What is missing from Drum Corps today

[Jeff Ream]

"Theme" is, by definition, an intellectual conceit. Remove it as a criteria (real or implied), and you free the corps up to play with a wider range of pieces within each show.

by playing up the theme tho, you can create incredible emotional effects....look at Spartacus

[Jeff Ream]

Yes. Wind band music is not a "problem." 92 and 93 Cadets (among many examples) were pretty well-received by a lot of people, including me. Holsinger's music is the most "bando" stuff imaginable.

agree...wind music has become a scapegoat. it's how stuff is arranged that is more the problem, and yes, the activity has become so visual focused music suffers

[glory]

I think its funny, considering that most of the top 5 this year chose music that is NOT of the concert band/wind band variety...yet the dinosaurs are still complaining. Oh well.

Agreed.

I'm sorry to break up the pity party but so much of that argument seems dated. Over the past three or more years we've seen a wide variety of approaches and an expanded repetoire. Triple Crown, Criminal, Spartacus, Ballet for Martha and even 1930 are just a few examples of corps experimenting - some to ultimate success, some less so but still succesful.

That said, I agree with the desire for longer phrases and more musicality in design. Ironically, I have a sneeking suspicion that 1930 is a template for just that kind of show.

HH

[Lance]

agree...wind music has become a scapegoat. it's how stuff is arranged that is more the problem, and yes, the activity has become so visual focused music suffers

That is what I'm hoping changes more than anything. I haven't been able to listen to CDs for the past couple of years because it's been relegated to background music to the visual.

[bawker]

Nothing good can come of any "legislation" that might reward one "type of show" over another.

. . yet we have it anyway, as people are, as you say, "rewarded for doing things the same way". . .it's just an unwritten set of rules to have hit "x" here or drum break "y" there.

I agree we don't need to legislate show design per se, but, hell . . .the whole reason for all of the movement the past few years towards opening up instrumentation is in order to break creative shackles. Why not be able to do so and not have the judges mentally tick you for not constructing your show like it "should" be done?

There's so many things that we could see repertoire wise, numbers wise . . .even instrumentation wise, yet we keep pigeonholing ourselves into such a small space. There's room for someone to do a electronics heavy show, there's room for a straight ahead balls show, there's room for those that might want eighty guard and forty horns.

. . .as long as it entertains (whether emotionally or cerebrally) and strives to be more than a paint-by-numbers for a score from Mr. Green Shirt.

[Dave]

The real problem is the nepotistic nature of this activity. It will take another 20 years for certain people to move on or die. There are about 20 individuals that have been involved for 25 or more years, and look to be involved for about 20 or more. Even in the tiers where the "top 20" aren't involved, the aura of "we have to keep doing everything the same way" is rampant.

True, and it's the same problem that a lot of the "high art" world faces: intellectual inbreeding leads to greater segregation between those who already follow said artist/performer and anyone else. Rules aren't going to fix the problem, it's going to take new people unafraid to do different things and willing to put up with being dismissed by a lot of the higher powers to see real change, and that takes a long time.

[Kamarag]

The problem doesn't start with how designers program, it starts with what the judges reward. If we want to see things change, it has to start with what DCI judges reward, what they find critical, and how they are educated to do so. Only then will you see show design change, at least for the corps that don't step outside the box, which are admittedly very, very few.

[Whiskey]

In regards to wind music, for every hit there are IMO much more misses. And I'm not just talking about finalist caliber corps. All you have to so is watch shows from the last 10 years, and most of them just don't have that special "it" factor. It's not really the music's fault, but the way the shows are being arranged and designed.

[Rifuarian]

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.

[Jeff Ream]

The problem doesn't start with how designers program, it starts with what the judges reward. If we want to see things change, it has to start with what DCI judges reward, what they find critical, and how they are educated to do so. Only then will you see show design change, at least for the corps that don't step outside the box, which are admittedly very, very few.

remember this: the designers tell their directors what they want in place at rules congress.

the directors vote based on this

the judges do what is voted upon

see the vicious circle?