george68 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 I want to broaden your scope just a bit. Sit down and think for just a moment how many guards out there shows absolutely drive you to throw babies, dollar bills, and undergarments? For me in the 1980's too many to mention, in the 1990's too few to mention, and in the 2000"s, even less than the 90's. Some shows illicit thrills and chills, others the thought of taking deadly pills afterward it was over. The"I don't get it" factor kicks in, and you have lost your audience. There is also the concept of does this show fit the personality of this group, hence why you enjoyed the Glassmen show, and while other probably thought it was boring(like I have of many Glassmen shows)Before you get this bent and twisted, this thread is more about the designers and creators, not the performers. The performers are doing what they are given to do. It is up to them to sell it to the audience. Sometimes the show is not sell-able for various reason mostly related to the concept of the show. Shows these days are too serious, to high minded artistically, and in some cases just too strange. Not enough designers are going for humor and light hearted-ness in their show concepts, so almost every show looks like an attempt at recreating the Joffrey Ballet or the work of Balanchine rather than just entertaining us. Part of the problem is trying to play to the "sheets" rather than the audience. Here is a reality. Not all of your supporters are dance or performance majors. So if you really care about the fans, give them a show that is entertaining and fun to watch, not something that requires a degree in performance art and dance. If your audience has to think too much, they are probably not going to be as entertained as they would if they are smiling, wowing, laughing, and "getting" what you are doing. Two prong response here. You are correct, part of the process is finding something that is interesting and meaningful. But it also must be accessible to your audience as well. If you take the stance that you are going to create something whether the audience agrees, or likes it, then you will lose your audience because the enjoyment factor becomes singular rather than plural. Just like your Glassmen example, if a show is great to you, but awful to many, then the show is not very good because it should not be about one person's enjoyment, it should be about the enjoyment of many. Both DCI and WGI has a major case of performing to the judges syndrome. This stifles the entertainment value, as it does not allow you to create a show that actually reaches the majority of your audience. Dance and performance majors may be totally satisfied with what they see, but what about those who are not dance and performance majors? They are left scratching their collective heads. I think part of the problem may lie in the fact that both sides of the activity have pre-set performance requirements, instead of just letting a creator or designer put up a show free of those constraints, and just letting the show get scored based on its own merits.(or lacks) This is a major problem with the activity, it is called censure. Every single time a dissenting opinion that goes against the acceptable norm is posted, you get the complimentary "don't say anything against the activity, it hurts the kids feelings". Here is my response to that, grow up, and develop a thicker skin. If you are going to be a designer or performer, be ready for criticism, because everyone does not like everything. A huge part of being a performer is to be able to take the good with the bad, and that is from a performance and evaluation perspective. A couple of points here. When I was a kid, I spent a great deal of time treading behind my four Uncles who were either sound engineers, or a sound designers on off and on Broadway plays in New York. A Broadway audience can be extremely brutal in their criticism if they don't like something, or they don't get it. In that time, I saw many an actor or director get reduced to rubble behind a review, or the comments of the audience upon leaving the venue. I also heard many a show producer tell them if they can't take it, leave, as it is as much apart of the activity and the performance is. In 1983 our guards semi-finals performance was terrible. When we got off the floor, Steve read us from Amazing Grace to a floating opportunity(now that a brutal reading!). What he said would have killed the spirit of most performers, but it energized us, and our finals performance we killed. Performers have to take criticism and turn it into a great performance. WGI and DCI are suffering from a generational displacement dysfunction that is killing the overall growth of both activities. It is very important in "niche" activities such as these to build UPON your audience by designing shows that appeal to both the old school and the new school. Both DCI and WGI have made the decision that the old school can be sacrificed in favor of attracting a newer audience with newer concepts. The only thing this decision is going to do is maintain a constant year to year audience, but will do nothing to "grow" it. Perhaps ditching the set criteria for show design, and just allowing a designer to start from a clean non-criteria slate would encourage them to mix some of the new with the old, which will appeal to audiences of all generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoutnout Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 I want to broaden your scope just a bit. Sit down and think for just a moment how many guards out there shows absolutely drive you to throw babies, dollar bills, and undergarments? For me in the 1980's too many to mention, in the 1990's too few to mention, and in the 2000"s, even less than the 90's. Some shows illicit thrills and chills, others the thought of taking deadly pills afterward it was over. The"I don't get it" factor kicks in, and you have lost your audience. There is also the concept of does this show fit the personality of this group, hence why you enjoyed the Glassmen show, and while other probably thought it was boring(like I have of many Glassmen shows)Before you get this bent and twisted, this thread is more about the designers and creators, not the performers. The performers are doing what they are given to do. It is up to them to sell it to the audience. Sometimes the show is not sell-able for various reason mostly related to the concept of the show. Shows these days are too serious, to high minded artistically, and in some cases just too strange. Not enough designers are going for humor and light hearted-ness in their show concepts, so almost every show looks like an attempt at recreating the Joffrey Ballet or the work of Balanchine rather than just entertaining us. Part of the problem is trying to play to the "sheets" rather than the audience. Here is a reality. Not all of your supporters are dance or performance majors. So if you really care about the fans, give them a show that is entertaining and fun to watch, not something that requires a degree in performance art and dance. If your audience has to think too much, they are probably not going to be as entertained as they would if they are smiling, wowing, laughing, and "getting" what you are doing. Two prong response here. You are correct, part of the process is finding something that is interesting and meaningful. But it also must be accessible to your audience as well. If you take the stance that you are going to create something whether the audience agrees, or likes it, then you will lose your audience because the enjoyment factor becomes singular rather than plural. Just like your Glassmen example, if a show is great to you, but awful to many, then the show is not very good because it should not be about one person's enjoyment, it should be about the enjoyment of many. Both DCI and WGI has a major case of performing to the judges syndrome. This stifles the entertainment value, as it does not allow you to create a show that actually reaches the majority of your audience. Dance and performance majors may be totally satisfied with what they see, but what about those who are not dance and performance majors? They are left scratching their collective heads. I think part of the problem may lie in the fact that both sides of the activity have pre-set performance requirements, instead of just letting a creator or designer put up a show free of those constraints, and just letting the show get scored based on its own merits.(or lacks) This is a major problem with the activity, it is called censure. Every single time a dissenting opinion that goes against the acceptable norm is posted, you get the complimentary "don't say anything against the activity, it hurts the kids feelings". Here is my response to that, grow up, and develop a thicker skin. If you are going to be a designer or performer, be ready for criticism, because everyone does not like everything. A huge part of being a performer is to be able to take the good with the bad, and that is from a performance and evaluation perspective. A couple of points here. When I was a kid, I spent a great deal of time treading behind my four Uncles who were either sound engineers, or a sound designers on off and on Broadway plays in New York. A Broadway audience can be extremely brutal in their criticism if they don't like something, or they don't get it. In that time, I saw many an actor or director get reduced to rubble behind a review, or the comments of the audience upon leaving the venue. I also heard many a show producer tell them if they can't take it, leave, as it is as much apart of the activity and the performance is. In 1983 our guards semi-finals performance was terrible. When we got off the floor, Steve read us from Amazing Grace to a floating opportunity(now that a brutal reading!). What he said would have killed the spirit of most performers, but it energized us, and our finals performance we killed. Performers have to take criticism and turn it into a great performance. WGI and DCI are suffering from a generational displacement dysfunction that is killing the overall growth of both activities. It is very important in "niche" activities such as these to build UPON your audience by designing shows that appeal to both the old school and the new school. Both DCI and WGI have made the decision that the old school can be sacrificed in favor of attracting a newer audience with newer concepts. The only thing this decision is going to do is maintain a constant year to year audience, but will do nothing to "grow" it. Perhaps ditching the set criteria for show design, and just allowing a designer to start from a clean non-criteria slate would encourage them to mix some of the new with the old, which will appeal to audiences of all generations. Such an old argument. People seen to think this is something new ,,,It's not ....I remember the argument, judges vrs crows appeal 20 years ago and friend older than me say the same when the manuel was taken out back i think in the 70s. A blend of both would be nice and I think after reaching a certain level it allows you more creative play. I know I dont want to see a poorly trained or novice to the national arena ,, dancing bad..spinning with no technique, acting bad BUT maybe those top few could encourage a tad more diversity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoutnout Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Such an old argument. People seen to think this is something new ,,,It's not ....I remember the argument, judges vrs crows appeal 20 years ago and friend older than me say the same when the manuel was taken out back i think in the 70s. A blend of both would be nice and I think after reaching a certain level it allows you more creative play. I know I dont want to see a poorly trained or novice to the national arena ,, dancing bad..spinning with no technique, acting bad BUT maybe those top few could encourage a tad more diversity. lol....crowd appeal not crows...lmao but im sure you all got it..lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrishDish1002 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Hello? HOW are we supposed to get points if we don't write our shows to the sheets?? The crowd, although supportive financially and emotionally, unfortunately doesn't put the numbers down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoutnout Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Hello? HOW are we supposed to get points if we don't write our shows to the sheets??The crowd, although supportive financially and emotionally, unfortunately doesn't put the numbers down! EXACTLY!!!! You understand this Trish because you have been around a while and have competed at a high level of competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deftguy Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Hello? HOW are we supposed to get points if we don't write our shows to the sheets??The crowd, although supportive financially and emotionally, unfortunately doesn't put the numbers down! You create an exciting show that the kids can sell from a blank canvas, teach it, clean it, and encourage your group to have fun with it. Have some of you become so married to the current situation that you cannot imagine a world without it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deftguy Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 EXACTLY!!!! You understand this Trish because you have been around a while and have competed at a high level of competition. She not the only one you know. I didn't just start at this yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deftguy Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 (edited) Such an old argument. People seen to think this is something new ,,,It's not ....I remember the argument, judges vrs crows appeal 20 years ago and friend older than me say the same when the manuel was taken out back i think in the 70s. A blend of both would be nice and I think after reaching a certain level it allows you more creative play. I know I dont want to see a poorly trained or novice to the national arena ,, dancing bad..spinning with no technique, acting bad BUT maybe those top few could encourage a tad more diversity. If the argument is that old, and still nothing has been done, that doesn't sound much like progress to me. It is probably because of the dismissive attitude you have displayed right here. When I marched, I never heard this argument. Edited February 19, 2010 by deftguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoutnout Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 If the argument is that old, and still nothing has been done, that doesn't sound much like progress to me. It is probably because of the dismissive attitude you have displayed right here. When I marched, I never heard this argument. Same argument different situations....And as a memeber you shouldnt have heard the arguments back then just like many kids dont know or hear it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 You create an exciting show that the kids can sell from a blank canvas, teach it, clean it, and encourage your group to have fun with it. Have some of you become so married to the current situation that you cannot imagine a world without it? And what's exciting to one person may not be to another. This activity is subjective in many cases , it has been and will problably always will be. Seems pretty exciting to me , grantes some years more than others BUT it's always been like that even in the stone ages..lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts