HockeyDad Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Is it June yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 The only tradition worth having, is a tradition of excellence? Why or why not? In the Performing Arts, I believe the audience is the ultimate arbiter of what is "excellent"... not the performing artist. Snobbery and elitism have ruined more budding perfoming artist's careers than personal talent ever has. Thats what I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 In the Performing Arts, I believe the audience is the ultimate arbiter of what is "excellent"... not the performing artist. Snobbery and elitism have ruined more budding perfoming artist's careers than personal talent ever has. Thats what I believe. So if the audience happens to like a horn ensemble which plays way out of tune, then by your definition it is an excellent playing ensemble? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) So if the audience happens to like a horn ensemble which plays way out of tune, then by your definition it is an excellent playing ensemble? Well, I did not state anything of this sort,. nor believe this.. so I don't know where you are trying to go with such a silly question. I will add that a music ensemble that can not reach an audience is a failure, despite perhaps its technical abilities. This is more in line with my previous comment that " in the Performing Arts, the audience not the Performing Artist, defines in that exchange what is " excellent ". I hope this more fully clarifies for you my position re. " excellence " as it relates to the Performing Arts. Lots of technically proficent musical and other Performing Artists performed in groups that closed down as they failed to appreciate this truism. Were they " excellent " ? Well, no. Unfortunately they were not. At least not in the classic definition that I just used. Lady Gaga is by no means my personal taste in modern age Performing Arts. She has taken " tradition " and turned it on its head. Is she " excellent " as a Performing Artist, despite her arguably inferior singing skills ? Well of course she is. She is an " excellent " Perfoming Artist and this fact is undeniable.All Music ensembles that charge an audience a fee to see them perform are likewise budding Performing Artists... and likewise fall under the same definition of what " excellent " is. Its ultimately defined by the audience, not the Artist. Without an audience, there is no Performing Artist. This is just a fundamental principle applicable to all those involved in the Performing Arts. Edited May 16, 2012 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Well, I did not state anything of this sort,. nor believe this.. Yes, you did say it... for example the punk-rock audience in London back in the '70s defined the bass performance and singing of Sid Viscous as excellent, and he always played and sang (screamed)way out of tune; so place your own words re-quoted here into that context: In the Performing Arts, I believe the audience is the ultimate arbiter of what is "excellent".... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Yes, you did say it... for example the punk-rock audience in London back in the '70s defined the bass performance and singing of Sid Viscous as excellent, and he always played and sang (screamed)way out of tune; so place your own words re-quoted here into that context: Stu... Sid Vicious was indeed an " excellent " Performing Artist. His performance may not be what YOU ( nor I). define as " excellent " from a technical profiency standpoint. God knows, he could neither play, nor sing with what we'd call " technical profiency ". But this is entirely different than stating that Sid Vicious and his Band was not an " excellent " Performing Artist. Again, in the Performing Arts, it is the audience, not the artist that ultimately defines " excellence ". To that extent, if we relate this to Drum Corps, the Corps of the earlier decades were equally " excellent " as Performing Musical Ensembles as those of today are likewise " excellent ". Neither however are " excellent " in the big picture we call the Performing Arts as neither has attracted a large enough audience to warrant this description. Now... if you are asking me who had better technical abilities overall on brass, percussive instruments, the earlier decades Corps, or todays Corps, I would tell you that today's Corps have much better overall talent playing on these brass, percussive, instruments....and exhibiting ( on the whole ) more technical profiency . But the question on this thread however is about " excellence ", not " technical profiency". These are not the same thing. And as I said, the audience, not the Perfoming Artist, ( or show designer ) is the final arbiter of " excellence " when we are talking about something in the Performing Arts. Edited May 16, 2012 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindap Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 In the Performing Arts, I believe the audience is the ultimate arbiter of what is "excellent"... not the performing artist. Snobbery and elitism have ruined more budding perfoming artist's careers than personal talent ever has. Thats what I believe. Raw talent when staged and showcased with no elistism is awesome (speechless :) imo truly talented people are shy, strive for excellence yet want to express something else with their medium, a story, their emotions or their love of music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Stu... Sid Vicious was indeed an " excellent " Performing Artist. His performance may not be what YOU ( nor I). define as " excellent " from a technical profiency standpoint. God knows, he could neither play, nor sing with what we'd call " technical profiency ". But this is entirely different than stating that Sid Vicious and his Band was not an " excellent " Performing Artist. Again, in the Performing Arts, it is the audience, not the artist that ultimately defines " excellence ". To that extent, if we relate this to Drum Corps, the Corps of the earlier decades were equally " excellent " as Performing Musical Ensembles as those of today are likewise " excellent ". Neither however are " excellent " in the big picture we call the Performing Arts as neither has attracted a large enough audience to warrant this description. Now... if you are asking me who had better technical abilities overall on brass, percussive instruments, the earlier decades Corps, or todays Corps, I would tell you that today's Corps have much better overall talent playing on these brass, percussive, instruments....and exhibiting ( on the whole ) more technical profiency . But the question on this thread however is about " excellence ", not " technical profiency". These are not the same thing. And as I said, the audience, not the Perfoming Artist, ( or show designer ) is the final arbiter of " excellence " when we are talking about something in the Performing Arts. Marching Band show; the band is out of step; out of tune; rhythmic problems galore; 500 people in the audience say they are downright awful; 501 say they are excellent; therefore the band must be defined as excellent correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Marching Band show; the band is out of step; out of tune; rhythmic problems galore; 500 people in the audience say they are downright awful; 501 say they are excellent; therefore the band must be defined as excellent correct? No... this would be a mixed bag on " excellence ". Plus, the anology has to have some basis in reality to be applicable, Stu. It would be hard to find a majority paying audience anywhere that would think that a Marching Band that is all" out of step", with "rythmic problems galore", etc were "excellent".. Lady Gaga... if she had such a 50-50 breakdown on her performance would likewise not be considered an " excellent Performing Artist". Most " excellent " Performing Artists tend to have a growing audience where the audience response is much more positively accepted among a large segment of the audience. Again, don't get me wrong as I hate and detest the modern Lady Gaga. I find nothing appealing about her and her band at all. She has flipped all music and stage performance " tradition" on its head. She is as avant garde in the musical Performing Arts genre as it can get. Her technical abilities are arguably inferior. But her " excellence " as a Performance Artist is simply undeniable as well. And thats the bottom line here when we are talking about " excellence " in the Performing Arts. Edited May 16, 2012 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 No. I think the people say "yes" may not really understand what they're saying yes to. There are little rituals and traditions that govern every aspect of the lives of most people, and that's doubly true for drum corps members, who spend their summers working their tails in a high-stress, enclosed environment. Without these even the most competitively successful summer would quickly become unbearable. But there's a balance. Clinging to every little bit of history and tradition is counterproductive. But so is change for the sake of change. Most of the top corps understand this . . . they forge ahead while still making an effort to keep in touch with their past (even if they don't do so on the field). amen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.