State of drum corps manifesto

[Mello Dude]

I thought we just did say the Bb horns are not as loud....and with an objective measurement also.

They aren't. I can play a trumpet loud. I can play a soprano bugle louder. There is no contradiction.

[IanKShields]

I get extremely tired of people trying to corner folks like me (a "dinosaur") by saying we're just chasing what we loved about the activity of the past. It's just wrong in so many cases.

The OP has some excellent points. Nowhere did he say we need G bugles back, we need to put pits back on the field marching, etc. Most of us "dinosaurs" have either liked, or come to positive terms with, the changes of the activity. To dismiss such a heart-felt piece of writing from a long-time supporter and fan is.... well, I frankly feel it's the easy way out. It's so much easier to give a dismissive answer and ignore the post than it is to look for any middle ground. And I think that post is filled with great places to find that middle ground.

Here is some food for thought that came to mind after reading the OP: I believe indoor drumline and color guard is the hatching place for the electronic additions we are seeing right now. People keep associating it with marching band, but honestly I think it's not even that mainstream. I enjoy indoor stuff. I think it's great! I like what is done with electronics. I think it's a great and innovative move in the world of marching percussion and guard. But the disconnect for me is when we add acoustic brass instruments to the sonic mix. I do not think drum corps is benefiting in the world of audience appeal or GE by bringing certain uses of electronics into the activity.

I also believe that it is not important to the kids marching out there that their corps is or is not using electronics. If every top tier corps out there suddenly stopped using narration and other electronic effects (I'm not talking pit amps), I bet you $100 right here and now that those corps would still be just fine in the recruitment department and they'd hit the field full and ready to rock just as hard as they do now. Maybe more so in some cases.

Now, back to the dinosaur part of my reply: I teach music in grade school and high school. I have 2 music degrees (Bachelor and Master in Music Theory). I can easily dig Beetoven, Brahms, Bartok, Barber, Adams or Mackey right alongside great jazz artists past and present, blues, rock, alternative electronic music, you name it. I can tolerate what some call "chop-n-bop" as long as the whole show flows in a way that makes sense. I love a hot drum lick with indoor-style movement as much as a rippin' 16th note run in a brass line while flying at breakneck speed through the meatgrinder drill thrown at them by the newest drum corps artists of our time. And if the guard dancing makes sense, I'll get it. So to say that people like me (dinosaurs) are just chasing our past is incredibly dismissive.

And like someone else said: drum corps wouldn't be here today if it weren't for us dinos. So show a little respect to DW who has put so much of himself out there on the line for this activity. That's all I'm sayin'.

In the midst here, I think you've hit a particular nail straight on the head.

So much of the discussions I read here about "accessibility" and "average audiences" and "melody" etc etc seem to blame creativity and musical sophistication for the lack of audience involvement. Much is ballyhooed about how only "music majors" and "band geeks" could possibly understand innovative music and movement.

But understandably, they've almost completely missed the point. Perhaps they haven't had the language to express it. But they've got one thing right: a choppy show doesn't work. It doesn't go anywhere.

One thing a musician is useful for, is we do learn a few things about music and listener involvement. As you pointed out, any show of any advancement and sophistication can be improved by a sense of building excitement, tension and release, an "arc" that is clear from opening note to thrilling finish.

This goes for a classic whistleable Madison Scouts "all-hits-all-the-time" show, and a Santa Clara "Bartok" show, and anything beyond. Regardless of your musical and visual material, an audience taken on a well-guided ride and plopped back safely in their seats at the finish will feel good.

As a percussionist, I've seen "average" audiences react well to some of the most out-there stuff, when the stuff reached out and engaged them, had continuity from beginning to end, and ended with a worthwhile release.

I'll bet that doing one element better -- an effective dramatic arc -- in more show designs, would save 90% of the misdirected griping we hear about everything else.

Edited July 16, 2010 by IanKShields

[IanKShields]

and there is the issue...how to retain them, but add new. It is a tough dillemma, but it seems to many designers are worried about creating art as opposed to putting more ##### in the seats that pay their bills

Gosh, too bad that so many designers are thinking about design, ain't it?

Why aren't they thinking about MONEY and PROFITS instead?

What kinda Americans are they anyway? Harrumph!

[atlvalet]

Why aren't they thinking about MONEY and PROFITS instead?

Actually, they should be thinking about the audience...instead of themselves or whatever seems to motivate them nowadays. This is an entertainment medium, which means every time someone gets off their duffs and applauds it means success. Polite golf clap = fail. It means, I appreciate your effort, but other than that, "meh."

You entertain people, they will show up and the money will follow. It always does.

Edited July 16, 2010 by atlvalet

[IanKShields]

I'd change the rules of GE to award "audience effect" - basically give an entertainment score as to how the show reaches the audience. That'll force changes in show design overnight. (And no, I'm not talking about applause-o-meters. If you can find a judge right now to actually interpret GE (something I think is a fairly nebulous concept), then you can find one to critique audience effectiveness.)

Mike

I'm all for critiquing audience effectiveness.

I've seen some pretty ineffective audiences...

[ducttapedgerbil]

They aren't. I can play a trumpet loud. I can play a soprano bugle louder. There is no contradiction.

I agree with you 100%....but I would bet there would still be those that would try and argue the point with you. There is something pervasive running through society these last 20 or so years. And it is something that only those with several years as an adult before that time would be able to recognize. In general, people aren't so interested in understanding the facts or knowing the truth anymore. They are more interested in winning an argument and if that means marginalizing either the person or the facts or opinion itself they will do whatever it takes in attacking the opposition. Personally I would rather be right and in trying to acheive that goal try and find out as much factual information as possible. Also, keep in mind that opinions are many times a result of perceived facts. If your opinion is based upon factual information it can indeed be a wrong opinion.

just thought I would throw that out there....

Edited July 16, 2010 by ducttapedgerbil

[IanKShields]

Actually, they should be thinking about the audience...instead of themselves or whatever seems to motivate them nowadays. This is an entertainment medium, which means every time someone gets off their duffs and applauds it means success. Polite golf clap = fail. It means, I appreciate your effort, but other than that, "meh."

You entertain people, they will show up and the money will follow. It always does.

Yep, just tickle their feathered chins, and the audience will obligingly lay a golden egg. They're just geese, every one alike.

Just ignore every image you have in your own well-trained and talented head, and try to design something that exists only in their collective head (whatever it is they've got up there).

Just ignore every sound you've heard yourself, every bit of knowledge, all the love of music you've accumulated, insult its memory even, and try to make music that's worth a #### -- strictly from the noises inside the cackling brainstem of that big imaginary golden goose.

"Entertainment".

Sure sounds simple, don't it?

Try it sometime.

[BlooooContra]

Firstoff, D-W, if you're at the home show this year and feel that shows aren't entertaining, I'll buy you a beer. And then 8 more. And then, yes, they'll be quite entertaining. As will the intoxicated alumni swinging t-shirts above their heads while "BLOOOOO"-ing during random corps' shows.

But seriously, without trying to take sides, I just want to raise the question: Are we in the Stravinsky era of drum corps? After all, Rite of Spring infuriated many concertgoers and led to all sorts of boos and walk-outs. It also pushed the bejesus out of the medium in terms of what can be done with tonality and impact within a piece.

Granted, I've yet to see anything of that magnitude at a DCI show, but there's (maybe) a slight parallel to be drawn.

I do agree, though, that ballads need to start being more original. Cadets 2005, Glassmen 2002 and Bluecoats 2001 come to mine as shows that had really cool examples of "ballads" turned on their heads.

[ducttapedgerbil]

Yep, just tickle their feathered chins, and the audience will obligingly lay a golden egg. They're just geese, every one alike.

Just ignore every image you have in your own well-trained and talented head, and try to design something that exists only in their collective head (whatever it is they've got up there).

Just ignore every sound you've heard yourself, every bit of knowledge, all the love of music you've accumulated, insult its memory even, and try to make music that's worth a #### -- strictly from the noises inside the cackling brainstem of that big imaginary golden goose.

"Entertainment".

Sure sounds simple, don't it?

Try it sometime.

seemed to be pretty easy to do in the 80's......

[Mello Dude]

I agree with you 100%....but I would bet there would still be those that would try and argue the point with you. There is something pervasive running through society these last 20 or so years. And it is something that only those with several years as an adult before that time would be able to recognize. In general, people aren't so interested in understanding the facts or knowing the truth anymore. They are more interested in winning an argument and if that means marginalizing either the person or the facts or opinion itself they will do whatever it takes in attacking the opposition. Personally I would rather be right and in trying to acheive that goal try and find out as much factual information as possible. Also, keep in mind that opinions are many times a result of perceived facts. If your opinion is based upon factual information it can indeed be a wrong opinion.

just thought I would throw that out there....

Agreed.