On the Drastic Change in Arranging Style

[Bruckner8]

Not sure if I can link to this clip, but it's rehearsal footage of the Madison Scouts Alumni Reunion Project playing "The Way We Were." Give it a listen.

Bonus: Can you identify the idiomatic arrangement components from the chart?

I could only find a 2:48 video meeting your description, and it included percussion, so I'm going to include that in my analysis.

1) Percussion complements the brass, instead of trying to win high Drums over top of the brass.

2) The ebb and flow between brass and percussion is way more transparent than anything today.

3) BRASS: extremely simple background parts in the intro (ie, the melody is clear)

4) BRASS: Addition of harmonic elements to melodic line that were never in original (trumpet divisis on rising lines, end of intro)

5) PERC: Writing matches the style of the hornline.

6) Gratuitous "we're at the end of the intro" harmonic structure and high brass writing, lol. (I call this "Burger and Fries" drum corps, and I love it...usually...)

7) Plenty of doubling lead sops with mellos 8ve lower (this worked best with French Horns in that capacity, and it sounds like this stuff was originally written with FHs in mind...but I don't really know my Madison History well enough to comment further.)

8) Very clear phrase structure (that is, usuing the original music as it was intended, instead of trying to make it do something it doesn't want to do)

9) Phrygian cadences added to section endings for effect. (Corps today insist on b6-b7-I)

10) Noodling middle voices, so expected, lol. (even to this day)

[stream of consciousness....isn't this turning into "How Madison sounded until Boerma left?"]

11) Cascading, stacking, rising bell tones...drum corps did that all the time BITD, no matter the style.

12) Contras used in a manner of "4th Euph" (ie, bass trombone) most of the time.

13) Screech trumpet playing......CONSTANTLY. (and it's tiresome to me, but I believe idiomatic of the time, and I'm glad that's gone!)

14) Baris playing the bridge, lol, trumpets filling.

15) "Concerto for Hornline" writing, almost completely lacking today. That is, every single section is featured, clearly, in their best registers, showing off, etc.

16) multiple styles within a short period

17) Except for the lead sops, everyone else is in a very limited range, about one octave. (today's drum corps require all of the players to play over their entire instrument, screech playing excepted)

18) High brass sustains, whilst low brass changes harmony (everyone did this BITD)

19) Gratuitous "in your face" ending, unrelated to the real tonic, lol (oh, and sounding like crap doing it...that is also idiomatic, IMO, and I'm glad that's gone)

20) Percussion doing its best to drown out the hornline on the last note.

How'd I do?

[Hrothgar15]

Perfect.

So now that we've established that I'm not just trying to cause a stir, and that indeed there's been a massive shift in arranging style, let's take the discussion further.

• What caused this shift, and when did it start to manifest?
  
• The idiomatic programming has been mostly identified. Which elements are better off abandoned and which deserve a return?
  
• What source material can be used to allow for these elements but still remain relevant to today's members?
  
• How can today's show design allow for more idiomatic arranging as identified?
  
• Which corps today are closest to keeping these idioms intact?
  

Progress.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Hrothgar15

[Lance]

I could only find a 2:48 video meeting your description, and it included percussion, so I'm going to include that in my analysis.

6) Gratuitous "we're at the end of the intro" harmonic structure and high brass writing, lol. (I call this "Burger and Fries" drum corps, and I love it...usually...)

10) Noodling middle voices, so expected, lol. (even to this day)

[stream of consciousness....isn't this turning into "How Madison sounded until Boerma left?"]

13) Screech trumpet playing......CONSTANTLY. (and it's tiresome to me, but I believe idiomatic of the time, and I'm glad that's gone!)

17) Except for the lead sops, everyone else is in a very limited range, about one octave. (today's drum corps require all of the players to play over their entire instrument, screech playing excepted)

18) High brass sustains, whilst low brass changes harmony (everyone did this BITD)

19) Gratuitous "in your face" ending, unrelated to the real tonic, lol (oh, and sounding like crap doing it...that is also idiomatic, IMO, and I'm glad that's gone)

20) Percussion doing its best to drown out the hornline on the last note.

How'd I do?

lol at these in particular.

the idea of pieces being more true to the original back in the day is also hilarious.

[Hrothgar15]

Finally, do we agree on the statement that this older styler of arranging did a much better job at showing off the defining factors of the drum corps horn line, whereas today's arrangements seem equally suited for any wind ensemble? I think that's the best way I can sum up my current stance on the issue based on my experience.

[Lance]

Finally, do we agree on the statement that this older styler of arranging did a much better job at showing off the defining factors of the drum corps horn line, whereas today's arrangements seem equally suited for any wind ensemble? I think that's the best way I can sum up my current stance on the issue based on my experience.

no

you know what you like and think what you like induces some sort of physiological and psychologial response common to all human beings. that's the best way to sum up your argument.

and you're perfectly entitled to it.

[Hrothgar15]

no

you know what you like and think what you like induces some sort of physiological and psychologial response common to all human beings. that's the best way to sum up your argument.

and you're perfectly entitled to it.

Alright, one "no." Thanks!

You don't really understand my argument and are missing some of the finer points. It's not an opinion but rather a falsifiable hypothesis. Nothing to do with this topic, though, so let's keep that out of it. I stand by what I said in my previous post.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Hrothgar15

[Hrothgar15]

the idea of pieces being more true to the original back in the day is also hilarious.

That's not what he said. He referenced a particular section. And used, well, data. You know, the stuff that supports arguments.

[dagenh]

No.

[Lance]

That's not what he said. He referenced a particular section. And used, well, data. You know, the stuff that supports arguments.

it's exactly what he said, and it was opinion based on well, opinion. you know, the stuff that supports opinions.

[Hrothgar15]

it's exactly what he said, and it was opinion based on well, opinion. you know, the stuff that supports opinions.

"How true something is to the original" is not a subjective claim. It is an objective, mathematical claim. It's defined by the so-called "edit distance" between notes and sections in the arrangement compared to those in the original. This is the same algorithm used by word processing applications to determine which alternative words to suggest for a misspelled word, say those with the smallest n edit distances. Sure, you can define the formula in different ways, but as long as you're explicit, there's no room for subjectivity or bias (outside of the mathematical sense).

Edited November 18, 2010 by Hrothgar15