1987 Garfield or SCV 2009?

[bccadet09]

I don't understand how SCV's version is considered more true to the original if it was a simplified version of Appalachian Spring. Garfield's had all of the original parts from Appalachian Spring (yes with some extras). A good example is in SCV 09 the pit plays the runs, in Garfield's show, the brass plays the runs on the move... It seems obvious.

I think SCV based their show from the Appalachian Spring Ballet featuring Martha Graham.

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEvcP-vXk4M

I'm not saying Garfield didn't do the same thing, but SCV seemed to stick closer to the original source.

Edited January 21, 2010 by bccadet09

[jjeffeory]

I don't understand how SCV's version is considered more true to the original if it was a simplified version of Appalachian Spring. Garfield's had all of the original parts from Appalachian Spring (yes with some extras). A good example is in SCV 09 the pit plays the runs, in Garfield's show, the brass plays the runs on the move... It seems obvious.

.... because the original wasn't Appalachian Spring, it was Ballet for Martha? It originally was a ballet score but was made popular by the orchestral suite that came after. So, it doesn't seem obvious when you think about it.

[watersling]

check out this wonderful PBS program on Copland, including an extended section on the Appalachian Spring. There is also a brief mention of drum corps, featuring 2003 Seattle Cascade's rendition for the El Salón México.

PBS - Keeping Score: Copland and the American Sound

http://video.pbs.org/video/1295288125/

Edited January 22, 2010 by watersling

[Cop]

check out this wonderful PBS program on Copland, including an extended section on the Appalachian Spring. There is also a brief mention of drum corps, featuring 2003 Seattle Cascade's rendition for the El Salón México.

PBS - Keeping Score: Copland and the American Sound

http://video.pbs.org/video/1295288125/

viewed it all... thnx

[garfield]

check out this wonderful PBS program on Copland, including an extended section on the Appalachian Spring. There is also a brief mention of drum corps, featuring 2003 Seattle Cascade's rendition for the El Salón México.

PBS - Keeping Score: Copland and the American Sound

http://video.pbs.org/video/1295288125/

This video of Copland is simply the best I've ever seen as a classical music fan.

It's absolutely clear why his music and drum corps go so well together. And I think Tilson-Thomas was right: Copland would have loved drum corps.

to SCV for bringing us '09's version. I don't think I ever tire of Copland's music on the field because they, he and drum corps, were cut from the same cloth.

And I think Bernstein would have been all over the pressbox, hootin' and hollerin' at what a sight it is to see kids playing his music on the field. I think his jaw would have hit the table to see Cadets '09, and yes, I mean in the best of ways (flamebait sentence). It would have astonished him (there's another - INCOMING!).

But then again, Phantom has been my favorite underdog simply because they only play classical.

Just my 2c...

Thanks for the great link!

Edited January 22, 2010 by garfield

[bradrick]

*** DISCLAIMER: This comment is in no way meant to be taking a position on the OP's question of which one I like better. They both were total BULLSEYES for what they were trying to accomplish... in my opinion. And were each obviously trying successfully to be something VERY VERY different. I believe it's probably pointless to compare the two unless you take that into consideration. But... I guess once you take that into consideration, I still think it's pointless to compare the two. ***

----------------

Unfortunately, unless you have seen 87 Garfield from a High Camera angle video (which is very difficult to get your hands on, and impossible through DCI or the Fan Network) you are just not getting all the "info" you need to truly form an opinion of that show. (And I would say this whether or not SCV did "Ballet for Martha" in 2009). This is not anyone's fault. I know people are using the only option most of them have to evaluate that show.

But you can't truly appreciate the visual masterpiece of Zingali's drill from the multi-cam mix. And anyone who tries to size-up 87 Garfield using only the multi-cam video is at a severe disadvantage.

[garfield]

*** DISCLAIMER: This comment is in no way meant to be taking a position on the OP's question of which one I like better. They both were total BULLSEYES for what they were trying to accomplish... in my opinion. And were each obviously trying successfully to be something VERY VERY different. I believe it's probably pointless to compare the two unless you take that into consideration. But... I guess once you take that into consideration, I still think it's pointless to compare the two. ***

----------------

Unfortunately, unless you have seen 87 Garfield from a High Camera angle video (which is very difficult to get your hands on, and impossible through DCI or the Fan Network) you are just not getting all the "info" you need to truly form an opinion of that show. (And I would say this whether or not SCV did "Ballet for Martha" in 2009). This is not anyone's fault. I know people are using the only option most of them have to evaluate that show.

But you can't truly appreciate the visual masterpiece of Zingali's drill from the multi-cam mix. And anyone who tries to size-up 87 Garfield using only the multi-cam video is at a severe disadvantage.

I can't possibly agree more with this. I was in the stands, about midway up, at that show and I remember it entirely. We rode home on the plane with a bubbly guard member, still done up in her finals make up and hair. She gabbed the whole way home and I remember her saying how the entire after-show was talk from the MM that it was, by far, the best performance of the season.

Anyway, last night after watching the Copland clip I pulled out my old BETA tapes that are done in high camera. I loved SCV's show, but it doesn't come close to what Garfield did, IMHO. Ballet for Martha was a fraction of what the ballet said, Garfield told the whole story. And that drill, OMG.

I love hearing Copland on the field in any form, but '87 Garfield was the pinnacle for me. It's - THAT show - by which everything else (at least Copland) is measured.

Just MHO

Edited January 22, 2010 by garfield

[PR_ducky]

87 Garfield. No question.

I was a member at Regiment that summer and got to see Garfield live several times.

That show changed the way shows were written and approached. It was a landmark moment in corps.

The disappearing/reappearing company front is still one of the most brilliant visual moments ever.

[garfield]

87 Garfield. No question.

I was a member at Regiment that summer and got to see Garfield live several times.

That show changed the way shows were written and approached. It was a landmark moment in corps.

The disappearing/reappearing company front is still one of the most brilliant visual moments ever.

And those dresses on the guard. And their expressiveness... Watching the PBS video and seeing Martha dance it reinforced how good those girls were.

[glory]

.... because the original wasn't Appalachian Spring, it was Ballet for Martha? It originally was a ballet score but was made popular by the orchestral suite that came after. So, it doesn't seem obvious when you think about it.

It's a little more complicated that that.

Ballet for Martha was the working title Copland used for his composition written specifically for performance by Martha Graham and her dancers. She gave the work a performance title, the actual title by which the music and the dance would be known. Now, the initial score was written so a small ensemble could accompany the ballet. It was later rearranged for a full orchestra.

The original score for a slimmed-down orchestral ensemble is no more Ballet for Martha than the full orchestral suite isn't. The one and only actual title is Appalachian Spring. Ballet for Martha wasn't a title, per se; it was more a way for Copland to keep track.

HH