What should scores be based on?

[jasgre2000]

I think it's more like, worrying that drum corps will no longer exist if they ignore the need to please the audience.

I'm not convinced that that threat really exists. I know that some corps struggled financially during the economic downturn (and some still are), but I haven't seen anything to make me believe DCI is on the verge of collapse. Financial struggle is to be expected in this type of activity.

[jasgre2000]

Considering how many art house films are actually utter crap, but get great reviews from critics anyway? Yea, maybe.

By eliminating the crap (and there is admitedly plenty of it), you throw out the masterpieces as well. I would take crap all day long if it means we get the masterpieces every once in a while.

[jasgre2000]

I get what you are saying, but I am looking at from a big picture point of view, and not just artistic development. From the business side of things, from the sustainability side of things, from the growth, reach out to a broader audience side of things having an element of entertainment would, as you say "it would sell more tickets". Move revenue cures a lot of ills, who wouldn't want to have more regionals and University sized stadiums drawing in 20,000 per show vs the 3 or 4 today? Who wouldn't want to see increased exposure? Who wouldn't want to see corps extremely competitive 1-22?

We all would...now with that, having an entertaining show is not the end all, be all, but some of these technically proficient, esoteric shows only appeal to those who appreciate it, and that does NOT draw in a new audience, and that group that I am talking about is a small group in the grand scheme of things.

To go broader than that...music education is one of the first things to get cut, so we have less kids in music than back in the day, than we did as early as 5 years ago, who is the next generation coming up? It is a diminishing crowd...if something doesn't change and we continue just kicking the can down the road, DCI will slowly diminish right along with the music education in this country in general. Again, we have less and less kids who are interested in music and ONE way to draw interest is to sell more tickets, increased advertising and making this about family fun, and a way to do that is to encourage some cool entertaining shows. I know this a bit off topic, we have to look at what is going on the education system and how that will impact DCI. I don't have all the answers, but I have enough foresight to know that we will slowly feel that effect as those kids get into high school, college, etc...if we aren't careful and at least have an awareness that DCI can be negatively impacted by this and doesn't have a 5-10 year plan or a contingency plan, when it hits that slope, it may be too slippery to quickly recover. The challenge is how to do this without watering down the product.

Sorry for the length...but just to wrap up my thought, many people are focused on the corps on the field, my contention that what happens on the field puts butts in seats and with fewer kids getting a music education, we may continue to have fewer butts in the seats, unless non music people can get what's happening. In football, they don't go to see the technique the offensive line is using, they go see points scored. I think we are too focused on the Offensive line and not the points. Again, sorry for the length, I just feel really strongly about this.

You have a point if it is true that DCI is in the verge of going under. Like I said in a prior post though, I haven't seen any real evidence that this is the case. In general, the arts don't make money. There is a reason why some schools cut music programs before they cut football teams. I, personally, think it doesn't make a lot of sense to make maximizing revenue the goal of a non-profit educational organization that is focused on the arts. The goal, in my opinion should be artistic freedom. Make enough money to enable corps to be as creatively and technically flexible as possible. But don't be so focused on finances that you sacrifice what you really want to be doing on the field.

BD, SCV, and The Cadets seem to have the financial power to have that kind of freedom, and it is evident in their design. Other corps need to play to the lowest common demoninator to bring in more donations.

I do understand your point, even if I may not have the same appreciation for the financial threat that you do. I would hate for that threat to interfere with any corps freedom to do what they want in terms of design.

[JKT90]

You have a point if it is true that DCI is in the verge of going under. Like I said in a prior post though, I haven't seen any real evidence that this is the case. In general, the arts don't make money. There is a reason why some schools cut music programs before they cut football teams. I, personally, think it doesn't make a lot of sense to make maximizing revenue the goal of a non-profit educational organization that is focused on the arts. The goal, in my opinion should be artistic freedom. Make enough money to enable corps to be as creatively and technically flexible as possible. But don't be so focused on finances that you sacrifice what you really want to be doing on the field.

BD, SCV, and The Cadets seem to have the financial power to have that kind of freedom, and it is evident in their design. Other corps need to play to the lowest common demoninator to bring in more donations.

I do understand your point, even if I may not have the same appreciation for the financial threat that you do. I would hate for that threat to interfere with any corps freedom to do what they want in terms of design.

Just to clarify, I do not think it is on the verge today, I am talking about next generation. Let's have an awareness of what is happening in pre-highschool and high school today and wonder what can we do to draw those kids in when they reach age. I mean look at Detroit, the signs have been there for years. I am talking socio economics and education as it exists today, and how can that impact DCI *tomorrow*.

And your quote "Make enough money to enable corps to be as creatively and technically flexible as possible. But don't be so focused on finances that you sacrifice what you really want to be doing on the field". This is the balancing act of not watering down the product, but having a broader crowd appeal.

Edited July 21, 2013 by JKT90

[Stu]

Proficiency places medals in the hands of the performers, which is necessary to keep the quality of performances extremely high. Entertainment places BITS, which is necessary for the financial survival of the activity. Corps need to strive for both if DCI is to stay relevant.

[N.E. Brigand]

I think Chris Komnick's tabled Entertainment Effect proposal is worth reading through. It attempts to define "Entertainment" explicitly (there's an attached proposed judging sheet).

I like some aspects of it, but financial effect should never be an aspect of the judging sheet. If it is, corps will always resort to playing to the lowest common denominator (see the Man of Steel example). People need to face the reality that drum corps will never be a financial juggernaut and stop pretending like we can make it one by encouraging shows that play mediocre popular music. I don't think it is a coincidence that the corps that do the best financially are also the ones that don't play to the lowest common denominator like that.

Art house films cost less and expect to earn less than the mainstream cinema. Only corps who are convinced they can survive without a paying audience should be ignoring that audience's desires. As for the lowest common denominator, (1) it's not so easy to please the audience as you suggest. Most shows already include a company front, but if you watch all the shows at, say, a regional, they're not all getting standing ovations;* and (2) the sample judging sheets to which skywhopper links lists, in the process of defining aspects of entertainment, such remarks as "contrast adds variety and expressiveness" and "creativity and originality is the ability to capture the imagination"--these are hardly base appeals. (And remember that in that proposal, entertainment would be just one caption, not the whole of the judging.)

*Let me quote George Bernard Shaw again, responding to critics who said Oscar Wilde pandered to the audience, and remember that Shaw was hardly one to appeal to the lowest common denominator: "They laugh angrily at his epigrams, like a child who is coaxed into being amused in the very act of setting up a yell of rage or agony. They protest that the trick is obvious, and that such epigrams can be turned out by the score by any one lightminded enough to condescend to such frivolity. As far as I can ascertain, I am the only person in London who cannot sit down and write an Oscar Wilde play at will". Any corps who thinks they could easily win the audience's hearts if they wanted is kidding themselves.

Corps who think the audience could enjoy their difficult works, if only the audience was a little more open or willing to work harder, must find ways to educate them (without making it feel like education). I work in theater. We program largely contemporary works, often somewhat challenging and usually new to the audience, but aim for a sizeable attendance. Accordingly we use a large variety of outreach and engagement activities to get the audience interested in works that might not automatically appeal to them.

[drumcat]

What I find so fundamentally disturbing is that drum corps' most fervent fans constantly find "achievement" and "audience entertainment" mutually exclusive.

I'm still pretty burnt out on seeing drum corps... it's a side effect of being so close to it for too long. But I went to the Denton show the other day and sat on the sideline. Someone who shall remain nameless said "if you think you haven't heard a melody in a while, just wait for xxx corps". The fact is this could apply to most finalists to at least some degree.

I came to the conclusion that the show I then heard, I kind of liked... in the way an opera fan likes opera. It wasn't the way a 90 second clip of an opera-trained singer is liked on America's Got Talent. Drum Corps isn't the populist art form it was 20-30 years ago. Those days are over for the winning groups. The reason is simple. Most people who "grew up" with drum corps listened to drum corps in an era that had a judging system that required a story. A narrative was needed, and had to be followable in one viewing.

Today, the "system" is heavily based upon visual achievement, and "simultaneous responsibility" (think dancing drum solos). What you see winning is simply the ultimate manifestation of a judging system. It was in the 70's, when shows were cleaner because of the tick, in the 80s-90s they were themed due to the heavy reliance on GE, and in the electricity era, scoring has mutated in a way that prefers visual excellence over auditory continuity.

What I saw the other night was a visual program, and then music was "edited" in order to make the visual work. I'm pretty sure that the complexity of the visual programs require more "visual-first" planning. The point is not to critique the corps for trying to win; it is in their best interest to do so. But in the end, "achievement" and "audience entertainment" in their generally accepted, non-drumcorpsified definitions, do not have to be mutually exclusive.

So asking questions like this isn't going to get anywhere. Everyone likes to be liked, but they like winning more than being liked. If you marched, you didn't care about how the judges took your performance - you leave that part to the staff. You execute with your whole heart every time you wear that pseudo-military machine-washable stink bomb. The problem is that the current system is based on how good your staff are and how good your corps visually, when most people who buy a seat for the first time want to tap their feet and enjoy "accessible" content.

Yet opera is opera. It is its own thing. Drum corps is nearly becoming that. It won't grow, it won't shrink too much, it just is this different thing. It will continue to go down that path until people decide that "achievement" and "audience entertainment" can and must both be served. You can debate all day long about how to get there; that's a good thing. But for the activity to stop fading, one can't be sacrificed for the other.

[fsubone]

Can we get drumcat's post pinned to the front page of DCP as a reminder to everyone on here about what this activity is? That's the most well-reasoned and insightful post I've seen in awhile.

[drumcat]

Thanks fsubone.

It's all about aligning incentives.

[Cleveland1]

No matter how much i love jersey surf's show, no matter how fun and entertaining it is, they should not make finals unless they play well enough to make finals.

The criteria for judging is purely proficiency. They even said despite the changes to the sheets looking for audience engagement, at the end of the day the corps that wins will be the one that performs the best.

To have it any other way would be disgusting. Well i dislike bluecoats show or i dislike spirit's show. They shouldnt make finals. I dont find bd's show to be entertaining, well we wont even see them at semis now will we. Wow genesis' show is really entertaining! They make top 6 at finals!

Doesnt that just sound bad?