could do. MUSICAL *1996 Phantom...low brass and brass fortissimos...choke me up everytime *1995 Cavies "Mars" movement especially *1982/1981 Phantom during the concluding hit of the main theme...gorgeous and sentimental...dares to be lush and lovely COMBINED EFFECT: *2002 Boston Oh yeah, and the combined efforts of all the top 12 DCI corps playing "America the Beautiful/Oh Canada"...pushes me over the edge. Many others but those stand out.

Lee...nice to see your contribution. I enjoyed reading your journal a couple years back and have added it to my personal drum corps library. Your quote here leads me to a clarification which I'd like to add: If one's focus is within the group or within the corps, then "11.5 minutes of...field competition" has absolutely everything to do with "working together for the common good." If one's focus is outside of the group (i.e. corps to corps) then that spirit breaks down and I agree with you. This--and several other reasons--is why I for one would love to see DCA or some other marching activity take corps beyond competition and instead infuse it with a dominating sense of partnership, cooperation, commonality, shared goals and values, etc. The focus, afterall, is building the best show you can muster. This, in turn, is built on the internal strengths and talents of the performers and staff which is at best distracted by the pettiness of compitition if not actually weakened by the pain of loss or even worse still the false sense of superiority one gets when one wins. As long as we continue to create a scene of "winners and losers" then there is no net gain. The human experience does not expand and we instead continue in a cycle of "my gain at the expense of your loss." Not exactly an enlightened scenario.

Both Jodeen Popp's Competitive Drum Corps: There and Then...to Here and Now and Steve Vicker's A History of Drum and Bugle Corps, volume 1 have helpful information on the drum corps/Catholic connection, though neither text devotes an entire section or article on the topic. For example, an artilce in Popp's book entitled "The Early Years of This Century" (pp. 23-25) mentions the C.Y.O.'s (Catholic Youth Organization) role in the early development of drum corps starting as early as 1928. Carman Cluna in his article "The Movement Starts to Grow in the 1950's" from Vickers' book (pp. 307-308) has this to say: "The Roman Catholic Church played a majoy role, particularly in the East." (p. 308a), etc. Scanning the pages and appendices of both texts reveals scores of corps with names connoting some type of Catholic reference (saint, holy, blood, blessed, sacrament, crusaders, etc.). Catholic traditions and sensibilities certainly affected my understanding of corps as I was raised Catholic south of Boston and marched with the Holy Family Defenders, though they had dropped the "Holy Family" part of their name by the time I hit the scene in the early 1980's and had severed most of their ties to the local parish in Rockland, MA which originally sponsored the corps. Still there was a sense of something vaguely religious about the whole enterprise and it certainly impacted the way in which we felt about corps (i.e. corps was no laughing matter, it was to taken seriously or there would be consequences.) The seriousness--almost sanctimoniousness--with which people approached corps back in the day had alot to do with what some corps represented (in name, at least)...namely the defense of both God and country. You don't get too much more serious than those two ideologies and that ethos grew out of the associations corps had with the Church and para-military organizations like the VFW, American Legion, etc. For better of for worse, that spirit is largely absent from the corps scene today.

Thanks, Spandy. What the world needs is more music libraries! :)

Thanks for your feedback. Your reply motivated me to do some sleuthing and here's what I found: Wikipedia agrees with your point and has, IMHO, a terrific article on the sousaphone but, of course, the authority of wikipedia is a matter of debate. Also Virginia Tech.'s online music dictionary gives joint credit to both Sousa and JWPepper as having invented the sousaphone (www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary)."Sousaphone: Brass instrument invented by composer and conductor John Philip Sousa, and the instrument maker J. W. Pepper" The online Encylopedia Brittanica confusses the issue with this: "Helicon: also called Sousaphone, a bass or contrabass tuba built in a spiral circular form and resting on the shoulder. It is believed to have been invented in Russia but was perfected in 1849 by Ignaz Stowasser in Vienna. The helicon is chiefly used in military bands. In the United States, where the bandmaster John Philip Sousa introduced a removable bell, it is usually known as a sousaphone." The Harvard Dictionary of Music has a see also note under its entry for Sousaphone to Brass Instruments and offers this: "Helicon: This name is used for bass and contrabass tubas in a circular shape...instead of the upright shape of the tubas. The circle is wide enough to allow the player to carry the instrument over his shoulder. An American variety, characterzed by a specially designed bell, is the sousaphone (named after John Philip Sousa, who suggested it)." p. 106b. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians which is, of course, the definitive voice in such matters. So I'm not sure what to believe, but I wonder about this: The Helicon is a predecessor to the sousaphone. JPSousa made a few suggestions to instrument maker JWPeper to revise the helicon and tuba (e.g. wider bore, removable bell...). Perhaps the sousaphone evolved from the helicon and wasn't really "invented" as something essentially similar to it already existed (i.e. the helicon). JPSousa certainly didn't do it alone, but it doesn't appear that JWPepper did either. Regardless I edited my original post.

And with all due respect to everyone concerned, it was the singing part that I criticized the most. Singing is another discipline requiring another set of skills and abilities. It stretches the talent pool too thin to expect these young performers to march, dance, drum, bugle, and now sing too. It runs the risk of taking the excellence out of the performance and leaving us with mediocrity. The kids deserve better and audiences should expect better. It also implies a certain disrespect for singing...as if "any ol' drum corps kid can sing". We don't need 2nd rate singing and I for one would much prefer to have the corps focus on excellent marching, excellent drumming and excellent bugling. There is no benefit in putting out a smorgishboard of half-baked everything. Singing on the scale of Garfield's famous "amen" is fine. But to feature a 1, 2 or 3 minute singing solo is just a mistake. It runs the risk of being 2nd rate and leaves us with a major identity crisis. Afterall, it's not even a 12 minute show!

If by "real drum corps" you mean a para-military marching music ensemble composed of valve-less bugles, snares and bass drums...then yes, real drum corps is dead...at least as DCI/DCA is concerned. However, at this point in the evolution of activity the situation may be best addressed by agreeing where we should draw the line on change. What are the core principals of drum corps? Are they: Marching? Youth activity? Touring? Bugles? Brass and percussion? Education? Art? Entertainment? I'm sure DCI has addressed this and it appears they have a very loose definition of what drum corps really is. One wonders if the moniker "drum corps" is viewed as a handicap to many at DCI as there continues to be so much talk about adding woodwinds, sousaphones, etc. But I digress... Drum corps is only as dead as people allow it to be.

Even if you are a dinosaur, you're still right. :) The self-indulgent, laid-back style was cool in Bridgemen and VK, but even there it pushed the envelope. Discipline is central to drum corps and standing at attention is part of that tradition. When done properly, it not only looks great...impressive...but can also instill in the marcher a sense of strength, pride and power that they'll never get by standing around scratching their ##### and yacking it up.

That's true...they'e not impressive physically and I think that point gets played down too often. Sousaphones have long been the butt of marching band jokes and we don't need/want that in drum corps. Furthermore, we've got a real good thing going in corps with all of the bell-front brass bugles...a similiar, parallel look instrument-to-instrument, if you know what I mean. It's a neat, clean and balanced look which allows the viewer to focus on the drill in ways that sousaphones do not allow (their bulk and awkward shape interupts the drill lines, etc.). No sousaphones in drum corps, please. Even as a joke or a parody. No sousaphones.