Designer Interviews - Semi-Finals 8/8/2013

[Brutus]

So this is what makes me NUTS about DCP:

a) the kids' lives are most definitely NOT at stake.

b) after your critique, could you share your own design resume' ?

I'm glad I didn't read this until the very end of the season. Never want to hurt my computer before finals day.

Geez us...

Do you have to judge someone's comments based on the resume, rather than on the content of their post? Why is that?

[Hornhoser]

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 choreography, 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 between each other-- one super intense and murderous, another smiling. 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 nonchalant remarks basically stated that they were playing with colors and shapes around the phrases of the music. Uh, that's it? 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 through specificity.

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!

Wow...

While I agree with some of your points I am curious as to why you think that artist (ie. program coordinator/designer) equals great interview. Rather than judging programs on the merits of the interviewee why not judge them on the merits of the presentation of the program?

I mean I couldn't tell you what the meaning behind much of Jackson Pollocks works but I know I like it and it moves me in some way that doesn't care what his explanation may be.

[EKBari]

Wow...

While I agree with some of your points I am curious as to why you think that artist (ie. program coordinator/designer) equals great interview. Rather than judging programs on the merits of the interviewee why not judge them on the merits of the presentation of the program?

I mean I couldn't tell you what the meaning behind much of Jackson Pollocks works but I know I like it and it moves me in some way that doesn't care what his explanation may be.

If Stephen King (or your favorite author) wrote a book and then did an interview in which he had ABSOLUTELY no idea about what the book is about, would you buy it?

Show designers have been pushing the idea of using themes to tell a story and in the one moment in which they need to have concise explanations about their shows, they blow it and basically ended up talking out the side of their necks. More than anything it just demonstrated their is no real "story" to be told and the shows are built upon a vague phrase with music shoehorned in to fit said phrase. I would much rather hear that explanation than to see a drum corps staff member mumble, bumble, and stumble through an interview.

If you wouldn't put up with that in any other situation, why would you accept it just because it's drum corps?

[rayfallon]

Do you have to judge someone's comments based on the resume, rather than on the content of their post? Why is that?

Not judging the comments based on the resume'

I disagree with the comments whether he has never seen a show or has written a successful Broadway show.

I'm just curious...

Folks on DCP at times seem incredibly sure of their opinions and I wonder what they did to prepare themselves to judge.

The worst of the folks designing shows on this level, including Open Class, has accomplished something.

The least qualified DCI judge has accomplished something.

Res ipse loquitur...

But I'm curious when I see bashing to the tune of basic disrespect (please don't tell me there's a respectful way to interpret "Lazy")as to what it was that prepared the writer to make these biting comments.

We're in an instant media culture now - everyone is "published" and it grows a lot of self-proclaimed experts, but if they were testifying in court (for instance) the court would want to establish their level of expertise.

Just curious. Plus as an instantly self-published arbiter of everything I decide I'm the arbiter of, I can say whatever I want, just like any other ########.

It's 2013!

[Brutus]

Wow...

While I agree with some of your points I am curious as to why you think that artist (ie. program coordinator/designer) equals great interview. Rather than judging programs on the merits of the interviewee why not judge them on the merits of the presentation of the program?

I mean I couldn't tell you what the meaning behind much of Jackson Pollocks works but I know I like it and it moves me in some way that doesn't care what his explanation may be.

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.

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.

3) Jackson Pollock's art was a singular act-- unlike drum corps which requires a group mind, intense agreement and collaboration, budgets in the hundreds of thousands, and artistic unity of purpose. The comparison is laughable, much like Pollock's random, selfish puke-spattering.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Brutus

[Brutus]

I've seen several clips where James Mason describes what is behind the Scouts' show. I never heard any mention of

the Scouts' military roots. He mentioned their historical roots of brotherhood and how the book - Lone Survivor - served

as a metaphor for their "75 Years of Survival". So he's using the whole military/modern warfare as a backdrop for

a show about brotherhood and how conflict makes that brotherhood stronger.

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.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Brutus

[Brutus]

Man, what a brutal review! I have to say though I agree with you on almost all points but I do like the cavaliers show design.

I haven't really studied the show that much, but what does the "emerging from the backfield black triangle" mean? Are these new members that have been accepted into the "society"? Why are they so happy when they emerge from the black triangle? Do they serve drinks under there? ;)

[aanpote]

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. 😃

[Nine White Russians]

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.

Ok, well, give old Jim a call and voice your concerns to him then if it's so important to you!

Or feel free to kick back with a beer and enjoy an entertaining show, Wow!

[Hornhoser]

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.

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.

3) Jackson Pollock's art was a singular act-- unlike drum corps which requires a group mind, intense agreement and collaboration, budgets in the hundreds of thousands, and artistic unity of purpose. The comparison is laughable, much like Pollock's random, selfish puke-spattering.

My question is why you are so concerned with how well the designers interview on a live broadcast? Some people are great at their chosen craft but not so great in an interview, especially in a live broadcast. After all designers and performers are often two very different kinds of people.

Also, I was not comparing Pollock's singular act of work to a drum corps show. It was an analogy questioning the significance of the designer's ability to explain his thought process in an abstract non-traditional subject format, and asking if it matters. I was asking if the effectant result of the design isn't more important than what the intent of the artist may have been in creating that effect. I could have used Der Ring des Nibelungen, or Spider-Man: The Musical, if that works for you.

So getting back to my original point...Isn't the result of the design more important than the designer's discussion of it?

Edited August 12, 2013 by Hornhoser