Mr. Sondheim says...

[Appleknocker]

Yes, to varying degrees depending on the person. For me the sound of brass and drums is pretty much all the connection I need to when I marched, to say I need drum corps to very closely mirror my viewing or performing experiencing from 1988-1993 would severely limit my ability to enjoy drum corps shows today.

That depends on the person, why they're there, and what their investment in the experience is. Mom and dad showing up to see little Jonny's first drum corps performance are going fall over themselves in love with it. D-bag 13 year old who joined band cause he thought it would be easy and finds himself drug to a "marching band competition" of all things is going to be, like, whatever. Average "Hey Maude lets check out this new drum corps show thingy on friday night cause the fish fry got cancelled" folks may scrunch up their face at anything that doesn't closely resemble a university halftime show, but I don't want that demographic deciding what drum corps is good an what isn't anyway. So, kind of hard to answer your question really.

I was sitting in the halls waiting out the storm at Minneapolis this summer, and an elderly couple were sitting next to me on the floor. I asked them who they were there to see , if they had relatives performing , or connections to any drum corps. They told me that this was their first show and that they were absolutely amazed by the performances. They saw an ad for the show and decided to attend. We chatted for 20 minutes or so before the show was cancelled and I told them that it was too bad that they would not be able to see all of the corps. They asked where there might be more shows in the area this summer and I directed them to the DCI booth and website.

The man was 84 years old and his wife was 82,....they said they had wished they knew about this activity years ago.

[corpsband]

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.

...

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.

Amen.

[Lance]

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

Plenty of every single negative thing you're talking about in the 70s, 80s, and 90s too.

Too many people have a hard time holding up the same type of critical mirror to that which whicy they don't like to that which they happen to love.

[tommytimp]

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."

Chuck Naffier

Sondheim Fan

It's actually "Work is what you do for others, liebchen,..." (because the singer is German), but yes. It's a great point. No pun intended, and that score is full of them.

[arrangerx]

Plenty of every single negative thing you're talking about in the 70s, 80s, and 90s too.

Too many people have a hard time holding up the same type of critical mirror to that which whicy they don't like to that which they happen to love.

You are welcome to provide examples from the 70's, 80's and 90's.

I do not paint with such a broad brush, my friend.

I believe I said as much.

Chuck

[arrangerx]

It's actually "Work is what you do for others, liebchen,..." (because the singer is German), but yes. It's a great point. No pun intended, and that score is full of them.

You are correct, Tom!

[Jeff Ream]

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

[Lance]

You are welcome to provide examples from the 70's, 80's and 90's.

I do not paint with such a broad brush, my friend.

I believe I said as much.

Chuck

every statement you made was a broad brushtroke, my friend. it's good that you know what you like.

anyhoo, i love your work, and can't wait to hear it on the field again.

[DrillmanSop06]

Plenty of every single negative thing you're talking about in the 70s, 80s, and 90s too.

Too many people have a hard time holding up the same type of critical mirror to that which whicy they don't like to that which they happen to love.

...seriously?

[Fran Haring]

What Chuck said. 100 percent agree.