Narration -- Do designers think audiences are now more accepting?

[HornTeacher]

An unanswered question runs through this thread: do we have any proof that narration has demonstrably increased the score of a specific show? Does anyone here know for absolute certain?

If the answer is "yes," then we will never see the end of narration. If the answer is no, then narration will gradually fade away as show designers move on to other toys (hello, sousaphones!).

I'm going to start this response by making, admittedly, a very large assumption: that being, the "hard core" drum corps fan observes any specific competition and tries to determine, in his or her own mind (even if "just for fun's" sake), who the "winner" (or best corps, through performance, and for that night) might be.

To do this, the theoretical "hard core" fan must assess several components of each show, those being:

1) A given Horn line's execution

2) A given Horn line's demand

3) A given Horn line's general effect

Add to these 3 responsibilities another 12...3 for Percussion, 3 for Guard, 3 for total ensemble. and 3 for visual.

Enough so far?

Now...add in the additional responsibility of listening, and assessing, narration.

All of this in ONE observer's ears and mind. The very same responsibilities that DCI assigns an entire PANEL of judges to cover independently.

Now...for argument's sake, let's say that the Santa Clara Vanguard chooses its' 2014 program to be a 25th Anniversary Commemorative edition of its' 1989 show, "Phantom Of The Opera," of which there was no narration. Understandably, many people are well aware of the story; hence, no accompanying narration for the 2014 edition might be necessary. However, to keep up with what might be considered a "competitive herd mentality," they decide to include a story-line narrative, solely for those who may not be totally familiar with the story.

My question is this: would such narration be of a positive contribution to the 2014 show...or would it "trivialize" what was already proven to be a show well-loved and respected?

Would the act of concentrating on the narrative (hearing, and understanding the spoken words) DETRACT from what may be observed in the other areas of the show? (Dang...I missed that horn lick because of the words. Dang...I missed that guard move because I was concentrating on the words. Dang...I missed that visual nuance because I was concentrating on the words.).

Dang...I missed half the incredible show because I was trying to hear, internalize, and comprehend the meaning of the words.

I ask again: Would a well-loved and well-respected show have less effect, simply due to adding a narrative, and the added responsibility it placed upon the observer?

However you respond, please don't tell me that "the observer" doesn't count. Without "the observer," DCI ceases to exist.

Edited May 4, 2014 by HornTeacher

[lindap]

I first heard narration in drum corps while listening to DCI.org in 2007 with headphones and a laptop. When CC did Triple Crown with narration at the end of the show, I jumped out of my seat. The narration did not appease my ears. Perhaps it was the microphones? When I heard John Henry a Story of Our Time in 2012 I was enthralled. Perhaps it was the microphone and the voice. Off topic, CC did well at Kentucky Derby today ;)

[GUARDLING]

I'm going to start this response by making, admittedly, a very large assumption: that being, the "hard core" drum corps fan observes any specific competition and tries to determine, in his or her own mind (even if "just for fun's" sake), who the "winner" (or best corps, through performance, and for that night) might be.

To do this, the theoretical "hard core" fan must assess several components of each show, those being:

1) A given Horn line's execution

2) A given Horn line's demand

3) A given Horn line's general effect

Add to these 3 responsibilities another 12...3 for Percussion, 3 for Guard, 3 for total ensemble. and 3 for visual.

Enough so far?

Now...add in the additional responsibility of listening, and assessing, narration.

All of this in ONE observer's ears and mind. The very same responsibilities that DCI assigns an entire PANEL of judges to cover independently.

Now...for argument's sake, let's say that the Santa Clara Vanguard chooses its' 2014 program to be a 25th Anniversary Commemorative edition of its' 1989 show, "Phantom Of The Opera," of which there was no narration. Understandably, many people are well aware of the story; hence, no accompanying narration for the 2014 edition might be necessary. However, to keep up with what might be considered a "competitive herd mentality," they decide to include a story-line narrative, solely for those who may not be totally familiar with the story.

My question is this: would such narration be of a positive contribution to the 2014 show...or would it "trivialize" what was already proven to be a show well-loved and respected?

Would the act of concentrating on the narrative (hearing, and understanding the spoken words) DETRACT from what may be observed in the other areas of the show? (Dang...I missed that horn lick because of the words. Dang...I missed that guard move because I was concentrating on the words. Dang...I missed that visual nuance because I was concentrating on the words.).

Dang...I missed half the incredible show because I was trying to hear, internalize, and comprehend the meaning of the words.

I ask again: Would a well-loved and well-respected show have less effect, simply due to adding a narrative, and the added responsibility it placed upon the observer?

However you respond, please don't tell me that "the observer" doesn't count. Without "the observer," DCI ceases to exist.

your question ( to me ) could have very different answers. OK let me try,

1. To the observer, now that would depend on what the narration was and how how it was used. It could certainly add to a program if done well and it could also take away. All depends on HOW, WHY and who is doing the listening and how accepting they may or may not be. It becomes personal taste.

AS a judge it is , or could be totally different.

I also think each year brings others into the mix as far as what was a beloved show. What I loved in a show 5 , 10 , 20 or more years ago may or may not be received as well today, maybe it would. I have showed students shows from every decade and some love them and others look and don't understand what was so great. So as far as adding a narration to an iconic show. Just all depends, I really don't think there's a true answer.

Edited May 4, 2014 by GUARDLING

[HornTeacher]

your question ( to me ) could have very different answers. OK let me try,

1. To the observer, now that would depend on what the narration was and how how it was used. It could certainly add to a program if done well and it could also take away. All depends on HOW, WHY and who is doing the listening and how accepting they may or may not be. It becomes personal taste.

AS a judge it is , or could be totally different.

Which may ultimately bring us to the overriding question: are narratives the norm because they lend to the program, or are they now included because that is what is "competitively" expected (with the fear that if a Corps doesn't include narrative as part of their program, the resulting program may not be seen -- at least in the adjudication community -- as being complete)? Yes...I realize that decision comes down to the individual respective Corps. However...I still wonder about how the ultimate rationale behind whatever decision is made.

Edited May 4, 2014 by HornTeacher

[GUARDLING]

Which may ultimately bring us to the overriding question: are narratives the norm because they lend to the program, or are they now included because that is what is "competitively" expected (with the fear that if a Corps doesn't include narrative as part of their program, the resulting program may not be seen -- at least in the adjudication community -- as being complete)? Yes...I realize that decision comes down to the individual respective Corps. However...I still wonder about how the ultimate rationale behind whatever decision is made.

I don't think so at all. I am pretty close, or have been at times, with most designers in the activity from top finalists to non finalists . Unfortunately, and it happens all the time and in all areas of our activity ( WGI, BOA, DCI ) many of the smaller corps and newer designers will do something sometimes just because of who they admire BUT I have never heard any designer say or think they need to do some narration to be successful.

I also think IMO that there isn't a judge that believe that narration or any one additive to a program MUST be done to be successful. Can it add and help? Sure Could it do just the opposite? YES!

Edited May 4, 2014 by GUARDLING

[HornTeacher]

I don't think so at all. I am pretty close, or have been at times, with most designers in the activity from top finalists to non finalists . Unfortunately, and it happens all the time and in all areas of our activity ( WGI, BOA, DCI ) many of the smaller corps and newer designers will do something sometimes just because of who they admire BUT I have never heard any designer say or think they need to do some narration to be successful.

Fair enough. As someone who is obviously more in touch with those in the design level of the activity than I am, I have no choice (and certainly no problem) with accepting your assertion at face value. Thank you for helping me to understand.

[GUARDLING]

Fair enough. As someone who is obviously more in touch with those in the design level of the activity than I am, I have no choice (and certainly no problem) with accepting your assertion at face value. Thank you for helping me to understand.

you are very welcome BUT also let me say there is always exceptions to any rule, JUDGE, CORPS, PROGRAM . I believe what i say and IF I ever heard ANY judge say something like ( without narration, or props or whatever ) I would have no problem saying it here.

[HornTeacher]

you are very welcome BUT also let me say there is always exceptions to any rule, JUDGE, CORPS, PROGRAM . I believe what i say and IF I ever heard ANY judge say something like ( without narration, or props or whatever ) I would have no problem saying it here.

Sorry...but ???????

[GUARDLING]

Sorry...but ???????

lol..just meaning that , the way something is done decides...lol...sorry. Also that IF I ever heard or believed that to be successful in the eyes of a judge that narration was necessary, I would say it.

Edited May 4, 2014 by GUARDLING

[HornTeacher]

lol..just meaning that , the way something is done decides...lol...sorry. Also that IF I ever heard or believed that to be successful in the eyes of a judge that narration was necessary, I would say it.

Gotcha. Sorry -- it's late. Even my Bruins coming back and winning can't seem to keep these old eyes open. In any case, thanks for the pleasant discourse. It is appreciated.