Show themes

[bawker]

If you don't know what "Guernica" and other masterpieces are about, and why they are hailed as great works, you need to drop the stupid, smug, defensive, low-brow arrogance, and learn.

What if I told you I was well aware of its cultural signifigance, but still didn't like it?

Most people here are smart enough to realize the deeper subtexts of music, art and . . .yes . . .even drum corps. That doesn't mean that we wish to have things broken down into the lowest common denominator conceptually, though.

Drum corps shows that succeed on a variety of levels more than likely touch a variety of artistic bases; whether it be through dance like 1987 Cadets, a form of minimalism like Star of Indiana 1993, or through telling a story like Santa Clara Vanguard 1989.

Point is that, first and foremost . . all of those above shows hit you over the head with the lizard-brain drum corps sound and fury before anything else did. The deeper artistic subtexts of Medea and Jason, Christine or what have you are there to decipher if you so choose.

Some shows, like Madison Scouts 1995 don't bother. They don't need to, as they generate their own emotional resonance separate from the source material using the tools available: brass, drums, guard. It's a very raw, primal energy that draws you in.

However, when artists, people who review artists . . . or those who are just latching on to seem hip . . . attempt to force a certain viewpoint in how to view their art, e.g. "This is representing X and if you can't see that, then you're just not getting it" . . .it becomes quite tiresome to the viewer.

The average person is capable enough to discern what they like and don't like regarding art as it relates to drum corps.

It's too bad some designers nowadays don't get that. Forcing the message almost always generates blowback, IMO.

[Lance]

I disagree with just one part of that. Everything good that came out of Madison 95's design was directly related to theme. There was a pretty explicit "life of a bullfighter" theme to that show, and it came through pretty stong from that very first soprano call. Without the bullfighting theme, it wouldn't have had the power it did. Just random guys dancing on boxes wouldn't have made much sense. Just random guys wildly swinging and destroying their flags at the end of the show wouldn't have made much sense. The romantic sentiment of Concerto de Aranjuez section and the wouldn't have made much sense, nor would the music before and after it. The rotating company front with a guy holding a red piece of material in the middle and waving it around wouldn't have made much sense without the theme. The moments I just listed elicited some of the biggest crowd reactions, and they relied completely on theme. If you were to talk to the designers of that show, I doubt you'd hear them say they wanted to play such and such pieces, and just figure that it would work if the performers threw down. No, every decision about that show revolved around a very specific theme.

Even for fans of "old school" drum corps, I'll bet that if they put out a list of favorite shows, you wouldn't find many that have *just* drums, brass, and guard trying to elicit raw energy and emotion without any thematic context.

It's pretty simple. Either you like it, or you don't. This attempt to categorize "themed" shows as inherently stifling design is very odd. Crown's show last year was as over the top "themey" as you can get, and it was wildly popular. In fact, I would compare its reliance on theme as a vehicle for design choices directly to Madison's bullfighter show in 95.

It's interesting to see peoples' perceptions, that's for sure.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Yep, I do. Whether or not anyone else does more likely than not depends entirely on what sort of basis they choose to compare them on, but there are several shows I would put up against any given Mozart symphony, etc and so on and so forth, in a heartbeat.

And do you think that, in 100 years, people will be looking at specific drum corps shows from this era? Do you think they will be considered masters the way Mozart is?

There is, indeed. So when someone insists that Picasso is "only" for people who "want to be educated", then what's the appropriate term to use? "reverse-elitist"?

(IOW, I see a whole heck of a lot of elitism going on with this "art is only for snooty people; we want beer&pretzels" argument here. Only it's the elitism of the "I'm a common man, you are hoity-toity!" variety)

I understand your point. However, I never said that art is for snooty people. I know plenty of people who enjoy fine art and do not condescending to others who don't like what they do.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Hrm, you may be correct. I'm willing to believe that there's simply something about Drumcorpsfan's presentation of his dislike for the elitism ('cause I ain't even beginning to say that the "You're dumb if you don't like 'X'" attitude has been shown here) is causing me to see insult where there isn't any. Or, at least, no more so than the name-calling that is defined by calling someone else an elitist (again, not saying that's it's undeserved name-calling; it's name-calling, none the less).

I have a real strong reaction to the "I must be an uneducated hick" style of argument. It's not necessarily a rational reaction.

I believe the insinuation the other poster is making is that those who don't appreciate the type of art that he does are uneducated, dumbed-down and have lower standards, to use his words. I personally don't like Picasso. That doesn't mean that I am uneducated (I have a Master's degree), dumbed-down (one can write a thesis on how the international placements are comparing apples and oranges...see Alfie Kohn for one), nor do I have lowered standards. I would argue that I have raised standards and want to see that the students I work with set their standards to meet their potential. So, to say all those things he said about not liking Picasso is elitism in my opinion. He has said that one MUST like Picasso in order to have a chance of him considering the other as educated, intelligent, human, with heart and having raised standards. That's my problem with him.

[MoonHill]

And do you think that, in 100 years, people will be looking at specific drum corps shows from this era? Do you think they will be considered masters the way Mozart is?

No idea, honestly, and that's funny considering that I often tend to think in terms of what's going to be going on in 100 years. Never can tell what's going to be latched onto by public consciousness (for instance, no one in 1908 thought American Football would warrant a national title, let alone anything like a "Superbowl"); but if I had my druthers, then anytime anyone 100 years from now gets into an academic discussion about the confluence of movement, position, and musicality, then there are several Drum Corps shows I can think of that would be required viewing for a truly nuanced view of just how successful a group of people can be at performing intricately timed and tuned music while separated by fifty yards and moving in different directions.

I understand your point. However, I never said that art is for snooty people. I know plenty of people who enjoy fine art and do not condescending to others who don't like what they do.

No, you didn't, certainly. Like I said earlier, I just have a very, very strong reaction to the sort of argument you were using. I don't know why, precisely, I have come to see insult where there's nothing but self-victimization (harsh term, no offense meant. I'm referring specifically to the "Well I guess I'm (XYZ insulting term) then" type of comeback), but I suspect it's simply a reaction to the near-fetishization of the "dumb guy on the street" archetype that has been going on in the last few years. I'm a guy who likes symphonies, weird novels, and hotdogs, NASCAR and LOUD. So when there's a constant repetition in many circles of the idea that my not being in the "low-education" entertainment market exclusively means that I'm not "a real American" or the like, or the mere fact of my having a Bachelor's degree automatically makes me an elitist, then I think an overreaction on my part was bound to develop.

IOW, the fact that I like '95 Madison and '93 Star of Indiana shouldn't count against me. But it often does. And that apparently makes me twitchy.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

You should've gone earlier, then.

And there's no inherent contradiction between designing a show to appeal to the judges, and to the fans, including the long-sought-after-but-rarely-actually-encountered "average Joe Schmo", who does all that bill-paying.

Then why aren't there more Joe Schmos in the stands? Why doesn't DCI say that there target audience is everyone?

[MoonHill]

Then why aren't there more Joe Schmos in the stands? Why doesn't DCI say that there target audience is everyone?

You'd have to ask DCI on the second, and as to the first, there are a ton of reasons that have nothing to do with Show Design.

[MikeD]

Wrong, EVERYONE appreciates and likes a good ham sandwich.

I hate ham.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

No idea, honestly, and that's funny considering that I often tend to think in terms of what's going to be going on in 100 years. Never can tell what's going to be latched onto by public consciousness (for instance, no one in 1908 thought American Football would warrant a national title, let alone anything like a "Superbowl"); but if I had my druthers, then anytime anyone 100 years from now gets into an academic discussion about the confluence of movement, position, and musicality, then there are several Drum Corps shows I can think of that would be required viewing for a truly nuanced view of just how successful a group of people can be at performing intricately timed and tuned music while separated by fifty yards and moving in different directions.

No, you didn't, certainly. Like I said earlier, I just have a very, very strong reaction to the sort of argument you were using. I don't know why, precisely, I have come to see insult where there's nothing but self-victimization (harsh term, no offense meant. I'm referring specifically to the "Well I guess I'm (XYZ insulting term) then" type of comeback), but I suspect it's simply a reaction to the near-fetishization of the "dumb guy on the street" archetype that has been going on in the last few years. I'm a guy who likes symphonies, weird novels, and hotdogs, NASCAR and LOUD. So when there's a constant repetition in many circles of the idea that my not being in the "low-education" entertainment market exclusively means that I'm not "a real American" or the like, or the mere fact of my having a Bachelor's degree automatically makes me an elitist, then I think an overreaction on my part was bound to develop.

IOW, the fact that I like '95 Madison and '93 Star of Indiana shouldn't count against me. But it often does. And that apparently makes me twitchy.

I would say that should not count against you either. I like Madison 1995 and the symphony. I do not like opera or NASCAR. Does that make me any more or less than any other person? I say no. An elitist, such as the poster we are discussing, says yes.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

You'd have to ask DCI on the second, and as to the first, there are a ton of reasons that have nothing to do with Show Design.

So, show design has nothing to do with why there aren't more Joe Schmo's in the stands?