cixelsyd Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Electronics are not used by corps today, because they 'must use them, or else!'... but rather because it has become a normal part of idiom (to the dismay of some). Sorry, but that is a distinction without a difference. If something is "a normal part of the idiom", then yes, you "must use them, or else" suffer in comparison to those who do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfirwin3 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) Sorry, but that is a distinction without a difference. If something is "a normal part of the idiom", then yes, you "must use them, or else" suffer in comparison to those who do. Not entirely. Normalcy does not lend itself to be necessary. Can you have an orchestral piece with a saxophone part? Yes Can you have one without? Yes Can you have a jazz orchestral piece with a saxophone part? Yes Can you have a jazz orchestral piece without? Yes Saxophone is normal in a particular type of symphonic orchestration, but not necessary. It is also not really "abnormal" in it's usage in general symphonic orchestration (although perhaps less common). Kazoo or Theremin is not normal or necessary to orchestral music... Electronic usage in drumcorps is normal, yet not necessary. Can you have Drum and Bugle corps without drums? No Can you have it without Bugles? (cue the endless authoritative posts about what a bugle is and isn't ) No Drums and bugles are normal... BECAUSE they are necessary in this case. It's the difference between doing something because one CAN vs. doing it because they MUST. I know that there is a great deal of argument to be had over this... but I would suggest that the proof in the pudding is the fact that drumcorps are fairly diverse in the ways in which they use electronics. And winners/medalists over the last decade or so of electronic use have exemplified a very wide palette of use. This does not seem to indicate a specific requirement of use, because usage has been so varied. It's not like a figure skater that is expected to have a minimum application of specific maneuvers... i.e. to say that in order to compete, drumcorps must use electronics, regardless of the the manner of usage. That's what people may think... but it isn't true. Edited June 20, 2016 by cfirwin3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) I think our only disagreement (if I understand you correctly) is on the premise that shows that are 'called' or are in practice more "traditional" (even through a contemporary lens) are not likely to be competitive. I'm not sure that I could agree with that (even if we could find an agreeable definition of traditional among us all ). For the sake of more discussion... heck, why not?... It seems to me that competitiveness (apart from the voodoo that is entirely part of judging subjectivity) requires one thing in particular, but not necessarily the same thing for everybody. 'Innovation' has always been required to win. Innovation has many forms though... it can be the obvious (such as unique voicing or staging) but it can also be accomplished through depth of emotion, or programmatic gobbledygook just as much as it can be accomplished in consistent minimalism or the focus on a singular idea/word. I think judges are just looking for a group to DO something... even if it is digging deep into a traditional theme. You may be right that we haven't had a group "win" on that lately (like Phantom in 1996)... but I don't think that demonstrates that a group CAN'T do so, or that they would be doomed to try. In a way Crown in 2013 came kinda close to this. They used minimalism, but that had been done before, long ago. That show was really quite traditional (vocals aside... which was mostly part of the source music). You make some valid points here. I suppose the difficulty is probably coming to agreement among fans as to what each are using for definitions of " traditional ", as well as what is " modern " in their view. Without a common agreement of the term ( hard to do, imo ) its a difficult endeavor to move forward on. I see your point... a valid one.. that Crown in 2013 came close to a " traditional " show. That said, I think both of us could find more than one or 2 others that would tell both of us that Crown 2013 was anything but " traditional " in its offerings. And of course, because of the definition THEY are using for the term, they could not really be told that with that definition that their assessment and observation is likewise not a valid one. See what I'm saying ? Edited June 20, 2016 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadet93 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I actually wouldn't put Cadets show in the traditional category for the first time this year! Yay! Too much body movement and electronic usage, trombones, violin...nah not traditional. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) I actually wouldn't put Cadets show in the traditional category for the first time this year! Yay! Too much body movement and electronic usage, trombones, violin...nah not traditional. IMO, the word traditional could also be quite subjective. According to who?, When, decade? We could ask 100 people and get 100 different answers. I have relatives that would say tradition stopped, well we all now where that goes...lol Edited June 20, 2016 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted June 20, 2016 Author Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) IMO, the word traditional could also be quite subjective. According to who?, When, decade? We could ask 100 people and get 100 different answers. I have relatives that would say tradition stopped, well we all now where that goes...lol Let's not overcomplicate things honestly. If a show design is closer to the early '90s (and the instrumentation could easily be adjusted for it to be allowed then), more so than it is to a 2010s Blue Devils show (peak WGI-style, and what gets rewarded the most these days), it's traditional. Edited June 20, 2016 by Hrothgar15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Let's not overcomplicate things honestly. If a show design is closer the early '90s (and the instrumentation could easily be adjusted for it to be allowed then), more so than it is to a 2010s Blue Devils show (peak WGI-style, and what gets rewarded the most these days), it's traditional. To me, anything after 1969 is modern and not traditional. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 IMO, the word traditional could also be quite subjective. According to who? According to whom? This guy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted June 20, 2016 Author Share Posted June 20, 2016 "Traditional" is just shorthand. I probably shouldn't have used the term at all. What I'm specifically referring to is show designs that are closer to the type you would see in DCI 25 years ago than you would see in WGI today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 According to whom? This guy. OT...just saw Fiddler in NY Saturday night...Danny Burstein is an amazing Tevye...and the overall production is excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.