The Balance: "Souless Perfection" vs. "Inspired Attempt&#3

[George Dixon]

Through the years we've seen drum corps programs which seem a little rough around the edges and lack perfect execution but we're extremely exciting and enjoyable. An example for me was Cadets Les Miz program in 1989.

We've also witnessed programs that are technically brilliant but lack a spark of excitement. 1992 Star's program is one example for me that felt flat although I could appreciate the musical and visual performances

I've personally witnessed many other programs through the years that started a season very rough in terms of execution and improved greatly in terms of execution but became really dull and almost unwatchable. As if the souls was hosed and perfected out of it.

How do the best corps achieve the balance between perfection and inspiration? What are other good examples where maybe the dirty June program was more exciting or a well performed program that just sort of lies there? Do programs tend to lose excitement as the corps perfects them?

[George Dixon]

Title should be "soulless" , that's what I get for typing it on my phone

[ranintothedoor]

I remember fighting to keep my morale up as we rep'd the poop out of our 2005 show in Allentown. The thing that really kept driving me personally was how cool and how poised for history we all felt.

Then if I compare that to the years in my band program where it was a struggle to keep the kids pushing to the end of the season, I realize that:

- If the product is incredible and clean, energy is high in the ranks.

- If the product is incredible and rough, energy usually is high, but if the group is inexperienced or immature, the end of the season will suffer. It's mentally hard to perfect the minutia.

- If the product is decent and clean, energy is meh even though their execution is tight. Where's the mental stimulation to push them once the physical part of the show is perfected?

- If the product is decent and rough, energy is 90% contingent on the maturity of the group for many reasons.

- If the product is meh and clean, energy is low. They've maxed out and are uninterested. This is the worst situation, I think.

- If the product is meh and rough, energy is again 90% contingent on the maturity of the group. Is it a rebuilding year? Is the goal just to get through and have fun that year? What's the focus?

Didn't really answer the opening questions, but that's what popped in my mind. :-)

Thoughts?

[Jeff Ream]

it's tough. what looks great on paper in December doesnt always translate well on the field.

[Fran Haring]

We've also witnessed programs that are technically brilliant but lack a spark of excitement. 1992 Star's program is one example for me that felt flat although I could appreciate the musical and visual performances

That '92 Star corps.... saw them at the Hershey show relatively early in the season and they were GREAT. High energy, rock-solid performance, and a very fan-friendly show.

My next viewing, at the NJ Meadowlands show shortly before championships.... still great execution... horn line was unbelievable... but the spark they had at Hershey was missing. At least that's how it came across to me.

[George Dixon]

That '92 Star corps.... saw them at the Hershey show relatively early in the season and they were GREAT. High energy, rock-solid performance, and a very fan-friendly show.

My next viewing, at the NJ Meadowlands show shortly before championships.... still great execution... horn line was unbelievable... but the spark they had at Hershey was missing. At least that's how it came across to me.

exactly -- the emotion was cleaned out of the program (except for Amber Waves which got me even finals night)

[DrumManTx]

exactly -- the emotion was cleaned out of the program (except for Amber Waves which got me even finals night)

Was about to say, I listen to that section all the time. Absolutely gorgeous.

[skevinp]

Does emotion in the audience happen because of emotion the performers feel when they play, or because the performers play with a set of prescribed attributes, regardless of what they feel personally, that translate into an overall result that a human audience interprets in a way that causes it to feel emotion?

For a soloist I can see it being the former, but a soloist has some leeway to incorporate his individual style in conveying his own emotion to the audience. But for everyone playing at once it seems any such individual styles would be less likely to come through, possibly cancel each other out to some extent and weaken the overall impact, and possibly result in a less clean performance when measured as such.

So when a corps just seems, as a group, to play with emotion, how did they do it? This has always kind of perplexed me.

[cowtown]

Each year, a few shows fizzle out finals week while others gain momentum; to keep with the soulless theme, Cadets 2010 died in the back end of the season. Strong show that never went anywhere and each change made the show worse unlit it was annoying by finals. Some may recall the pack of Cavies, Crown, Bluecoats and Cadets were very tight through the first half of the year, cavies got hot, Cadets went cold.

Past few years and at the end of the season I’ve felt Cadets have beaten the life out of their shows with cheap, cheesy tricks whereas decades prior, they were closers.

One of the reason why I like 3 days of finals, it’s give a much better read on the season, the shows and the performance. Seen many of my early hates and raves change places. Poor design becomes glaring if it plays 3 days

Soulless perfection doesn’t exist in drum corps, cleanliness is effect. Some will point to Blue Devils as so good they make it look easy so they don’t get fan credit but they do get mad love from the judges. I’ve never bought into that as it’s usually thrown at people that just don’t connect to that years show

A well regarded show that scored well (more on design than performance, IMO) that I never connected with and found boring, minus some ensemble drill moments, Frameworks, Cavies 2002. Didn’t like it at the time and still don’t like it; all effect and no soul. Kids will disagree as fight club made them all wet but meh, gimmick

[ranintothedoor]

Does emotion in the audience happen because of emotion the performers feel when they play, or because the performers play with a set of prescribed attributes, regardless of what they feel personally, that translate into an overall result that a human audience interprets in a way that causes it to feel emotion?

For a soloist I can see it being the former, but a soloist has some leeway to incorporate his individual style in conveying his own emotion to the audience. But for everyone playing at once it seems any such individual styles would be less likely to come through, possibly cancel each other out to some extent and weaken the overall impact, and possibly result in a less clean performance when measured as such.

So when a corps just seems, as a group, to play with emotion, how did they do it? This has always kind of perplexed me.

You can choreograph enthusiasm. The maxim "Fake it til' you make it" is 100% true.

Once you have that, the individual performer then has to sell it. Because if they do what they're supposed to do, and they're feeling good, and they drive the rehearsed machine with purpose, they contribute genuinely to the choreographed emotion of the group. If enough of the performers are doing that, then the audience becomes awash with it, and the emotion that has been choreographed comes through for them. One kid who's just really tired and drops their horn, or doesn't actually seem truly "angry" or "sad" in their posture or action, or even is just going through the motions... that kid might be seen by an eighth of the audience, and that's enough to break the spell.

Watching Blue Devils' guard compared with a typical high school guard... where many are so focused on technique and coordinates rather than being so on it that they can emote with purpose... that's the difference. The audience isn't allowed to transcend because they can't be awash with what the group's trying to present.