Jump to content

Designer Interviews - Semi-Finals 8/8/2013


Recommended Posts

I'm glad I'm still experiencing first. First time I completely disagreed with 100 percent of what a poster says. Normally I can find a ray of at least understanding. Oh well Thanks. 😃

You mean "firsts"? Which part did you disagree with?

1) Designers botched their show pitches at semi's?

2) Madison's Mason lied that Madison was "harkening back" to their military past?

3) Cavies' show had an unclear protagonist?

4) Cadets show lacked specificity and thematic argument?

5) Crown blew its show pitch at semi's?

6) Phantom botched their pitch and flaked on the puppet design?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was Dan Farrell, their program director, and I noted him saying of the show's story, "For lack of a better idea, think of it as 'Snow White'". While public speaking might not be part of his job description, I would think having a "better idea" is!

And you wonder why I want a new program director at Regiment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never watched the designer recap in theaters so this is all based on what the OP has said along with my personal experience.

I'm going to approach this from a performer's standpoint since that has been my perspective for the majority of the time I've been with Drum Corps.

As a performer, it was important to have a grasp on what I was performing, and the message I was communicating through that performance.

Usually, I was able to grasp all of this on the first audition weekend when music was handed out and the show theme explained. And, if I made the corps, would be a factor as to whether I returned.

For example, if I auditioned for the Blue Stars for 2013 and made it, but found out their programming dealt with the subject matter that it did (Voodoo), I would probably not come back because their programming deals with a subject matter that I would not care to endorse via my performing the program.

At first glance, I would see no redeeming ideals that I would be able to latch onto other than "do all you do with excellence" which is really just the default setting for people who march Drum Corps. (Or is it? I've actually kind of wondered about this but that's a topic for another day unless someone wants to answer me here...)

Granted, I might be really conflicted if the staff was amazing and the people were amazing, and if I always wanted to march with the Blue Stars since I was a kid, I would probably join since I would have all that motivation to perform. In that circumstance though, I would have a paradigm shift in how I performed the material, and perhaps change my definition as to what it means to perform. I would disassociate myself from it somehow if possible while still giving all the energy I would be capable of giving, and I would focus on why I was there, not the reasons glaring at me in the face to leave.

When the OP says it's about "life and death," while I think is being overly dramatic, expresses a valid concern for the performers in that he or she wants our HEARTS to be in the show and it's important for the show designers to know what they're trying to communicate so that the kids can know.

My message to the OP is: don't worry about us (well, "them," now that I'm aged out). We can usually figure it out ourselves, and some people in Drum Corps don't even reach this level of abstract thinking. Consciously, they're just in it for the fun of being excellent at something.

Content of a Drum Corps show usually ALWAYS plays to an aspect of the corps' identity, which in turn is a large factor as to why many of the members are there whether they know it or not. Something about the vibe of any given corps attracts members, and that vibe is bound to either sync with, or have a profound influence on, the performers' performance philosophy. The entire journey through the summer is an exercise in this.

Honestly, if everyone in the corps finds a way to put ALL their passion and energy into the show even IF there isn't a unified sense as to what the show means, that's fine and dandy, as long as everyone is giving everything.

If you're an audience member and don't know what a show means, just use your imagination. Take the Cavaliers for example. When you look at a Cavalier with his Aussie all down low and marching the way he does, you might think that he's a rather mysterious man. Secret societies are rather mysterious. Corps can only field 150 members so it's exclusive like secret societies. Drum Corps have rituals or traditions like secret societies. (See: The Passing of the Metronome on Youtube for Carolina Crown) Rookies usually have initiations of some kind (Spring Training as a most basic example) like a secret society. The show illustrates the kids going through the process of becoming part of the secret society.

The Freemasons are the most famous secret society, so the imagery is just meant to evoke the general theme.

If the kids and the audience can attach their own storyline, great! I think the artistic nature of some of the designers want the shows to be to strike a balance between "choose your own adventure" and solid storyline. Sometimes art is just meant to make an impression for no stated purpose. The mystery is part of the thrill for some.

Edited by Barifonium
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) These duface designers agreed to encapsulate their program in front of thousands of viewers on a nationally televised event. It's in their contract. They should have prepared, for the sake of the kids. This is the age of Youtube, not the age of Morse code. Practice. Market. Publicize. Enlighten.

Design skills required to create the great programs we see on the field do not in and of themselves equate to verbal communication skills for a televised interview. Some people are good public speakers, while others are not.

2) The reason why we interviewed them is because 1) Some of the shows need explanation for clarity's sake 2) The corps asked to do it 3) It points up the main argument why Carolina Crown will win this year-- their show has a thematic argument, and BD's simply does not. Unfortunately Crown was unable to articulate its thematic argument, so they carelessly flushed that opportunity down the old porcelain black hole.

What about option 0) DCI asked their members corps for designer volunteers to agree to go on camera and be interviewed as an experiment in providing good customer service to those watching the show.

People on DCP lament the lack of visibility in DCI and the corps, yet when they make a stab at it...they get trashed in DCP for even making the attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, in Corps of Brothers: Behind the Scenes with James Mason he continually alludes to the history of the Madison Scouts as the reason for selecting the theme of military combat. He segues continually between Madison's "old time corps style" honoring the history of the corps and military drills. It's intentionally misleading. "The combat mode of the men of Madison."

"...what it takes to be in training for let's say special ops or the marine corps or the army or the navy, and you get a feeling of this boot camp type mentality. I really believe that we're, we're getting a feeling for old time drum corps."

Uh, the Madison Scouts were never a military training group. The line is blurred here, and I believe that many viewers are convinced that Madison has some military history, and that the military was part of its early history, and the reason for selecting this theme for their anniversary show, but it's simply not true. It's one thing to harken back to military bearing, and the formal marching style, but it's another thing to suggest that the history of the Madison Scouts had its roots in military training, which it clearly did not.

He was talking about the general influence of the military on all drum corps of the time, not specifically the Scouts. Drills back in the day were highly military in concept and technique. We learned all sorts of military drill techniques in my marching days that are long gone today. So yes, drills back in the day did have their roots in miltary training.

Competitions pre-DCI were sponsored and judged using the VFW or AL sheets, and those groups held annual championship competitions. For years, the VFW did not even mention the name of the corps at their champs...they just gave the name and post number of the VFW sponsoring post. At least in my day, they added the corps name, but the way the corps was announced was to first note the post information, and then give the corps name.

"Representing the Benda-Roehrich Post 2867, from Garfield, New Jersey, these are the Garfield Cadets!" is how Tony "hic" Schlechta used to announce us at the VFW Nats I marched in, 1970 and 1971.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Loud Live

8/8/2013

Show designer interviews on last night's Big Loud Live Broadcast revealed that they don't know how to pitch their shows. It was just embarrassing. Their comments pointed up the weaknesses in the shows-- vague show concepts, or under-developed narrative arcs. If you can't encapsulate your show's design succinctly and clearly, you're screwed-- either because you can't articulate it, or because the concept isn't clear! Get your pitches together! :smile:/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>

Madison Scouts

James Mason first said on a Youtube video months ago that the reason they were doing the show was to get back to Madison's military roots. What miltary roots? Madison doesn't have any military roots. They were established in the mode of the Junior Marine parade units of the 40's and 50's. They performed in VFW sponsored shows. That's it, as far as research reveals. Last night's broadcast narrator mentioned some vague military association but then handily skipped over any military details for this corps-- because there aren't any. Madison has no military background-- they were a boy scout troop from the beginning. So that's just misleading. Then last night Mason said he wrote the show for his marine son who returned from Afghanistan. Which one is it? Both?

Madison's show from a design standpoint doesn't work for one basic reason-- you can't have military guys in camou doing pirhouetets. It just doesn't work, I'm sorry. It's the Village People effect. Great heartfelt performances, but no. I was with a Hollywood casting director who has cast some major, major films, and she agreed, the concept rings false for this medium and for these performers. Call me crazy, but the Mason's kid wouldn't recognize this style of dance associated with his military service. There's something awkward and uncomfortable about the whole concept of dramatizing war conflict this soon after the war. It feels fake, contrived and belittling. I would have changed it to be on the subject of PTSD. One soldier struggles to acclimate to daily life after returning from war, and succeeds with a little help from friends. Keep the ending the same-- You'll Never Walk Alone. This way, you can avoid the "war play" scenes which ring false because of the awkward pairing of the flambouyant choreography and military fighting. Awkward. And yes, I cried at the end.

Blue Devils - I'm glad Wayne Downey is creating jazz versions of the classics. That's really wonderful. Congratulations. Now how about taking some responsibility for the accessibility of the pieces you select? Maybe the audience "skins you alive" as he put it, because you selected an abstract, anti-establishment Russian classical ballet piece, and adapted it to the jazz genre, played by drum corps. The audience at the theater here in California just sat dumbfounded during BD, as if at a lecture. At the end, there was some confused applause. Completely inaccessible.

Also, it's not enough to say that you're creating choreography and drill design based on the "moods" and "emotions" that the music evokes. That's not enough. You're designing a 12 minute production in a stadium, you're not designing a fabric. It's no longer enough just to do pretty pictures and colors. You're responsible for a thematic argument in this show. And a clear reason for doing this musical piece. And that reason better relate to who these people are as performers, and as people. And that reason better include the audience, not alienate them. Why are they performing this, here, now? And why are you even bothering to show it to an audience if not to share a personal message or story or observation about our lives and the way we live and how we feel? Just because a piece of music is abstract doesn't mean that the performer's intentions are vague and ambiguous-- they must be razor sharp. But here, we just can't tell who's thinking what or why they're bothering.

"Pushing the envelope" means building a thematic argument into your show. A commentary on human behavior, illumination on our lives, or the lives of these performers. Now we know, Wayne Downey's music comes first, and the abstract pictures come from that. He basically admitted last night, there's nothing more to this show than choreographing around his musical phrases. The corps is his canvas evidently, and any progression, any heightened story, or any narrative arc or any understructure is not important.

Curiously, during BD's various show segments, the facial expressions on the color guard performers varied between each other. Each one different-- multiple closeups revealed that in any given phrase, the color guard facial expressions varied among one other-- one super intense and murderous, another smiling, all in the same moment. Which is it? If you can't decide what the intent of the "phrase" is, we can't either. This points up the fact that the corps is lost in terms of agreeing on the meaning they're trying to convey. And it points up the fact that there's no narrative throughline to help them determine what each phrase in this ballet means. When they're carrying the elephant tusks, I got a sense of confusion and embarrasment from the guard. If they feel awkward and unsure, we do too. Choreographers are expert at defining each moment in a ballet, and convincing the performers to climb aboard the meaning train. But if the movements are too abstract and random, and if the performers haven't agreed upon the meaning, you can see uncertainty in their performances, like you do in Re-Write of Spring.

Cavaliers

The Cavalier representative revealed that the show is about "images" on the topic of secret societies in general, and that the Cavaliers have some of the qualities of a secret society. That's way too vague a subject matter to sustain a 12 minute show. Nothing is specific enough. Who are you? Why are you transforming at the end? Why does everything look like it's from the Freemasons? Who's the good guy? Looks to me like they selected an action-adventure theme of a secret society a la Game of Thrones but couldn't secure the copyright, and gave up.

The Secret Society theme has presented some awkward public relations issues for this corps-- the Cavaliers aren't a secret society, and they don't have an evil hidden agenda either. To associate the corps with a questionable hidden motives is to taint the good will built up by the corps over the past 5 decades. The show is unspecific, and we don't know whether to cheer or boo because we don't know who you are, where you are or what you're doing or why it should matter to us. I would change the show to be centered around one member of a society who takes off his robe in defiance, fights them off, and gradually, all the members defect and form a new open society. Much clearer. Drop the references to the Masons. It's a copyright infringement and is just creepy.

Cadets

Most appalling were the remarks of the designer for the Cadets whose casual, gormand-on-mushrooms musings basically revealed that they were playing with colors and shapes around the phrases of the music. Uh, that's it? Bueller? Bueller? And that the towers represented nothing, basically, except to "define the space". Um, after we get milk and cookies, we'll play with crayons on real paper. This is a shockingly indulgent and vague concept, and the show suffers as a result. The lives of 150 kids are hinging on you building a thematic argument into this show. They're waiting for you to establish a strong narrative or emotional arc to this music, and relate it to building meaning in their lives. The audience sat in confused silence throughout much of it. Even esoteric show concepts around shape color and form can move audiences, but only if it's relatable and human.

Crown

Also appalling were Crown's design team remarks. So nonchalant, so careless, so vague. Dude, this show revolves around the theme of E=mc2 which is a space science concept. You're playing music from 2001, and from Phillip Glass. We need you to step up and relate with razor-sharp specificity what this show concept is. I'll help. "This year's show E=Mc2 is a space-themed show, pointing out the grandeur of the Universe, how infinitessimally small we are in it, and how love transcends it all." Boom, done. Instead, he said something vague about energy and mass and it was so vague, it meant absolutely nothing and makes the audience question whether the design team had any control of this monster at all. Either this show means a lot more than he's able to articulate, or he's just lucky that it means more than he intended.

Phantom

The Phantom representative basically talked about how they added the Evil Queen puppet late for some vague logistical reason that he wouldn't specify. There's no excuse for late prop design. And no excuse for adding this so late in the season. If you're doing a show about an evil queen, you start working immediately on the maquette design, you start the performers immediately taking puppet classes and take the whole thing through a focus group. Otherwise you end up with a floppy, odd looking rag doll on a stick that looks like a nun in a blender, and you're making excuses on a national broadcast.

Come on lazy design teams, step the hell up! The kids' lives are at stake!

I agree with you that some programs didn't seem completely fleshed out on the field. However, do you think it was these programmer's content that was lacking or their execution on describing their programs while being broadcast live to hundreds of theaters? Remember, these guys aren't hardened news pundits or spotlight loving conductors like MTT. Most are glorified band directors spending most of their time behind a computer. It can be nerve racking being interviewed.

It sounds like most of your beef was with how they described it and not what actually made it to the field.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Design skills required to create the great programs we see on the field do not in and of themselves equate to verbal communication skills for a televised interview. Some people are good public speakers, while others are not.

That sounds entirely correct to me. DCI would help themselves by helping the designers craft some better talking points. The announcers too! There were several misstatements Thursday and Saturday (e.g. Cavaliers as the year's most-improved corps). Michael Boo ought to write the copy for Messrs. Rondinaro and Delucia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...