Cause and Effect?

[GUARDLING]

now if Joey is leaking info, you have to share

brass Joe? or the other Joe ......lol............now you dont know IF I am there do ya.......lol .......DUDE!....lol

Edited March 11, 2014 by GUARDLING

[Stu]

...The music was still largely familiar and accessible, but the activity was pushing the frontier of what a performer could achieve in terms of musicality, demand, expression. We could all relate to what the performers were doing ...

I wanted to isolate in on this because it is a rather valid point. The music 'was', as in 'used to be', way more familiar and accessible. Not in the sense that the audience had to have previously heard the charts prior to a corps performance (… for example I, along with many other fans, occasionally heard some charts for a first time via a corps performance; enjoyed them playing those charts because they were arranged in an accesable manner; and ‘then’ went out to discover the original source material, again because we enjoyed the arrangements). Moreover, at that time the chart arranging had melodic phrasing which was musical understandable so that non-academic lay-people could sing, hum, recognize, and enjoy the asthetic of musical communication.

...But there comes a limt to how fast you can move and play a horn with quality, to say nothing of having any air at all to supply to the instrument. There's a limit to lung capacity and aerobic demand,...

For the record, this has also happened within the realm of the 'pop music live-performance visual spectacle'. And why many pop artists who engage in massive aerobic visuals on stage today are now engaging in 'lip-syncing' instead of singing live. This is an inevitable end result of 'It is ALL about the Visual'.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Stu

[cixelsyd]

Since we're all trying on theories, how's this one, still only half baked:

Someone mentioned the early '80s, exemplified by '83 Garfield, as an era when innovation in the expression of drum and bugle corps was plain to see and hear, and was enthusiastically received by the mass audience. For purposes of this theory, I'll push back that era to the late '70s, when SCV introduced assymetrical design. Trophies were raining down on Vanguard in those days, and crowds leaned forward whenever they stepped on the field. They did the same with Garfield, whose brass technique, show design and approach to marching pointed the entire activity in a new direction.

My hypothesis: The innovation of the late '70s and early '80s accelerated drum and bugle corps participants -- the kids on the field -- toward the limits of what a human body can do in the service of performing as a musical ensemble in motion on a football field. We have reached those limits, and further innovation in drum and bugle corps necessarily involves elements of art that are less tangible and much more open to interpretation, thus debate, thus ambivalence among the audience.

That's the theory. The evidence:

Tempos are up. Santa Clara stepped off the line at finals in 1981 at about 138 beats per minute. Later, in the same show, they cranked it up to 160 and briefly touched about 182 -- while parked in a concert set. In 1983, Garfield charged off the line and through the "Z-pull" at about 182, and DCI has had the foot on the accelerator ever since. Thirty years ago, the boundary used to be the far reaches of allegro. Today corps spend much of their time, on the move, at presto.

From the start, you could see some of the effect on the drill. It became more follow-me, less dress-and-cover. More about individual responsibility, less about relationship to the form. And you could hear it in the music, especially in the battery. The Blue Devils in 1982 roared to the end of their opener at 132 bpm. The snare line was spitting fire, all 32nd-note rolls and what us dinos call "singles," or 24th-note sextuplets. The battery music was thick, thick, thick with notes -- and boy howdy it was c-l-e-a-n. Spirit's drum line of that era was the same; it seemed to be a contest which line could cram more notes into each measure. It was the stuff that made wannabe DCI drummers like me swoon.

In 2014, you'll listen long and hard before you hear an honest-to-God single coming from a snare line. It was hard enough to get clean when you were marching 12 snares elbow-to-elbow in a straight line at 132. At today's tempos, with snare drums (usually only 8 or 9) scattered across the field, it's #### near impossible. Today's battery music is much more duple-based. Rolls, conversely, are much more likely to be 24th-note vs. the 32nd-note rolls of the older, slower, era. Today's battery music is less dense, but much faster, with much more drill demand.

The change in the approach to brass has been even more dramatic. The early '80s introduced Donnie Van Doren's "breathe-dah" approach to playing on the field, and of course the instruments themselves have changed. It all improved tonality, balance and the overall quality of the brass sound in the activity, though perhaps at the expense of volume.

According to my half-baked theory, for much of the past 30 years audience response to these changes has been generally enthusiastic. Why? Because fans saw the same activity -- bang drums, blow horns, spin flags -- but they saw it at faster tempos and with more complex, stimulating design. Company fronts formed out of nowhere (cool!) and then dissolved (even more cool!). The music was still largely familiar and accessible, but the activity was pushing the frontier of what a performer could achieve in terms of musicality, demand, expression. We could all relate to what the performers were doing -- pushing themselves to the upper reaches of their capability. We could cheer that, just as we cheer a sprinter who sets a world record in the most ancient and familiar of contests, the 100-meter dash. It's the same activity, performed to a superlative degree. One of the reaons why baseball was so cherished by so many for so long was that so many of its fans grew up playing the game. They could relate to the major-leaguers on some level because they were running the same bases and swinging the same bats. In a similar way (the theory goes), as long as innovation in drum corps resided in the realm of the physical, fans could relate to it.

But there comes a limt to how fast you can move and play a horn with quality, to say nothing of having any air at all to supply to the instrument. There's a limit to lung capacity and aerobic demand, and the increased emphasis in modern drum corps on physical fitness is one piece of evidence that innovation during the past 30 years has come from maximizing the physical capability of the performers. Still, there's a limit to how fast the hands can throw down the sticks and maintain a cohesive ensemble sound that projects clarity and musicality across a large distance -- from the field to the press box. No other ensemble musical form demands so much projection of music across so great a distance. We've already passed the boundary where the body, if it is to cover as much ground as quickly as today's drill demands, must abandon military bearing and adopt dance technique.

My theory says drum corps has moved closer to those limits during the past 30 years than it did during from its inception to 1980. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but really, how much faster than 184 or 200 bpm can a human march? How much faster than 184 or 208 does a listener want to hear? The upper limit of musicality, according to most metronomes, is 208. Today's drum corps spend much of their time on the field in close proximity to that limit.

(Of course, today's corps play plenty of music at adante and adagio tempos, and indeed, some of the most beautiful and memorable brass moments come during ballads. But the theory, I think, still holds, if the activity has reached the physical limits of what can be achieved by 80 horns on a field. Perhaps there are advancements in technique or music education that will squeeze mo' betta' out of horn lines at these slower tempos, and possibly faster tempos, but as far as I'm aware, the "breathe-dah" approach to marching brass first mastered by Garfield in the early 80s remains the fundamental principle).

So, where will innovation come from? As innovation leaves the realm of the physical, it enters the realm of the intellectual. It has left the realm of tempo, drill, and musical technique, and has entered the realm of design, theme, and meaning. There isn't much left to squeeze out of 80 horns spread across a football field already zooming around at 184, so innovation comes from new rules, new instruments, new themes and concepts. The programming moves from the familiar and accessible to the esoteric.

From the fan's perspective, this is no longer innovation within a familiar form, but an entirely new form. It's no longer new kids doing the same thing only better; it's new kids doing different things.

No wonder a lot of fans sit on their hands.

Or maybe the next big thing will be to combine the modern visual and speed with the musical content and volume that you say was sacrificed. Maybe that trend even started last season, with one particularly successful corps.

[corpsband]

Hmmmm... I guess this would also hold true then: We imagine that the Blue Devils are the same team they were in the 80's. But nothing could be further from the truth. It's a new team every season. Teams design their playbooks not for audiences but for those players. It should really be no surprise that the NCAA (the activity) changes as quickly as it does.

As usual, a poorly-thought-out and inaccurate sports analogy that falls flat on it's face.

Just a few points that are immediately obvious...

I didn't say 'teams design their playbooks not for audiences" -- it was '"Corps design shows not just for audiences but for those performers." Your change completey alters the meaning of my sentence.

Basketball is not a performing art.

Playbooks are not musical scores.

Playbooks ARE written to reflect the talent and abilities of the performers (as well as the current "state of basketball" ie how the game is played now versus in a different era).

Basketball teams compete directly (head-to-head) against their competitors.

If you don't think basketball (and the NCAA) have changed since 1980, I might just be forced to post that picture. Again.

Edited March 11, 2014 by corpsband

[perc2100]

As usual, a poorly-thought-out and inaccurate sports analogy that falls flat on it's face.

Just a few points that are immediately obvious...

I didn't say 'teams design their playbooks not for audiences" -- it was '"Corps design shows not just for audiences but for those performers." Your change completey alters the meaning of my sentence.

Basketball is not a performing art.

Playbooks are not musical scores.

Playbooks ARE written to reflect the talent and abilities of the performers (as well as the current "state of basketball" ie how the game is played now versus in a different era).

Basketball teams compete directly (head-to-head) against their competitors.

If you don't think basketball (and the NCAA) have changed since 1980, I might just be forced to post that picture. Again.

To be more apt, playbooks in sports are mostly written to exploit the weakness and vulnerabilities of the opposing team: it's probably 50/50 (writing plays to reflect your own talent + writing plays that exploit opponent's weaknesses), but the nature of team vs team sports is as much writing to your opponent as it is writing for yourself. Even in individual olympic events this is case. Remember the speed skater from the 2010 winter olympics who skated to a medal by essentially sitting far behind the pack and waiting for the other skaters who were superior in talent to him to make a mistake & crash out.

I know I'm veering off topic here, but if we're using sports analogies (especially in a very loose way as Stu did) it's apt to point out specifics. I agree with what you say above, just kind of expanding on your comments.

As far as what Stu says, shows are likely designed 1) to max out the sheets by 2) exploiting corps' strengths and diminishing corps' weaknesses (i.e. to the members) all while hoping 3) there is plenty of crowd reaction. A designer who doesn't take those three broad concepts in mind while designing a show is a designer who won't have a long career.

[MikeD]

Playbooks are not musical scores.

Playbooks ARE written to reflect the talent and abilities of the performers (as well as the current "state of basketball" ie how the game is played now versus in a different era).

Made me remember an incident at our HS a number of years ago. One of the students left his drill charts at the HS field after a morning practice before a game. A football coach found it an brought it to the staff...he said something to the effect of " Gee, one of the kids left his book on the field. We don't want the other bands to see what we're doing!"

Edited March 11, 2014 by MikeD

[Stu]

Why are you so h*** - bent on making this into personal attacks; like threating to insult me again with a certain photo?

Edited March 11, 2014 by Stu

[corpsband]

Why are you so h*** - bent on making this into personal attacks; like threating to insult me again with a certain photo?

It was humor, Stu.

Stop taking yourself so seriously.

[Stu]

Competition is Competition; Entertainment is Entertainment; and Figure Skating, Drum Corps, Basketball, Football, Competitive Cheerleading, ad infinitum have both entertainment and physical competitive aspects deeply entrenched in their activities.  People are entertained by the dunking and ally-oops in Basketball, the musical sounds in Drum Corps, and the almost gravity defying leaps in Figure Skating; and while entertainment of the ‘immaculate reception’ in Football may not be musical in nature the entertainment garnered was just as aesthetic as the musical entertainment garnered in drum corps.  The competitive nature, just like the entertainment nature, is just as intense in Drum Corps as that within all other physically demanding contests.  And more to the point, just because Drum Corps has a musical element does not change that fact.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Stu

[Stu]

It was humor, Stu.

Stop taking yourself so seriously.

I far from take myself seriously; however calling someone an a** and then posting a photo of the rear-end of a horse certainly is a personal attack, not humor.