mfrontz Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfrontz Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller30 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 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? I am saying it seems to me that all of those classifications are subjective. At least it is an attempt at being more scientific than the simple "they stopped playing here and started playing here" breakdowns I see over the summer. As for the link, I mean that it is simple to try to put a framework of of technical terms on top of highly subjective and non testable material. I WILL say this is based on better criteria than "Planar Analysis" though. Like I originally wrote, I might be the only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraRich77 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I stomp them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfrontz Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 I am saying it seems to me that all of those classifications are subjective. At least it is an attempt at being more scientific than the simple "they stopped playing here and started playing here" breakdowns I see over the summer. As for the link, I mean that it is simple to try to put a framework of of technical terms on top of highly subjective and non testable material. I WILL say this is based on better criteria than "Planar Analysis" though. Like I originally wrote, I might be the only one. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 you can hum 88 BD. you cant hum much of 07 BD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfrontz Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfrontz Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 you can hum 88 BD. you cant hum much of 07 BD 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 i can him a lot more...i'm a drummer. drumspeak is hummable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppet Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 So I was reading the 2009 BD Show Announcement thread, and some very interesting statements were being made there. Some were decrying the Blue Devils' recent "chop and bop" arranging and others were saying (unbelievably, to my thinking) that there is no discernible difference between arranging of the past and arranging today. Rather than simply fling a statement out there, I thought I would create something systematic and analyze two BD shows from different eras: 1988 and 2007. These represent perhaps the absolute extremes - most BD shows would probably end up somewhere in the middle. But I would hope that the content of any show could be analyzed using this system and perhaps there would be a way to more accurately define "what it is" that is changing or not changing with regard to musical arranging in drum corps. Please feel free to make comments or suggestions to improve the system. The basic concept is this: watch a show from the Fan Network video. For a time block (0:00 to 0:25, for example), describe the musical actions that are happening. For example, Brass is playing melody, Field and Sideline Percussion are playing rhythmic accompaniment. Note also which is the musical focus (for example, brass might be playing harmony, but field percussion might have a technical feature, and that would be the musical focus.) After having completed the entire show in this way, we note the time (both in seconds and percentage of the show) for melodic content, technical exposition, mood effect, solos, vocals, break, etc. One could also break down amount of time brass is playing, field perc. is playing, etc. There are probably endless variations. When you do this for multiple shows, you get a sense of the difference between shows and arrangers. You may also be able to verify whether your impressions are correct or not about melodic content, "choppy" arranging, etc. Over time, and doing enough shows, one might be able to discern patterns as to whether arranging is changing over time, or whether the difference is simply between each individual show. As I said, 1988 BD and 2007 BD are pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum. 1991 BD, while being chronologically nearer to 1988, is probably typologically nearer to 2007. However, I cannot be sure of this. On to the "musical actions," which are the descriptions of what the musicians are doing on the field. I don't have the flashy photo or anything but this topic really does beg the question: "IS IT JUNE, YET!?" Puppet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts