mingusmonk Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) why are the designers scoring vis as high or higher priority as music when the vast majority of fans think otherwise? You should probably stop that without the empirical-yet-unseen data. Edited March 3, 2014 by mingusmonk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Sure, just as there are those fans who consider vis to be more important than music. The question is: why are the designers scoring vis as high or higher priority as music when the vast majority of fans think otherwise? Is it that the other 75% who value music need more education about what they should want? Isn't that just another sign of arrogance on the part of the activity's leaders (you know, the ones who tell the judges what to judge)? wouldnt be so sure of that BUT I could answer that question but im very sure many here dont want to hear it...........theres been a debate for years............do we hear 1st or see 1st....are we audio 1st or visual people 1st......even when the numbers were in favor of music 1st you could rest assure some of the hot coprs of the past ...lets say 27 or PR would still have rocked the house musically BUT never as much as what the visual added............yes even back then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 wouldnt be so sure of that BUT I could answer that question but im very sure many here dont want to hear it...........theres been a debate for years............do we hear 1st or see 1st....are we audio 1st or visual people 1st......even when the numbers were in favor of music 1st you could rest assure some of the hot coprs of the past ...lets say 27 or PR would still have rocked the house musically BUT never as much as what the visual added............yes even back then Oh, no doubt. And Crown last year and Phantom '08 and Cadets '11 all point to the fact that visual IS important - or additive - to the show. I'm not suggesting that visual is not important; I'm only suggesting that, given the choice, fans would rather hear fabulous music than see exquisitely-done visual, especially when it doesn't seem to add to the show design like, for instance, snare squats while playing a down-front ensemble soli. 2000 Cadets tenor solo is a great example of added visual that hyped that moment in the show. Cavies hanging the tenors upside-down was not IMO. BD's drum tree was great visual - like Bridgemen with bandanas covering their eyes. "Squat, pivot, squat, turn" is not nearly the same effect even if it does fulfill SD requirements because it adds so little in the way of actual playing technique. All IMO, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seen-it-all Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I'm not suggesting that visual is not important; I'm only suggesting that, given the choice, fans would rather hear fabulous music than see exquisitely-done visual, especially when it doesn't seem to add to the show design like, for instance, snare squats while playing a down-front ensemble soli. Where's the option for fans who prefer to see and hear BOTH? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Oh, no doubt. And Crown last year and Phantom '08 and Cadets '11 all point to the fact that visual IS important - or additive - to the show. I'm not suggesting that visual is not important; I'm only suggesting that, given the choice, fans would rather hear fabulous music than see exquisitely-done visual, especially when it doesn't seem to add to the show design like, for instance, snare squats while playing a down-front ensemble soli. 2000 Cadets tenor solo is a great example of added visual that hyped that moment in the show. Cavies hanging the tenors upside-down was not IMO. BD's drum tree was great visual - like Bridgemen with bandanas covering their eyes. "Squat, pivot, squat, turn" is not nearly the same effect even if it does fulfill SD requirements because it adds so little in the way of actual playing technique. All IMO, of course. bad visuals or visuals just for the sake up should NOT receive credit....if it doesnt make sense to music or theme or the moment in a show,then NO credit should be given.........................Now wheather 2 people can agree if it belongs in a given moment or not can be a huge debate..................judges SHOULD be able to know the difference and reward ONLY when it's achieved and makes sense to the program 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Light travels faster than sound, so people do see first. I can listen to old shows without the video fine, same way you can watch some modern shows without the music. The best shows though are always those that marry the two. They take the visual and music, and they perfectly compliment each other. I've always thought Pete Weber is great at that. Music is great, but I can listen to the original versions without seeing a show. But to see a corps that can draw me in with a visual performance is something that can't be found somewhere else, especially when the two halves work perfectly well together. Not every fan goes to a show wanting the same thing. To think otherwise is ignorant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 wouldnt be so sure of that BUT I could answer that question but im very sure many here dont want to hear it...........theres been a debate for years............do we hear 1st or see 1st....are we audio 1st or visual people 1st......even when the numbers were in favor of music 1st you could rest assure some of the hot coprs of the past ...lets say 27 or PR would still have rocked the house musically BUT never as much as what the visual added............yes even back then You realize that to enjoy a musical moment, you have to be quiet enough to hear it, right? Visual moments have no such limitation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 wouldnt be so sure of that BUT I could answer that question but im very sure many here dont want to hear it...........theres been a debate for years............do we hear 1st or see 1st....are we audio 1st or visual people 1st......even when the numbers were in favor of music 1st you could rest assure some of the hot coprs of the past ...lets say 27 or PR would still have rocked the house musically BUT never as much as what the visual added............yes even back then What a gross generalization grounded in your own bias!!! The most memorable moments to me, and more importantly also to many others, at DCI events are musical not visual. In fact I could name you quite a number of moments throughout the years where it was way more enjoyable, creating a deeper feeling, for me to actually close my eyes and allow the sound to wash over me. However, I would not even presume to project my own bias, my own pleasure derived through the sense of hearing, as being more important than sight. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine; but this "It is ALL about the visual; everything else is secondary to support the visual" diatribe of yours is downright condescending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 What a gross generalization grounded in your own bias!!! The most memorable moments to me, and more importantly also to many others, at DCI events are musical not visual. In fact I could name you quite a number of moments throughout the years where it was way more enjoyable, creating a deeper feeling, for me to actually close my eyes and allow the sound to wash over me. However, I would not even presume to project my own bias, my own pleasure derived through the sense of hearing, as being more important than sight. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine; but this "It is ALL about the visual; everything else is secondary to support the visual" diatribe of yours is downright condescending. Where EVER do you get such a reading of what Guardling wrote? All he said was that the music and visual together maximized the impact of a corps performance, noting both 2-7 and Regiment as examples. IMO he is absolutely correct. In this idiom, marching/music, it is all about the melding of music and visual, and it really has always been so, even pre-DCI, IMO. Some of the great memories I have of the long distant past are visual in nature, some are musical, but a LOT are a combination of the two. Unlike the above, I speak only for myself and MHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I'm not suggesting that visual is not important; I'm only suggesting that, given the choice, fans would rather hear fabulous music than see exquisitely-done visual, especially when it doesn't seem to add to the show design like, for instance, snare squats while playing a down-front ensemble soli. Just for me, and not speaking for anyone else... I prefer to see a blend of the two. I was usually not a fan of the old concert numbers, back in the day, with a couple of exceptions. The addition of well-performed/designed movement to well-performed/designed music is what provided...and provides me personally with the most enjoyment in this idiom of marching/music. 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.