On the Drastic Change in Arranging Style

[JimF-LowBari]

I DID old school drum corps in the 70s and early 80s. We had fun, but those of us with music backgrounds back then knew that a lot of of we and other corps were doing was pretty crass. There were a few masters in the art form (Ott, Sanford and Royer, most notably), but there were also a lot of well-intentioned weekend warriors who could only turn out "drum corps versions" of whatever you handed them. I'd argue that the style of the 70s and early 80s was less eclectic than now, and while there are some current cliches I'd like to see retired, by and large, arrangers seem to have figured out how to marry more sophisticated voicings with the specific, unusual needs of a musical form whose musicians are constantly moving in and out of close range to the audience.

Competed in 70s/80s myself and can't argue a bit. IMO, one big drawback was budget of many of the local corps that could afford... well what they could afford. Since we didn't have themes some of the charts were used by more than one corps over the years or multiple years by the same corps.

Other drawback was that funky missing 3rd valve. I'm a techie not a musician so can't speak first hand about how that fit into arranging. But one of our arrangers couldn't wait for the horn line to go 100% 3 valve (we have a small budget) so he could go all out on arrangements.

And comparing what I played 74-79 to today, our stuff today is a LOT more complicated. Ironic part is the 70s corps competed and today we're parade and standstill.

[dcpincollector]

Not if we have an objective measure by which to define it, which we do. There's no subjectivity in the measurement, only inaccuracy. A perfectly accurate measurement of the edit distance between two musical arrangements is not a function of the opinions of the measurer.

Great. Now you're going to get me actually implementing an applicable form of the algorithm just to prove my point.

So you are actually claiming scientific fact?

This is an opinion: plain and simple!!!

Don't try to take your opinions and simply state that they now are a scientific certainty.

This is getting beyond ridiculous!

[Hrothgar15]

So you are actually claiming scientific fact?

This is an opinion: plain and simple!!!

Don't try to take your opinions and simply state that they now are a scientific certainty.

This is getting beyond ridiculous!

Not quite sure you understand.

[dcpincollector]

Not quite sure you understand.

Let me see:

You first stated that the "new" arrangements were "inferior".

How are you going to quantify that? What are your criterion for this "algorithmn"?

Have the arrangements changed? That is a simple question with a simple answer: YES.

Does this imply they are now "inferior"?

If you think that there is a scientific method that would "prove" your opinion, please bring it forward. I am sure there are plenty of people who would like to know how they could prove their "opinions". Most of these same people would like to be able to control our lives and tell us how we should live. I prefer to have my own "opinions".

There is no way to apply scientific method to "prove" your "opinion" that todays arrangements are "inferior".

I think you should just go back to saying you don't like them. This makes more sense and doesn't offend my "scientific" sensibilities.

I would respect your opinion, but can't respect your cavalier attitude toward the scientific method.

[Hrothgar15]

Let me see:

You first stated that the "new" arrangements were "inferior".

No, I didn't. A simple ⌘F on the topic page reveals there are 13 matches for "inferior." I used the word to refer to the fact that the instruments of the type they were using are ofter referred to as "inferior" to their Bb/F counterparts. That passage was quoted several times, and then TAFL used the word to actually describe arrangements, but I never did.

If you think that there is a scientific method that would "prove" your opinion, please bring it forward. I am sure there are plenty of people who would like to know how they could prove their "opinions". Most of these same people would like to be able to control our lives and tell us how we should live. I prefer to have my own "opinions".

There is no way to apply scientific method to "prove" your "opinion" that todays arrangements are "inferior".

That is exactly correct. The algorithm I was finding simply measures how similar one arrangement is to another. In this case, it would be interesting to apply such an algorithm to a corps arrangement compared with the original, and see how this distance on average varied over the past few decades. I never said it had anything to do with the quality of the arrangement.

[DrillmanSop06]

No, I didn't. A simple ⌘F on the topic page reveals there are 13 matches for "inferior." I used the word to refer to the fact that the instruments of the type they were using are ofter referred to as "inferior" to their Bb/F counterparts. That passage was quoted several times, and then TAFL used the word to actually describe arrangements, but I never did.

That is exactly correct. The algorithm I was finding simply measures how similar one arrangement is to another. In this case, it would be interesting to apply such an algorithm to a corps arrangement compared with the original, and see how this distance on average varied over the past few decades. I never said it had anything to do with the quality of the arrangement.

[dcpincollector]

Yes, we have listened. Indeed, everything that's been posted thus far lamenting how inferior the contemporary arrangements are comes of listening to them and comparing them to old arrangements.

You didn't refer to them as inferior?

I guess that you were not a part of everything that was posted? I believe that you started this thread.

Hmmmm.

[Lance]

there is nobody who doesn't understand what hrothgar is saying.

he really thinks he can scientfically prove that arrangements today are inferior to arrangements of the past for dci. trying to discuss that with him won't work.

and that's okay.

[arrangerx]

:worthy:

Not delving into the science (or lack thereof). . .

But. . .

Your ears tell you what you need to know. . .

Here's a simple exercise.

1) Go listen to Barbra Streisand's version of "Happy Days Are Here Again". It's on the album "One Voice" from a concert recording in her back yard in 1987.

The Blue Devils played it in 1988 as their opener.

The Blue Devils played it again in 2009.

2) Go back and listen to Buddy Rich's "Channel One Suite" from the album "Mercy Mercy", recorded live at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas in 1968.

The Blue Devils played it in 1976, 1977 and 1986 in what many would call "authentic" form.

The Blue Devils played it again in 2002.

3) Go back and listen to the orchestral recordings of Kachaturian for "Spartacus" (I'd recommend Neeme Jarvi's version on Chandos recording label).

Phantom Regiment played it in 1981 and 1982.

Phantom Regiment played it again in 2008.

4) Go back on listen to Pat Metheny's "First Circle" from the album "First Circle".

Crossmen played this in 1998. (Yes, Blue Devils played it in 1985)

Crossmen played it again in 2010.

There are more examples I could give. I will not let my personal preferences for "lifting" or "arranging" or "music inspired by" come into play here. It is beside the point.

What is identifiable is the "faithfulness" of an arrangement to the original version.

I point this out, not to say which is better, but to fuel the idea that, indeed, it is possible to analyze which arrangements are more true to the original in terms of pacing, harmonic construction, tempo, etc.

Chuck Naffier

[Lance]

and exactly nobody would disagree with that, chuck.

huge difference between what you're saying and what hrothgar is saying.