Show Meanings

[THeShadeOfNight]

Hey C3.

What's the point? What if we agree with you? You're right. Drum corps suck in their program design. What purpose does it serve to argue here with DCP? This is not the place to effect change in the activity.

Contact the corps' design staffs and offer your services. Maybe then they will get it correct. Then, tell us which corps consulted with you and let the results do the talking.

Critiquing on the internet and consulting a corps are two way different things. Unfortunately in his case, no one wants him to do either

[Channel3]

Hey C3.

What's the point? What if we agree with you? You're right. Drum corps suck in their program design. What purpose does it serve to argue here with DCP? This is not the place to effect change in the activity.

Contact the corps' design staffs and offer your services. Maybe then they will get it correct. Then, tell us which corps consulted with you and let the results do the talking.

Thanks for asking. This is the perfect forum for presenting the next phase of change for DCI.

1) Designers must be held accountable for reckless unilateral decisions.

2) The design process must be more collaborative.

3) Include the performers in the music selection and design process. Design is part of the learning.

4) Include performers in the judging conversations. Critical analysis is part of the learning.

5) Make judging critiques public.

6) Make judging scoresheet guidelines public.

7) Designers must justify their show changes and any adjustments in show concept.

8) Scoresheets must clearly delineate which points are under the designers' control and which points are under the MMs' control.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Channel3

[c mor]

Thanks for asking. This is the perfect forum for presenting the next phase of change for DCI.

1) Designers must be held accountable for reckless unilateral decisions.

2) The design process must be more collaborative.

3) Include the performers in the music selection and design process. Design is part of the learning.

4) Include performers in the judging conversations. Critical analysis is part of the learning.

5) Make judging critiques public.

6) Make judging scoresheet guidelines public.

7) Designers must justify their show changes and any adjustments in show concept.

8) Scoresheets must clearly delineate which points are under the designers' control and which points are under the MMs' control.

I will be sure to cast my vote at the next rules meeting. I have influence.

4) We always went over tapes with the instructors.

6) Agree

8) Sounds interesting

Not clear how you'd implement/enforce the others.

[BoyWonder1911]

Show designers don't have to be too accountable, because what are you going to do, fire them and hire someone else who will 90% of the time be not as good as the one(s) you fired?

Talent level in this market is low to begin with.

Cadets will have a better show next year. I don't think they need some of us screaming at them anymore over this. Perhaps they will realize they made a mistake when they don't bring home a medal in a year where getting at least 3rd should have been a given.

[GUARDLING]

I will be sure to cast my vote at the next rules meeting. I have influence.

4) We always went over tapes with the instructors.

6) Agree

8) Sounds interesting

Not clear how you'd implement/enforce the others.

c mor

One has to be in a position to make change..any change, I know, been there !

Its clear most times when someone is and other times where they have no idea at all.

Change can be good, not always but can be.

lol...yeah I will cast my vote also.

Edited August 5, 2015 by GUARDLING

[Channel3]

Here’s the standard introductory paragraph that praises the Blue Knights marching members for their incredible work. Yay. Now that the perfunctory applause is done, let’s get into the meat of the design problems of Because.

The Blue Knights show had a concept that was so abstract that it tripped over its own Kurta.

Because the earth is round,

It turns me on.

The show broke the standard rule of literary and theatrical works. Don’t ask a question. Answer it. Answer it universally, specifically and uniquely. Have a strong POV without questions, uncertainty or vagaries. Too much abstraction and the audience is lost. Too many unanswered questions, and the production loses its voice. Even if the production poses an abstract question, its objective should to be to answer the question passionately, successfully, unsuccessfully, unintentionally or even badly. But for God's sake answer the question.

Love is old, love is new

Love is all, love is you

Huh? This show had as its backbone an abstract Buddhist-inspired John Lennon-esque riddle that left so much room for interpretation that the audience needed a roadmap to find its way out. Look at this vague statement on their website.

"We have our minds focused on the wonders of the world around us. We are celebrating the beauty and joy of being alive and open to possibility. When you ask “Why?”… unless you include the whole reality of existence found so easily in the world around us, the only logical answer is Because…"

The drum corps audience doesn’t want to be taunted by answerless riddles by some junior varsity wrestler on shrooms. The audience wants the riddle to be answered. Right here. Right now. Show us your point of view. Show us the goods.

It was up to the design team to make this show make sense. To give the audience some answer. After all, drum corps is a unified, choreographed scripted performance art, using musical instruments that are literally shaped for projection to a boisterous audience in a large scale venue. Unlike other media, the entire audience has agreed to face one way. The corps members have agreed to play in one direction to a paying, willing audience and judged by a panel whose critera include general effect, atristry, and depth of concept. It's an intentional, audience-focused art form. And that’s why abstraction no worky in drum corps.

With a dangerously abstract Beatles inspired Buddhist riddle as your show theme, designers have to immediately open their toolbox to make sure that there is a pattern for the audience to understand (or at least Easter eggs along the way) so the audience can ride with the corps and stay with them to the end.

Shoulda woulda coulda:

Instant Setup

Present the thematic argument in the first 30 seconds. Put up or shut up. Set up the game/pattern immediately. (See Crown’s Inferno.) Set up the expository elements (if any) immediately. If you wait too long after that, the audience loses patience and abandons you. I always get blue balls watching the Blue Knights. This year the first big resolve didn’t happen until 5:10 and then again at 6:50 and 10:18. That's too long for an audience to wait for the completion of the first iteration of the game. That's just not enough. The rest is just a continually vague build up and painful re-circumcision before any swell and satisfying resolve. It's so frustrating and insulting. This corps has been truncating the satisfying resolve of music of all kinds for over 30 years. When are they going to play a piece of music without the unnatural truncation that seems to be always built into their arrangements? It's "Wait for it." "Wait for it." "Wait for it." By the time the first resolve happens five minutes later, we've waited for it way too long, and we've already gone out for hot dogs. Because.

Throughline/Game/Dramatic Action

Not characters. Not dialogue. Not story. We're talking dramatic action. What is the pattern of events that grows and builds for dramatic effect that supports your chosen thematic argument, no matter how abstract? How do your drill sets and motion create that pattern? How has the corps transformed by the end? How has their emotion changed? Or how has the pattern progressed? Can the audience see the pattern of what happens next? Does the audience have an expectation for what happens next? Unfortunately in this show, there was no pattern. Nothing to resolve. No game. The audience disengages because there’s nothing to “get”. You can’t blame the audience for disengaging—they’ve been tricked. There is no “there” there. No understructure. If the audience wants abstraction, all they have to do is put their mouths on the tailpipe of a car, breathe deeply and wait for the chickens. But that’s not why they’re here.

Memorable Set Pieces

What’s your favorite memorable moment from this show? Gotcha. You can’t remember. There should be at least ten of these. “Oh my God I loved how they floated onto the field in a tight circle as the earth! Because the earth is round…” I love how they floated off as the earth at the end. Or “Oh my god, I loved how the yin yang bars they were spinning turned into doves and floated away.” Or “I loved the solo dance by that guy dressed as Ravi Shankar in an acid trip inspired tricked out wheelchair.” Something that cuts that drum corps show malaise. Something that cuts the clutter.

Repetition

At very least, throw the audience a bone and repeat something. A drill formation. Some signature move that we all recognize. Anything? Anything? Buehler? Buehler?

Bookends at Least

Sure the Because melody was revisited throughout, and that’s a start, but what visual element could they have brought back at the end to create a sense of completion? Bookends are the saddest, last resort compromise in a show with no understructure (see Phantom’s Coco Chanelle appear again at the end of the show with her shopping bags. OMG awful-- not the Broadway quality dancer, the concept.)

So abstraction only works if you alleviate some of the chaos with a pattern, or some predictable progression, or decent set pieces, or some kind of repetition, or at least a bookend.

This is the final paragraph which sandwiches the criticism between two slices of warm fuzzy. This is a cheerleader’s hip hip hooray for the great work by the marching members who did exquisite work, despite the designers’ flailing about with incomprehensible, undefined imagery without any pattern, thematic argument, or understructure or resolve, discovery or new information by the end (see also Bluecoats). Yay!

Edited October 12, 2015 by Channel3

[cube]

Heres the standard introductory paragraph that praises the Blue Knights marching members for their incredible work. Yay. Now that the perfunctory applause is done, lets get into the meat of the design problems of Because.

The Blue Knights show had a concept that was so abstract that it tripped over its own Kurta.

Because the earth is round,

It turns me on.

The show broke the standard rule of literary and theatrical works. Dont ask a question. Answer it. Answer it universally, specifically and uniquely. Have a strong POV without questions, uncertainty or vagaries. Too much abstraction and the audience is lost. Too many unanswered questions, and the production loses its voice. Even if the production poses an abstract question, its objective should to be to answer the question passionately, successfully, unsuccessfully, unintentionally or even badly. But for God's sake answer the question.

Love is old, love is new

Love is all, love is you

Huh? This show had as its backbone an abstract Buddhist-inspired John Lennon-esque riddle that left so much room for interpretation that the audience needed a roadmap to find its way out. Look at this vague statement on their website.

"We have our minds focused on the wonders of the world around us. We are celebrating the beauty and joy of being alive and open to possibility. When you ask Why? unless you include the whole reality of existence found so easily in the world around us, the only logical answer is Because"

The drum corps audience doesnt want to be taunted by answerless riddles by some junior varsity wrestler on shrooms. The audience wants the riddle to be answered. Right here. Right now. Show us your point of view. Show us the goods.

It was up to the design team to make this show make sense. To give the audience some answer. After all, drum corps is a unified, choreographed scripted performance art, using musical instruments that are literally shaped for projection to a boisterous audience in a large scale venue. Unlike other media, the entire audience has agreed to face one way. The corps members have agreed to play in one direction to a paying, willing audience and judged by a panel whose critera include general effect, atristry, and depth of concept. It's an intentional, audience-focused art form. And thats why abstraction no worky in drum corps.

With a dangerously abstract Beatles inspired Buddhist riddle as your show theme, designers have to immediately open their toolbox to make sure that there is a pattern for the audience to understand (or at least Easter eggs along the way) so the audience can ride with the corps and stay with them to the end.

Shoulda woulda coulda:

Instant Setup

Present the thematic argument in the first 30 seconds. Put up or shut up. Set up the game/pattern immediately. (See Crowns Inferno.) Set up the expository elements (if any) immediately. If you wait too long after that, the audience loses patience and abandons you. I always get blue balls watching the Blue Knights. This year the first big resolve didnt happen until 5:10 and then again at 6:50 and 10:18. That's too long for an audience to wait for the completion of the first iteration of the game. That's just not enough. The rest is just a continually vague build up and painful re-circumcision before any swell and satisfying resolve. It's so frustrating and insulting. This corps has been truncating the satisfying resolve of music of all kinds for over 30 years. When are they going to play a piece of music without the unnatural truncation that seems to be always built into their arrangements? It's "Wait for it." "Wait for it." "Wait for it." By the time the first resolve happens five minutes later, we've waited for it way too long, and we've already gone out for hot dogs. Because.

Throughline/Game/Dramatic Action

Not characters. Not dialogue. Not story. We're talking dramatic action. What is the pattern of events that grows and builds for dramatic effect that supports your chosen thematic argument, no matter how abstract? How do your drill sets and motion create that pattern? How has the corps transformed by the end? How has their emotion changed? Or how has the pattern progressed? Can the audience see the pattern of what happens next? Does the audience have an expectation for what happens next? Unfortunately in this show, there was no pattern. Nothing to resolve. No game. The audience disengages because theres nothing to get. You cant blame the audience for disengagingtheyve been tricked. There is no there there. No understructure. If the audience wants abstraction, all they have to do is put their mouths on the tailpipe of a car, breathe deeply and wait for the chicklet poems. But thats not why theyre here.

Memorable Set Pieces

Whats your favorite memorable moment from this show? Gotcha. You cant remember. There should be at least ten of these. Oh my God I loved how they floated onto the field in a tight circle as the earth! Because the earth is round I love how they floated off as the earth at the end. Or Oh my god, I loved how the yin yang bars they were spinning turned into doves and floated away. Or I loved the solo dance by that guy dressed as Ravi Shankar in an acid trip inspired tricked out wheelchair. Something that cuts that drum corps show malaise. Something that cuts the clutter.

Repetition

At very least, throw the audience a bone and repeat something. A drill formation. Some signature move that we all recognize. Anything? Anything? Buehler? Buehler?

Bookends at Least

Sure the Because melody was revisited throughout, and thats a start, but what visual element could they have brought back at the end to create a sense of completion? Bookends are the saddest, last resort compromise in a show with no understructure (see Phantoms Coco Chanelle appear again at the end of the show with her shopping bags. OMG awful-- not the Broadway quality dancer, the concept.)

So abstraction only works if you alleviate some of the chaos with a pattern, or some predictable progression, or decent set pieces, or some kind of repetition, or at least a bookend.

This is the final paragraph which sandwiches the criticism between two slices of warm fuzzy. This is a cheerleaders hip hip hooray for the great work by the marching members who did exquisite work, despite the designers flailing about with incomprehensible, undefined imagery without any pattern, thematic argument, or understructure or resolve by the end (see also Bluecoats). Yay!

This is a very good insight into why shows like Because... don't work. It's just not on the same level of engagement as the other shows around it.

[Kamarag]

This is a very good insight into why shows like Because... don't work. It's just not on the same level of engagement as the other shows around it.

Well, it's flawed, as Because not only worked, it worked very well.

[mfrontz]

All I saw on here was stuff about how everyone loved it.

[84BDsop]

Clearly themes and show concepts are not "In the eye of the beholder." That's absolute nonsense. The show coordinator and designers have a clear, specific vision about the show concept they're conveying. Or the good ones do, anyway. They do their best to convey it as clearly to the audience as possible, even if its abstract or imagery meant to work on a subconscious level. Their objective is for the audience to grasp the concept and be carried away with the emotion in it. It's a high-impact performance art meant for big, collective audience reaction, plain and simple.

The enormous number of drum corps enthusiasts who say they don't care about themes or show concepts is really disturbing. They're watching a performance art designed with specific intentions and specific reactions in mind. Audiences become confused when the concept isn't relayed clearly, and they become tired of trying to figure a concept out when it's not clear enough. Then after a few unclear show concepts, some give up on the idea of concept altogether.

Show designers are active in their thematic intentions, but sometimes muddled and can't convey it. So viewers need to be active in seeking out what designers are saying, and if the concept isn't clear, raise hell with them.

The problem arises if you're not familiar with the source material. I'm not familiar with Fellini's work at all, so I just enjoyed the music.

I had some clients in my office a week or so back to have me work on a foil, and I had the show running on my laptop. THEY were familiar with Fellini and got all the references right off (and were quite impressed with the production, as well)/