Someone please explain e=mc^2 to me, because I really don't like/g

[Michael Boo]

Boo's such a nice guy he wouldn't say "sextuple" in a public forum. :w00t:/>

At that point, I would have had to switch to "six-fold" to keep my modesty intact.

[13strokeroll]

I actually, I think BD captured the absolute motif of dada perfectly - "I'm so much smarter than you are that I could put a pile of crap in front of you and you'll love me for it." Coincidentally, dada imploded because they took this notion to the extreme to the point that they snobbed themselves away from having an audience. The difference between 2012 and 2013, IMO? Despite having just as much of an avant garde flavor, 2013 seemed far more audience-inclusive. The avant is punctuated by the accessible. 2012 did not have that effect.

That said, even though not a fan of BD's 2012 program, after watching some of the complexity of the drill and the nuance of their brass, I would be at best petty if I didn't include them in the top 3 conversation.

[charlie1223]

Moral of the story...

If you don't like Crowns show that's fine but we all feel terribly sorry for you!

[Michael Boo]

Moral of the story...

If you don't like Crowns show that's fine but we all feel terribly sorry for you!

It's kind of like not liking fudge brownies. My dad would have said that it just leaves more for the rest of us. In this case, it simply spreads the appreciation of the show amongst one less person, meaning the rest of us get to appreciate our percentage of his quota amongst ourselves.

Okay...I shouldn't write when I'm sleep deprived.

[Pete Freedman]

I'm late to the party, but I have some thoughts so I'll post them now:

1. The OP is reasonable in looking for some explanation of an unusual drum corps show. In fact, whatever information goes to the judges should also be published for those who want it. That would have made the enjoyment for many people better.

2. I had issues with this show until someone on another thread explained it in part. My interpretation now is that it has to do with the popular interpretation (i.e. inaccurate) of Einstein's work, that everything has a limit (as opposed to everything has a speed limit), and that everything is relative (as opposed to speeds being relative to the speeds of other objects).

The last part of Crown's show is based on a rejection of the "everything has a limit" popular principle. That is, the narrator is saying explicitly, "Everything must have an end, except my love for you." Now I don't think either they nor Glass meant to say that love really has no limits, only that we should believe it has no limits. After all, it is presented as "a soothing story." But who knows.

3. The OP is also reasonable is being a bit miffed when a show "about Einstein" seems not to be about Einstein. At first it looks like they are saying that Einstein isn't really interesting, so we're going to talk about love and put trappings of Einstein over it. However, they weren't trying to do that. "Everything has a limit; nothing can go on forever" is really a valuable principle, even though it is not really from physics. It is inspired by physics. And it's beautiful that millions of people admire Einstein so much that they used his discoveries as inspirations for these popular "laws" that they can not only understand, but use in their daily lives. Crown's show makes sense in this context. In fact Crown's show tries to marry the two versions of Einstein by including so many references to the real science in this show about love.

[Michael Boo]

I'm late to the party, but I have some thoughts so I'll post them now:

1. The OP is reasonable in looking for some explanation of an unusual drum corps show.

I agree that would be reasonable. I suspect where some negative reactions came in (including from me) was due to him sincerely asking for help in understanding the show and then commenting something akin to, "And here is why the show sucked." I believe there was a dichotomy of perceived messages going out from that.

In fact, whatever information goes to the judges should also be published for those who want it. That would have made the enjoyment for many people better.

I've seen some of what has been made available to the judges in the past, and it often changes so much by the end of the season as to come across later as a different show...because shows evolve so much during the season. I also believe corps generally wish to let audiences evolve in their appreciation of the shows because of how the shows evolve, and because the banter about, "Why isn't that in the show yet?" and "Now where did that come from?" might be so intense on the Internet that it might risk getting in the way of the fans' appreciation of what is actually going on out on the field at the time.

And I could be wrong about all the above thoughts. That's been known to happen.

[Pete Freedman]

Now I'll say something about the other discussion that today's shows in general are too highbrow and artsy-fartsy.

Of the top 12 that I can think of, only Madison, Cadets, BD, and Crown have significant elements that could require explanation.

Madison's show is based on a book, so of course you'd need to read the book to get it all. But nobody has complained that this show was too esoteric and intellectually elite.

Cadet's show seemed complex, until you realized that there's nothing symbolic at all; it's just beautiful music and good drill. The towers turned out just to be pretty boxes that do drill along with the members; there's no story, no message, nothing requiring an understanding. This show was dead simple to understand. The music itself was sophisticated though; could this be what's allegedly turning people away from drum corps?

BD. Here's all the explanation you need to appreciate BD's show:

1. Igor Stravinsky wrote The Rite of Spring, about a ritual in which possessed sacrificial victims dance themselves to death. Everything in the show is consistent with this. The poles are either the woods, or something involved in the ritual. The red balls (and presumably the flags and rifles!) are also part of the ritual.

2. The Rite of Spring is considered important in jazz because it contains various jazz elements even though it is pre-jazz. The Re:Rite of Spring is a more modern jazz interpretation of the original, which is why it sounds so ... jazzy.

So by my count exactly two shows (in the top 12) need any explanation (granted, it's the top two).

However, there are some shows that have huge design flaws. If you felt that the thrice repeated narration in Blue Knights Circles show was artsy-farts; it wasn't; it was just excessive. Similarly Phantom's choice of evil queen wasn't too highbrow. It was just kind of spastic. While the kids did a great job with these shows, the "storytellers" in some corps need to work on their skills, that's all. They're doing their best.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Pete Freedman

[Pete Freedman]

I've seen some of what has been made available to the judges in the past, and it often changes so much by the end of the season as to come across later as a different show...because shows evolve so much during the season. I also believe corps generally wish to let audiences evolve in their appreciation of the shows because of how the shows evolve, and because the banter about, "Why isn't that in the show yet?" and "Now where did that come from?" might be so intense on the Internet that it might risk getting in the way of the fans' appreciation of what is actually going on out on the field at the time.

And I could be wrong about all the above thoughts. That's been known to happen.

Well, of course it's only the small minority of fans who would choose to look up this information that would potentially be confused by it. And that's their own choice.

Actually, I believe this is an issue throughout the art world; some artists choose never to explain their work, others find this bothersome and make sure there's a plaque next to each of their own works attempting to explain it as well as possible. The debate reduces to, "You're a snob." "Well, you're pandering." And in the art world it's often better for your career to be perceived as a snob than as pandering to the masses. (I haven't known that many artists, but I think what I've said here is not too far off the mark.)

But in drum corps, giving people the "freedom" to interpret a show their own way at the expense of confusing them, is not really a fair trade-off, when there is a distinct "correct" interpretation, as with Re:Rite of Spring. Not knowing that it's a pagan death dance can only weaken an audience members enjoyment, IMO.

[Pete Freedman]

To the OP: Here's hoping your mission is everything you hope it will be. See you at the other end of the wormhole.

[FLoatingBones]

Counting: My quick search found that apparently the counting is supposed to be "...an interpretation as a reference to the mathematical and scientific breakthroughs made by Einstein himself." And I'm sorry but as someone majoring in math education and dating a physicist, that just rubs me the wrong way. YES, Einstein was a genius. YES, he shaped modern physics. However, more modern physics is finding that he may be completely wrong. I protest that such beautiful achievements be referenced by counting over and over again to the number 8. Yes, I know that musically 8 is convenient to count to. But I mean come on. The equation is squared, and 8 is a cube. To me, that's like drawing a line and saying it exists in 2 dimensional space. It's just silly.

The quote you cited above is from the Wikipedia article of the musical piece. However, you're objecting to a Drum Corps performance. At the very least, you should be more clear about what you're complaining about. A recording of Einstein is available on Spotify. You can listen to the entire piece easily -- and evaluate the entire piece of music rather than the excerpts you hear from the DC show.

I love Einstein on the Beach. I've loved it since I heard Erte Productions performed it in in color guard in the mid-1980s (see http://www.wgi.org/news/04092012-Retro-Rewind-Erte-1985.html ). Glass uses the human voice as a musical instrument; the close harmonies in several of the pieces are rather wonderful.

The mash-up of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and Einstein was, IMHO, rather brilliant. Based on the audience reactions, Crown managed to bring the 19th and 20th century music together in a pleasing and accessible way.