Beyond Chop n' Bop - The Evolution of Drum Corps Arranging

[mfrontz]

Okay. I've been (re)thinking, and here's what I've come up with for now.

I agree with those who have commented that the categories I've presented (for example, in this post) are subjective. Specifically, almost anything (theme, development, ostinato, a riff, a cadence) can be called melody from a certain perspective. I would have to both be a lot more fluent in music theory and have a lot more time on my hands in order to analyze more shows in this way and do a more cogent job of it.

Moreover, upon reflection, the "percentage of melodic content" does not necessarily tell the entire story about how a show is arranged. In 88 and 07 BD, I purposely picked two very different styles of show and was able to show that there was a substantial difference in the percentage of melodic content. But what would I have done with 2002 Cavaliers "Frameworks," in which one might well make the case that most of the show is one melodic statement and one counter-melodic statement shortened, lengthened, played fast, played slow, played by the timpani, played by the trumpets, played over and over again? Would one say "Frameworks" is like 1988 BD? How about 2008 Crown, chock-full of melodic content but more like a K-Tel Hooked on Classics recording than anything else? Can we say it is akin to 1988 BD simply because both shows have lotsa melody?

The benefit of doing the exercise was once I got beyond the statistical analysis it got me listening to lots of shows, listening to original arrangements, and thinking about exactly what is different (from a "form" perspective rather than a "percentage of melodic content" perspective) about DCI arranging today (in general) from what was happening 20 or 30 years ago (in general). When I was listening to Buddy Rich's arrangement of "Ya Gotta Try" (1980, 1981, 1989 Blue Devils) I think I hit on what is the important difference between most of today's arranging and most of yesterday's arranging.

[mfrontz]

The difference is this: corps in the 70s and 80s (and to some extent the 90s and 00s) are presenting a musical arrangement, with necessary alterations made to accommodate the instrumentation, time limitations, and genre-specific needs of a drum and bugle corps field show. The Blue Devils of the 1980s present Buddy Rich's version of "Ya Gotta Try." as closely to the original as possible. The 1982 Devils present "Pegasus." The 1985 Cavaliers present "The Planets" and it is recognizable as "The Planets." The 1987 Garfield Cadets present "Appalachian Spring." Yes, so-called 'chops' are made, but only because (for example) playing all thirty-one minutes of "Channel One Suite" would have entailed a timing penalty and the Devils would not have won their 1976 championship. But the corps is attempting to make the song, chart, or piece recognizable as such and to do a faithful job of interpretation.

Well, so what? The 2007 Blue Devils have "Pegasus" in their show "Winged Victory." 2008 Crossmen includes Holst's "The Planets" in Planet X. "Chops" are made in the arrangements, just like yesteryear. Then is there a difference? Indeed there is. The difference is that DCI corps beginning in the 90s and more predominantly in the 00s no longer exclusively present musical arrangements. Rather, they often use the building blocks of songs, pieces of music, and charts and arrange them in and out of order. They do this freely, so as to set a mood, highlight a section of the corps, tell a story, or illustrate a theme.

The 1995 Blue Devils use portions of Chick Corea's "Day Danse" to illustrate a section of their show "Carpe Noctem." The 2002 Cavaliers put the Frameworks melody through its paces not in order to present an interpretation of the chart "Frameworks," but to present a eleven-minute drum corps show with a coherent musical and visual theme, everything working together reinforcing the idea of a "frame." The 2003 Blue Devils freely use Dave Brubeck's material from "Blue Rondo a la Turk" to express the idea of "cool." The 2008 Crossmen use musical themes and motifs from "The Planets," in opposition to the 1985/95 Cavaliers who present an arrangement of "The Planets."

The 2007 Blue Devils use Levy's "Pegasus," making the ostinato as a haunting backdrop for a dizzying array of visual and musical ensemble flourishes, including a brief quote of the melody as simply another aspect of a musical pastiche. "Pegasus" is the ideal choice for a themed show – it is an historical Blue Devils musical chart in an anniversary year, and its title contributes to the show theme "Winged Victory," also echoing Blue Devils visual and competitive history.

"Chopping," or "cutting-and-pasting," rather than being necessary in order to accommodate an arrangement to the timing and instrumental limitations of drum and bugle corps, now becomes a way for the arranger or designer to most effectively express the theme, tell the story, or expose the technical proficiency of the performers for maximum effect. Perhaps a more charitable interpretation is that the arranger or designer feels free to use, combine, and adapt preexisting musical elements to create his/her own composition, without feeling obligated to repristinate the original arrangement. But whether for artistic or competitive reasons, the drum corps arranger of today is not a "representational" artist, seeking to faithfully depict an already existent piece of music. Rather, he/she is a "creator" who uses the already existent elements to create something recognizable but wholly new. She/he may work with the program coordinator, who is like a theatre producer who strives to make sure that every element of a production coheres artistically – costume, choreography, music, scenery.

Edited April 28, 2009 by mfrontz

[mfrontz]

Of course, there are an almost infinite number of variations upon this theme. 2007/08 Blue Devils may have been the most abstract shows yet put onto the field. But there are plenty of shows out there which I believe more evenly or accessibly combine the "representational" and "creative use" modes of arranging. For the Blue Devils, I think they did this well in 2004, 2002, and best in 1997. I submit that the some of the most "fan-successful" shows of the recent past have been Phantom Regiment 2006/08, Blue Stars 2008, Boston Crusaders 2002, Crossmen 1992, Crown 2007, Cavaliers 2004, Santa Clara Vanguard 2004/5, Cadets 2005. These shows and others like them knit charts which are recognizable as coherent "re-presentations" of musical material together into a whole which tells a story, sometimes with characters and plot. They combine musical material which people can recognize on a first hearing or as from a familiar genre or style with a artistic coherence of plot, style, and costume.

There are other variations. Recently with the rule changes in voice, some corps have attempted to narrate a story and the music has become accompaniment to the story. No doubt the rule changes allowing electronics will bring further innovations in arranging. And there have been shows which pay only the barest necessary homage to "theme," with mostly representations of preexisting musical arrangements.

Although all drum corps throughout history have "chopped" music to suit their needs, there has indeed been a sea change in arranging since the early to mid-90s. Some corps and programs still present musical charts, while others quote from or use musical elements from charts to create something wholly new. When art lovers go to New York, some head for the Met to see Rembrandt, others go to the MOMA to see Picasso's cubist creations. Hopefully you are an art lover that appreciates both. 1988 and 2007 BD: you may prefer one or the other. But both shows are great, and they are both drum corps.

Edited April 28, 2009 by mfrontz

[Lance]

I heart drum corps.

[mfrontz]

In the BD Show Announcement thread (which for some reason I can't link to right now), jwscv87 says approximately the same thing as I do, but takes less bandwidth to do it.

Edited April 28, 2009 by mfrontz

[littlebirdy]

Impressive and detailed analysis that I agree with completely :)

[NR_Ohiobando]

Honestly I think people are taking way too much thought into this subject.

1.) It either sounds more true to the original, or it doesn't.

2.) It either works, or it doesn't.

3.) People have preferences and titles for types of arrangements they hear. (choppy, true, traditional, overly simplistic)

Personally I prefer remaining a little truer to the original work because I feel it usually works for me. There are still "true-to-original" arrangements that don't work, "chop" arrangements that do work, and so on and so forth.

[salad315]

I get exactly what you are saying. As an example - take the cadets show from last year. I may have disliked the show as a whole, but I give them credit for playing 3 or 4 distinct pieces of music. Sure, they were chopped up to fit 2-3 minute segments, but for 3 minutes, we got vesuvius, or nitro, or whatever. I know the originals, and large sections of the pieces actually sound the same. Go back to 1995 when the cavaliers did the planets - we heard mars, as a piece, jupiter, as a piece, and so on.

It may just be preference, but I'd rather hear that than 'planet x', with various jazz riffs interposed over snippets of harmony and melody from the planets. I'm sure the arrangements were well thought out - in fact I bet they were #### brilliant from a certain point of view, but I dont really care. As an arranger myself, I've fallen into the trap of 'how many other tunes can I insert here to make myself seem clever?' Many drum corps arrangers take that concept 5 steps farther, and create their own piece that only hints at another work. I wont say its easy, or not music, I just dont like it very often.

[Willie85]

“Perhaps a more charitable interpretation is that the arranger or designer feels free to use, combine, and adapt preexisting musical elements to create his/her own composition, without feeling obligated to repristinate the original arrangement.

Word of the day!

[cowtown]

Seems about right, took a lot of words though

I wonder how this presented vs. creating works in obtaining copywrites?

To my mind, the creating is about visual and a lazy cop out, the visual staff is cheating the music. Creating became more prominent when visual eclipsed music in relative importance to scores. A good designer should be able to present and match visual. I didn’t mind so much when say Cadets would throw in a musically incoherent, nonsensical run to do a Z-pull (was that 90 with the reserve?) as it was a short bust with a pay-off but when the entire show becomes musical wankery backing up visuals (Cavies 2002) I’m annoyed and turned off of the entire production

Frankly, most drum corps arrangers and composer are not as talented as they think. They have achieved god status within DCI and the ‘pageantry arts’ but their product is a complete failure outside this tiny little bubble world. Much of their ‘creating’ comes off as frustrated composer want-a-be’s ripping off the classics trying to show off their music theory skills while appeasing the visual staff.

That planets show last year, the only time I did not like the planets ever –that’s quite a feat considering. It really shows how little talent these top arrangers have when they try to create (compose) as compared to the master composer’s composition that they are soiling