jasgre2000 Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 Design is inextricably part of the equation. If members aren't given an entertaining or challenging show to perform then they won't be able to achieve that. Entertainment is not achieved by design or proficiency alone, but entertainment is the ultimate point. Why is entertainment the point? I don't think it should be the point. I think the point should be to help the performers gain skills (both life skills and performance skills). That doesn't always coincide with entertainment, and I don't think it should. This is all subjective, of course, but I don't think the educational aspect of DCI should ever take a back seat or be sacrificed for entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) You can make an argument for that being the point of the activity, but not the scoring system. Maybe it should be, though there would be consequences to doing that. The judging system exists to serve the activity, so it should encourage entertaining shows. I think it mostly does a good job of that already but there are some holes. 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) in terms of judging. Not saying it's the right solution or anything, just that it's an attempt to address the question. Edited July 21, 2013 by skywhopper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 Personally, it would be nice if crowd reaction counted for something. It might, but sometimes it doesn't seem so, partly because a lot of shows don't have a oh wow how cool was that moment (e.g Cadets '90 Z pull). I understand that a lot of people feel that way. My question is why, beyond the obvious answer that it would sell more tickets. Don't get me wrong, I think there is something to value in being able to get a crowd reaction. I just find that to be a very minor skill and one that shouldn't be the goal of any corps that is capable of doing more. Besides ... entertainment is so subjective and emphasizing crowd reaction seems like a poor measure of accomplishment to me. Look at film, for example. A movie like Man of Steel is always going to make hundreds of millions of more money at the box office than an art house film from a director like Terrence Malick. But if you look at technical accomplishment and artistic value, Man of Steel is a steaming pile of crap when put next to a film like The Tree of Life or Badlands. Do we really want to eliminate the art house in favor of more Zach Snyder's nonsense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Why is entertainment the point? I don't think it should be the point. I think the point should be to help the performers gain skills (both life skills and performance skills). That doesn't always coincide with entertainment, and I don't think it should. This is all subjective, of course, but I don't think the educational aspect of DCI should ever take a back seat or be sacrificed for entertainment. Entertainment is why audience members are willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in travel and ticket costs to attend shows. The education you speak of is education in how to entertain. I don't see how the activity can be defined except in terms of entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 The judging system exists to serve the activity, so it should encourage entertaining shows. I think it mostly does a good job of that already but there are some holes. 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) in terms of judging. Not saying it's the right solution or anything, just that it's an attempt to address the question. I liked that proposal a lot, and was sad to see it get such little consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 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. I think it's more like, worrying that drum corps will no longer exist if they ignore the need to please the audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Do we really want to eliminate the art house in favor of more Zach Snyder's nonsense? :tongue:/> Considering how many art house films are actually utter crap, but get great reviews from critics anyway? Yea, maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 Entertainment is why audience members are willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in travel and ticket costs to attend shows. The education you speak of is education in how to entertain. I don't see how the activity can be defined except in terms of entertainment. I respectfully disagree, in part. Entertainment is AN aspect of what corps should be doing and teaching, and as I said initially ... I'm not opposed to that being an aspect of the judging sheet. I don't think it should be primary though. There are much more important skills that can be learned in drum corps than how to get a crowd reaction. As I said in anither thread, it is easy to get a crowd reaction in drum corps ... just play really loud major chords and end with a company front. You will get a standing ovation every time. I sure hope we want the players to learn more than that though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKT90 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) I understand that a lot of people feel that way. My question is why, beyond the obvious answer that it would sell more tickets. Don't get me wrong, I think there is something to value in being able to get a crowd reaction. I just find that to be a very minor skill and one that shouldn't be the goal of any corps that is capable of doing more. Besides ... entertainment is so subjective and emphasizing crowd reaction seems like a poor measure of accomplishment to me. Look at film, for example. A movie like Man of Steel is always going to make hundreds of millions of more money at the box office than an art house film from a director like Terrence Malick. But if you look at technical accomplishment and artistic value, Man of Steel is a steaming pile of crap when put next to a film like The Tree of Life or Badlands. Do we really want to eliminate the art house in favor of more Zach Snyder's nonsense? 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. Edited July 21, 2013 by JKT90 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.