Staff behavior concerns...examples/solutions

[actucker]

You really believe that statement? You know, there's a reason for the euphemism "starving artist." You can make all the art you want, but if nobody's buying it, chances are that YOU are the problem, not the customers. Bands are signed to labels for one reason and one reason only...to sell records. They don't sell, they get dropped. If you aren't producing something your customer wants, they don't buy it. So to take such a high-and-mighty (or better yet, condescending) stance is ridiculously misguided and it's bad business sense too.

That analogy doesn't really apply when you're talking about a niche market. Do you really think anyone is telling a jazz artist what to put on his next record? But people still buy jazz records. Maybe that jazz artist isn't making millions like the pop artists of the world, but that doesn't mean he's not making a living, and he certainly isn't listening to a fan tell him how or what to play.

And yes, I know I make that comparison often, but there are a lot of similarities between the market for jazz and the market for drum corps.

Edited July 7, 2011 by actucker

[BigBadMadMan]

That analogy doesn't really apply when you're talking about a niche market. Do you really think anyone is telling a jazz artist what to put on his next record? But people still buy jazz records. Maybe that jazz artist isn't making millions like the pop artists of the world, but that doesn't mean he's not making a living, and he certainly isn't listening to a fan tell him how or what to play.

And yes, I know I make that comparison often, but there are a lot of similarities between the market for jazz and the market for drum corps.

Actually, that principle applies even MORE in a niche market. Is that artist listening to someone directly tell him what to play? No. Indirectly? Absolutely. Unless you are using your own money to create your art and are not dependent upon it's success for your livelihood, then you are absolutely listening to what your customer wants. It just may coincide that what you want to create is what people will line up to buy, but we're talking about what separates the guy playing on a street corner for tips and the guy playing in the swanky club in that same block. One is creating what sells and one is not.

[bmroth1]

You mean back when there were gaps between tunes to allow for this ?

Hell, today if you clap your hands you're most likely gonna miss something important.

I can think of many examples of shows long gone where spontanious cheering took place without any gaps in tunes.

[Jeff Ream]

There is a huge difference between an enthusiastic exclamation of approval and the attention-seeking hysteria I have seen from some people at shows.

Exactly. I've seen staffs that cheer in a good way, and some that act likes #####. I've seen staffs watch competitors and gush ( like Hannum watching 92 Crossmen at Hetshey) and staffs that trash competitors.

When I've seen someone act like an ###, I've emailed the corps. I've even seen show sponsors make it worse by arguing with staff during the show. I think that host forgave me

[actucker]

Actually, that principle applies even MORE in a niche market. Is that artist listening to someone directly tell him what to play? No. Indirectly? Absolutely. Unless you are using your own money to create your art and are not dependent upon it's success for your livelihood, then you are absolutely listening to what your customer wants. It just may coincide that what you want to create is what people will line up to buy, but we're talking about what separates the guy playing on a street corner for tips and the guy playing in the swanky club in that same block. One is creating what sells and one is not.

Common sense would suggest that it works that way, but it doesn't. The fact is, every major change in american music in the last 100 years was received poorly. But that didn't keep the artists from playing that way anyway. If it did, then we'd still be listening to dixie land music. Its called evolution, and inevitably, the older generation will be put off by the new direction that music and art takes. The same thing happens in popular music. How many 50-60 year olds do you know that really like current popular music.

Art has never really adhered to the typical rules of supply and demand. When you go to see a jazz show, you're going to see that artist do what he does, not to see him do what you want him to do. If you didn't like what that artist did, you wouldn't buy his records, or go to his shows. But the thing that creates niche markets like jazz, is the fact that there are as many tastes as there are people in the world. If you create good music, no matter how you choose to make it, there will be an audience for it. There will also be a contingent of people who call it crap. That's art. Some people love Picasso, some people hate him. He could have been an impressionist and some people would still have hated him. There are those who chose a music that more people like, sometimes just for the living that it can make you. There are others who choose less popular forms of music. That doesn't mean they make a living.

And have you ever listened to a musician on the street? There's a reason they can't make a living. Its called an inability to play their instrument. Obviously there are exceptions (the brass bands in Jackson Square, the Steel Drummer in Manhattan). The funny thing is, those guys make a killing. Imagine that. Play good music, and there will be people who like it.

[somerville]

"Go Sabers" made it onto the video so this guy is kind of famous. Or was it "Work It Sabers"? At least it wasn't "work it girl".

[lindap]

You mean back when there were gaps between tunes to allow for this ?

Hell, today if you clap your hands you're most likely gonna miss something important.

When we went to finals 2010 we clapped when we felt like it. We had fun and were respectful to each other in our seat section. There was one who talked throughout. We collectively gave him the look. Back when (70's and 80's) many instructors were also marching members. I rarely saw the guards I taught 'cause I was performing too ;-)

[BigBadMadMan]

Common sense would suggest that it works that way, but it doesn't. The fact is, every major change in american music in the last 100 years was received poorly. But that didn't keep the artists from playing that way anyway. If it did, then we'd still be listening to dixie land music. Its called evolution, and inevitably, the older generation will be put off by the new direction that music and art takes. The same thing happens in popular music. How many 50-60 year olds do you know that really like current popular music.

Art has never really adhered to the typical rules of supply and demand. When you go to see a jazz show, you're going to see that artist do what he does, not to see him do what you want him to do. If you didn't like what that artist did, you wouldn't buy his records, or go to his shows. But the thing that creates niche markets like jazz, is the fact that there are as many tastes as there are people in the world. If you create good music, no matter how you choose to make it, there will be an audience for it. There will also be a contingent of people who call it crap. That's art. Some people love Picasso, some people hate him. He could have been an impressionist and some people would still have hated him. There are those who chose a music that more people like, sometimes just for the living that it can make you. There are others who choose less popular forms of music. That doesn't mean they make a living.

And have you ever listened to a musician on the street? There's a reason they can't make a living. Its called an inability to play their instrument. Obviously there are exceptions (the brass bands in Jackson Square, the Steel Drummer in Manhattan). The funny thing is, those guys make a killing. Imagine that. Play good music, and there will be people who like it.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Everything adheres to the rule of supply and demand. Everything. You say every change in popular american music was not initially well-received. True...by roughly everyone over a certain age. But if there were not a demand within at least a sizable portion of the population, it would not have taken hold. Not many 50 and 60 year olds are fans of today's pop music. Yet, those same 50 and 60 year old people couldn't get enough of Elvis and The Beatles, both considerable forces.

There's a fantastic blues bar in Nashville with an incredible house band. If it weren't for those guys, I would have no reason to go there. Uncountable places in Nashville sell alcohol and I can get better Cajun food elsewhere in the city. They are the draw.

And as far as the talent level of the guy on the street vs the guy headlining the club, that's one more aspect of having a product people want. There's a reason the guy on the street isn't putting out albums. He doesn't have a sound people would pay to hear. If the guy in the club suddenly decides to go in a new direction because he wants to try something new, his fans might not like the new sound and may not follow. It's happened to numerous people over the years.

Bottom line, if you want to make a living off your talent and ability, there better be someone willing to buy it. Otherwise, you perpetuate the "starving artist" moniker.

The same holds true for drum corps. Make no mistake, the fans are the ONLY reason this activity exists, in the same same way that the fans of a certain band or musician are the only reason they have any success.

Edited July 7, 2011 by BigBadMadMan

[Madrid]

I really can't believe that folks are actually suggesting that those who have sacrificed oceans of personal time and finances to be in the trenches with these kids not react at all during a performance. I mean, not at all? Really? ....rough

Also, in regards to the title of this thread -- behavior in the stands is the last thing that I think about when it comes to staff shenanigans. Maybe that's just me. Oh well.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Madrid

[Contreuph]

It gives people a false sense of knowledge and superiority to do this. They also need to get out more. And exercise.

True that. It's easier to hide behind a computer and complain than actually say something to a director about their "negative experience".

I stand behind every staff member that gets excited for their corps. Like Madrid said, corps staff sacrifice just as much as the members. I know from experience that there are parts of shows that I have marched where the staff spent HOURS working with the members to make it solid, if not perfect. They have every d**n right to get stoked about it.

Last year during a show when we had some block rotations that our caption head had spent days working with us to perfect finally witness that perfect rotation, his flailing arms and excited scream hyped me and all of my corps mates. It's late, so that may only make sense to me, but the feeling of see your staff members, the ones who know your show as well as you, showing that much excitement of something that may seem so small and minuscule to the audience actually means A LOT to members like me.

You may pay $10-$20 to see us perform, but we spend thousands to do this each summer, so every bit of recognition from fans and STAFF goes a long way.