Has Drum Corps Lost Its Soul

[CrunchyTenor]

electronics were vaunted as a fix, and a boon to future attendance Tom. go back and read the PR BS.

Fix'd!

While I personally don't recall anything regarding adding BITS through the use of amplification/electronics, we were bombarded with claims that it would eliminate the need for multiple keyboards, and allow the players to use "concert technique." Well, the big guys still have a crapload of keys in the pit, and many of the players are still banging away on the keys. So the argument to save money on keyboard instrument purchases, as well as reduced maintenence costs, were a load of hooey.

Just as the argument that passing the any-key rule would allow more start-ups by virtue of the "cheaper" instruments and kids bringing their own to march corps was that much a dog and pony show. A very small number of corps did this, but when push came to shove and they wanted to be more competitive, they invested in matching sets of horns. Case in point: Esperanza. First year or two saw a mish-mash of brass in silver and brass lacquer, but they got the corps off the ground. Several years later, with the added expenses of state-of-the-art equipment and increased touring...*POOF*...gone.

Regarding pit growth allowing more kids the opportunityto march, what about the brass, battery percussion or guard kids that didn't get to march because the pit jumped from 4 marching keys to 12 non-marching members? Only with two rules changes allowing corps to grow from 128 to 135, then 150, did the brass lines, battery and guard get back to their original numbers. Most of the recovery has been in brass which, IMO, need to the extra 10-20 players to approach the presence of G bugles.

And though Tom repeats the old adage of "you aren't required to use amplification and electronics", you also aren't required to use three valve brass in Bb/F. But how far would you get in competition if you went out with marching keys, P/R G bugles, 15" snares with mylar heads and tri-toms? It's the perception of being competitive, and if you want to keep up with the Jones', you'd better be state-of-the-art.

To go back to the OP (no, really!), there was a lot more community recognition of the local drum corps back in the AL/VFW days between the World Wars, and shortly after the second one. At least according to the articles in DCW's "The History of Drum and Bugle Corps: Volume 1". A lot had to do with a much larger veterans groups, plus the SAL* corps, CYO corps, PAL corps, Boy Scout corps, etc.

Also, in response to the OP's initial post, I see a lot of the problem with today's corps experience vs past experience is the win-at-all-costs attitude. Continuous rule changes, additional expenses and fewer options to march concentrate the majority of the talent, with the financial reality to march, in a small and elite group of corps. Add to that the mindset of "Top-6 or die" from auditioning potential members (along with the "If I don't make Corps X, I'm not marching" (hello, maybe marching in another corps would give you the chops to successfully audition next year?)) and we have the model of drum corps in the 21st Century.

Garry in Vegas

*SAL = Sons of the American Legion.

Edited September 7, 2010 by CrunchyTenor

[leif]

Many have said that drum corps is a wholesome activity that teaches our youth discipline, respect, and the need for physical fitness. Is this still true, or has drum corps lost its soul.

Drum corps began as a community support activity to instill values, discipline, respect and stressed physical fitness.

I seem to recall reading, in that big drum corps history book that came out a few years ago, that modern drum corps in America was started by veterans returning from WWI. Now, I'm not a veteran, and it's possible that these guys spent their time together, when not practicing, discussing poetry and drinking tea, but my guess is that modern drum corps has its roots planted firmly in soil watered with copious amounts of alcohol, cigar smoke, and licentious behavior.

Based on my own experience in the 1980's, when stories of the drugs and violence of 70's drum corps circulated among the members, and seeing the incredible level of fitness among members these days (when was the last time you saw one of those "big-guy" sop, er, trumpet players wailing on the sideline?), I would have to say that drum corps is evolving to a point of wholesomeness where it will simply be considered a branch of the Mormon church.

[TerriTroop]

To answer the OP's question: no.

The kids are still working hard (harder than ever, IMO), they share the same sense of community that those who have marched previously have shared, they understand what it means to work hard for a common goal, and they do all of what they do while having to navigate their own growing personalities, egos and the sometimes awkward social situations that come with youth. We can argue about the technical aspects of drum corps instrumentation and/or movement 'til we're blue in the face, but that part of drum corps will always be in flux. But, the soul of drum corps is not lost.

If if anyone reading this really wants to see changes to technical aspects, get involved. Do more than go to a show or 2 a year. Become active with your alumni organization. Talk to staff. Let people know when you like stuff, not just when you don't like stuff. Sponsor members. Talk to kids - you'd be surprised how many of them don't like the same stuff some of us don't like. (but some of them do like it.) Posting stuff to DCP is not nearly as effective as building relationships with the real people making real decisions about the activity.

[mgarside83]

the two on not related. Please do not conflate the two.

Electronics has NO significant cost to a drum corps. Neither does the 15 new members allowed (well 17 for some who remember the 128 rule).

I would challenge anyone to show me a corps balance sheet and then break down the percentage of expense for the electronics. Yes, and since it's been around ling enough, you should be able to show upkeep and maintenance.

I would guess the cost of fuel to be way more significant on any budget sheet you can offer.

So, the next strawman would be...that any increase in a corps' budget is a potential negative. To which I would argue this...kids getting opportunities that were otherwise denied. When they grounded the pit, I am sure there was a drum corps planet in a different media...yeah it was discussion in the stands...how this was going to be the end of drum corps. It allowed new musicians the drum corps opportunity.

The difference being, pit instruments are percussion intruments. Drum and bugle corps is percussion and brass by definition. An electric synth falls into neither category. Pit didn't change the definition of drum corps, just a different approach. If you are ok with electronics, then you have to be ok with woodwinds and strings and whatever else.

[mgarside83]

The difference being, pit instruments are percussion intruments. Drum and bugle corps is percussion and brass by definition. An electric synth falls into neither category. Pit didn't change the definition of drum corps, just a different approach. If you are ok with electronics, then you have to be ok with woodwinds and strings and whatever else.

And don't get me wrong, I like that corps can now amplifie pit intruments, and play with softer mallets that produce much better sound. However, I think that is all the electronics should be used for. Synth, quitars, and all that stuff is not drum corps.

[CrownStarr]

The difference being, pit instruments are percussion intruments. Drum and bugle corps is percussion and brass by definition. An electric synth falls into neither category. Pit didn't change the definition of drum corps, just a different approach. If you are ok with electronics, then you have to be ok with woodwinds and strings and whatever else.

Says who? I'm sure there were plenty of people BITD who felt that "Drum and bugle corps is marching percussion and brass by definition", and that pits completely changed the definition of drum corps. Say what you will, but statements like that one are pretty darn relative.

[N.E. Brigand]

there were articles on dci.org where some of them said it would drag in the band kids... even here George says it:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.ma...DCI+passes+amps

George said this in the link -- bold is mine:

I would like to think that over time, those with the power to bring DCI and the participating corps to greater heights, will consider that the inclusion of instruments, electronics, and the amplification of such is but a step in our evolution.

I do not see anyplace where he said anything remotely like what you are asserting. He said that his proposal moved DCI in the direction he thought best for the long term survival, not that merely permitting electronics and amps would draw in band kids: that the shows being created and the performances of the members would remain at the front of marching music with these and other additions, and would lead to the greater relevance to those DCI is targeting as audience and future members.

I'm going to repost an earlier comment I made in this thread:

If you read Hopkins's 2007 electronics proposal [PDF], it's pretty much that. He says that audience growth will come from "young people" who are "plugged in" and that drum corps has to recruit from marching bands and that they are getting more "mainstream". Blah blah rock blah blah rap blah blah saxophones.

In this proposal he doesn't say "electronics means bigger crowds" directly, but it's pretty strongly implied. I'm sure there are articles with more candid quotes.

Thanks for posting that. (Did he really mean to write "good is god"?) As you say, Hopkins does connect electronics to audience growth:

This addition would change that product. The problem in catering to these people ["Classic Audience of 1975"] --- 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....

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.

Since rock 'n' roll has been the preferred music of young people for more than 50 years, I'm not sure why the kids of 1975 (did they "attend the opera"?) weren't disappointed by drum corps' lack of electronics. Also, Hopkins has apparently not seen MTV since the 1990s.

To emphasize: Hopkins feels the older audience, who might be opposed to electronics, is shrinking, and that their desires should be set aside in favor a a younger audience that desires electronics -- he is clearly connecting audience size to use of electronics.

On further review of the proposal, I'm interested to see that Hopkins had long since addressed the Frostian argument I lately made, that using electronics in drum corps is "playing tennis with the net down", when he wrote:

There is a school of thought that says true genius arrives when we confine the creator, forcing rules and limitations upon the product. Only in this way, say some, can we see who indeed is truly a master.

Although a fine philosophy, one might point to the world of drum corps and say, “alas, I can see we have very few geniuses devoting their skills to the world of marching music”.

As skywhopper says, it's somewhat surprising that the other corp directors, having thus been told that they were hacks, opted nonetheless to support electronics. Maybe each thought he was referring to someone else. Maybe they're all just that modest. Or maybe they were pacified by Hopkins's own admission of defeat. In any case, Hopkins's reply essentially amounts to saying that it's easier to play shuffleboard on the tennis court with the net down. Or that a book would be so much better as a book if only it were a movie.

[jjeffeory]

It certainly is enforceable in any school situation; the kid is not kicked out of the Mon – Fri band "class" which includes a grade; he is just not eligible to compete in extracurricular Friday night halftime shows and Saturday competitions. This is akin to a kid who fails English can be knocked out of Science Fair Competition but still remain in Science "Class". Moreover, a grade for an activity that performs on Friday night or Saturday (outside of class time) should not in any way be given in a formal Mon – Fri class; those time periods are by definition out of class time activities. And although I agree with pulling a failing student out of an extracurricular activity, I would fight tooth and nail if my kid's class grade was affected one way or the other by a Saturday out of class time performance.

The problem with this logic is that for many marching bands, the performances and competitions are part of the grade for the class. If you do not attend a game or a contest, your grade suffers. It's akin to not doing your homework, or missing the grade for a research paper or take home test.

In my band, every rehearsal and performance was graded as part of the class. So this rule actually would cause problems.

I understand your logic if marching band is considered extra curricular, but many to most programs that I've seen do not consider it such. Maybe things have changed?

Edited September 7, 2010 by jjeffeory

[CrownStarr]

To emphasize: Hopkins feels the older audience, who might be opposed to electronics, is shrinking, and that their desires should be set aside in favor a a younger audience that desires electronics -- he is clearly connecting audience size to use of electronics.

I think you're reading a great deal into that statement that just isn't there. Hopkins about the question of a single rule change. He's talking in a far broader sense. Your summary might be better written like so:

Hopkins feels the older audience [...] is shrinking, and that their desires should be set aside in favor a a younger audience [...].

He said nothing to indicate that this was a statement specifically about electronics, as opposed to a statement about a broader philosophy that might encompass the use of electronics, among many other things.

Edited September 7, 2010 by CrownStarr

[jjeffeory]

My first year in HS marching band was 1964 and in drum corps, 1965. Back then, apart from instrumentation, the overall differences --in general-- between marching bands & corps were distinct. I eventually taught [always as a hobby] HS & college marching bands, jr & sr corps and also, for a couple years, judged HS & corps contests.

I note that the former distinct differences --again, in general-- between marching bands & corps [including, certainly, their instrumentation] have become almost nonexistent. Corps & bands have become and/or are becoming 'McMarching' groups, separate and distinct only by whether they're academic or non-academic in sponsorship, if they use woodwinds or not, and by how "polished" and complex/simple are their shows.

My sense --increasingly of dismay-- is that corps and marching bands [with, that I can think of, the notable exceptions of "show bands" and "mummer/string bands"] will eventually be all but indistinguishable from each other. And this trans-formative overlap; this merging of marching music identities has happened in roughly 50 years.

Closing with a question from a higher perspective: apart from the differences or percentage in the numbers of groups, have fife & drum corps as well as pipe bands undergone such pivotal changes?

It's more of the homogenization of America.