Who should "design teams" write for?

[Einstein On The Beach]

This quote by composer Henryk Gorecki interested me as I'm up late studying and whatnot...

I do not choose my listeners. What I mean is, I never write for my listeners. I think about my audience, but I am not writing for them. I have something to tell them, but the audience must also put a certain effort into it. But I never wrote for an audience and never will write for because you have to give the listener something and he has to make an effort in order to understand certain things. The same thing is true of poetry, of paintings, of books. If I were thinking of my audience and one likes this, one likes that, one likes another thing, I would never know what to write. Let every listener choose that which interests him. I have nothing against one person liking Mozart or Shostakovich or Leonard Bernstein, but doesn't like Górecki. That's fine with me. I, too, like certain things.

Source: http://www.bruceduffie.com/gorecki.html

This made me think about what people say about drum corps design teams of the past, say...17 years or so. "_____'s staff is only writing for themselves and THEIR vision". Isn't that the point of artistic creation in the first place. You have this idea, let's just call it a fetus, and you have this unique fetus inside of you and you have to GIVE BIRTH to that idea/fetus. Now, that's a completely off-color analogy, but it's pretty much on point. I'll just say I completely agree with Gorecki's mentality.

Apply and Discuss.

Quick side note: If you don't know Gorecki's 3rd symphony feel free to PM me, it's something pretty much everyone should hear....

Edited September 5, 2007 by Einstein On The Beach

[danielray]

If individual drum corps programs were conceived to have the broadest appeal to the widest audience, it'd be little different than a sit-com where each laugh is carefully constructed and perfectly timed with the mechanics of the most mediocre mind.

At the same time, it shouldn't be developed to intentionally alienate any segments, but to instead more deeply resonate with the most essential segment of the audience... and focus on growing that.

[jbentley0025]

I'll start with a quote from 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off.'

-"What country do you think this is?"

Believe me, I want nothing more than the majority of americans to actually invest a little time and effort into our activity, but that's not much of a reality. Everything around us is geared to our ever-decreasing attention spans. Check out an audience at a drum corps show some time. If an effect takes longer than a half minute to develop, people are shifting in their seats and wondering if it's cool to head towards the concessions when the corps starts the last note of the show. It's a similar slippery slope to the ensemble situation where two people listen to each other for tempo. Eventually, it grinds to an uncomfortable halt, and they start again. Oops, I've already forgotten the attention span thing I mentioned. They may not start again. These days, I suspect, they'll move on to a more rewarding experience like Madden with the difficulty turned way down. Then, everybody can be a winner.

Jason

[Gaddabout]

Never thought I'd quote Jim Rome, but he usually starts his show off with the right idea: "Have a point and don't suck."

That's the creative process for me.

I don't think anyone does anything creative without first doing it to entertain or amuse themselves. If you don't like it, what are the chances anyone else will?

One of my favorite music stories is Sting talking about playing in this moderately popular band called The Police. He was sitting at the window looking at someone on the street and felt compelled to write a song at the keyboard for no other reason than to amuse himself. The song was "Roxanne," and it launched the Police and Sting's career.

Upon accepting some kind of lifetime achievement award, Sting later gave the greatest five-word speech I've ever heard: "Music is its own reward." He's exactly right. None of us would do this if it didn't first engage us, inspire us, amuse us, entertain us. We are first compelled to do so because we enjoy it, not because we think someone else will. It's just that the best artistic work is usually first derived from personal insight or personal vision, and it just so happens to capture the imagination of others. Most "work of genius" is usually a lucky strike at the right moment that captures the attention of the masses. I have little doubt the most beautiful ballad ever composed or the most profound poem ever written is probably collecting dust somewhere in some forgotten town buried by years and years of geology and human indifference.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Gaddabout

[Hrothgar15]

Górecki is pretty much the man. The 3rd is beautiful if not freaking depressing.

[year1buick]

I agree with the overall sentiment, but also have to reiterate (which, in this quote, he does) that the artist must also accept that no one else may be into what they've written. You can't always have your cake and eat it too. (Had to switch away from the fetus analogy for that one...)

I actually thought about this subject last summer (06), after seeing M. Night Shyamalan's Lady in the Water, specifically how its critical reception mirrored (in some ways) what was going on in our own little niche with The Cadets. Both had many detractors (much more in Shyamalan's case) and sometimes came across (to some) as overly defensive about their artistic choices. I think Shyamalan learned, the hard way, that while it's perfectly okay to make a very personal film about a fairy tale you told your little girl when she was growing up, you may not get the same sort of appreciation from the general audience. The film was widely panned (with good reason, I think) and it seemed that the more people criticized it, the more defensive he became. In fact, he took the unusual step of dealing with the subject (criticism, creative process, etc.) within the film, even going so far as to have the hapless antagonist be a film critic and requiring the characters to come together and tell the story of the film. (Huh?) To many, including myself, the result was a self-absorbed mess of a movie. Was he wrong to make it the way he did? No. Should he have had such strong expectations that other people would like it as much as he and his little girl? Nope. (When Disney passed on the script, he left the studio and proceeded to publicly bad-mouth them for it.)

I saw a parallel between what was going on with his film and how The Cadets' sequel show was playing out that summer. While they certainly weren't as poorly received, they certainly had their detractors (covered here ad nauseum) and, at times, their director seemed to come across (to some) as being a bit defensive over the critical reception, at large (read: not just within the confines of DCP). Was their show made for the corps members, the audience, the judges? All three? Or something else? (Their director?) Beats me, but many were pretty concerned about the answer to that question. Did the answer(s) matter? IMO, no. They could make it for whomever or for whatever reasons they wanted. BUT, they also had to realize that some people may not like it at all. (Not an excuse for booing, but--for the love of all things good and holy-- please, let's not go there again). Sometimes, knowing this intellectually and dealing with it emotionally is quite a different matter, however.

[LoveKathyG]

I actually thought about this subject last summer (06), after seeing M. Night Shyamalan's Lady in the Water, specifically how its critical reception mirrored (in some ways) what was going on in our own little niche with The Cadets. Both had many detractors (much more in Shyamalan's case) and sometimes came across (to some) as overly defensive about their artistic choices. I think Shyamalan learned, the hard way, that while it's perfectly okay to make a very personal film about a fairy tale you told your little girl when she was growing up, you may not get the same sort of appreciation from the general audience. The film was widely panned (with good reason, I think) and it seemed that the more people criticized it, the more defensive he became. In fact, he took the unusual step of dealing with the subject (criticism, creative process, etc.) within the film, even going so far as to have the hapless antagonist be a film critic and requiring the characters to come together and tell the story of the film. (Huh?) To many, including myself, the result was a self-absorbed mess of a movie. Was he wrong to make it the way he did? No. Should he have had such strong expectations that other people would like it as much as he and his little girl? Nope. (When Disney passed on the script, he left the studio and proceeded to publicly bad-mouth them for it.)

I saw a parallel between what was going on with his film and how The Cadets' sequel show was playing out that summer. While they certainly weren't as poorly received, they certainly had their detractors (covered here ad nauseum) and, at times, their director seemed to come across (to some) as being a bit defensive over the critical reception, at large (read: not just within the confines of DCP). Was their show made for the corps members, the audience, the judges? All three? Or something else? (Their director?) Beats me, but many were pretty concerned about the answer to that question. Did the answer(s) matter? IMO, no. They could make it for whomever or for whatever reasons they wanted. BUT, they also had to realize that some people may not like it at all. (Not an excuse for booing, but--for the love of all things good and holy-- please, let's not go there again). Sometimes, knowing this intellectually and dealing with it emotionally is quite a different matter, however.

The parallel you made between movie making and DC is a good one, but not for the reasons you state. Film making at its core is collaborative art. It's communal. It's about community. When directors, producers, writers, studios, and others forget that, films flop. Film requires a fine balance between commerciality and art. Some stories, no matter how much they are loved by the writer, don't need to be told. Others, Mr. Shymalan, belong solely to the oral tradition. Film makers get in trouble when they get into "this film must be made because I have a vision" mode.

DC is also a communal, collaborative art form. It's also about community. Directors and designers who take the attitude of "we just do things differently" neglect, alienate and hold hostage other segments of the community, including their own marching members. I cannot believe that every member of the Cadets last summer was thrilled with the rollercoaster that their director took them on.

I love controversy in art when the artist shoulders the impact of the response to the criticism him or herself. That's not the way things do or can work in DC, though.

[StuStu]

Anything you do

Let it come from you

Then it will be new,

give us more to see.

White ... a blank page or canvas ... his favorite ... so many ... possibilites...

Edited September 5, 2007 by StuStu

[karl E. Hungus]

gorecki's got it. its impossible to write for an audience. the audience deosnt know what they want. and if they do, they for sure want something different than the next. and ofcourse design teams dont write to them. they write to the other corps and to the judges, if they arent they are either losing or folding.

all of you who think your going to revolutionize drumcorps by "putting the fans in charge" have lost your minds. the fans cant be in charge... their all idiots, they are the mob of rome, the only way to get them all would be to play to the lowest common denominator. for every corps out there theres about 200 people out there that can give you a million reasons why "their corps should have won that year" and they are all equally dumb. fans will and should never decide the outcome of any event. thats the end of drumcorps.

[CuriousMe]

The parallel you made between movie making and DC is a good one, but not for the reasons you state. Film making at its core is collaborative art. It's communal. It's about community. When directors, producers, writers, studios, and others forget that, films flop. Film requires a fine balance between commerciality and art. Some stories, no matter how much they are loved by the writer, don't need to be told. Others, Mr. Shymalan, belong solely to the oral tradition. Film makers get in trouble when they get into "this film must be made because I have a vision" mode.

DC is also a communal, collaborative art form. It's also about community. Directors and designers who take the attitude of "we just do things differently" neglect, alienate and hold hostage other segments of the community, including their own marching members. I cannot believe that every member of the Cadets last summer was thrilled with the rollercoaster that their director took them on.

I love controversy in art when the artist shoulders the impact of the response to the criticism him or herself. That's not the way things do or can work in DC, though.

I agree to a point.

Film making might happen in a community, but at the end of the day, their purpose is to create an artistic product that is commercial. The backers agree to finance an artistic vision... with the idea that they will make much more money than they invested. That's a different basic goal than Drum Corps. Drum Corps if first and foremost a youth activity, in which members learn, among other things, to perform. The primary consideration is the kids, not the bottom line (note I said the primary consideration , not the only consideration....the entertainment of the audience is a consideration as well...just not primary)

DC is a communal, collaborative art form. Kids go to Cadet's to audition to be in a corps that is known for pushing boundaries (that includes sometimes having shows that some fans might not like.). I don't think that any of the kids who marched in 2007 were "held hostage" by the show they performed. The members I've spoken with were very proud of their show.

Peace,

CuriousMe