Grandpa Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Answer ANY of the 15 or so questions I posted previously? Please? Picking one fight after another is no way to make progress. You have my attention for about another 10 minutes before I decide you're just another guy complaining on the 'net. Let's be brutally honest okay? I'll ask you to pick apart my work, any corps, any year, and we'll have a discussion. Ready. Set. Go. Chuck Naffier Believe me, nothing I post is written with any concern whatsoever for holding your attention. Feel free to dismiss me at your leisure, but dismissing the perception of a check list, when I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, might not be the wisest thing to do. Edited September 5, 2012 by Grandpa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Spoken eloquently and thru the perspective prism of a brass arranger. Some might respectfully disagree however that " its still about the music ". I submit that its more about the Visual and Guard. For example, it is my belief that ( for example ) The Cavaliers do not fall out of the top 7 this year if they had a strong Visual program. Their Percussion line was fine. They had veterans and maturity in the brass line and the Corps returning veterans did not suddenly lose their ability to play their Brass Instruments in one year, and the music and brass playing sounded ok to my ears. No, it was the Visual program that was primarily, and above all else, their undoing. Had they had their usually strong Visual Program, it is my view that even their Brass and Music Ensemble scores would have gone up from what they received in scores in these captions this year. Its quite remarkable to me how this seems to work on the judging sheets. The Visual bleeds into the brass and music scores, more than the other way around. Bad Visuals seem to take Corps down further than similarly bad music or brass playing. So, no, its not about the Music, imo. Not any more. Its more important to have a stong Guard and Visual Program. A single Guard performer, for example, carries more weight on the current scoring sheets than a single baritone player. If a baritone player fracs some notes in performance nobody notices... maybe not even the judge on the field. But if a Guard performer drops a couple of equipment tosses, everybody, including judges up in the booth, notice right away. Brass have 80 in line. Guards have less than half that. Do we account for these rather large disparate numbers on the current score sheets ? No, not in my view . The pathway to a DCI Title is to have no section weakness compared with Corps surrounding you. But if you have to have a section that is a tad less strong than your competitors around you, it had better not be the Visual Program. One of the biggest " changes " noticeable from earlier decades to me is the transformative way we have moved from primarily a Musical medium to a Visual medium. I believe The Cavaliers 2012 are Exhibit A of many other examples that one could provide for this assessment and observation. Thats my take here in 2012 anyway with our judging sheets and how the activity " has changed and evolved " this is very true as a matter of fact another thing most people wont admit, even BITD at the beginning of big visual programs 27th PR etc etc even when number wise it may have been tipped toward music....visual still dominated...the big wow's were many of the visual ok and some big loud sounds...but even back then visual was inherent in all the other captions so it pulled weight all over the place....the numbers just show it now , thats the only difference. I remember as a very young instructor and also toward my age out year I worked with or was taught by Bobby Hoffman, pete Emmons, mike moxley,jim costello George Z. and they all told me ," put your eggs in the visual basket, ifyou want to persue teaching ( they may not have used the word visual at the time..lol )(and especially since I had no interest in being a music major) because thats where its headed and thats what will decide shows in the future....ok they also said thats where alot of jobs and money would be also...lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim K Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 As far as the use of electronics is concerned, I agree with those who believe less is more. I also agree that the use of electronics will not go away. For me, the sheer power of a good horn line or drum line moves me far more than anything than is enhanced. I attended the show in East Rutherford where most corps performed with little if any electronics due to weather and I still saw great shows with little to no electronic enhancement. I don't know whether use of electronics whether it be instruments, sound effects, voice overs, amplification and the like have ever catapulted a show into a championship level, but overuse to hide a weak show is pretty obvious. Corps have to have the goods without enhancements to win and corps that win do have the goods. As far as themed shows are concerned, back in the day the best corps did not just pick out random music. Corps had an identity and sound and musical selections were based on that image. Take Kilties and Phantom Regiment as an example. Kilties performed a smorgasbord of pieces including classical titles that fit their style, but never ventured into composers such as Wagner or Bartok. Phantom jazzed up some of their signature classical arrangements but never ventured into "Roll Over Beethoven." Musical selections usually fit the corps. In some ways themed shows of today are a logical progression in that themed shows are carefully planned and work for the corps performing the show. Themed shows also allow corps to explore repertoires not normally associated with them. Whether themed shows work is another question. Themed shows are no longer new. Steve Rondinaro and Michael Cessario credit the 1982 Phantom Regiment show to be the first themed show so if it goes back that far, themed shows could be considered "Old School." Favorite shows such as Sky Riders "Sound of Music", Star of Indiana's "Roman Images," and SCV's "Phantom" are all themed shows and now are favorites from the past. Those who march today were infants if they were born at all for Star in 1991, and had not seen the light of day for Sky Riders or SCV's Phantom. Now as far as musical accessibility is concerned, as one poster noted, this is a matter of opinion but I will make a recommendation. Watch the 2010 DVD's then watch 2011. Without knocking 2010 which had some great shows, 2011 is more audience accessible and with challenging shows. I think we'll see a repeat of this in 2012. We also had quite a few corps that did not make finals with entertaining shows: Pacific Crest, Jersey Surf, the Colts, Oregon Crusaders and Mandarins come to mind and in the case of Mandarins, their score was original music but was still audience friendly. I believe we are definitely moving toward a great balance of excellence and entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 The shows have become "twitter feeds"... lots of small elements pieced together for the sake of staying competitive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Powell Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Doesn't change the fact that a bugle, by definition, has NO valves. Drum and bugle corps was no longer drum and bugle corps stopped adhering to your definition the day that they allowed valves on the instruments. There are as many variations to the "definition of bugle" as there are variations to the "bugle". The one thing that did remain constant was the conical bore of the horn which is funny - it is not in any of those definitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actucker Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 There are as many variations to the "definition of bugle" as there are variations to the "bugle". The one thing that did remain constant was the conical bore of the horn which is funny - it is not in any of those definitions. No. There are several vernacular references to conical instruments as bugles. Many people often use the word bugle as a broader description of those instruments. However, Webster's definition specifically states that a bugle has no valves or keys. The point is, you've decided upon some arbitrary criteria for your definition of what drum and bugle corps is. That's fine, but if you're going to define that by when they stopped using bugles, that moment was long before the switch to Bb. Maybe you simply like the sound of the conical instruments. That's fine. I'm not trying to change your mind. Simply pointing out that if you're only criteria was the time at which the instrumentation switched from the strict idea of "drum and bugle corps", that moment was not the same as when you seem to think it is. What about when mallet instruments were added to the mix? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Powell Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) No. There are several vernacular references to conical instruments as bugles. Many people often use the word bugle as a broader description of those instruments. However, Webster's definition specifically states that a bugle has no valves or keys. The point is, you've decided upon some arbitrary criteria for your definition of what drum and bugle corps is. That's fine, but if you're going to define that by when they stopped using bugles, that moment was long before the switch to Bb. Maybe you simply like the sound of the conical instruments. That's fine. I'm not trying to change your mind. Simply pointing out that if you're only criteria was the time at which the instrumentation switched from the strict idea of "drum and bugle corps", that moment was not the same as when you seem to think it is. What about when mallet instruments were added to the mix? and the Oxford dictionary says "typically" without valves... it is a moot point. 2000 was the year that I "personally" saw the change from being more corps like to more marching band like due to a mandate in instrumentation. YES... it was a personal line that I personally drew in the sand. Edited September 6, 2012 by Kevin Powell 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actucker Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 and the Oxford dictionary says "typically" without valves... it is a moot point. 2000 was the year that I "personally" saw the change from being more corps like to more marching band like due to a mandate in instrumentation. YES... it was a personal line that I personally drew in the sand. Cool. Just wanted to be clear. As for your mandated instrumentation change, I'm interested in why you think it was a mandate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) and the Oxford dictionary says "typically" without valves... it is a moot point. 2000 was the year that I "personally" saw the change from being more corps like to more marching band like due to a mandate in instrumentation. YES... it was a personal line that I personally drew in the sand. If I recall, only two corps used Bb/F horns in 2000, and top brass was shared by a Bb/F corps (Cadets) and a g corps (Cavies). Edited September 6, 2012 by MikeD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 SOME corps will have balance issues, SOME corps won't use them creatively, etc. On the flip side, I think that SOME corps will also balance their electronics and SOME corps will use them creatively. And SOME corps will have brass balance problems (I heard a few corps on the Fan Network Semis feed that had a few balance issues with brass players sticking out of the ensemble, or battery over-powering brass at inappropriate times). SOME corps will not be visually creative, and will just go for the tried and true formations and development that corps have been doing for years. Such is our activity: some groups are wildly creative and proficient, some groups are unimaginative and dirty, and a lot of corps are somewhere in the middle. Also, I've heard judge's tapes that commented on balance issues with electronics. I think many judges treat it the same way they treat a fracked solo, or a player stumbling on turf, and give it the proper (deserved) credit. Do people really think that, say, if a corps is executing extremely well musically & visually, but the synth is a little loud at times, that they corps' placement should be slammed? Or even that a corps should drop a placement just because their pit is "too loud" (argumentative) at times? if the issue persists the entire show, it should be reflected in the score. it's not 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.