What is missing from Drum Corps today

[Hup234]

You need to ask Golden Age alumni what's missing today, but of course that will not happen.

What's missing --- besides all the drum corps --- is the fire and brimstone and hell-for-leather in-your-face spirit of those days. You know --- the stuff that made D&BC the kind of thing kids wanted to join.

[BRASSO]

You need to ask Golden Age alumni what's missing today, but of course that will not happen.

What's missing --- besides all the drum corps --- is the fire and brimstone and hell-for-leather in-your-face spirit of those days. You know --- the stuff that made D&BC the kind of thing kids wanted to join.

I might add that marchers who marched Drum Corps in previous eras averaged more years in Drum Corps, and with the activity in general. They did not split loyalties, most of them, between band and drum corps.

While today we do find marchers who march several years in these new units, mostly they march between 1-3 years with other kids from around the globe. I'm not so sure the majority of these marchers have the same sense of loyalty to their marching DCI unit as a result. It will be interesting to see if in 20-30 years, these marchers will return to Corps reunions from the years they marched , or would join up and play with these units as Alumni Corps participants when they get near or at retirement. The jury is still out on this, it seems to me.

Edited January 10, 2010 by BRASSO

[Bob984]

I pretty much agree with the original post, and it reflects what many fans have felt for a very long time. Unfortunately, many corps staffs really only care about that last score and placement; winning the crowd is quite secondary. I believe that the start to better shows lies in a change in judging philosophy, leadership, and the wording and understanding of the sheets. The effect caption, especially music effect, needs totally overhauled. Whereas I am not saying that the effect judge should simply use an "applausometer", the judge should determine if the program connected with the audience or not. If it didn't, the score needs to reflect it. Conversely, if the show totally connected with the audience, the score should reflect that. I am not saying to take performance or content out of the quotient, and there are certainly many different styles and types of effect. But if we are going to use the word effect, then DCI needs to look up the word in a dictionary.

Perhaps the most horrid aspect of judging is that the quality of musical arrangement is nearly never considered in any of the musical captions. There is a difference between an outstanding, excellent, good, fair, and poor musical arrangement, and the qualities inherent in each. Yet, I see corps with box 5 music scores across the board whose arrangements do not even make it to the excellent level (never mind outstanding), and some would not even qualify as good. Musical arrangement quality certainly can be evaluated by items such as melodic content, continuity and flow, dynamic contrast, expression and emotion, interpretation, style, and progression and resolution. Therefore, how does an arrangement which is severely lacking in several of these aspects, for example, achieve box 5 numbers???

Like the original author states, we continue to see complex visual programs that may be well-designed in their own right, "accompanied" by musical arrangements which are choppy and lack many of the qualities that I list above. It certainly seems that if the visual and color guard product has the stamp of approval of the judging community, mysteriously all other numbers seem to be up as well. As I once argued with a prominent judge, a great show is built around great musical arrangements performed at a high level; if that is not present, there is nothing that a drill is going to do to save it......you may have some visual effect happening, but the show is not "firing on all cylinders" if the music is secondary or not fully effective in it's own right. If the music isn't great in a standstill, there is nothing the drill is going to do to fix that. One corps in particular has had championship shows that I would not walk across the street to hear. Yes, that corps has presented great visual products performed cleanly across the board, but I walked away thinking it's a "four cylinder show as opposed to an eight". Yet, they received stellar musical numbers.

Unfortunately, I do not expect change, as the leadership in the judging community has been leaning toward the visual aspect for quite some time, and I have seen no change in this or in the acceptance by the corps themselves, who have the say. Until they decide it is time for change, we will have what we have. Perhaps the good news is that we still hear some strong musical programs, which for me, I will still keep coming until they disappear. I can only hope that we will see/hear more of them.

GB

[audiodb]

As for Bb volume I still think a lot has to do with how the members today are instructed to play. Today it's blend, blend, blend and you can't blend if you or your section is louder than others. Back then during the louder sections the instruction was to play loud as you could while staying in tune. If you were louder than the "blend" that was the other horn players problem.

That is a good point....just one that is harder to recognize in specific cases. From my perspective, I wouldn't know when corps X changed their teaching focus from "loud" to "blend" (or somewhere in between). I would know when they switched from G to Bb/F, though....and that change was more abrupt.

[kickhaltsforlife]

I might add that marchers who marched Drum Corps in previous eras averaged more years in Drum Corps, and with the activity in general. They did not split loyalties, most of them, between band and drum corps.

While today we do find marchers who march several years in these new units, mostly they march between 1-3 years with other kids from around the globe. I'm not so sure the majority of these marchers have the same sense of loyalty to their marching DCI unit as a result. It will be interesting to see if in 20-30 years, these marchers will return to Corps reunions from the years they marched , or would join up and play with these units as Alumni Corps participants when they get near or at retirement. The jury is still out on this, it seems to me.

As vocal I have been about my corps issues and how much I HAVE NOT liked the show design... I remain loyal. And there are plenty of other people who feel the same as me about their corps. Is there less loyalty nowadays? Possibly. But it is still there. There are plenty of people still proud to be a part of their corps.

[DAvery]

The use of classical and wind ensemble music isn't the problem. Most of drum corps best loved shows have been drawn from those sources. Those two genres suit modern drum corps better than any other, so it's expected that most of the music played will be taken from them.

The real problem is the use of classical and wind ensemble to the absolute exclusion of all other genres, a problem which is compounded by painful over-arranging and formulaic shows. Some corps have broken this mold, sure, especially at the top levels, but that's not where our focus should be. The creative bankruptcy is far worse in the lower echelons of drum corps, where the groups that most desperately need to distinguish themselves from the crowd produce bland, forgettable shows year after year in a vain attempt to gain some slight competitive edge. These are the corps that could benefit most from switching to "audience" as opposed to "judge" focused shows.

For this kind of change to take place, it needs to start from the bottom and work its way up, not vice versa.

Bingo, we have a winner.

[JimF-LowBari]

That is a good point....just one that is harder to recognize in specific cases. From my perspective, I wouldn't know when corps X changed their teaching focus from "loud" to "blend" (or somewhere in between). I would know when they switched from G to Bb/F, though....and that change was more abrupt.

I'm thinking that the change in teaching focus (loud to blend) was probably a gradual thing over the years. But I didn't attend any shows from around 1992-2002 so any changes during that era was very noticible (aka - abrupt) when I came back.

As for Bb and G, with my untrained ears I honestly can't tell the freaking difference. At least no more difference than corps using different horn manufacturers.

[MikeD]

I find this quite amusing and tragic at the same time. Why? Many people in drum corps have been saying this for more than 20 years! It is both amusing and tragic that it took so long for someone in the DCI inner circle to begin to see the point we have been making all along!

Hopefully, this is a case of "better late than never" for the corps that are still surviving. For many corps that are no longer competing, it is too late....

Ron Gunn

Drum corps shows were a lot more formulaic in my day, late 60's through the 70's. Most shows followed the same set-piece numbers, from off the line through the exit. Not much variety...the three themed shows of 1971 were an exception (Madison, Cavies and Garfield), not the rule.

[Jeff Ream]

I pretty much agree with the original post, and it reflects what many fans have felt for a very long time. Unfortunately, many corps staffs really only care about that last score and placement; winning the crowd is quite secondary. I believe that the start to better shows lies in a change in judging philosophy, leadership, and the wording and understanding of the sheets. The effect caption, especially music effect, needs totally overhauled. Whereas I am not saying that the effect judge should simply use an "applausometer", the judge should determine if the program connected with the audience or not. If it didn't, the score needs to reflect it. Conversely, if the show totally connected with the audience, the score should reflect that. I am not saying to take performance or content out of the quotient, and there are certainly many different styles and types of effect. But if we are going to use the word effect, then DCI needs to look up the word in a dictionary.

Perhaps the most horrid aspect of judging is that the quality of musical arrangement is nearly never considered in any of the musical captions. There is a difference between an outstanding, excellent, good, fair, and poor musical arrangement, and the qualities inherent in each. Yet, I see corps with box 5 music scores across the board whose arrangements do not even make it to the excellent level (never mind outstanding), and some would not even qualify as good. Musical arrangement quality certainly can be evaluated by items such as melodic content, continuity and flow, dynamic contrast, expression and emotion, interpretation, style, and progression and resolution. Therefore, how does an arrangement which is severely lacking in several of these aspects, for example, achieve box 5 numbers???

Like the original author states, we continue to see complex visual programs that may be well-designed in their own right, "accompanied" by musical arrangements which are choppy and lack many of the qualities that I list above. It certainly seems that if the visual and color guard product has the stamp of approval of the judging community, mysteriously all other numbers seem to be up as well. As I once argued with a prominent judge, a great show is built around great musical arrangements performed at a high level; if that is not present, there is nothing that a drill is going to do to save it......you may have some visual effect happening, but the show is not "firing on all cylinders" if the music is secondary or not fully effective in it's own right. If the music isn't great in a standstill, there is nothing the drill is going to do to fix that. One corps in particular has had championship shows that I would not walk across the street to hear. Yes, that corps has presented great visual products performed cleanly across the board, but I walked away thinking it's a "four cylinder show as opposed to an eight". Yet, they received stellar musical numbers.

Unfortunately, I do not expect change, as the leadership in the judging community has been leaning toward the visual aspect for quite some time, and I have seen no change in this or in the acceptance by the corps themselves, who have the say. Until they decide it is time for change, we will have what we have. Perhaps the good news is that we still hear some strong musical programs, which for me, I will still keep coming until they disappear. I can only hope that we will see/hear more of them.

GB

my problem with not just GE music, but all music captions is way too much commentary on visual demands affecting the music, but rarely if ever a comment on the musical demands affecting the visual

the commentary may be 65/35 in favor of visual with this, even if the math works out to 50/50 on the sheets.

I understand the need on GE to discuss audio to visual coordination for both sheets.

I don't understand why a visual judge can't comment on why the kid may be focusing on his running 16th note passage and as such it is affecting his marching.

it does happen

[FHdork]

Jeff, you touch on something I've noticed in the last decade: I don't think the GE Music caption truly weighs and adjudicates the MUSIC. There have been some years where shows I felt had very weak musical books were scoring right at the top in the caption - and the subcaptions - of GE Music (I don't recall the names of these GE Music subcaptions, but I believe they're to address the repertoire and its inherent musical worth).

One way we could reward musical choices (as opposed to patchwork arranging...) is to reward fine musical portrayal, and punish the kind of pastiche arranging many of us decry and point to as one alienating aspect of 21st century drum corps design.

Yes - DCI (which is owned and operated by the member corps) design and create the judging criteria - but if they are serious about re-connecting with the audience, perhaps giving the GE Music judge the freedom to truly evaluate the music would be a great place to start.