Show concepts

[Keith Laubhan]

The statements of Mr. mobrien were “Much higher profile” and “Moving in a net positive direction” for “drum corps”. The statements “Much higher profile” and “Moving in a net positive direction” for “drum corps and high school marching band” are not the same.

So it's not possible for drum corps to move in a "net positive direction" with fewer corps? I'll agree on the higher profile point, at least within the general populous, but I don't think quantity of corps is necessarily a telling metric for the overall direction of drum corps.

[JimF-LowBari]

So it's not possible for drum corps to move in a "net positive direction" with fewer corps? I'll agree on the higher profile point, at least within the general populous, but I don't think quantity of corps is necessarily a telling metric for the overall direction of drum corps.

What worries me is the lack of new corps in the full touring portion (IOW - WC) of the activity. Let's face it, any corps is one big "Oh ####" problem away from financial ruin. And in this sue happy mentality the world is in today, anything is possible. An inablilty to replace any corps that is permanently lost isn't a postitive anything.

[mobrien]

The statements of Mr. mobrien were “Much higher profile” and “Moving in a net positive direction” for “drum corps”. The statements “Much higher profile” and “Moving in a net positive direction” for “drum corps and high school marching band” are not the same.

By the way, MikeD (who should be along any moment now) has the patent on the equivalence of marching band and drum corps argument. You might owe him royalties.

Higher profile because the big shows are now open to a wider swath of the public. I don't think VFW was livecasting their nationals prelims to movie theaters, were they?

In terms of "net positive", I'm looking primarily at the quality of work as understood as an average across the spectrum of the activity and the overall professionalism of the management and instruction. The average drum corps member now is operating at a higher level of proficiency than their counterparts from 40 years ago. When I started marching (in 74), there were still members in the hornline who couldn't read music, and had to be shown how to finger the notes so they could learn to play a relatively simple chart. That doesn't happen anymore. That being the case, it'd be hard to argue that drum corps isn't doing a better job at challenging the members to excel at what they do. They're being asked to accomplish more and they're carrying it off. Seems like a good result to me.

Edited July 28, 2009 by mobrien

[bluecoats88]

Back to the early 90's people not associated with marching bands or drum corps enjoyed going to drum corp shows. The stadiums were packed and people were entertained and money was made. Again if Drum Corp only wants to play to people in the marching community then all is great.

actually DCI was in a very tight financial crises and almost went under in the early 90's.

[The Oz]

So it's not possible for drum corps to move in a "net positive direction" with fewer corps? I'll agree on the higher profile point, at least within the general populous, but I don't think quantity of corps is necessarily a telling metric for the overall direction of drum corps.

I guess using the term “net positive direction” allows one to make a tradeoff between quality and quantity. Perhaps we should debate “gross positive direction”.

It’s your call. If you believe that fewer but better is a net positive result, you are entitled to that opinion.

But I will contend that the quality of the corps back in the day was absolutely as high as today, adjusting for the standards of the era, of course. As I’ve said many times before, I could see shows with the likes of Blessed Sac, Garfield, Bayonne, St. Rita’s, and one or two lesser lights going head to head at least three or four weekends each year. And a few more times on weekdays. Within two hours drive of my house. Maybe three.

I can understand the difficulty for someone who wasn’t around 30 or more years ago to appreciate the quality of the activity at that time. But, if you can at least try to accept that the excitement and entertainment level I remember, both as a performer and a fan, was much higher than I experience today, then maybe, just maybe, you could understand where some of us dinosaurs “come from”.

It is a shame that you can’t be transported to the Dream contest in 1966 to see the Troopers come off the line with a 50-yard company front. With no yard lines. Or see the sunburst and realize that your corps could practice for a week on that one move and not do as well. And be on your feet before the first minute of the show was gone. And not sit down until they left the field. And then see nine other corps, some even better. And a full retreat.

Quality is better than quantity is a tough sell to me.

[The Oz]

Higher profile because the big shows are now open to a wider swath of the public. I don't think VFW was livecasting their nationals prelims to movie theaters, were they?

In terms of "net positive", I'm looking primarily at the quality of work as understood as an average across the spectrum of the activity and the overall professionalism of the management and instruction. The average drum corps member now is operating at a higher level of proficiency than their counterparts from 40 years ago. When I started marching (in 74), there were still members in the hornline who couldn't read music, and had to be shown how to finger the notes so they could learn to play a relatively simple chart. That doesn't happen anymore. That being the case, it'd be hard to argue that drum corps isn't doing a better job at challenging the members to excel at what they do. They're being asked to accomplish more and they're carrying it off. Seems like a good result to me.

I addressed the quality versus quantity debate in another post. But I will make an comment about the players who couldn’t read music: Cool! To think that someone with so little musical talent could produce any level of music is really cool. Which is more “challenging”, teaching that non-music reader to play a 1980s book or teaching a college music major to play today’s book? And which is more rewarding?

As to the higher profile: also read my earlier post. If you want to debate total attendance at all shows in an era with 700 corps versus today, you take the first shot at it. And provide details of your assumptions and calculations. Oh, and DCI, back in the early days, did broadcast finals. Not prelims; finals. Over the air. Free. No commercials even.

[JimF-LowBari]

Off-topic (kinda) - did DCI release attendance figures for the "day at the movies"?

[BRASSO]

Feh. I started marching in the mid-70s, and I can tell you that if any of the older guys who were instructing then tried putting on their 8-track of the '66 Holy Crusader Cadets from Anytown East Coast, USA, most of us would walk quickly and quietly in the opposite direction.

There were a few arrangers who knew what they were doing, but there wasn't much in the way of professionalism. The presentations generally had two flavors - loud and more loud - and intonation was considered a luxury for almost everyone. Bass drums literally played quarter notes. Split among the 3 guys in the line. The drill was comprised of 20 or 30 sets, marched at 132 bpm when the members were really hauling a__.

No offense to those who marched just ahead of me or during my time, but there's not much we were doing in the old shows that today's members couldn't learn in an afternoon. On their water break.

So is the talent better? Yes. The instruction? Yes. Are the shows more complex? Yes. Do they rely on music other than popular music of the day and pop standards from the 40s and 50s? Thank God, yes (but hey BD's got that retro thing going on). Does that mean that some folks aren't gonna be into it? Yes.

But guess what; the vast majority of America wasn't paying attention to drum corps 30 and 40 years ago either (and it was considered downright disreputable by most serious musicians). Considering what's being achieved now and the much higher profile it has over anytime in the past*, it would seem to be moving in a net positive direction. If that's not enough for some folks, there are always old recordings and the Legacy series DVDs.

* I was at a movie theater last night when the DCI trailer for Quarterfinals came on the screen - there was a noticeable buzz in the room when the thing was done, and it wasn't the sound of people chuckling at the 'band nerds.' In retrospect, it actually got more buzz than the snooze-inducing film that followed it...

If the talent is better, the instruction is better, and the shows are more complex and better, why is it that more people from May - Sept. across America went to a Drum Corps show in 1968 and 1978 than they did in 2008 ? No one would be foolish enough to try and make a futile claim that more fans across America went to a Drum Corps show in 2008 than in either 1968 or 1978. So we can agree that the product MIGHT be better, but whether it is more entertaining is a specious argument at best. If we judge the shows appeal by the number of fannies in a seat, then we have the answer to this question of entertainment value irrespective of what some might consider " better ".

Edited July 28, 2009 by BRASSO

[Jeff Ream]

yes show concepts and some of the music chosen has driven fans away. mostly older, some younger too.

now some fans have been added. a great thing.

there CAN be a balance. see SCV, Crown and Cadets this year, Crown and Phantom last year.

those shows loved by fans of all ages ( except BD fans)

but it's always been that way...some corps just dont connect, some show ideas lose people who just want to go to be entertained, not educated.

it's just that it seems there is more of those corps than the ones I mentioned above.

I understand programming and trying to recruit the kids. they are the future. but the legacy fans, those still here that go to many shows, inclduing finals, spend a ton on dvds and cds....those are the ones that should be retained as well as the newbies.

continually having to replace them is not wise business sense. adding to them is the key

[anniem]

If the talent is better, the instruction is better, and the shows are more complex and better, why is it that more people from May - Sept. across America went to a Drum Corps show in 1968 and 1978 than they did in 2008 ? No one would be foolish enough to try and make a futile claim that more fans across America went to a Drum Corps show in 2008 than in either 1968 or 1978. So we can agree that the product MIGHT be better, but whether it is more entertaining is a specious argument at best. If we judge the shows appeal by the number of fannies in a seat, then we have the answer to this question of entertainment value irrespective of what some might consider " better ".

Might the answer be more economical rather than entertainment driven? What did it cost to take the whole family to a show in 1968 vs 2008 (and clearly considering adjustments for inflation)? What did it cost to hold a show then compared to now? Maybe the entertainment value has decreased but has it been the biggest factor or does the cost factor drive the fewer number of shows and the lower resulting attendence?