My $.02 on the state of drum corps after Murfreesboro

[Jeff Ream]

Yes, I agree it is an extreme, but extremes beget extremes......yin & yang...you know.

Actually, it is a pretty good show.

well, it'sperformed well, so we half agree on your small print statement

[WOOHOO]

well, it'sperformed well, so I half agree on your small print statement

There. Fixed the statement.

Whew, I feel better

[saxfreq1128]

Wait, I thought Cadets show was about Toy Soldiers? I am still not sure what the heck Cavalier's show is about...

EDIT: Just looked up Cavalier's concept on their website....um, doesn't really seem like a concept to me...seems like a hodgepodge of ideas, which was exactly my take away. Like, "Wait, what is going on here again?" I would also submit that "Mad World" and Full Metal Jacket go together about as well as oil and water. But hey, whatever. Apparently they don't want people to take away the same thing from the show. That's their prerogative, but I think that ends up in creating confusion...not some cathartic moment for the audience.

I can't speak for the Cavaliers, but my takeaway was that they were simply trying to push different takes on the word "Mad": angry, crazy, chaotic, etc. They also seem to find ways to be really ironic on it -- playing on Chaplin's melancholy, etc., being driven mad by war, having to 'put on' a face that defies what you're really feeling, and being driven mad accordingly...

So it IS a hodgepodge, and I think you're right to feel so. But I think it's a hodgepodge of related things. It's a "mad world" because 'mad' is a term so diverse in meaning that it aptly describes everything within it.

I agree with someone's earlier comment that thinking too hard sort of kills it. Some of the more complicated themes this year genuinely make me feel things, and for me that's more important than my having a mastery of the topic.

Edited August 3, 2010 by saxfreq1128

[atlvalet]

Many modern show designers have specifically "said" that their shows leave much room for interpretation...... for example Phantom's show this year. And yes it is art because of this very reason. It is simply one's own opinion if things work or don't work... there is not a "correct" answer for everyone collectively. Calling all drum corps shows "commercial art" is downplaying the level of sophistication and nuance put into these show designs. I see where you are coming from with certain shows like Cavies "Machine" or Cadets' "Toy Souldier"..... but other shows such as BD's this year are completely open for interpretation.

I see post after post on here about how people don't like having to "think too hard", or "figure out" what's going on in modern drum corps shows. Well, the problem is that you are thinking too hard. Watch/listen to the show, and whatever feeling you are left with is the correct one..... if you happen to pick up on a concept, then that is only a plus. Are you supposed to feel a little angry and confused after BD's show?..... absolutely, if that is who you are.... and there is nothing wrong with that. Would commercial art ever leave you feeling angry?..... I think not because it always has a specific purpose. This is not how drum corps has to be.

It could. Good advertising can rile emotions. Unfortunately there isn't much of it in the states. And figuring out is fine (or completing the circle, as ad speak calls it). You just have to make it so that most people can complete the circle of thought.

And I don't think I am thinking too hard. I just think no one is going to get what they (the Cavaliers) are trying to do. Like I said, I come from the commercial art side. It requires artists to have a point. The pure art side doesn't. There are no rules. So, the artist can do whatever he/she/they want without actually have to think things through and have it make sense. And personally, I think the commercial art side is harder (from the concept point of view).

Perhaps there is a misuse of the word "concept" in the drum corps arena. In advertising, it means a "Clearly communicated idea or thought." I would argue that (with regards to the Cavaliers) it is not clearly communicated, and (to me) the elements don't seem to blend together well. And, I still liked the show...it just left me scratching my head wondering what the point was/is.

[atlvalet]

I can't speak for the Cavaliers, but my takeaway was that they were simply trying to push different takes on the word "Mad": angry, crazy, chaotic, etc. They also seem to find ways to be really ironic on it -- playing on Chaplin's melancholy, etc., being driven mad by war, having to 'put on' a face that defies what you're really feeling, and being driven mad accordingly...

So it IS a hodgepodge, and I think you're right to feel so. But I think it's a hodgepodge of related things. It's a "mad world" because 'mad' is a term so diverse in meaning that it aptly describes everything within it.

I agree with someone's earlier comment that thinking too hard sort of kills it. Some of the more complicated themes this year genuinely make me feel things, and for me that's more important than my having a mastery of the topic.

I guess it's my opinion is that it's not a really well thought out hodgepodge. Or at least, that's my impression. I don't think Mad World fits at all with Full Metal Jacket. It's like ketchup on bananas. They may have a lot of quantity of thought into it, I am just not sure it's quality of thought. But hey, who the hell am I...just some dude on the Internets.

[saxfreq1128]

I guess it's my opinion is that it's not a really well thought out hodgepodge. Or at least, that's my impression. I don't think Mad World fits at all with Full Metal Jacket. It's like ketchup on bananas. They may have a lot of quantity of thought into it, I am just not sure it's quality of thought. But hey, who the hell am I...just some dude on the Internets.

Ew...

[oldcavie]

I just think no one is going to get what they (the Cavaliers) are trying to do.

I saw the movie Inception last week. I sat there in awestruck, and dumb, confusion for two hours. I read an article about the movie in the Chicago Tribune today talking about the generational divide between those (younger) viewers who get it, and those (older) viewers who don't. There was commentary about how the video-game-inspired, non-linear, artificial-world-immersion nature of the narrative was comfortable for gamers (meaning young people), but very uncomfortable for non-gamers (meaning old people like me, apparently.)

Earlier this season one of our volunteers made a comment that the 12-30 year old audience really gets our show, but that older fans probably don't. At the time, I thought the comment was curious at best.

The show is intended to be episodic and visceral, not linear and literal. If the crowd reactions and the number of tee shirts we're selling this summer are any indication, lots of people do indeed seem to get what we're doing.

Dave

[atlvalet]

I saw the movie Inception last week. I sat there in awestruck, and dumb, confusion for two hours. I read an article about the movie in the Chicago Tribune today talking about the generational divide between those (younger) viewers who get it, and those (older) viewers who don't. There was commentary about how the video-game-inspired, non-linear, artificial-world-immersion nature of the narrative was comfortable for gamers (meaning young people), but very uncomfortable for non-gamers (meaning old people like me, apparently.)

Earlier this season one of our volunteers made a comment that the 12-30 year old audience really gets our show, but that older fans probably don't. At the time, I thought the comment was curious at best.

The show is intended to be episodic and visceral, not linear and literal. If the crowd reactions and the number of tee shirts we're selling this summer are any indication, lots of people do indeed seem to get what we're doing.

Dave

THanks for that.

I don't need something to be linear. I understood Memento (or at least I think I did) for crying out loud :)

I will say that I saw a YouTube video of a recent Cavies rehearsal, and from higher up towards the box (I was just 12 rows up in Murfreesboro) it flows a lot better. My takeaway from this is that:

A) Amplification must really bother me and

B) During a live performance, it is beyond distracting to hear the pre-recorded messages/sounds through horrible speakers against a backdrop of acoustical instruments.

It's the only explanation that I can come up with on why live I found the show to be just a mess of different things but recorded it seemed to work better. Maybe someone else can figure out a better explanation, but that is what I can come up with.

[skywhopper]

I think that has a lot to do with it, atlvalet. I never sit that far down, but universally, it seems that the PAs overpower the brass in the bottom third of the stands. I have been able to tell a difference it the PA mix from mid-stadium to top-row. I attributed it as much to different shows and different venues but maybe it's simpler than that.

[oldcavie]

I think that has a lot to do with it, atlvalet. I never sit that far down, but universally, it seems that the PAs overpower the brass in the bottom third of the stands. I have been able to tell a difference it the PA mix from mid-stadium to top-row. I attributed it as much to different shows and different venues but maybe it's simpler than that.

Unfortunately, the mix is for the judges.

And for the record, our mics, cables, speakers, amps and mixers are all excellent. We have three professional sound engineers on staff. In a controlled environment, the quality of the sound is also excellent. But every venue is different, and we don't get to do sound checks. Maybe that's an argument against using the equipment at all. But we and the other corps are getting this figured out, and improving quickly.

Dave