Accessible vs. Avant-Garde

[BRASSO]

To me, watching an " Avant- Garde " program is like attending a live 4th year music class.

If you skipped the first 3 years - you are lost during the music and program, even if it is presented really well.

Absolutely... and it's a good analogy as well.

This would also fit the major criticism of most " Avant Garde " works ( that I mentioned above ) in that can be viewed as " elitist " by the majority. There is the rub of snobbishness inherent in such utterances, while certainly valid. High brow music is... well.... high brow music. It is by choice.. " unpopular ".

Edited March 29, 2011 by BRASSO

[BRASSO]

if you "lose" the audience ( IMO) you've fundamentally failed in your creation.

Quick story of renowned Composer and Conductor Arthur Fiedler who created the Boston " Pops" Orchestra years ago that might shed some insights on how to " grab " an audience unaccustomed to " Avant Garde " music or unfamiliar music.

Fiedler was the Conductor of the Boston Symphony. His audience was primarily the rich, and the old at Symphony Hall in Boston. He decided one day to come up with an idea to reach a wider audience and for the classics to be learned and appreciated by the masses. He didn't try to change THEM. He went to THEM.

Fiedler told his musicians that he was going to take them out doors and play free concerts in the Park. And that he'd play more accessible music in these venues. Several of the musicians were appalled with this " change " and quit. He replaced them. He then took the musicians to the masses on the Esplanade ( a half shell that was created in Boston for this purpose ). Only a few hundred people showed up the first year. Fiedler did not quit his mission. His quest was to play 6-8 familiar " Popular " tunes and then play some classics at the end of the performance. Those who did go enjoyed the " popular " music, and so to distinquish the two groups Fiedler called his group that performed outdoors the Boston " Pops " Orchestra ( for " popular " ). After each of the first couple of years of the performances, Fiedler heard and read from people who went and enjoyed hearing the classics and newer 'Avant Garde " pieces that Fielder and his Boston Symphony Orchestra played at the end of these out doors concerts. This was his goal all along. This was his " hook " if you will. He played what they wanted to hear. Initially. He did not insult them. He won them over. And he played what THEY wanted to hear FIRST and then he played later what HE wanted to play for them and hope some of them would find the unfamiliar music engaging and interesting. Today, that " tradition " continues. Upwards of 500,000 people gather each 4th of July in Boston, and millions more around the Globe watch on TV as the Boston " Pops " Orchestra plays " popular " music and then introduces the gathered audience several more innovative " Avant Garde " pieces, and always... always finishes with the now " traditional " Pyotr Tchaikovsky's " 1812 Overture ". Fiedler concept of " Pops " orchestras have since grown throughout the world.

If you want to be successful with your music, you don't insult the intelligence of your audience. You use your own creative intelligence to go out and reach them. That was the true " intelligence ", or genius if you will of Arthur Fiedler. He was no elitist. And he had no interest in becoming one.

Edited March 29, 2011 by BRASSO

[Plan9]

The volume of discussion is certainly related to placement but I think it would still be discussed quite a bit.

The issue does not revolve around musical or visual exploration or pushing boundaries. Drum corps is an adjudicated performance activity. I think most of the discussion on here revolves around an apparent disconnect between the criteria as written (where audience communication is a key concept) and the criteria as interpreted by DCI panels. In effect -- many don't understand how a program that "loses" so many in the audience could possibly be construed as having successfully communicated. That's it. Nothing about boundaries. Nothing about avant-garde. Nothing about discouraging exploration.

The word accessible is controversial because it's how many viewers chose to express this apparent disconnect.

I'm all for edgy, controversial, new, unexplored and avant-garde --- so long as you take the audience with you. Because if you "lose" the audience ( IMO) you've fundamentally failed in your creation. It may have merits outside the boundaries of judged performances -- it may indeed be "art". But (in this activity at least) your first responsibility is to your audience. In my view this is not only the meaning but the purpose of GE captions. It seeks to reward virtuosity, excellence, and artistry *only* when those characteristics are bound in a vehicle which captures and retains the audience's attention throughout production.

Clearly there's a wide diversity of opinion at to whether BD'10 captured and retained the audience's attention.

We’ve had this discussion several times in the past and it I think we can both agree on your last sentence. But, there will always be two views of 4 ounces of water in an 8 ounce glass.

It can also be said that drum corps audiences carry “baggage” into the venues with them, having nothing to do with what they’re seeing on the field. It's pre-loaded and almost tribal. And it becomes hyper-polarized with every passing undefeated season. And although I emphasize it, while you minimize it….as always…the truth is somewhere in between.

[corpsband]

We’ve had this discussion several times in the past and it I think we can both agree on your last sentence. But, there will always be two views of 4 ounces of water in an 8 ounce glass.

It can also be said that drum corps audiences carry “baggage” into the venues with them, having nothing to do with what they’re seeing on the field. It's pre-loaded and almost tribal. And it becomes hyper-polarized with every passing undefeated season. And although I emphasize it, while you minimize it….as always…the truth is somewhere in between.

I agree that audiences carry expectations into shows. But I don't think audiences are bound by them. I generally dislike shows with any narration at all (because most of the time it's just a crutch to save a bad design) but I've been forced (by the designer and the performer) to occasionally ignore that preference and get carried into a performance. An even better example might be Crown's choice of ballad last season. I think Nimrod is an unimaginative boring piece of music. Those feelings were reinforced by teaching a group who used it for a season (which is enough to make you get tired of any music) . I was *really* disappointed to learn they were playing it. Even hearing the piece performed at a Crown camp did little to get me excited about it. BUT when I saw what they did with the piece on the field...well...I pretty much was blown away.

So while I don't completely dismiss the "baggage" argument, I believe that very good design *forces* the viewer to ( at least temporarily) set aside that baggage. I feel much the same way about the ABBD argument. When a show is effective, it will pull even the reluctant into the moment. There may be a small percentage in the audience who actively refuse to get engaged but IMO most of the audience does not fall into that category.

IMHO well-designed/well-executed effect transcends baggage.

[Jeff Ream]

IMO Accessible = content that keeps the audience's attention without any required prior exposure or interest in it.

Plan's definition is a kind of least-common-denominator interpretation. I don't think it describes accessibility at all. Instead it attempts to define accessible as the opposite of creative. That (in my opinion at least) is silly.

yep. accessible doesnt have to be dumbed down. look at corps people have gone gaga over the years that crossed just specific corps loyalty. Those shows hit it on the head.

[Jeff Ream]

No, it is certainly not black and white!

Come on T, I think you understand the degrees of humor. Satire needs extremes to make a point! And in that exact same way, music and visual design needs extremes in their spectrum's range. IMO, you only truly understand and appreciate the "big & beautiful" when your ears & eyes have strained to understand and appreciate the small & unfamiliar. I'm so glad that I stuck with Jazz after my first few hearings years ago that didn't go so well. I finally got a bit invested as an appreciator, had a few friends that got me to open my ears and my mind, and I get it now!

Instead of reprimanding music and visual designers for going to different places with this activity, we (on DCP) should be celebrating these advanced guard, and encouraging the musical and visual exploration.

As you may know, it's my concerted opinion that this "avante garde & non accessible" stuff only comes up because one of the main corps doing it….wins! If they were 9th place, this all would be a conversational footnote!

I hate to burst your blue bubble, but this kind of discussion has been happening since the RAMD days online. I know, I know, to you it's all just BD haters, but it's not, and they aren't the only target and haven't been since George Dixon built the place here or many of us went to RAMD before this place

[glory]

I’m not sure what it is we’re discussing here. Of course shows that are incomprehensible aren’t good. Isn’t that what we mean when we talk about shows as being not accessible enough or too avant-garde?

Successful shows APPEAL to us. Sometimes that appeal is conventional (Cadets ’93). Sometimes that appeal is unconventional (Star ’93).

I’d put four of last year’s top five in the avant-garde category. Cadets were the only one of the five who weren’t. Ironically, that rather conventional conception – replete with accessible music and theme – was much maligned around here. BD with perhaps the least accessible music was also seriously criticized. Crown had conventional music (I’m not prepared to say it was accessible) in a design that made it seem more unconventional than it perhaps might have been (compare to Finis in 08, for instance). And Cavies had some very conventional moments offset by other unconventional approaches. Another seeming irony is that Bluecoats unconventional program seemed accessible.

And 2010’s top five was in some ways the reverse of 2009. BD, Crown, Cadets, Cavies and SCV all started with conventional themes: 30s tension/release; greener grass and Oz; West Side Story; climbing; and Appalachian Spring. Some weren’t traditional drum corps styles, to be sure. Still, if you remove the chairs and some of the mountain music, you’d be hard-pressed to call these avant-garde.

My point is this accessible/avant garde distinction doesn’t really help us outline what we like. We like accessible shows and avant-garde shows. We also don’t like them. We’re Goldilocks. We want it just right, which is fine.

HH

[chaddyt]

My point is this accessible/avant garde distinction doesn’t really help us outline what we like. We like accessible shows and avant-garde shows. We also don’t like them. We’re Goldilocks. We want it just right, which is fine.

HH

Well... nothing really is going to be able to distinguish what "we" like. Obviously, it's not a question meant to solve the eternal question of drum corps audience's tastes.

It's more of a discussion in the off-season to determine why I'm right and Plan9 is wrong.

[charlie1223]

I don't like a show because it can be described as "accessible". I don't like a show because it can be described as "avant-guard". I don't want to start categorizing the "kind" of shows I like because I don't assume I know what "kind" of shows I like. All I want is to be entertained in any and every possible way.

[Jeff Ream]

I'm not sure what it is we're discussing here. Of course shows that are incomprehensible aren't good. Isn't that what we mean when we talk about shows as being not accessible enough or too avant-garde?

Successful shows APPEAL to us. Sometimes that appeal is conventional (Cadets '93). Sometimes that appeal is unconventional (Star '93).

I'd put four of last year's top five in the avant-garde category. Cadets were the only one of the five who weren't. Ironically, that rather conventional conception – replete with accessible music and theme – was much maligned around here. BD with perhaps the least accessible music was also seriously criticized. Crown had conventional music (I'm not prepared to say it was accessible) in a design that made it seem more unconventional than it perhaps might have been (compare to Finis in 08, for instance). And Cavies had some very conventional moments offset by other unconventional approaches. Another seeming irony is that Bluecoats unconventional program seemed accessible.

And 2010's top five was in some ways the reverse of 2009. BD, Crown, Cadets, Cavies and SCV all started with conventional themes: 30s tension/release; greener grass and Oz; West Side Story; climbing; and Appalachian Spring. Some weren't traditional drum corps styles, to be sure. Still, if you remove the chairs and some of the mountain music, you'd be hard-pressed to call these avant-garde.

My point is this accessible/avant garde distinction doesn't really help us outline what we like. We like accessible shows and avant-garde shows. We also don't like them. We're Goldilocks. We want it just right, which is fine.

HH

bravo. so well put.