What is missing from Drum Corps today

[Rochester New York]

We cannot ignore the actual competitive performances. We can add value with “instant encores” and clinics, but if the basic performances lack excitement and intrigue, the show will not be “must see”.

For me, what made the difference between "MUST see" and "worth seeing" was simple: the sheer, powerful, bone-chilling, jaw-dropping sound of clean, purely acoustic, unamplified, unplugged (and, yes, G-key) brass. This was not only "must see" for myself, but "must see" for the dozens of friends I brought to the shows--as in, "You HAVE to come to this show with me--you won't BELIEVE the sound these kids put out while running around the field." Needless to say, I don't bring friends to shows anymore.

People have made this point countless times on DCP, though they're usually ridiculed with cries of "beating a dead horse," "sound is subjective," and most often, "dinosaur." Well, I'm 35 years old, and I saw my first live drum corps show in 1997. If that makes me a dinosaur, then this activity has problems far greater than the original post suggests.

[BRASSO]

I just read this post and I have to say I think it's dead on. Hop says it's from a longtime financial contributor and drum corps fan. I think these arguments hit on just about everything that is wrong with drum corps and in a round about way make perfect suggestions for what needs to be fixed.

The post:

We cannot ignore the actual competitive performances. We can add value with “instant encores” and clinics, but if the basic performances lack excitement and intrigue, the show will not be “must see”.

I spent some time ruminating on this topic over the break, particularly focused on this question of why the Cadets brand is not as hot as it once was. Suffice to say the problem is tough to describe. I spent time looking at shows from the past I consider great, and at the audience reaction: Cadets in 1984 and 1987...Madison in 1995...Star in 1993 (believe it or not). Why did they get the response that they did? I recognize that I am looking through a dinosaur’s eyes, but...I am trying to be objective. I have seen a lot of shows. I am older, and more jaded: Most of the legacy fans are. However, a big chunk of our audience is new, and they are sitting on their hands. In fact, the “golf clap”, and the half hearted standing ovation at the end of the show is now the norm. The audience’s reaction is telling us something critical about the evolution of the activity. It should be setting off alarm bells all over the place, but in fact we appear content with it.

What I see in the state of the art circa 2009:

From Hop: This came to me from one of the folks who supports YEA! financially and in an advisorial role. It is in response to an internal discusson we were having about the Cadet, DCI, and the world of music education.

The discussion is well worth sharing

On 1/2/10 5:34 PM, "George Hopkins" <hopkins@yea.org> wrote:

We need to create more show for less money! What can we do to make a DCI event a must See? There are many ideas out there but it will take the creators, leadership, and a better framework ti allow change to happen…. How can we assist the effort? What has to be done? Perhaps the Cadets need to look in the mirror?

Response from Hop's Friend:

Music is a big problem for this activity. We have a problem with WHAT is played, and we have a problem with HOW it is deployed.

o On the WHAT side – we have gone from diversity to homogeneity. It is incredible how 20th century wind band literature has become the cornerstone of what we do. To many, I am sure this is the logical evolution, and that this is the repertoire that is best adapted to the drum corps format. However, the net result is that we all sound the same. Jazz, blues, country, rock, broadway, marches, hymns: these are largely absent from our repertoire.

o On the HOW side – Music has been relegated to a role of accompanying a succession of visual statements. As a result, what it is played has been deconstructed to fit the visual format. It is rare to hear a sustained musical thought, or even a recognizable phrase. I would argue (without quantitative basis) that it is nearly impossible to build memorable, high impact shows that are primarily oriented toward visual “tricks” (not to say that there are not exceptions, just that you are not going to get 8 or 10 “great” shows a year this way). As you pointed out in the meeting, we are pretty much tapped out in terms of what drill alone can accomplish. So why is the visual side driving what we do?

Shows are engineered for competitive success, not created with an eye toward achieving an artistic vision. I know the creative process is a challenge – drum corps has always been “design by committee” and has always been an exercise in balancing physical and musical demands with effect requirements. However, some have become so adept at engineering solutions that the ultimate product is entirely devoid of excitement. These are shows that are “check the box” exercises – “we will play loud here and here, move fast here and here, do a 16th note run at this point to show that we can”. In the end, music does not work this way – sometimes you work your ### off for an entire piece, and there is no room for a break. Sometimes you perform something that doesn’t work on a micro scale, because it fits a bigger picture. I keep coming back to Star’s 1993 show – that was the closest we’ve come to our “Sacre du printemps” moment. Star’s staff had a vision, and they were going to ram it down the audience’s throats whether it worked or not. At the time, it looked like a mistake. People nearly rioted (we should be so lucky to have that kind of an impact now). In hindsight, it was a brilliant achievement, not because it was competitively successful, but because it was a complete realization of their bold vision.

We are formula driven. We have decided that the “right” (e.g., winning) show looks a particular way. Anyone who deviates from the formula is punished. Every show begins quietly, followed by a loud opening statement. Everyone has three (or four) movements. One movement must be a ballad. One movement must be more percussive in nature to feature the drum line’s capability. The closer must be “up tempo”, and usually must include recapitulation of prior thematic material. How are we any different from the 1970s, when everyone had an opener, a concert number, a drum feature, and a closer (usually a slow ballad, performed “power” style)? At least the 1970s shows had the benefit of being drawn from a diverse repertoire (it was possible to play a march in those days). To score well, you must demonstrate skill in playing at least one different “style” (since nearly everyone is playing contemporary/classical music, the usual alternative “style” is something “jazz-like”). There is no room for innovation. What about a show in one movement? What about an entire show built on Warren Benson’s “Solitary Dancer”? (yes, I know this would be a brutal disaster, but I am pushing a point). What about the Velvet Knights? Can anyone do comedy? Where is our generation’s Bobby Hoffmann? If we found one, would they have any success at all? Each corps is given a “blank sheet” and yet 95% of the time, they are coming up with the same answer. Why? Because we insist that it is so.

We do not reward effect. In fact, we punish it. This is the most profound problem I can think of with drum corps. The interests of the audience and the judging community are so divergent that I despair of solving this easily. The attitude that the audience is ignorant and cannot understand what effect really means is genuinely dangerous, and is wringing the creative life out of this activity.

I believe the audience for drum corps is actually pretty ###### sophisticated. They understand layering, nuance, vocabulary, and staging are important. But we have chosen to conflate these things with “effect”. What they are is design. It is possible (in fact common) to have great design with little effect. Our design teams are enormously skilled and are creating great designs all the time. However we are falling flat on emotional connection, on excitement, on thrills and hype. We are feeding the audience a steady diet of design-driven shows, with the (very) occasional exception of a 2009 Cadets or a 2008 Phantom Regiment. This happens on the micro scale as well – in every show, most corps will have their hype moment. But it is counterbalanced by minutes of design moments. The ratios are all wrong. We are all steak and no sizzle. I can name a dozen examples of designers running away from audience pleasing hype, backing away from volume and excitement for the sake of “other kinds of effect”. Worse, this has been going on for a decade. We have raised an entire generation of audience members to expect very little of the fun and thrills we grew up with. Maybe if they expected more (and got it) we would be “must see” TV.

To summarize (and sorry for the long ramble): We are getting what we reward. Until we change what we reward, we will get more of the same...cautious, over-engineered, generic, and generally boring shows. What we should be rewarding: risk taking; real emotional connection generated by great music performed at an outstanding performance level; in short, total drum corps ### kicking. I miss it. We all should.

Every point made on this thread is correct..... and these exact points have been made on this forum and among veteran fans discussing this among themselves. And for several years now too. The question is what show designer will have the cajones to break out of this stale formula and break new ground where other musical genres are given fresh play in the activity.

[Western Burger]

Is it really such a bad idea to cater a show to the fans?

[Lance]

On the same token, is it really such a radical idea that "the crowd" has varied tastes?

And as much as I appreciate what Hopkins said in his blog, I still think a lot of it has to do with how he percieved the Cadets 09 show and how it ended up placing., and maybe not quite as much with DCI as a whole as we might like to think.

[BRASSO]

Is it really such a bad idea to cater a show to the fans?

It is inconceivable to me that any commercially successful performer or show designer would not have the audience response as the predominent barometer as to whether or not the show was a success or not.

I do agree that in order to see substantive changes, it will be IMPERATIVE that the judging sheets reflect more influence re. audience response. Absent such change in judging, it is hard to see substantive changes in what is rewarded and what is not. Right now for instance," proficiency" and " demand " in the judging sheets heavily outweigh " emotonal and intellectual connection to the audience". Put this back in more balance, and I can guarantee you we'd see better audience connecting shows on the part of these DCI show designers.

Edited January 8, 2010 by BRASSO

[Lance]

Not all shows are programmed to get the same response from a crowd, thank goodness.

And it would be folly to try to count audience reaction as part of a score for many, many reasons, not the least of which would be a way to even semi-objectively measure audience reaction. It's amazing, even on here, the different perceptions people post about how the crowd reacted different shows they went to see live.

What would an audience reaction caption even look like for a judge to measure? What would be the criteria?

[BRASSO]

I know this will sound simple but if the judging community and corps put music first, the rest will work itself out.

If you put more emphasis on the music from both the judging side and design side the music alone will suck the fans back in to the activity. Inferior Musical productions will eventually disappear design will remain the same.

All the corps at one point or another have produced great musical productions, so it shouldn't be that difficult.

Maybe it's just me but the problem seems to be more about the judging community dictating what they want and not want the audience demands.

From a sales perspective I can see the DVD/CD/Download sales going through the roof with great musical productions. The cookie cutter productions stifle sales.

Bottom Line, DCI controls the product specifications...the performances are a product of quality control. Are we producing a High Perfomance custom product or are the shows rolling off the DCI assembly line?

It is the judges..... Look, I have a lot of respect for judges. I respect their training, qualifications, commitment to the activity and trying to do the right thing and judge the almost impossible...... a DCI competition.

That said, lets be brutally honest here. None of these judges are commercially successful performers or show designers on broadway, etc in their own right. They are predominently teachers..... academic technicians. And most do a fantastic job as teachers. To help make future musicians proficient in their craft.

However, would a commercially successful performer judge these DCI units in the same way ? What do others think ? I know what I think . For example I think Maynard Ferguson would have judged "GE brass "a hell of a lot differently. I think his GE Brass caption would be different than the current GE Brass caption. And why stop with Ferguson ? I think if Ravel, Mozart, and other classical composers were alive today, they too would judge " General Effect " much differently than the GE judges we have today.

Edited January 8, 2010 by BRASSO

[ironlips]

This is one of the better discussions PCP has hosted. The level of discourse has been elevated, much to the credit of the participants. Here's hoping that will continue.

If I may...Disclosure: I am, by anyone's measure, a drum corps dinosaur since this year will mark my 50th in the activity. I've been a rifle, a second soprano, a soloist, an instructor, an arranger and a judge. I have experienced both failure and success in all these endeavors and my opinion, therefore, is worth no more or less than that of anyone else.

Darwin theorized that an organism changes, or goes extinct. So it is with our beloved musical activity. Change will come because it must. The Renaissance represented a change from the Medieval. It was a move forward and a look back at the same time. We could use a drum corps equivalent about now.

(One little thing: Go easier on the judges. They do not program the shows but rather are instructed by the corps themselves (who write the sheets and criteria) as to what is to be rewarded, just as Mr. Ream suggests. They disregard those dictates at their peril.)

Edited January 8, 2010 by ironlips

[MikeD]

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.

Plus corps have been playing wind band music for decades...back to the 70's...Holst Suites in Eb and F, the Vaughan Williams Folk Song Suite, Alfred Reed's music (e.g. Russian Christmas Music). We played Clifton Williams' "Sinfonians" as our opener in 1972.

[BRASSO]

Not all shows are programmed to get the same response from a crowd, thank goodness.

And it would be folly to try to count audience reaction as part of a score for many, many reasons, not the least of which would be a way to even semi-objectively measure audience reaction. It's amazing, even on here, the different perceptions people post about how the crowd reacted different shows they went to see live.

What would an audience reaction caption even look like for a judge to measure? What would be the criteria?

Well, we've never had at any given point in the activity " all shows programmed to get the same response from a crowd ", so there is little to fear that we'll see that sort of change any time in the near or distant future.

And Judging " audience reaction " it seems to me is no less subjective than judging any execution caption from a booth 100 yards away from where the executed move on the field below is being made. Plus, have we've seen countless times before, judges on the same night have given much different scores on the same caption from their colleague evaluating the same performance. So it's clear that judges can oftentimes disagree just as much as fans on a performance. As far as what criteria a judge would use in evaluating " audience reaction ", the judge could use the very same subjective judgment that he or she uses to judge all the other components upon which they judge...... including " voice " and " narration " and " amplification", and " guitar execution " and so forth in the show under the current " execution" and " general effect " captions. I don't see evaluating " audience reaction " any less difficult for judges than judging these components in the show their training and qualifications give them the tools to effectively judge already.

Edited January 8, 2010 by BRASSO