DCI Music Arranging

[Stu]

Please post the reason why you chose that particular music arranger if you so desire.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Stu

[corpsband]

I chose #1.

I should see what I hear and hear what I see.

I don't believe this style of arranging precludes the music "standing on it's own".

Additionally I'd like the arranger to be "true" to the original. Does that mean the arrangement is just a transcription? IMO no. But it does mean the intent of the original composer is still clearly recognizable in the arrangement. For me -- this is *more* important than the other descriptors. After all -- why did the designers *choose* the music in the first place ?

This doesn't preclude new or clever interpretations -- it just means the listener still knows that piece X is piece X.

[Jeff Ream]

I chose #1.

I should see what I hear and hear what I see.

I don't believe this style of arranging precludes the music "standing on it's own".

Additionally I'd like the arranger to be "true" to the original. Does that mean the arrangement is just a transcription? IMO no. But it does mean the intent of the original composer is still clearly recognizable in the arrangement. For me -- this is *more* important than the other descriptors. After all -- why did the designers *choose* the music in the first place ?

This doesn't preclude new or clever interpretations -- it just means the listener still knows that piece X is piece X.

:withstupid:/>

[fsubone]

:withstupid:/>/>

What a well reasoned, insightful response.

I went with #1. Look at SCV's design team, Crown's, Bloo most years, Cadets. The visual and musical packages compliment each other. Yes, they can survive on their own, that's why we buy CDs and standstill recordings. But when both are put together, they really enhance each other, because each part feeds off of the other to provide a complete program on the field.

[DrumManTx]

#1. Go watch Santa Clara Vanguards 2009 show "Ballet for Martha". That drill IS the music. Not representing the music, not enhancing the music, it just is the music. The most musical visual program I can think of. Pete Weber does an AMAZING job of this in my opinion. Blending the music and drill so that it becomes one experience, that's what it is all about. In my eyes that is.

Edited September 6, 2013 by DrumManTx

[jjeffeory]

What a well reasoned, insightful response.

I went with #1. Look at SCV's design team, Crown's, Bloo most years, Cadets. The visual and musical packages compliment each other. Yes, they can survive on their own, that's why we buy CDs and standstill recordings. But when both are put together, they really enhance each other, because each part feeds off of the other to provide a complete program on the field.

I chose #3 for the same reasons that many people have chosen #1.

Your reasoning right here fits why I picked #3.

I want the visual and musical packages to compliment each other and become greater than the sum of the parts when both are put together.

I believe the key to that is music first, visual second. It's worked well for so many shows in the past and I would add some other corps into the mix as well.

[fsubone]

I believe the key to that is music first, visual second. It's worked well for so many shows in the past and I would add some other corps into the mix as well.

For some corps, I'd agree with you. There are some vis designers out there though that can make the visual program be as fluid and beautiful as the musical book, so that the visual could survive on its own if it had to. Some seem to design visual first, then fit the music to it. Luckily, they seem to be a minority, even though in some shows the visual program takes precedence by the end, (see Cavies 2000s)

[jjeffeory]

For some corps, I'd agree with you. There are some vis designers out there though that can make the visual program be as fluid and beautiful as the musical book, so that the visual could survive on its own if it had to. Some seem to design visual first, then fit the music to it. Luckily, they seem to be a minority, even though in some shows the visual program takes precedence by the end, (see Cavies 2000s)

I agree with you ( there are some visual designers out there that can make the visual program be as fluid and beautiful as the music book). I don't think there are enough to go around for sure...

I believe that the Cadets, Cavaliers, and SCV have historically had this ability... Yes I agree that the Cavaliers of the early 2000s seemed to lean more towards visual design over musical design, but they certainly seemed (relatively) even in performance level between visual and musical. ...and I would argue that they were playing to their strengths from the previous 15 years prior. ...at the end of the day, I wasn't in the design meetings, so I don't know where they consciously placed their design emphasis; the product on the field seems to indicate visual first... I thought I read somewhere that they actually wrote the music first, so only they know.

On the other side of the spectrum is their neighbor to the West ( Phantom), who has historically seemed to be more on the music side. They have also gone more towards the middle of the visual/musical spectrum as of late.

For me, there are some shows that have been a spectacular blend of the two elements; and they have come from Phantom Regiment. Faust (2006), Spartacus (2008), and Into the Light (2010) are particular gems that come to mind when I think of a seamless blend between great music and visual.

For me, it is incumbent upon the visual designer to primarily make this blend happen. That is why great visual/drill designers such as Webber, Gaines, Zingali, Brubaker, Sylvester, Sacktig, Thompson, May, Rosander, et cetera have been difficult to come by.

Many people can write drill, but not everyone can write musical drill the way these greats do.

Edited September 7, 2013 by jjeffeory