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

[GUARDLING]

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.

my pleasure...........anytime

[AZTboneDad]

I don't think designers care what audiences think. They are designing for the judges.

I believe you are precisely right....and it's not just limited to DCI ... it's all over the high school realm as well.

I watched a ton of uninteresting shows last year in Arizona ... only a couple that raised the hair on my arms.

[perc2100]

HockeyDad, on 25 Apr 2014 - 9:32 PM, said:

I don't think designers care what audiences think. They are designing for the judges

I believe you are precisely right....and it's not just limited to DCI ... it's all over the high school realm as well.

I watched a ton of uninteresting shows last year in Arizona ... only a couple that raised the hair on my arms.

OK, I'll be blunt:

While DCI corps naturally design to the sheets, and design shows to maximize points for judges, I think that they DO take into consideration the audience. But I think that they expect audiences to 'come to the table' so to speak wanting to be challenged, wanting to be intellectually stimulated/pushed, wanting to think beyond "loud music/fast drill = AWESOME!" I would stipulate there are plenty of fans out there with that mind set, as well as plenty that are not. I don't think ANY of that is any fault of the corps, it's the fault of the system that regards intellectual & design depth; it's the fault of fans who want corps to continually push the envelope. What might have been simplistic to begin with, with corps marching symmetrically but playing orchestral music, then corps going more asymmetrical, straying further from main-stream, etc. We are an audience that expects the best in all facets of the activity, and that pushes designers who push/change the trends radically to give us what they think we want.

As all facets of entertainment and art, there are a myriad of different styles and sensibilities in drum corps to please most crowds. People who don't like the more esoteric shows, or don't like narration or whatever, can find alternatives (like SCV last year, as an example of a high-achieving show that had more mainstream sensibilities). I'm a lover of cinema, and I love challenging films like REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, or TRAINSPOTTING, or UPSTREAM COLOR, or any number of brilliant foreign films, etc. Many do not, but those films are made because directors have something to say and plenty of movie fans will listen/watch. Conversely, mainstream stuff like AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2, which is by all accounts a mediocre at best film, made almost $100 million in three days. There is room in the marketplace for all styles of film, and there is room in DCI for all styles of show design.

[BRASSO]

OK, I'll be blunt:

While DCI corps naturally design to the sheets, and design shows to maximize points for judges, I think that they DO take into consideration the audience. But I think that they expect audiences to 'come to the table' so to speak wanting to be challenged, wanting to be intellectually stimulated/pushed, wanting to think beyond "loud music/fast drill = AWESOME!" I would stipulate there are plenty of fans out there with that mind set, as well as plenty that are not. I don't think ANY of that is any fault of the corps, it's the fault of the system that regards intellectual & design depth; it's the fault of fans who want corps to continually push the envelope. What might have been simplistic to begin with, with corps marching symmetrically but playing orchestral music, then corps going more asymmetrical, straying further from main-stream, etc. We are an audience that expects the best in all facets of the activity, and that pushes designers who push/change the trends radically to give us what they think we want.

As all facets of entertainment and art, there are a myriad of different styles and sensibilities in drum corps to please most crowds. People who don't like the more esoteric shows, or don't like narration or whatever, can find alternatives (like SCV last year, as an example of a high-achieving show that had more mainstream sensibilities). I'm a lover of cinema, and I love challenging films like REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, or TRAINSPOTTING, or UPSTREAM COLOR, or any number of brilliant foreign films, etc. Many do not, but those films are made because directors have something to say and plenty of movie fans will listen/watch. Conversely, mainstream stuff like AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2, which is by all accounts a mediocre at best film, made almost $100 million in three days. There is room in the marketplace for all styles of film, and there is room in DCI for all styles of show design.

OK, I'll be blunt:

There is room in the markhasetplace for all styles of film, and there is room in DCI for all styles of show

There has has always been Corps doing shows for all tastes....even BITD Corps were never all the same. The key thing now is to grow an audience.... or die

[quietcity]

There has has always been Corps doing shows for all tastes....even BITD Corps were never all the same. The key thing now is to grow an audience.... or die

The delicate balance is appealing to a modern audience's intellect and sophistication, while simultaneously tickling their monkey bone. Not an easy feat, which is why Hopkins et al. continue to push for an ever-deeper artistic tool-box.

[HockeyDad]

OK, I'll be blunt:

While DCI corps naturally design to the sheets, and design shows to maximize points for judges, I think that they DO take into consideration the audience. But I think that they expect audiences to 'come to the table' so to speak wanting to be challenged, wanting to be intellectually stimulated/pushed, wanting to think beyond "loud music/fast drill = AWESOME!" I would stipulate there are plenty of fans out there with that mind set, as well as plenty that are not. I don't think ANY of that is any fault of the corps, it's the fault of the system that regards intellectual & design depth; it's the fault of fans who want corps to continually push the envelope. What might have been simplistic to begin with, with corps marching symmetrically but playing orchestral music, then corps going more asymmetrical, straying further from main-stream, etc. We are an audience that expects the best in all facets of the activity, and that pushes designers who push/change the trends radically to give us what they think we want.

So, imagining a design meeting circa 10 years ago - Designer 1: "Ok, let's see what we have so far for this year's show." Designer 2 - "Wait - don't forget we need to do narration this year." Designer 1: "Oh Damm, why would we ruin the beauty of the music with narration?" Designer 2 - "Well, the audience DEMANDS it. They won't stand for more of the same. They want to be intellectually challenged and stimulated. They'll settle for nothing less than narration!" Designer 1: "<Sigh>..... I can't think of anything more bush league and ridiculous, but if that's what the audience demands, that's what we have to do."

Yeah....no.

[Mello Dude]

The delicate balance is appealing to a modern audience's intellect and sophistication, while simultaneously tickling their monkey bone. Not an easy feat, which is why Hopkins et al. continue to push for an ever-deeper artistic tool-box.

The problem is that in the attempt to seem "intellectual" it comes across as "faux intellectual" and usually is.

[corpsband]

The problem is that in the attempt to seem "intellectual" it comes across as "faux intellectual" and usually is.

I agree that drum corps are rarely successful at being "profound" (if that's where your 'faux intellectual' was going...) It's marching band -- not a great medium for profound messages.

BUT I think "cool", "I would never have though of that", "oh *I* get it", "ahah -- THAT'S why they used that song" (and many more reactions) can be still be "intellectually challenging and stimulating". It does't need to change the world to be intellectual.

Edited May 6, 2014 by corpsband

[cixelsyd]

OK, I'll be blunt:

While DCI corps naturally design to the sheets, and design shows to maximize points for judges, I think that they DO take into consideration the audience. But I think that they expect audiences to 'come to the table' so to speak wanting to be challenged, wanting to be intellectually stimulated/pushed, wanting to think beyond "loud music/fast drill = AWESOME!" I would stipulate there are plenty of fans out there with that mind set, as well as plenty that are not. I don't think ANY of that is any fault of the corps, it's the fault of the system that regards intellectual & design depth; it's the fault of fans who want corps to continually push the envelope. What might have been simplistic to begin with, with corps marching symmetrically but playing orchestral music, then corps going more asymmetrical, straying further from main-stream, etc. We are an audience that expects the best in all facets of the activity, and that pushes designers who push/change the trends radically to give us what they think we want.

It has never been as simple as "loud music + fast drill = awesome!". If it was, both the recent Blue Devils and the stereotypical Malaguena corps would be universally loved by all.

But I guess where I register my most substantive objection with what you just described is the use of the word "challenged". If you are correct (and I suspect you are), there is a tendency among judges to reserve the highest intellectual credit for shows that appear to "challenge" the mind, either by flouting convention or by injecting some sort of thematic plotline.

Of course, these tacks are hardly intellectual. It takes only a few minutes of thinking outside the box to come up with ways to flout convention. A theme may require a couple of hours to flesh out (and an overdose of recreational substances to produce something like Cadets 2006). I imagine some designers spend far more time - maybe it took many tweaks to make the Sarah Jones dialogue precisely as vapid as the NPR program it sought to mimic. If so, mission accomplished. Maybe judges get off on details like this, understanding what the designer was attempting by virtue of numerous interviews with them (critiques). But for the viewer, does this type of material really work your intellect?

For me, my intellect is impacted far more deeply by the music and the motion. Dynamics, tempo, pacing. Melody, harmony, chord structures. Coordination of visual to the music. So many subtleties. The true intellectual challenge is in how you assemble all those components, using the language of music and the vocabulary of visual to speak to us. Tell us a story that way. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but a well done drum corps show is worth a million words.

As all facets of entertainment and art, there are a myriad of different styles and sensibilities in drum corps to please most crowds. People who don't like the more esoteric shows, or don't like narration or whatever, can find alternatives (like SCV last year, as an example of a high-achieving show that had more mainstream sensibilities). I'm a lover of cinema, and I love challenging films like REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, or TRAINSPOTTING, or UPSTREAM COLOR, or any number of brilliant foreign films, etc. Many do not, but those films are made because directors have something to say and plenty of movie fans will listen/watch. Conversely, mainstream stuff like AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2, which is by all accounts a mediocre at best film, made almost $100 million in three days. There is room in the marketplace for all styles of film, and there is room in DCI for all styles of show design.

The difference, though, is that each movie is an entirely separate product, brought to market by itself. The shows of various drum corps are combined in joint products, marketed by a circuit like DCI or DCA. We have the equivalent of "academy awards" courtesy of our own academy of green shirted people, but we do not have the audience accountability that the box office provides in the world of film.

[MikeD]

It has never been as simple as "loud music + fast drill = awesome!". If it was, both the recent Blue Devils and the stereotypical Malaguena corps would be universally loved by all.

But I guess where I register my most substantive objection with what you just described is the use of the word "challenged". If you are correct (and I suspect you are), there is a tendency among judges to reserve the highest intellectual credit for shows that appear to "challenge" the mind, either by flouting convention or by injecting some sort of thematic plotline.

Of course, these tacks are hardly intellectual. It takes only a few minutes of thinking outside the box to come up with ways to flout convention. A theme may require a couple of hours to flesh out (and an overdose of recreational substances to produce something like Cadets 2006). I imagine some designers spend far more time - maybe it took many tweaks to make the Sarah Jones dialogue precisely as vapid as the NPR program it sought to mimic. If so, mission accomplished. Maybe judges get off on details like this, understanding what the designer was attempting by virtue of numerous interviews with them (critiques). But for the viewer, does this type of material really work your intellect?

For me, my intellect is impacted far more deeply by the music and the motion. Dynamics, tempo, pacing. Melody, harmony, chord structures. Coordination of visual to the music. So many subtleties. The true intellectual challenge is in how you assemble all those components, using the language of music and the vocabulary of visual to speak to us. Tell us a story that way. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but a well done drum corps show is worth a million words.

The difference, though, is that each movie is an entirely separate product, brought to market by itself. The shows of various drum corps are combined in joint products, marketed by a circuit like DCI or DCA. We have the equivalent of "academy awards" courtesy of our own academy of green shirted people, but we do not have the audience accountability that the box office provides in the world of film.

Academy awards and audience favorites are not always in alignment, just as in DCI.

ALL of the elements you noted above are absolutely things that are important...but they also include spoken dialogue, be it narrative (e.g. Crown 2013) or used for audio effects (e.g. drumspeak). Spoken words do have some of the items you noted above....dynamics, tempo, pacing, coordination of the voce to the visual...so many subtleties. Even melody can be a part of it in terms of how a spoken phrase is performed.