Need help with BD Chop and Paste, Walk and Stand approach to design

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

like drum corps, football was a different game during the Csonk's time than it is today. 

 

and given the issues with todays refereeing, and the fact most networks have an officiating guru that pops up on the screen during games, i'd disagree

a) While Fullbacks today do block more than yesteryear, Mike Tolbert has also on occasion ran over 25 yards and has had long runs on plays where the call was expected to be a pass.  Oh, and he was the 2016 Pro-Bowl pick for Fullback; which if I think about it that is somewhat closer to 2017.  So not 'that much' is different between him and Csonka of '72 - '73.

b) I am not talking just about refereeing and umpiring, but the contention that we have to understand the reasoning behind the play calls as well as the plays themselves in order to be entertained by the game of football.  And I will refer you to my postings about me with hockey and my wife with football to further my position on the matter.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Stu

[Fran Haring]

19 minutes ago, Stu said:

Of course this is my opinion, but it is the idea of artistic designers thinking that they need to connect to the audience through, using your word, 'education' in order for them to really enjoy a performance; that is the issue. While there are some up there who are deep into contemplating the underlying meanings, the overwhelming majority of the audience just simply wants to be entertained.  

Cannot disagree with this. 

Through the years, my favorite shows have been the ones I can "get" without consulting a program manual or having a PhD in something. LOL.  But to me, it's also nice to have the option of "doing my homework"... so to speak... and finding out more about what the show is supposed to be all about before I see it.... or even after I see it, so I can connect the dots.

Then again... there are times when I wonder if a given corps staff actually knows what their corps' show is all about in a given year, or are they just throwing shadows at us. 
 

[Stu]

6 minutes ago, Fran Haring said:

Cannot disagree with this. 

Through the years, my favorite shows have been the ones I can "get" without consulting a program manual or having a PhD in something. LOL.  But to me, it's also nice to have the option of "doing my homework"... so to speak... and finding out more about what the show is supposed to be all about before I see it.... or even after I see it, so I can connect the dots.

Then again... there are times when I wonder if a given corps staff actually knows what their corps' show is all about in a given year, or are they just throwing shadows at us. 
 

I have mentioned this before, but it seems applicable here. While Angels and Demons was easy on the surface to 'get', there was a brilliant music intellectual moment that I  also enjoyed. When the Demons played the Doxology and it slipped more and more into a darker dissonance thus mocking the Angels. I found it brilliant while it escaped the person sitting beside me; yet that person was just as entertained as I was during that moment; maybe even more so.

[pudding]

In the interests of science, I took on the burden of listening to the top four shows several times each and timing how long the brass played, as well as how much they played while also marching. I tried to be as consistent as possible, and I did not include solos or small ensemble features in the timings. In addition, if there were a "building section" (e.g. during Bluecoats' opener where they begin with the tubas, then baris, etc.) then I did not begin timing until the second instrument section entered. For the "playing and marching" timing, I only counted the times when there was true marching occurring; stationary body work or even things such as hops were not counted. I did NOT account for the type of marching being done (e.g. half time, double time, step size, etc.), which is also an important factor.

Results (in order of San Antonio placement):

• Blue Devils
  • Total ensemble brass playing time: 5:49
  • Time spent playing and marching: 2:01
  • Time spent playing while not marching: 3:48 (65.3%)
• Santa Clara Vanguard
  • Total ensemble brass playing time: 4:49
  • Time spent playing and marching: 1:49
  • Time spent playing while not marching: 3:00 (62.3%)
• Carolina Crown
  • Total ensemble brass playing time: 8:15
  • Time spent playing and marching: 3:59
  • Time spent playing while not marching: 4:16 (51.7%)
• Bluecoats
  • Total ensemble brass playing time: 5:25
  • Time spent playing and marching: 2:18
  • Time spent playing while not marching: 3:07 (57.5%)

As expected, Crown's brass both plays the most and plays the most while marching. Surprisingly, SCV's brass plays extraordinarily little, although in hindsight this should be obvious based on the sheer amount of percussion that is stuffed into their show. An interesting split between Blue Devils and Bluecoats; Blue Devils play more overall, but Bluecoats play more while marching (therefore, Blue Devils play more while not marching). 

Important thing to remember: Both Blue Devils and Bluecoats have extended solos in their shows, while SCV's small brass ensemble contributes a good amount of brass time as well. In terms of "brass effect", you can't just subtract these times from the overall time to figure out how much the percussion is playing soli (i.e. where there is no brass sound at all). 

The percentage of time spent playing while not marching is interesting to me, primarily for Blue Devils and SCV. Blue Devils spend the highest percentage of ensemble brass time playing while not marching, which is to be expected based on the criticism they've received as well as general observation of their design over the last few years. What more interesting to me is SCV's percentage statistic, which is the second highest, even though their playing time is the lowest in every category. To me, this is hugely reflective of their arranging style of putting many short brass moments in between many longer percussion features. This is also why I'm disappointed that they're receiving the brass scores that they are; they're simply not playing enough with enough simultaneous demand to warrant it.

Based on these numbers, as well as having now listened specifically to each show's brass book several times while focusing on performance elements, I believe that the repertoire ordinals should be Crown > BD/Bluecoats (debatable) > SCV. The reason that BD/Bluecoats is debatable is because their areas of difficulty are very different; BD's difficulty lies in their fast sections (Flight of the Bumblebee) as well as the jazz chord tuning in their ballad, while Bluecoats' difficulty primarily lies in their timing and environmental demands (cross-field hocket rhythms) and their rhythmic demands (fivelets in Zappa). I don't think that it's debatable whether or not Crown should be receiving top marks in brass repertoire. Based on these numbers as well as a qualitative evaluation of SCVs ensemble brass book, I believe that of these four corps their brass score should be the lowest. 

Note that I am not considering execution at all in this analysis. It's entirely possible, for example, for SCV to execute higher than Crown on a given night. I'm simply speaking about the demands that are being asked of the performers from as objective an analytical standpoint as possible. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by pudding

[jmc5682]

On 7/8/2017 at 1:15 PM, mirrormen said:

Three issues on which I would LOVE to hear other’s opinions:

 

Chop and Paste: Isn’t there artistic skill, craft, ingeniousness to developing a show that flows in a way that makes sense to your eyes and ears? Especially if YOU GET TO CHOOSE the show theme and name the production whatever you want? I know that not everyone’s eyes and ears, judge training, likes and dislikes/personal tastes, allow everyone to discern corps’ shows in the same way or at the same level, but the cut and paste approach of BD is distracting to me. It doesn’t mean there are not things about them I do like and appreciate- and there are years I felt the deserved to win. It seems that no one else either chooses to do, or gets to do such in the same way BD designs shows. I get that the talent level is stupid high and that they perform so well etc. Is it simply their style and you like it or don’t? They often go right from one style to the next, one tune to the next, with no set up, no connection to the show theme, etc.  I know I have lost of other corps to enjoy, but I really do want better appreciate what they do. 

 

Standing and Playing/Demand. I know it has been brought up a lot, but . . . BD’s brass stand and play for six minutes this year. I know that may change. Seems they would have to play sooooo much better than all other horn lines to win brass. I get that there are various types of demand. This issue for me also plays into the fact that they walk around a lot this year. That too may be changed. If the perfect visual marriage for the music I am hearing is people walking around, seemingly completely disengaged, fine. This year and years past there are always three or four moments where they could not work out a guard transition so they tell those members to just walk over to where they need to be for the next section. Again, totally disengaged. If the GE and show design goal is 100% perfection of the craft of putting a show together where the details of production, marriage of visual and audio, and performance quality and delivery of the members is so spot on, every audience member is completely engaged the entire show, why are these issues okay, especially for the corps that supposedly more often than not sets the design standards? I know there is no such thing as the perfect effect show that will affect everyone equally, but I watch corps placing lower have none of these design issues.  My curiosity is high here because they often win GE. So apparently people are seeing and hearing a level of craft that I need help getting. 

 

Do they care if the audience likes it? Should a show require multiple critiques for the judges to learn about the show design intent before they can enjoy/reward the show design efforts fully? What about me- the paying audience member that wants to like BD better, but too often feels shut out of the show too frequently over the course of the show. The park and barks are usually well executed and sometimes exciting. There are at times additional moments that carry engagement and some emotional value. As soon as these moments seem to be flowing well, bam, we are taken 180 into something unrelated. The unexpected turn or twist can be an effect. I do not ever think such is their ammo. If seeing a film, or play, or ballet, or opera, etc. the careful crafting of every moment seems the goal. If they want people to see, hear, respect, and hopefully repeat viewings, it is the careful and thoughtful crafting that elevates the effect and the second ticket or recording or DVD bought. 

 

I am not trying to be snarky at all.  Would really appreciate how others view the BD design approach and subsequent high scores in GE. 

DCP just never changes.  It is the same thing every year, "BD has easy shows and does not do as much as the corps I want to win".  Change the tune man.

[N.E. Brigand]

8 hours ago, Stu said:

Of course this is my opinion, but it is the idea of artistic designers thinking that they need to connect to the audience through, using your word, 'education' in order for them to really enjoy a performance; that is the issue.

We're not a classical theater, but now and again we produce something by Shakespeare.

There are lots of unfamiliar words in Shakespeare's plays. Do we let the audience be confused or do we take extra steps to make sure that (1) the enunciation is even more clear than we would demand of actors doing a modern play; (2) the visuals help make the meaning of each obscure word; (3) when absolutely necessary, we actually change a word so that there's no confusion; (4) include in the playbill a short, prominent glossary of the most challenging words; and (5) in our preshow talks (typically attended by about 25% of the audience), make sure to explain the trickiest words in context?

Or do we just not produce any Shakespeare anymore?

 

Again, I totally get that DCI may not be in a position to help the audience this way.

And that therefore there are limits to how obscure a drum corps show should be.

On the other hand, I think it's OK for an audience to be challenged. At least a little. Lots of people find it invigorating to stretch their minds even when they're being entertained.

We don't want to be like Britney Spears, who fifteen years ago famously said:

"Sundance is weird. The movies are weird: you actually have to think about them when you watch them."

[N.E. Brigand]

9 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

However, your plays aren't judged, so therefore it's an apples/oranges kind of comparison.

Tell that to the paid critics! (Whose judgement affects our sales, although less these days than in years past.)

 

(Good point about DCI's Fieldpass. However, audio (1) requires time to listen to and (2) can't be searched. Text really is more user friendly.)

[Stu]

2 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

We're not a classical theater, but now and again we produce something by Shakespeare.

There are lots of unfamiliar words in Shakespeare's plays. Do we let the audience be confused or do we take extra steps to make sure that (1) the enunciation is even more clear than we would demand of actors doing a modern play; (2) the visuals help make the meaning of each obscure word; (3) when absolutely necessary, we actually change a word so that there's no confusion; (4) include in the playbill a short, prominent glossary of the most challenging words; and (5) in our preshow talks (typically attended by about 25% of the audience), make sure to explain the trickiest words in context?

Or do we just not produce any Shakespeare anymore?

 

Again, I totally get that DCI may not be in a position to help the audience this way.

And that therefore there are limits to how obscure a drum corps show should be.

On the other hand, I think it's OK for an audience to be challenged. At least a little. Lots of people find it invigorating to stretch their minds even when they're being entertained.

We don't want to be like Britney Spears, who fifteen years ago famously said:

"Sundance is weird. The movies are weird: you actually have to think about them when you watch them."

I am not saying make designs that are Britney Spears pop cotton candy with nothing to offer those who want to think while they watch/listen.  But design shows that first and foremost entertain the audience, yet they do have underlying elements for those who want to think; like what is produced live by U2,  That is why I referenced the entertainment aspect of Angels and Demons first, and then the Doxology example second.  DCI is not a movie experience; it is neither an opera nor a play which needs translation; it is a musical and visual experience akin to other major concerts performed in large stadiums not small outdoor Shakespearean festivals or small indoor artistic auditoriums.  And when a designer starts going down the road to needing to implement that list you posted for the audience sake, especially if numbers 4 and 5 are required to be directed at the judges as well as the audience, that is exacerbating the problem of disconnect not fixing it.  I understood the Doxology reference without needing a pre-show tutorial lecture or a playbill explanation; the guy next to me in the stands was completely and utterly entertained and engrossed by the Angels and Demons show without needing a pre-show tutorial lecture or playbill explanation.  So, educate the performers if that is an academic desire; but direct entertainment, not education, toward the audience.

[Kamarag]

1 minute ago, Stu said:

So, educate the performers if that is an academic desire; but direct entertainment, not education, toward the audience.

 

 

You not wrong, but you should understand that "entertainment" means different things to different people. Judges and audience included. We have to be careful that we don't pigeon-hole "entertainment" to be only what entertains "the masses", especially if that means only rewarding shows that are essentially dumbed-down. Books/movies/shows that require a little bit of thought can be wildly entertaining too.

Think of it as the difference between Star Wars (movie) and Dune (book). Are both entertaining? Absolutely. Is one more challenging than the other to grasp? Certainly. 

[Stu]

2 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Tell that to the paid critics! (Whose judgement affects our sales, although less these days than in years past.)

 

(Good point about DCI's Fieldpass. However, audio (1) requires time to listen to and (2) can't be searched. Text really is more user friendly.)

You used the word 'judgement'.  Yes, paid critics judge stage productions; then they write editorials for public consumption which in turn may or may not harm ticket sales. In the realm of DCI those critics are the paid adjudicators. Please direct me to an editorial review penned by a DCI adjudicator concerning any DCI corps performance that would in turn influence ticket sales like the paid critics you have just referenced.  If you do that, I will agree with this particular assessment of yours.