Mr. Sondheim says...

[corpsband]

...seriously?

My guess is Lance has loosely translated this to: 'You praise what you like and criticize what you don't like. '

I don't subscribe to this: I'm perfectly capable of criticizing what I like (Stupid Steelers almost gave another one away to the Bungles). I'm also more than capable of acknowledging quality in things I don't find appealing.

IMHO Sondheim and Mr. Naffier are being extremely accurate and insightful.

Edited November 10, 2010 by corpsband

[Plan9]

I agree, good comment by the OP, however, many believe that when attempting to communicate something that is understood, it is incumbent on the SENDER to present the message in a way that has the best chance to have it be so...

Going to France and speaking perfectly clear English and then getting mad at the French for not understanding what you're saying would not be a good attempt at communication! Afterall, English contains ~40% French derived words. Some people feel that this is the state of drum corps currently.

Getting mad at the french is a job description....in fact, I think it's an international sport! Ah...the ugly American.

A lot of heady stuff in this thread... Sondheim seems to percolate it. But I can only respond to this sender/receiver stuff as I have so often before: Response to corps music and visual presentments is a matter of taste (and other "things"). Some formula designers like Hop work for the wow moments and you can almost put a stop watch on them. Other corps have signature things they do (almost to the point of...."please do something else"). Some know how to get to the heart strings of the dinos and milk it like crazy. But in the end, FOR ME, there is nothing I have seen in my brief 4 years as a DCI fan that I would have to scatch my head at. Yes, many shows seem to be a title in search of a connection to what was on the field, but it was all good... often predictable, but good.

[Lance]

My guess is Lance has loosely translated this to: 'You praise what you like and criticize what you don't like. '

some people, not all

and yes, seriously

[mobrien]

Ironic that a composer/lyricist whose work is roundly dismissed by "regular people" for being too highbrow is being used in the effort to tell drum corps whose shows are dismissed by "regular people" as "too highbrow" that they need to become more populist.

Jerry Herman's shows have been more financially successful than Sondheim's. By that standard, Jerry Herman is "better" than Sondheim, since they require absolutely no mental effort, and any schlubb can get them. But anyone who actually cares about good work recognizes that Sondheim is operating on a completely different plane, and that his work will still be being produced decades from now whereas Herman's work felt dated even when it was new.

The lesson? That popular taste is sometimes a lousy indicator of overall worth.

Edited November 10, 2010 by mobrien

[glory]

I can hear the echo chamber loud and clear in here. If it weren't for the dissonance of the past decade, we'd all be happy, right?

…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?...

Seriously, drum corps never was and never will be this ideal Top 40 format y’all are pining for. For every teary Danny Boy of lore, there was plenty of fluff and failure, plenty of familiar tunes rendered tasteless by technique, tempo and more. I agree today that the total Ticheli songbook isn’t going to tempt every drum corps fan. But neither back then did Magione, Kenton, Williams or even Sondheim.

Of course we want connections. Of course we want to be moved. Of course we don’t want to press the repeat button over and over, year after year, again and again, forever and ever …

HH

[Lance]

I can hear the echo chamber loud and clear in here. If it weren't for the dissonance of the past decade, we'd all be happy, right?

Seriously, drum corps never was and never will be this ideal Top 40 format y’all are pining for. For every teary Danny Boy of lore, there was plenty of fluff and failure, plenty of familiar tunes rendered tasteless by technique, tempo and more. I agree today that the total Ticheli songbook isn’t going to tempt every drum corps fan. But neither back then did Magione, Kenton, Williams or even Sondheim.

Of course we want connections. Of course we want to be moved. Of course we don’t want to press the repeat button over and over, year after year, again and again, forever and ever …

HH

Exactly.

Phantom 2008... a little Strauss and Khachaturian, and quite a lot of Loris Tjeknavorian, Alberto Ginastera, and Rene Dupere. Not household names, but their music helped complete an excellent whole show design. Music in drum corps has rarely been something you'd find on an average person's ipod, and it takes complete disconnect from reality to think so. Shows are hit and miss even for music geeks, and it's always been that way, regardless of the fantasies some people have about the glory of "back in the day" and the unreasoned, unfocused venom they spew at the present.

[Hrothgar15]

I've often maintained that there's a very clear method of distinguishing a show that is overall entertaining with one that is not. In the former, the performers and the audience seem equal parts of the production. In the latter, the audience is simply a group spectators.

It's also very easy to distinguish music that communicates to the audience well (Madison 1995) and music that doesn't (Cavaliers 2009). Luckily, most of it is based on natural and mathematical properties, and there's even a whole field of study devoted to describing and utilizing them.

[tommytimp]

Jerry Herman's shows have been more financially successful than Sondheim's. By that standard, Jerry Herman is "better" than Sondheim, since they require absolutely no mental effort, and any schlubb can get them. But anyone who actually cares about good work recognizes that Sondheim is operating on a completely different plane, and that his work will still be being produced decades from now whereas Herman's work felt dated even when it was new.

The lesson? That popular taste is sometimes a lousy indicator of overall worth.

I prefer Sondheim to Herman as well, but you're making Herman sound like a hack. He's a superb tunesmith. But I don't know if Sondheim is on another plane. I'm pretty sure I get what you're saying, but their shows don't try to do the same things. Don't fault Herman because Sondheim aims so high. La Cage aux Folles kicks major azz. As does Dolly, The Grand Tour, and Milk and Honey.

[Lance]

I've often maintained that there's a very clear method of distinguishing a show that is overall entertaining with one that is not. In the former, the performers and the audience seem equal parts of the production. In the latter, the audience is simply a group spectators.

It's also very easy to distinguish music that communicates to the audience well (Madison 1995) and music that doesn't (Cavaliers 2009). Luckily, most of it is based on natural and mathematical properties, and there's even a whole field of study devoted to describing and utilizing them.

it would be fun to see the "hrothgar complete list of shows that are entertaining and not entertaining" with detalied analysis as to why.

the entertainment industry in general could benefit from your entertainment acumen.

if they'd only just listen.

[Hrothgar15]

it would be fun to see the "hrothgar complete list of shows that are entertaining and not entertaining" with detalied analysis as to why.

the entertainment industry in general could benefit from your entertainment acumen.

if they'd only just listen.

Let me get my master's thesis out of the way first.