Has Drum Corps Lost Its Soul

[N.E. Brigand]

He did say young people are the future audience, but he spoke in broad terms about making drum corps relevant and attractive to these people. He in no way tied himself to any single thing as you seem to be trying to say.

One of Hopkins's justifications for his proposal to change the rules to allow full use of electronics, in that very proposal, was that such new-fangled gizmos would attract a larger, younger audience. It really is that clear. That's all I've been saying. I'm sure Hopkins thinks other changes will also increase audience size; I'm also sure that no one on these boards doubts that Hopkins believes that electronics are just one of several adjustments that will increase audience size. But here he was making an argument for allowing electronics -- presumably he wouldn't have cited the need to appeal to a young audience in that document if he didn't think it supported his case for electronics.

For quick reference, here is the relevant portion of the proposal:

AUDIENCE IMPACT: (How will this affect our audience and their perceptions of the activity?)

When looking at this question, we have to determine the audience of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Yesterday --- The Classic Audience of 1975 that continues to dominate some of today’s conversation will not like this. These people want drum corps the way they remember it and I am very appreciative of this thought process. I too like drum corps as it was and is, but I am also aware that something needs to change.

This addition would change that product. The problem in catering to these people --- they are a diminishing group in terms of numbers. Personally, I love them, I want to make them leap from their seats, but for the sake of tomorrow, and we cannot use this class of people only as the opinion makers for our performing groups.

RAMD will not care for this idea.

Some Alumni will not care for this idea.

Some fans will threaten their support and curse any action.

We need to move on in the face of vocal disagreement. It is our responsibility to create a tomorrow for the kids who want to be a part of this activity. We need to do what we believe to be right, we need to hold to the values of creativity that made drum corps what it is today. Equal shares of tradition and innovation, this is the key.

Today --- When we go to Texas we see the possibility. The 11,000 people in the stands are predominantly students. They watch MTV, they listen to Rock and Rap, they do not attend the opera, they read Seventeen, and they look at drum corps, when we are at out best, as “ Rock Stars for Bands”. We give credence to what THEY DO. We are indeed, a personification of what is possible.

They love the excellence of drum corps. These kids love to see the THROW DOWN; they want us to go fast and play loud, and to let them have FUN.

None of this will change. The introverted pondering production will be the same, and the jovial, fun; fast paced, crowd-pleasing extravaganza will be that again ---- just more so.

In my opinion, we need to recognize that kids are in the stands. They grow up plugged in. We can show them it is not a bad thing. Not a bad thing at all.

Tomorrow – Our audience, as it grows, has a base in youth.

This in mind, a reasonable evaluation would be that the young people are not coming into the stands to replace those who depart for reasons of their doing, and simply because they are called from this world.

There are 20,000 marching bands; there are 2 million young people in marching bands; DCI needs to go after these young people as our primary audience.

There is no question. Marching music is not going to be a mainstream activity indeed we are moving more towards being a relic of a bygone age.

As we reposition ourselves we need to be COOL. The more we can show that MUSIC IS COOL, the better are our chances of being around, the better is the opportunity to affect the ages, the greater is the possibility for a revitalization of what we all hold as good within the current activity --- excellence and excitement ( sometimes )

Again I'll note that the young audience of 1975 had known Rock all their lives, and that MTV hasn't played music for years -- which is to say, he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

[N.E. Brigand]

Practically every change they have made in the last decade has been a crutch...

Bb ... amps ... mikes ... synths

No more than adding the first valve, then the rotary, then 2-valves, then three ... adding multi-drums, then timpani, then mallets, etc. Why not go back to 1955?

It's a fair question. But everyone is entitled to draw the line somewhere. If a corps' arranger omitted the brass entirely, some people would say that wasn't drum corps anymore, and some would say that it was a nice change. If a corps' designer omitted marching entirely, some people would say that wasn't drum corps anymore, and some would say that it was a nice change. If the rules were changed to allow CGI video projection in lieu of actual human beings on the field, some people would say that wasn't drum corps anymore, and some would say that it was a nice change. At some point along the road to the bright shiny future, I believe even you would be in the first camp.

[MikeD]

One of Hopkins's justifications for his proposal to change the rules to allow full use of electronics, in that very proposal, was that such new-fangled gizmos would attract a larger, younger audience. It really is that clear. That's all I've been saying. I'm sure Hopkins thinks other changes will also increase audience size; I'm also sure that no one on these boards doubts that Hopkins believes that electronics are just one of several adjustments that will increase audience size. But here he was making an argument for allowing electronics -- presumably he wouldn't have cited the need to appeal to a young audience in that document if he didn't think it supported his case for electronics.

Yes, as one change among others to continue the decades old process of changes to keep drum corps relevant and attractive to audiences. Not "electronics=more people", but rather "more relevant and contemporary drum corps = more people". IMO the two are not the same thing.

[MikeD]

No more than adding the first valve, then the rotary, then 2-valves, then three ... adding multi-drums, then timpani, then mallets, etc. Why not go back to 1955?

It's a fair question. But everyone is entitled to draw the line somewhere. If a corps' arranger omitted the brass entirely, some people would say that wasn't drum corps anymore, and some would say that it was a nice change. If a corps' designer omitted marching entirely, some people would say that wasn't drum corps anymore, and some would say that it was a nice change. If the rules were changed to allow CGI video projection in lieu of actual human beings on the field, some people would say that wasn't drum corps anymore, and some would say that it was a nice change. At some point along the road to the bright shiny future, I believe even you would be in the first camp.

I suppose at some point I might be, but as of yet nothing comes close to moving me into that camp. And I do agree people can draw their own personal line where they wish, of course. I personally find it sad that some who profess such great love for change in the day...e.g. the Bayonne Bridgemen from 76 onward...are so stuck in the mud today. I heard lots of "Ew, that's not drum corps" at shows in my area when they first donned the banana unis in 76.

Today they are one of the most beloved (rightly so) corps ever, witness the GREAT reaction to the alumni corps (who are magnificent, BTW).

[Jeff Ream]

You keep trying to tie all this to one thing, electronics. Hoppy did NOT say any such thing, so no he is not doing this at all. He speaks of making all sorts of changes to attract the audience he believes should be the target, but no, he did not tunnel-vision his position to the use of electronics. You're stretching waaaay beyond what he said, IMO.

oh please. he trots it out every time. if he didntbelieve it, he wouldn't say it

[Jeff Ream]

Apparently you don't, otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to tie unrelated things together as if they are cause and effect.

yeah you're still trying to dig Fiedler out 6 years later.

[Jeff Ream]

Yes, as one change among others to continue the decades old process of changes to keep drum corps relevant and attractive to audiences. Not "electronics=more people", but rather "more relevant and contemporary drum corps = more people". IMO the two are not the same thing.

he's doing a great job too. attendance is down

[Eric M. Buckman]

Bottom Line is entertainment value...and this says it all...Artistic...Humor and Music= Entertainment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlNVCfSF5ps

[supersop]

AUDIENCE IMPACT: (How will this affect our audience and their perceptions of the activity?)

When looking at this question, we have to determine the audience of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Yesterday --- The Classic Audience of 1975 that continues to dominate some of today’s conversation will not like this. These people want drum corps the way they remember it and I am very appreciative of this thought process. I too like drum corps as it was and is, but I am also aware that something needs to change.

This addition would change that product. The problem in catering to these people --- they are a diminishing group in terms of numbers. Personally, I love them, I want to make them leap from their seats, but for the sake of tomorrow, and we cannot use this class of people only as the opinion makers for our performing groups.

RAMD will not care for this idea.

Some Alumni will not care for this idea.

Some fans will threaten their support and curse any action.

We need to move on in the face of vocal disagreement. It is our responsibility to create a tomorrow for the kids who want to be a part of this activity. We need to do what we believe to be right, we need to hold to the values of creativity that made drum corps what it is today. Equal shares of tradition and innovation, this is the key.

Today --- When we go to Texas we see the possibility. The 11,000 people in the stands are predominantly students. They watch MTV, they listen to Rock and Rap, they do not attend the opera, they read Seventeen, and they look at drum corps, when we are at out best, as “ Rock Stars for Bands”. We give credence to what THEY DO. We are indeed, a personification of what is possible.

They love the excellence of drum corps. These kids love to see the THROW DOWN; they want us to go fast and play loud, and to let them have FUN.

None of this will change. The introverted pondering production will be the same, and the jovial, fun; fast paced, crowd-pleasing extravaganza will be that again ---- just more so.

In my opinion, we need to recognize that kids are in the stands. They grow up plugged in. We can show them it is not a bad thing. Not a bad thing at all.

Tomorrow – Our audience, as it grows, has a base in youth.

This in mind, a reasonable evaluation would be that the young people are not coming into the stands to replace those who depart for reasons of their doing, and simply because they are called from this world.

There are 20,000 marching bands; there are 2 million young people in marching bands; DCI needs to go after these young people as our primary audience.

There is no question. Marching music is not going to be a mainstream activity indeed we are moving more towards being a relic of a bygone age.

As we reposition ourselves we need to be COOL. The more we can show that MUSIC IS COOL, the better are our chances of being around, the better is the opportunity to affect the ages, the greater is the possibility for a revitalization of what we all hold as good within the current activity --- excellence and excitement ( sometimes )

Oh how I want to pick this apart ........... maybe in a few hours after I've actually slept. There is just sooooo much WRONG in these statements that it will take me time to decide where to hit it first.

[TerriTroop]

Maybe we should take a step back and consider the possibility that a certain corps director is not the only influential person in drum corps with strong ideas about how to build a stronger future for this activity. This ain't his baby to run. He's got one corps, and one corps only. There are plenty of others out there who have a stake in this thing, and just because their leadership isn't constantly spewing out their ideas doesn't mean they don't have any.

The only reason GH gets so much attention is that he's willing to put his face on the issues that many dislike. He's been doing it for years and years, and because of that many start to assume that nobody else has any new ideas. That's not the way to the future, people.

/rant