Mr. Sondheim says...

[Lance]

Excellent meaning what? Excellent? Because I wouldn't in a million years have picked any one of the tunes in Cavies' 2010 show, and they all worked wonderfully. Yet I bet most of us could agree that every choice in the Blue Knights rep for 2010 was "excellent" music. Where's the love? Or even the respect? Phantom didn't play one tune I recognized or could hum on my way out. Loved the show.

The problem I have with so much of this discussion - Sondheim to Toy Souldier - is this presumption that the contemporary choices are uniquely lacking in the drum corps continuum.

Go back to 1980 (which I picked sort of randomly because it sort of spans the 70/80s) and you'll find Madison and Cadets both treating us to the excellence of Ice Castles. Madison also gave us the eternal They're Playing Our Song. Crossmen featured Superman Medley. There was a Pauper in Paradise from BD, a Masquerade Suite from Phantom and a Hot Consuelo from North Star. I'm not saying some of these didn't work on the field. I'm saying which would you pick today in support of your excellence theme.

Looking at it another way, BD had never tried Ya Gotta Try before 1980. Bridgemen broke out In the Stone for the first time that year. Both tunes were seldom heard since. Were they not excellent?

HH

there you go being rational

it just makes more

[Hrothgar15]

Agreed. Doing what people are familiar with isn't the best answer, though...or at least not the only answer. There are literally thousands of great pieces out there by composers most people aren't familiar with that can become instant classics in dci in the hands of a truly talented arranger. Those are exceedingly rare in dci now because so much emphasis is on visual.

Agreed.

[Hrothgar15]

Excellent meaning what? Excellent? Because I wouldn't in a million years have picked any one of the tunes in Cavies' 2010 show, and they all worked wonderfully. Yet I bet most of us could agree that every choice in the Blue Knights rep for 2010 was "excellent" music. Where's the love? Or even the respect? Phantom didn't play one tune I recognized or could hum on my way out. Loved the show.

The problem I have with so much of this discussion - Sondheim to Toy Souldier - is this presumption that the contemporary choices are uniquely lacking in the drum corps continuum.

Go back to 1980 (which I picked sort of randomly because it sort of spans the 70/80s) and you'll find Madison and Cadets both treating us to the excellence of Ice Castles. Madison also gave us the eternal They're Playing Our Song. Crossmen featured Superman Medley. There was a Pauper in Paradise from BD, a Masquerade Suite from Phantom and a Hot Consuelo from North Star. I'm not saying some of these didn't work on the field. I'm saying which would you pick today in support of your excellence theme.

Looking at it another way, BD had never tried Ya Gotta Try before 1980. Bridgemen broke out In the Stone for the first time that year. Both tunes were seldom heard since. Were they not excellent?

HH

An "excellent" piece isn't necessarily one that the audience immediately recognizes, gets into, and can hum the first time they see that corps in the season, just one that they do so with the third time they see that corps in the season.

[Stu]

An "excellent" piece isn't necessarily one that the audience immediately recognizes, gets into, and can hum the first time they see that corps in the season, just one that they do so with the third time they see that corps in the season.

I will refrain from using the word "excellent" because that is not quite the point. And I know that this is opinion, but I tend to disagree about it takes three times. What we are describing as connecting to the audience is that initial moment you hear something new on the radio which causes so much internal emotion that you pray that the DJ will name the tune and if that does not happen you just have to call the station; or you know that it was a chart by a particular artist so you just have to get online and hear the short samples of everything they recorded just to find that one chart. It is a compulsion; a need; a forceful desire because what you have just heard, or seen, was so powerful in moving your spirit that you must find it again. "That" is what many corps' fail to provide.

[Hrothgar15]

that initial moment you hear something new on the radio which causes so much internal emotion that you pray that the DJ will name the tune and if that does not happen you just have to call the station;

Or take out your phone and have it tell you the title and artist.

[Stu]

Or take out your phone and have it tell you the title and artist.

Ahhh...Technology. The stuff which has ruined the Anticipation of the Romantic!!!

[sarnia sam]

Some come to drum corps for the music.

Some come to drum corps for the visual fireworks.

Some come to drum corps for the performance excellence.

Some come to drum corps for their kids.

Some come to drum corps out of habit.

Some come to drum corps in search of something new.

Some come to drum corps to perform.

Some come to drum corps to win.

Myself, I am seduced by the passion and energy of a great performance. That seduction is even more intense when I care about the music. So, when Harry mentions certain specific performances of the past several years, I agree with him to a great degree based on what I like.

What I don't enjoy is when corps attempt these same conceptual constructs, but with less ability or vision, and then we in the audience sit on our hands -- not because the performers lacked intention, but because the product and the emotional connection fell short.

Intellectual Effect is all fine and good. But, it's not the only valid form of effect, nor even the most important connection in a performance activity that claims to be musically educational.

In keeping with the Topic Heading. . . in Sondheim's "Sunday In The Park With George", one line speaks to me artistically as well as practically.

"Work is what you do for other people. . . Art is what you do for yourself."

Take that for what it's worth.

If your goal is to connect with the audience, then do it.

If you wonder why the audience doesn't go crazy for your show, look at it through their eyes. They see you once. Maybe twice. If you have to still explain it, you're not programming for most people. You are programming primarily for Intellectual Effect, based on repeated viewings by a small segment of repeat viewers and judges.

But don't expect people to pay for the privilege of seeing your "Art" and then be told they are not working hard enough to understand you.

Artistically, there is no right or wrong here. But there is an "ideal" and a "real" world of communication between a performing group and an audience.

In the 80's, Don Angelica encouraged experimentation -- breaking us out of the Chuck Mangione "Children of Sanchez" mode -- and asked the drum corps judging world to reward the "Jeremiah Symphony", Berlioz, new wind band music like "Variations on a Korean Folk Song" and Rutter music. He pushed for variety and difficult repertoire. But he did not push the activity away from melody.

(On a side note: a few corps playing Chuck Mangione music in 1979 for the most part (with nods to the '76 Blue Devils), didn't mean that was the only type of drum corps in the 70's. Try Gustav Holst, Rachmaninov, Kachaturian, Stan Kenton, Stravinsky, John Williams, Claude Bolling, Buddy Rich, and Patrick Williams for starters. . . )

If we think that the ink drying on the next great wind ensemble piece by Frank Ticheli or Eric Whitacre or Stephen Melillo somehow has greater appeal or intrinsic "value" than anything else, then we are mistaking "technique" for music, and faster tempos for "more worthwhile music". Want hard? Try playing "Danny Boy" well enough to make people cry. In a hundred years, people will still know "Danny Boy". Wanna take bets on the rest?

Congratulations. We're a smart bunch of people. But the self-congratulatory attitudes do not grow the activity.

Inviting more people into the party "emotionally" will go a long way in growing the base, and developing life-long connections.

Just my thoughts, from someone in a position to do something about it.

Chuck Naffier

Sondheim Fan

Chuck, an excellent post. you mirrored what I had to say the other day in another thread then took it to another level. I wish I had a chance to work with you when I was arranging and instructing.

However, I have a bone to pick with you. In your run down of Some come...etc. You omitted one thing out that is quite often left out.

Some come to drum.

While drum books are more complex these days (basses and tenors), I beleive some drummers, snare drummers, are being cheated. there is so much of the vocabulary that isn't heard on the field anymore and that's a shame.

So I would add - will someone write a bloody drum solo and put it on the field.

It use to be a the kids who joined all wanted to be in the drum line and only ended up in the horn line or on colour guard because they couldn't drum well (or weren't being taught well enough to learn). Even today drum lines are still hugely popular with young people - didn't they make a movie about that? So, why not swing that spot light back to the drum line a little. Drums are the connecting link to the audience.

In a couple of days I'll be able to chime in on topic, I just had to get the above off my chest sooner.

Regards,

John

Edited November 11, 2010 by sarnia sam

[Triple Forte]

Some come to drum corps for the music.

Some come to drum corps for the visual fireworks.

Some come to drum corps for the performance excellence.

Some come to drum corps for their kids.

Some come to drum corps out of habit.

Some come to drum corps in search of something new.

Some come to drum corps to perform.

Some come to drum corps to win.

Myself, I am seduced by the passion and energy of a great performance. That seduction is even more intense when I care about the music. So, when Harry mentions certain specific performances of the past several years, I agree with him to a great degree based on what I like.

What I don't enjoy is when corps attempt these same conceptual constructs, but with less ability or vision, and then we in the audience sit on our hands -- not because the performers lacked intention, but because the product and the emotional connection fell short.

Intellectual Effect is all fine and good. But, it's not the only valid form of effect, nor even the most important connection in a performance activity that claims to be musically educational.

In keeping with the Topic Heading. . . in Sondheim's "Sunday In The Park With George", one line speaks to me artistically as well as practically.

"Work is what you do for other people. . . Art is what you do for yourself."

Take that for what it's worth.

If your goal is to connect with the audience, then do it.

If you wonder why the audience doesn't go crazy for your show, look at it through their eyes. They see you once. Maybe twice. If you have to still explain it, you're not programming for most people. You are programming primarily for Intellectual Effect, based on repeated viewings by a small segment of repeat viewers and judges.

But don't expect people to pay for the privilege of seeing your "Art" and then be told they are not working hard enough to understand you.

Artistically, there is no right or wrong here. But there is an "ideal" and a "real" world of communication between a performing group and an audience.

In the 80's, Don Angelica encouraged experimentation -- breaking us out of the Chuck Mangione "Children of Sanchez" mode -- and asked the drum corps judging world to reward the "Jeremiah Symphony", Berlioz, new wind band music like "Variations on a Korean Folk Song" and Rutter music. He pushed for variety and difficult repertoire. But he did not push the activity away from melody.

(On a side note: a few corps playing Chuck Mangione music in 1979 for the most part (with nods to the '76 Blue Devils), didn't mean that was the only type of drum corps in the 70's. Try Gustav Holst, Rachmaninov, Kachaturian, Stan Kenton, Stravinsky, John Williams, Claude Bolling, Buddy Rich, and Patrick Williams for starters. . . )

If we think that the ink drying on the next great wind ensemble piece by Frank Ticheli or Eric Whitacre or Stephen Melillo somehow has greater appeal or intrinsic "value" than anything else, then we are mistaking "technique" for music, and faster tempos for "more worthwhile music". Want hard? Try playing "Danny Boy" well enough to make people cry. In a hundred years, people will still know "Danny Boy". Wanna take bets on the rest?

Congratulations. We're a smart bunch of people. But the self-congratulatory attitudes do not grow the activity.

Inviting more people into the party "emotionally" will go a long way in growing the base, and developing life-long connections.

Just my thoughts, from someone in a position to do something about it.

Chuck Naffier

Sondheim Fan

Very well said.......

[Aaron Guidry]

vi...IV...I...V...vi...IV...V...vi

[Jeff Ream]

I can agree with this. Say what people want about Madison, but they programmed in a way to get attention. Yet when I think of the Colts or troopers, well, nothing comes to mind. And when i think of Crossmen, I think of a well gone to too often and the idea wasn't fleshed out in an engaging way

How to fix the lower tiered corps shows? Simple - tell them to stop being so friggin nice and get a little more - strike that - a LOT ballsier in their programming choices.

If Glassmen show up with one more "tasteful" show, my head will explode. Colts, go find an identity and build on it (and being 'nice" is not an identity - it's the word we use to describe people who have no other notable features). Troopers, the American west wasn't a Hollywood western, it had its share of ugly experiences - why not try a show that tackles the Johnson County Cattle wars, and show us some of the more dramatic ways "the west was won"?

With most of them, the fault lies not in their membership but in their programming. Go big, or go home, boys and girls. I don't care if it's as clean as Cavaliers or Devils, but I want it at least to be trying to steal some attention from them.