glory Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Scott Stewart, on the other hand, appeared inclined to define drum corps as what it was at the time (maybe even rolling back a bit) and work within that medium to continue entertaining and educating just as they had for decades before. That cleaning up the process and restoring virtue to it would create a solid foundation for the future. Drum corps, as it stood back then, would still be able to find plenty of prospective members. I can never recall a single person from the late 80s and early 90s saying things like, "If only they would allow woodwinds...", "If only they had electronics...", or "If only they had microphones out there..." then I would sign up and march drum corps. Of course they didn't need new instruments. They already were fans. I think this is where Stewart's vision fundamentally divides with Hopkins'. Stewart perceived the future in the terms of the past. Retreat (my term) to a more comfortable stage of drum corps evolution and await the rebirth of a new golden age. Those who believed in the golden age and its potential to return of course had no use for new instruments and other changes. The problem was by the time Stewart articulated this vision, drum corps already was changing fundamentally. It’s often forgotten here, but some of the activity’s worst declines in membership occurred in the golden days of the 80s and early 90s. In the G-bugle, acoustic era, corps were folding left, right and center. Stewart’s vision to return to a former status quo sounded a lot like helicoptering out to the Titanic to many by 1997. Enter Hopkins and those of his ilk with a more realist, less romantic vision. They said let drum corps acknowledge the changes that already have afflicted the activity. Their agenda was to retain drum corps’ fundamental appeal while updating certain conventions in accord with the new market. The implementation of Bb instrumentation and electronic amplification coincided with increases in attendance, improvement in the financial health of the organization and a slowing in the rate of decline in the number of corps (saying “coincided,” I’m not arguing cause and effect, merely concurrence). The point I’m leading up to is Stewart’s vision seems intended to satisfy the existing fan and – I’m surmising – to assume new fans would emerge if the old base could be energized. Hopkins assumed – again I’m surmising – any alienation of the old base would be more than offset by the emergence of new fans energized by the renewed relevance of a more modern drum corps activity. That’s what I think is the central issue in the question of which vision is preferred. Stewart’s vision, in my view, was a failure in as much as it was rejected by the drum corps communities of Madison and in general. They rejected it because they’d already seen the carnage of consistency and opted instead for change and the Hopkins vision, at least in part. Ten years after Stewart’s comments in 1997, it’s hard to imagine why anyone would contemplate the Stewart plan still. Trying to take drum corps back not one decade but two is asking today’s young people to find relevance in time almost a full generation ago. That’s a big leap. All Hopkins is advocating is recognition that yesterday’s conventions need not be today’s priorities. In doing that, he’s in the same league as Royer, Warren, Bonfiglio and the rest of the crew who likewise advocated the creation of a new drum corps superleague with its own evolving traditions when they founded DCI three decades ago. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvt_cairns Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I didn't call him a failure as you suggest. I said his vision was a failure, and I defy anyone here to dispute that.Not only was his vision ignored by the wider drum corps community, even his own corps ultimately rejected it. That vision failed. And it's his vision versus Hopkins' vision that we're supposed to be discussing. HH Yes Stewart did fail in his fight with the board, but hinestly tell me who put fans in the stands. Who was more of a draw? Not mention Hopkins also failed, so he's a working failure, but also a failure. We (me included) are focusing completly on what they've done for their own corps. "Hopkis won", "Stewert is more entertaining" Not the point here. What has Hopkis done for DCI? Yes changes have come about, great, but his "Market your top 5 and wait for the fans to come rollin in" hasen't worked!! We've been doing it for years, and numbers have still decrerased. The entertainment level has also decreased. When I saw prelims this year, my favorite show was Crowns and that was about horses...what the crap is that!!?!! No you don't have to be routed in tradition, but neither do you have to swing so far to the other end that it just becomes boring. Some say "well art is art" fine, but don't expect people to come out and watch. The talent level of the kids marching today is off the charts, why can't we use that to entertain as well. By all means run you drill at 220, but something in the realm of entertainment would be nice. The question is how do corps stay alive, and create new fans. And we still haven't found an answer, with all of the changes in the last 10 years nothing has changed. Fans aren't watching, and corps are still folding, and it's not just Div2-3 anymore. So what now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 It doesn't change the fact that you can't fully understand something without doing it. It's not elitist it's just the way the world works. I have to defend Hrothgar on this one. Not experiencing something doesn't disqualify you from understanding it. There might be nuances you can't understand. And you can't understand anything that might be personally transformative. But you can understand the experince in general and even in certain specifics. For instance, I've never been a photographer for Playboy. Nonetheless I know there are lots of things I would like about that job. Lots. I'm sure. And you'll never persuade me otherwise. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I'm not claiming to know at all what the experience of marching in a drum corps is like. I would have no idea. You were mocking people that think drum corps is defined by the experience and not the instrumentation when you no nothing of the experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I have to defend Hrothgar on this one. Not experiencing something doesn't disqualify you from understanding it. There might be nuances you can't understand. And you can't understand anything that might be personally transformative. But you can understand the experince in general and even in certain specifics. For instance, I've never been a photographer for Playboy. Nonetheless I know there are lots of things I would like about that job. Lots. I'm sure. And you'll never persuade me otherwise. HH Hence the qualifier fully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Seriously. Not only that, I must listen to about seven or eight drum corps shows a day. How come I never listen to marching band shows? Hint: it isn't because of the performance level. I've seen many marching bands outperform some drum corps. Now that I've defended you, allow me to say this: No one has ever asserted that Hrothgar is a representative fan. His patronage is welcome, but the target audience is slightly less ... shall I say ... obsessive. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share Posted November 23, 2007 I have to defend Hrothgar on this one. Not experiencing something doesn't disqualify you from understanding it. There might be nuances you can't understand. And you can't understand anything that might be personally transformative. But you can understand the experince in general and even in certain specifics. For instance, I've never been a photographer for Playboy. Nonetheless I know there are lots of things I would like about that job. Lots. I'm sure. And you'll never persuade me otherwise. HH Also, I never even claim to know anything about the experience. I don't. I only give my opinions on how I feel drum corps, which since I haven't marched yet equate with "drum corps shows," should be and what I would like to see on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share Posted November 23, 2007 You were mocking people that think drum corps is defined by the experience and not the instrumentation when you no nothing of the experience. I'm just showing that not everyone defines it by the experience, namely, those who haven't marched. Also, it was a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 For those that do care, it's a huge deal. Most people find brass + percussion to be the soul of drum corps music. Well stated. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrunchyTenor Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 No it isn't. You, having not marched, are unable to understand what drum corps, as it is today, is all about.Drum corps is as much about an 11 and a half minute show as astronomy is about telescopes. I have to laugh at everyone who thinks Hrothgar's points are irrelevant, while you actively support changing drum corps into marching band and making him instantly relevant. Do you see the irony in this? Keep plugging away, Hrothgar, and keep working on your trumpet. Garry in Vegas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts