ibexpercussion Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Well said. That said, I have tried to remind my older Drum Corps friends to dial it back a notch the criticisms we sometimes hear from them on today's, show designs and music playing. Its a two way street. If the Legends ( or Dinos if you prefer ) want respect for the older Corps and shows, it might help to give a little more respect to the newer generation, while recognizing the differences over the years. Very true. Both ways! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibexpercussion Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) yep. A great read is the Cavies book about Don Warren and the corps. Clearly the corps has retained several traditions through the decades.....and it doesn't seem to be hurting excellence at all.Same thing with the Cadets and several inhouse traditions they have. You can balance honoring the past within your organization and still strive for excellence without "selling out" as some call it and going retro on the field. I just finished this book a couple of days ago. A great read, even if you are not a Cavies fan. I love the opening lines of the Introduction: "Can the Van Halen. Rack your Kid Rock. Stow your Styx. For this musical journey, we're leaving the amplifiers with the long-haired pretty boys in spandex and taking a flying leap from the concert stage: to a football field, baking in the heat of a late June afternoon" Edited May 16, 2012 by ibexpercussion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Very true. Both ways! LOL, I have a (well can't say three way) thing with music before, during and after my time going on.... I came up with 70s shows and can understand and enjoy most of them. For todays shows (IOW after my time) there are some corps that I really look forward to and then there shows that try to impress more than entertain leave me cold. For some I'll take my bathroom break and leave for others to enjoy so no biggie. Now that I'm hitting more standstill shows I'm hearing firsthand styles from BEFORE my time. Have the CDS of old shows but now hearing it live. Some corps I really enjoy and look forward too and some... well time for that bathroom again. Again will leave them for others to enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wort 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? Remember punk rock? Added in edit: Sorry I should have read the whole thread before posting. This was not the first time it came up. Edited May 16, 2012 by Wort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecoats88 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 A) Stu... in order to qualify as an " excellent " Performing Artist, one would need to be much more consistent in performance. An " excellent " Performing Artist can have a bad " performance " compared to previous performances. As a matter of fact all " excellent " Performing Artists on occasion have sub par performances. It goes with the territory where there are so many performances. If Lady Gaga gave a sub par performance in a show this would not disqualify her as an " excellent " Performing Artist at all. That said, if her appeal to audiences in the future subsided, she would be referred to as a FORMER "excellent" Performance Artist. B) a Marching Band that is " out of step " and has " rhythmic problems galore ", etc that performs to a paying audience that only has in its audience family members is something that to my knowledge has never occured. So I don't know why you are asking me this question. That said, if a Marching Band performed before only familiy members I would naturally understand that the fantasy world audience here of family members would think they are " excellent ". But this fantasy world of an out of step, awful playing Marching Band, being considered " excellent " does not exist except in your fantasy world.We would naturally exclude family members evaluations. They love their families no matter what, and would be predisposed to calling them " excellent " Performing Artists. My comments above were based in the real world however where the Performing Artist is confronted by audiences that is not so sympathetic to loving them and calling them " excellent " simply by virtue of family ties. Thats the " audience " I would have assumed you thought I was referring to here re. " the audience ". Brasso - you are not defining excellence, you are defining popularity. Lady GaGa by all definitions is a popular and profitable performing artist. However, from an excellence point of view, she is a mediocre singer who is a very good performer. Just because an audience likes her doesn't mean she is an excellent singer, it just means she is popular. and just because someone is an excellent singer it doesn't mean they are going to be popular of profitable in the music industry. excellence and popularity/fame do not always go hand in hand. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecoats88 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 This may come as a shock to you, but as much as you ( and I ) might define The Cadets 2005 show as " excellent " the sheer reality is that general, non Drum Corps audiences ( plural ) would not consider the The 2005 Cadets show as " excellent ". They would consider it weird and unentertaining. We need to step outside of our bubble world here and look at how things really are, nor how we wish they were. A Performing Artist is indeed defined more by the audience. The " audience " for the Cadets 2005 indeed would define this as less than " excellent". You even correctly pointed out that it was even considered less than excellent by ( in your words ).. " many "... of your Drum Corps friends and colleagues in this activity itself that watched it live at Finals in 2005. So I don't know what else to tell you, Stu... I told you that in the Performing Arts, " excellence " is defined by the audience, not the Artist. You have another example here. And thanks for using it as a good illustration. Again, what YOU and I may consider " excellence" may not be shared with wider audiences at all. Nothing wrong with that either. I believe the 2005 Cadets show was Performing Arts " excellence ". A few judges in this exceedingly small niche activity did too. But lets not try and define what " excellence " is FOR OTHERS, Stu. Thats where our personal likes go amiss. I'm pretty sure you would not want others to define in music, art, theatre, movies, dance, singing, etc. what is " excellence " FOR YOU either, Stu... Or would you ? see you are not defining excellence you are defining enjoyability and taste. Just because people don't care for what was performed does not mean that the Cadets in 2005 did not perform their show with excellence. They performed the crap out of the material they were performing and because of that it was an excellent performance and they were an excellent group regardless of whether or not anyone liked it. It was still excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 But " MARCH" a lot better" ?. This is certainly open to legitimate difference of opinion it would seem to me. This might come down to one's definition of " March " too. And thats where minds may not come togther as the definition may have different meanings to different people...and there is nothing inherently wrong with that either. Not really in dispute. I can find tics in the supposedly perfect 70's and 80's corps too. People tic now. People tic'd then. People tic. And yes, extremely high demand can cause more noticeable tics. Marching = moving in unison while playing. Can you agree to that? Because I'll put the BD in basics block against any legacy corps you care to name and they'll pretty much dominate. I may not like their shows lately but they march like freaking machines with far more perfection and attention to detail than I've ever seen a legacy corp march. In fact a number of the corps at the top level all look amazing in basics. The problem is -- while back in the day the entire show was pretty much a basics block exercise -- today basics block is just one brick in a pyramid of training. If you want to compare, you need imagine XX Legacy corps marching todays show and YY modern corps marching yesterdays show. Doesn't take much imagination to see who'd win such a contest. The real problem here is calcified attitudes. A legacy fan see a modern performer out-of-step for a moment in an extremely high demand moment and says "UNFORGIVABLE!". What they're missing entirely is that same performer probably is meeting a number of simultaneous responsibilities (exposed musical part, a no-compromise pass through, whatever ) and performs 7 out of 8 of those ridiculous responsibilities REALLY well. Yes out-of-step is a big no-no but you need to look at things IN CONTEXT. The out-of-step may been an adjustment they needed to make to SAVE the moment by moving faster than written but old blood and guts just shakes his head says "Sloppy,sloppy,sloppy". If you don't understand the context and the responsibilities in a given moment, you no have business #####ing about a performer being out-of-step. IMO that is 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Marching = moving in unison while playing. Can you agree to that? "Marching" can be defined in several ways. I can accept your particular definition here, although to be sure, " moving in unison WHILE PLAYING, but be a bit of a reach, but I'm willing to accept such a liberal definition. That said, are you likewise prepared that the conventional understanding of " marching"... particulary for the earlier generation marchers... has a defintion a little bit different ? ( and no less accurate, imo ). Their definition of marching is " to move steadily and rythmically forward and in step with others ". Now, I " get " the context, and the degree of difficulty, and am willing to accept without reservation that the running ( or " marching " if you will ) on the field is difficult to perform at such speed velocities and from different distances. Its real difficult to maintain step uniformity under such high demand requirements. I just want you to understand that while you might see the forest, another is seeing the tree. Neither is correct, nor " right ", nor " wrong ". For some, being out of step overides the end product to some degree. For others, such as yourself, being out of step in " marching " is overridden by the sheer beauty of the demand, motion, and formation that is ultimately created. And I " get " that too. Likewise, i also " get " that for some, out of step, is out of step, ( despite the much higher demand), and for them the " excellence " is compromised with the run to the formation out of step. But its no big deal. I 'm only pointing out that " excellence " is a very subjective term,... as is what consitutes " marching ", and what constitutes " excellence " in marching as a result of looking at the product a bit differently. Edited May 16, 2012 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarimbasaurusRex Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 It serves no purpose to keep redefining excellence to the point where it just becomes "taste". It's very Clinton-esque...just what do you mean by "is". Dumb game. So I'll stick to my OP -- if you're complaining about "what is played" it's just content. If you're complaining about style, I still think there are objective standards like timing, intonation, balance, blend, uniformity of approach, rhythmic accuracy, etc... that can be applied to any style. This doesn't preclude brass lines from having different characteristic styles. In any case your comment clearly makes no reference to any of this and instead talks about garbage. If that's not a reference to "What" then perhaps you need re-examine your statement's clarity. As for Lol -- another cryptic quote. Anyhow since you're apparently talking about kids moving from one corps to another -- yep some kids move from corps to corps. Certainly not all do. Some corps are more difficult to make than other corps and a kid might march a 2nd tier corps to get enough experience to make his first choice. It's the way things are and it's probably different than when you marched. What either of these two cryptograms had to with the OT, I haven't a clue. But thanks for playing :-) Wow. Are you this condescending to everyone? Get out of your cloistered little band/corps world and see how far your definition of excellence gets you. I would reiterate my points to clarify, but they fall on deaf ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Brasso - you are not defining excellence, you are defining popularity. Lady GaGa by all definitions is a popular and profitable performing artist. However, from an excellence point of view, she is a mediocre singer who is a very good performer. Just because an audience likes her doesn't mean she is an excellent singer, it just means she is popular. and just because someone is an excellent singer it doesn't mean they are going to be popular of profitable in the music industry. excellence and popularity/fame do not always go hand in hand. I certainly agree with you that Lady Gaga represents "popularity" and not " excellence." You and I both undestand that difference. But frankly, this is a difference without distinction for millions of people around the world that would define Lady Gaga as signifying creative " excellence " as a Performing Artist. When audiences from around the world tell us that her concert was " excellent ", then for these millions, there is the blur between " excellence " and " popularity ". I only utilize this example of Lady Gaga to posit that " excellence " in the Performing Arts is a highly subjective thing and really is based on the musical taste of the observer. I'm quite sure that there are millions of observers that would watch the 2005 Cadets for the first time and not find the level of " excellence " at all that we here readily observe and recognize. Thats because, as I said " excellence" " is a highly subjective term. What defines " excellence " for some is mere " popularity " to others. And I " get " that. Edited May 16, 2012 by BRASSO 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.