Are todays guard styles hurting

[greenland]

Boston seems to have sorted out the guard variables, and answered with performance..........

[Rimba47]

whoa.....maybe you should slow down and not into the OP 's comments more than what he actually said. Maybe you should not inject into the thread such hateful accusations that he MIGHT be" homophobic ".That's like someon saying that unless you clarify more what you mean in your comments here you that might have " heterosexual " issues. Maybe you should make more clear what YOU mean because you've drifted off into an area that the OP should not have to make clear with anything at all. There is nothing in his comments ( that I see anyway ) where he should have to clarify his comments so not to be accused of being homophobic. I " got it " right away when he said a particular Corps had a masculine theme of " Superheros ", but the Guard in that Corps did not project, nor evoke with many in the audience a " masculine " quality that a conventional interpetation of " Superheros " would seem to require to be plausable and believable and in good sync with the music and theme. If you think that Corps guard dance, and movements, costumes, etc evoked the correct stylistic approach for that theme.... fine. But be careful about wanting to determne if the OP has " homophobic " issues lest one want to require of you if you might have " heterosexual issues ". Until I see that the OP has clearly gone overboard, I give that poster the benefit of the doubt before I throw out such hateful phrases as " homophobic ". The burden is not on the OP it's seems to me. The burden rests with anyone who willy nilly throws out into the discussion that someone needs to clarify what they mean in order for us not to believe that they have " homophobic issues ". Lets not be trigger happy here.

I'm not calling anyone anything. I never called Black Star a homophobe. Its okay to dislike feminine dancing becasue aesthetically it doesn't please you. In the same way you may not like a certain peice of artwork. I was more analyzing the issue than analyzing Blackstar. And rather than get upset over my percieved meaning of his his comments. I asked questions.

I just want to know what exactly is at the heart of the issue being discussed: Feminine dancing being used ineffectively in shows (for a specific case of Madison 2009) or the complete dislike of feminine dancing used at all (either because of social issues or personal aesthetic preference). And I think I'm being very fair in asking for clarifications. If some one has questions about something that I've posted I'd want to make sure that I'm clearly understood.

People are entitled to their opinions. I just want to make sure that I clearly understand them.

My take on this issue is that feminine dancing by male guard members is all right as long as its used effectively. There is really no reason that they should dance like that ALL the time when different moods and themes are present through out the entire show. I'm under the impression that feminine dancing conveys a certain kind of style and emotion. But the nature of feminine dancing is exagerated motions in order to be seen by audience members. So it may appear that guards use mostly feminine dancing from the audiences perspective becasue it the most visually effective style in terms of visibility and movement. Of course, there are exceptions and I hadn't really thought about it until this thread came up.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Rimba47

[byline]

I don't know why I'm somewhat "offended" by this topic... but for some reason I am, even though I'm not a color guard performer. I would imagine that straight and gay men alike who perform in color guards would be offended by these types of sweeping characterizations as well..

Should we sit down with the Olympic figure skaters, and suggest that they are not worthy of watching because they are "too ladylike?"

Yup, this was exactly the complaint that Elvis Stojko brought up with men's figure skating, and personally, I think he's full of it. When watching Baryshnikov, I'm sure there is much of what he did that some would describe as "prancing" . . . yet it doesn't make him less of a man, or less masculine, for having performed that style of dance.

What is "feminine?"

Exactly. Dance is dance; the choreographer is interpreting music visually, in much the same way that the guard instructor designing equipment work does. Any reading of gender into its style is purely subjective.

I've been to performances when Mikhail Baryshnikov was dancing...and live performances with Karen Kain and Frank Augustyn. Designers generally design for their talent. When guards believe in their program and enjoy performing it, they can better convey it to the audience. I watched some of 2008 and 2009 dvds, however, I'm used to watching drum corps from the stands so I watch the high cam. When a guard enhances the music and adds punctuation to the story, when I see the whole picture and the flow of the program inherent in the music, then I enjoy that drum corps performance.

Hammer, meet nail! Linda, I think you've nailed it . . . though a lot of people won't see it that way. The problem isn't the choreography; it's the conviction with which people -- regardless of gender -- perform it. Others in this thread have claimed that when Baryshnikov danced, he never looked "feminine" (though I would argue that that characterization is highly subjective). The reason I think many people believe that is not because of the style of choreography that he did; take a look around YouTube and you'll see what I mean. But his conviction (not to mention superb dance technique) came through in everything he did. When you dance with the level of self-assurance and technical skill that he had, your audience believes what you're doing.

Edited March 9, 2010 by byline

[deftguy]

I show a lot of different shows to friends when they come round to my house.

the majority of people watching the 'old school' corps are blown away by the precision of the guards. they say they like the way everything is done in time.

That same majority say that the modern guards dont compare. they say that their feet are out of time when they're 'running' around the field, the equipment work may be more intricate but isn't as effective as it's not as clean and sharp and also that the obviously fake emotion on the faces seems like they are trying too hard. apparently emotion should be conveyed effortlessly! (I dont know, I'm a soprano player!)

a few of the people I know are dancers and cant believe that the whole organisation seems to have gone down the route of the dancing guard as what we had (and they've seen) in the late 80's through to the very early 90's was a good mixture of solid equipment work SUPPLEMENTED by dance, not the other way round.

My friends also tell me that a large guard using the same coloured flags doing moves in time is much more effective that a guard dressed in different clothes all doing their own thing.

I'm a LGBT liaison officer at work and quite a few of my house guests are from the community. Several have commented on how Drum Corps guards have changed. Not one called the old school Blue Devils rifle line 'butch lesbians' for being military and bad ### yet many have commented on how 'camp' the modern guards can look!

I've e-mailed a link to this thread and asked their opinions on it. i'll let you know what the results are. I have to warn you though most of my friends from the gay community aren't particularly PC!

Me? I like Blue Devils 88 guard and Madisons rifle line in the early 80's, just so you know ;-)

Many apologies if I've offended anybody.

Wow, do I agree with this post. I could not have said it better myself.

I must admit, I do like some of the equipment books I have seen lately, but the equipment books are getting smaller and smaller in comparison to the dance angle incorporated with the equipment. It seems to me that in an attempt to distance themselves from "military" style of guard, designers have swung the pendelum waaaaay too far the opposite direction, upsetting the almost perfect balance of dance and equipment that I so much enjoyed from the 80's and early 90's.

This is no fault of the kids(so no disrespect), but it entirely the fault of the designers.

The things that irritates me most is that people are far too quick to try to shut down any conversation that does not support everything done of the field today.

[JimF-LowBari]

I must admit, I do like some of the equipment books I have seen lately, but the equipment books are getting smaller and smaller in comparison to the dance angle incorporated with the equipment. It seems to me that in an attempt to distance themselves from "military" style of guard, designers have swung the pendelum waaaaay too far the opposite direction, upsetting the almost perfect balance of dance and equipment that I so much enjoyed from the 80's and early 90's.

Wasn't going to get involved because I haven't seen too much of Jr CG syles in the last few years. But from what I've seen after 10 years away and 7 years back with DCA is some corps with a CG style of "corps does one thing and guard does their own" IOW - two seperate entities that happen to be on the field at the same time. Of course I started when the CG marched with the corps and most had the same style of uni so figure what I got used to.

And can't wait for the opinions from 4181jays LGBT community members. Have a family member with a lesbian couple for neighbors, always enjoy getting their perspective on some things as it can be enlightening. And they are a fun couple to be around (and that has nothing to do with sexuality).

Edited March 9, 2010 by JimF-3rdBari

[BRASSO]

I'm not calling anyone anything. I never called Black Star a homophobe. Its okay to dislike feminine dancing becasue aesthetically it doesn't please you. In the same way you may not like a certain peice of artwork. I was more analyzing the issue than analyzing Blackstar. And rather than get upset over my percieved meaning of his his comments. I asked questions.

I just want to know what exactly is at the heart of the issue being discussed: Feminine dancing being used ineffectively in shows (for a specific case of Madison 2009) or the complete dislike of feminine dancing used at all (either because of social issues or personal aesthetic preference). And I think I'm being very fair in asking for clarifications. If some one has questions about something that I've posted I'd want to make sure that I'm clearly understood.

People are entitled to their opinions. I just want to make sure that I clearly understand them.

My take on this issue is that feminine dancing by male guard members is all right as long as its used effectively. There is really no reason that they should dance like that ALL the time when different moods and themes are present through out the entire show. I'm under the impression that feminine dancing conveys a certain kind of style and emotion. But the nature of feminine dancing is exagerated motions in order to be seen by audience members. So it may appear that guards use mostly feminine dancing from the audiences perspective becasue it the most visually effective style in terms of visibility and movement. Of course, there are exceptions and I hadn't really thought about it until this thread came up.

I've never said, nor implied anywhere above, that I did not like " feminine dancing ". So I really can't respond to this.

Edited March 9, 2010 by BRASSO

[Jeff Ream]

uh . . . yes. Not all of the audience is confused. Perception and understanding is part of the problem. I didn't say that there aren't badly designed guard programs and sometimes concepts are unclear. But it's not as black and white as some want to make it seem. (And there were badly designed color guards in the 70s and the 80s too.)

Nobody is being chased away. It's plain to see that this community can't come to a consensus about anything. No matter what is put on the field, some will like it and some won't.

so, by your logic, if the audience doesn't understand, it is their fault. I'll disagree. A lot of people go to shows to be entertained, and don't want to feel like they have to research going to a show just to "get it"

[Lance]

so, by your logic, if the audience doesn't understand, it is their fault. I'll disagree. A lot of people go to shows to be entertained, and don't want to feel like they have to research going to a show just to "get it"

Can you name shows that would require research on the part of an attendee to "get it"?

I know I can. Whenever I bring new people to a DCI show, they don't really get any of it from the drill not showing recognizable pictures 100% of the time to music selections they've never heard at a college marching band show.

But for people who have attended at least 1 show and enjoyed it enough to keep going, I can't think of a single show where they're so stupid (or the show design is so abstract) they can't "get it."

[deftguy]

Wasn't going to get involved because I haven't seen too much of Jr CG syles in the last few years. But from what I've seen after 10 years away and 7 years back with DCA is some corps with a CG style of "corps does one thing and guard does their own" IOW - two seperate entities that happen to be on the field at the same time. Of course I started when the CG marched with the corps and most had the same style of uni so figure what I got used to.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with today's guard. I blame that on WGI.

[soccerguy315]

Can you name shows that would require research on the part of an attendee to "get it"?

I know I can. Whenever I bring new people to a DCI show, they don't really get any of it from the drill not showing recognizable pictures 100% of the time to music selections they've never heard at a college marching band show.

But for people who have attended at least 1 show and enjoyed it enough to keep going, I can't think of a single show where they're so stupid (or the show design is so abstract) they can't "get it."

did you "get" the bluecoats 09 show before the guy explained it on the fan network? Because I didn't. I thought it was a good show, and I was entertained... but I did not "get it" to the level that they were apparently trying to program. I guess this brings up another issue though, which is that you can be entertained without getting the secret show meaning the designers are envisioning in their heads.