You know drum corps is dying when.............

[Michael Boo]

Who says performance art has to evolve?

The people who say performance art has to evolve are the people who are creating it.

How much has opera changed in the last 200 years? Do they now mic their performers?

Uh, yes; some opera performers are now miked. Operas by the likes of Philip Glass and John Adams are VERY different than the operas of 200 years ago, and they even include contemporary instruments such as synthesizers and various World Music instruments. I swear I'm not putting you on.

How about the symphonic orchestra? How many have added synths to the mix? In fact the instrumental make up of the symphonic orchestra is basically the same today as 100 years ago.

The biggest thing that has changed in symphonic orchestra music over the past hundred years is the inclusion of a lot of percussion instruments that would look very much at home in a drum corps front ensemble. The orchestras have not added synths to the classic music that existed prior to the more recent music, but if a contemporary composer writes for synthesizer, it's added when necessary, just as orchestras added the electronic ondes martenot for Messiaen's "Turangalîla Symphony."

Even "stuffy" music evolves with the evolution of who's creating the new "stuffy" music for tomorrow.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Michael Boo

[Newseditor44]

Most of us "Dinosaurs" are in awe of DC CURRENTLY! I think I can speak for many when I say that our only REAL beef about where DC is headed can be summed up in 2 words - "Woodwinds" & "G7"!

P.S, If 1980s FMMs are "Dinosaurs", we of the '50s & '60s are truly "Fossils"!

Thank you for making me feel like a young'n again John!

[Jeff Ream]

I didn't read 31 pages of this thread....

But my mom watched BD's show this year and recognized the Theme from Laura. I watched Blue Devils show and recognized nothing! C'mon dinos.....who's complaining about recognizable music?

Cavies played Mad World......very popular years ago and thanks to Adam Lambert, popular to the younger generation too

and Tears for Fears for the 80's crowd

[Jeff Ream]

That is where you are wrong young grasshopper. Who says performance art has to evolve? How much has opera changed in the last 200 years? Do they now mic their performers? How about the symphonic orchestra? How many have added synths to the mix? In fact the instrumental make up of the symphonic orchestra is basically the same today as 100 years ago. Ballet? In truth most performing arts groups find a niche and exploit that niche. Sure they grow. There's different staging and interpretation in ballet, opera and symphonic music, as well as the new works. Yet the core of the art form stays the same. I think it is highly unlikely you will see the orchestra start dancing the next time you go to a concert.

DC has forgotten what makes it unique. The pure, hair-raising sound from an all brass choir, the intricate precision of a rudimentary drum line and the movement on the field. Although the pit can be a nice supplement, it has become dominate and polluted the pure brass sound. Everything else is unnecessary.

If a performing arts group wants to survive it must never forget its audience. What's the point of performing if you have nobody there to witness the performance? I think what most dinos object to is the changes have not made DC more entertaining, but less.

[WOOHOO]

That is where you are wrong young grasshopper. Who says performance art has to evolve? How much has opera changed in the last 200 years? Do they now mic their performers? How about the symphonic orchestra? How many have added synths to the mix? In fact the instrumental make up of the symphonic orchestra is basically the same today as 100 years ago. Ballet? In truth most performing arts groups find a niche and exploit that niche. Sure they grow. There’s different staging and interpretation in ballet, opera and symphonic music, as well as the new works. Yet the core of the art form stays the same. I think it is highly unlikely you will see the orchestra start dancing the next time you go to a concert.

DC has forgotten what makes it unique. The pure, hair-raising sound from an all brass choir, the intricate precision of a rudimentary drum line and the movement on the field. Although the pit can be a nice supplement, it has become dominate and polluted the pure brass sound. Everything else is unnecessary.

If a performing arts group wants to survive it must never forget its audience. What’s the point of performing if you have nobody there to witness the performance? I think what most dinos object to is the changes have not made DC more entertaining, but less.

You must not know what's going on in contemporary orchestral and operatic performance at all

Edited August 30, 2010 by WOOHOO

[J_Pep]

What if the solo required actual dynamic contrast? Something beyond f-fffff (in the lower range)?

Then the ensemble playing behind said soloist should be able to come down enough dynamicly to play under the soloist. When I marched it was all about blend and balance and having the technique to do so. I am a horn player. Just my opinion but a lot of times it seems the electronics overpower the ensemble. Especially on the outer seats. Probably cause the horns are directional and sub woofers are omni directional. Sometimes less is more.

[mlubandgroupie]

That is where you are wrong young grasshopper. Who says performance art has to evolve? How much has opera changed in the last 200 years? Do they now mic their performers? How about the symphonic orchestra? How many have added synths to the mix? In fact the instrumental make up of the symphonic orchestra is basically the same today as 100 years ago. Ballet? In truth most performing arts groups find a niche and exploit that niche. Sure they grow. There’s different staging and interpretation in ballet, opera and symphonic music, as well as the new works. Yet the core of the art form stays the same. I think it is highly unlikely you will see the orchestra start dancing the next time you go to a concert.

DC has forgotten what makes it unique. The pure, hair-raising sound from an all brass choir, the intricate precision of a rudimentary drum line and the movement on the field. Although the pit can be a nice supplement, it has become dominate and polluted the pure brass sound. Everything else is unnecessary.

If a performing arts group wants to survive it must never forget its audience. What’s the point of performing if you have nobody there to witness the performance? I think what most dinos object to is the changes have not made DC more entertaining, but less.

Opera and orchestra may not have forgotten their audience, because they don't have much of an audience to forget.

Seriously, that is why the MET is trying ever thing it can think of to grow its audience. (ie: updating the old classics, modern operas, young beautiful less full figured female leads, handsome young male leads who are closer to a six pack than a keg, new sets, nudity for nudities sake, simucast in movie theaters, etc.)

A tough time for the arts.

A couple of questions. How big of a following does the traditional drum and bugle corps have? (ie: Edinburgh tattoo style). One wonders if some on here who cry "drum corps is dying" are not wishing that it does die so they can, stand self-rightously with arms fold, say "I told you so." I hope not.

[geluf]

That is where you are wrong young grasshopper.

Actually, he's spot on.

Who says performance art has to evolve?

Civilization itself. Performance art has done nothing but evolve since its inception.

How much has opera changed in the last 200 years? Do they now mic their performers?

Yes, in many cases. And Opera as a medium has become much more contemporary. Especially the newer compositions.

How about the symphonic orchestra? How many have added synths to the mix? In fact the instrumental make up of the symphonic orchestra is basically the same today as 100 years ago.

The symphony has undergone changes since the very beginning. Brass instruments alone account for a major change (no valve to valve) and the addition of completely new instrument types.

I should note, too, that orchestras are losing attendance at an alarming rate.

Ballet?

Of course ballet changes. As choreography evolves, so to does ballet.

In truth most performing arts groups find a niche and exploit that niche. Sure they grow. There’s different staging and interpretation in ballet, opera and symphonic music, as well as the new works. Yet the core of the art form stays the same. I think it is highly unlikely you will see the orchestra start dancing the next time you go to a concert.

And every single one of those mediums is losing attendance hand over fist. The arts have ALWAYS been thus: Evolve or Die. You can't change it, it's a fundamental fact.

DC has forgotten what makes it unique. The pure, hair-raising sound from an all brass choir, the intricate precision of a rudimentary drum line and the movement on the field. Although the pit can be a nice supplement, it has become dominate and polluted the pure brass sound. Everything else is unnecessary.

If a performing arts group wants to survive it must never forget its audience. What’s the point of performing if you have nobody there to witness the performance? I think what most dinos object to is the changes have not made DC more entertaining, but less.

And that is completely your opinion. Sorry, but the way the activity was when you remember it being great would not interest 99 percent of today's youth in the slightest.

Why?

*Because Performance Art Evolves*

Edited August 30, 2010 by geluf

[Todd Tanji]

Interesting turn this thread has taken. My favorite subject.

Here is an article that describes what has become of Jazz music because

it has failed to attract a younger audience: Can Jazz Be Saved?

Not only is the audience for jazz shrinking, but it’s growing older—fast. The median age of adults in America who attended a live jazz performance in 2008 was 46. In 1982 it was 29.

• Older people are also much less likely to attend jazz performances today than they were a few years ago. The percentage of Americans between the ages of 45 and 54 who attended a live jazz performance in 2008 was 9.8%. In 2002, it was 13.9%. That’s a 30% drop in attendance.

• Even among ­college-educated adults, the audience for live jazz has shrunk significantly, to 14.9% in 2008 from 19.4% in 1982.

These numbers indicate that the audience for jazz in America is both aging and shrinking at an alarming rate. What I find no less revealing, though, is that the median age of the jazz audience is now comparable to the ages for attendees of live performances of classical music (49 in 2008 vs. 40 in 1982), opera (48 in 2008 vs. 43 in 1982), nonmusical plays (47 in 2008 vs. 39 in 1982) and ballet (46 in 2008 vs. 37 in 1982). In 1982, by contrast, jazz fans were much younger than their high-culture counterparts.

If drum corps does not find a way to appeal to young people we are sealing our fate. And that is not an easy task

given the many competing forms of entertainment now available to them because of modern technology. Amps, synths,

and woodwinds are not our greatest concern. Not by a long shot.

[WOOHOO]

And that is completely your opinion. Sorry, but the way the activity was when you remember it being great would not interest 99 percent of today's youth in the slightest.

Why?

*Because Performance Art Evolves*

I will disagree with this, though most everything else you said was close. There are plenty of young people who would enjoy that style of drum corps; There are also plenty who wouldn't. It's certainly not 99% percent.

Also, we all know evolution is not 100% forward and unique from the past. It does ebb and flow, and our definition of evolution is greatly morphed by what we assign personal importance to, even if it's not 100% in the realm of reality.