Jump to content

SCV's show was an epic musical fail.


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, SWriverstone said:

I fully expect many people to make the "all music is subjective" argument. (Or the "personal taste" argument.) What I'd love to hear (which admittedly takes a bit more time) is more detail—focusing particularly on the underlying elements of (in this case) SCV's music that you liked.

It's certainly okay to see "I liked it." I'm just politely asking people to explain why they liked it. (I'm happy to explain further why I didn't—but it'll take some time and specific musical references to the show.)

Scott

I found your analysis interesting and I agree to an extent, but I am not a music major, or even close.  You have added to the discussion and hope that you are not dismissed out of hand.

I did enjoy SCV this year and SCV is one of my 3 favorite corps. 

I'd like to see what you have to say about other corps 2018 shows.  I think you bring an interesting dimension to the discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SWriverstone said:

I fully expect many people to make the "all music is subjective" argument. (Or the "personal taste" argument.) What I'd love to hear (which admittedly takes a bit more time) is more detail—focusing particularly on the underlying elements of (in this case) SCV's music that you liked.

It's certainly okay to say "I liked it." I'm just politely asking people to explain why they liked it. (I'm happy to explain further why I didn't—but it'll take some time and specific musical references to the show.)

Heck, I'm even willing to watch (and listen) to SCV's show a dozen more times in a genuine attempt to appreciate it. But one of my points is that I shouldn't have to.

Scott

I sorta get what you are saying, i had issues connecting w/ the music on a personal level. But like some shows they will eventually grow on me, BD 2010 was like that as was Cadets 2005. I understood why it was a successful as it was, it just wasn't my taste. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is much about which you say that I agree with, most notably that it seems to be very rare these days for a DCI show to engage with complete and well-developed musical (and visual, for that matter) thoughts. It's basically "short attention span theater" on a football field and one of the reasons I just don't find myself connecting with it as much as I used to, in spite of my deep respect and admiration for the sheer ability of the performers. I'm a visual guy myself, and though I'm not a fan of the less drill/more running around, posing, squatting thing, it's the musical choices these designers are making that bother me the most and make that disconnect even more pronounced. I really do want to be more engaged but they don't give me a chance to. They're counting down their 45 seconds or so until they need to get to some kind of impact and then they move on to the next bit of music from a list of about eight or nine different selections. That's why, to me anyway, it really stands out when a corps manages to present a portion of their performance with such beautiful complete musical/visual thoughts which allow the audience to make those connections in what I feel is a much more natural and meaningful way (last year's BD ballad was a perfect example). Sometimes, these designers are so busy trying to show off how smart they are, they out-think themselves.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, SWriverstone said:

There's a well-known and studied psychological phenomenon called the mere-exposure effect (also called the familiarity principle). It means people develop a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them. Put more simply, if you listen to lousy music long enough, you'll start thinking it's good. (This isn't opinion—it's fact.) 

It's clear that DCI audiences are suffering from this effect in a big way. Witness what DCI judges considered the pinnacle of shows in 2018 by awarding it a championship (SCV). Now I get that drum corps is more than just music—it's "art" (though I could make a case for why it really isn't, even at the highest levels). Drill, choreography, difficulty, etc. are all part of the activity. But the emotional underpinnings of any show are the music. You aren't going to be swept to emotional highs by a single high rifle toss or a big two-handed rimshot. The music matters—a lot. 

I've spent countless hours of my life studying, listening to, and performing music of all kinds. I have a BM degree from Juilliard—which doesn't make me more knowledgeable than anyone else—it simply certifies that I'm very knowledgeable about music—and what distinguishes good music from bad music. Contrary to popular belief, music isn't "in the ear of the beholder." It's entirely possible to judge it objectively and even place it (roughly) on a universal scale from bad to good. (If you're someone who believes the quality of music is entirely subjective, you're a hypocrite—because you logically must say the same about everything in life—which I'm sure you don't.)

So on to SCV's show: I've watched it several times. Not dozens or hundreds of times—because remember the mere-exposure effect? I'm not going to destroy my judgement by watching it every day for the entire summer (like the corps members and staff do). The first criterion for great music is that—on the first listen—it moves you. If it doesn't, then it could easily be argued the music has failed. Some might argue that it's not just the music in drum corps that should move you, but the collective experience of music, drill, and choreography. Fair enough. But nobody would argue that the music has a far greater impact on a show's general effect than either drill or choreography. And drill and choreography don't even come close to having the emotional impact of music.

I watched SCV's show with an open heart and mind. I love SCV! I always have. And I give every show the benefit of the doubt because I want to be moved emotionally. When I watch a drum corps show, I want to have tears in my eyes. I don't give a flip about how cleanly a difficult move is executed. It's interesting, but that will never move me to tears. (That's a bit like trying to be moved to tears by a brilliantly-designed coffeepot—it ain't gonna happen.) While watching (and listening) to SCV's show, I paid attention. I focused on the melody (or absence of it), the harmonies, the transitions, the tempo changes—I sat back and let it wash over me without judgement.

It left me cold and feeling completely flat.

After hearing it the first time, I thought "Okay, I'm just not familiar with it." (There's that principle again!) So I watched/listened again. And again. And in what is a testament to the absolute sterility of the show's music, familiarity didn't help at all. Every time I listened to SCV's show, it was just as pointless and unemotional as the previous listening. Here's what I noticed, repeatedly:

There were no discernable, memorable melodies in the show—and by melodies, I mean a sustained melodic line lasting at least 8 bars (at the same tempo) that very clearly moves from point A to point B in an emotional arc. (Think of just about any Beatles song, any Rodgers & Hammerstein musical, or any Beethoven symphony.) Even after repeated views, I couldn't sing along with 2 bars of this show (and I have a good ear for remembering melodies).

There was no sense of a grounded tempo anywhere in the show—by this, I mean a chance to get into a groove—to feel the pulse of the music and actually have a chance to tap your foot or rock gently along with it. Tempo changes were so frequent they suggested a kind of musical schizophrenia—arrangements driven entirely by the drill and perceived difficulty.

NOTE: Even some of the most brilliant, avante-garde compositions in music history hold to a steady tempo for at least 16-32 bars—I'm thinking of pieces like Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps or Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra orJohn Cage's Third Construction.

There was no overall sense of continuity—no feeling of going on a journey from the beginning of the show to the logical conclusion. Despite the flowery descriptions creative staff come up with to justify their shows, SCV's show was quite literally like a long series of 1- or 2-second cuts in a video, each one jarring, seemingly designed to be as abrupt as possible.

This was, plain and simple, an epic musical fail. (And therefore, a fail of a show—in spite of winning.)

Some of you reading this will think I just don't get it. Okay—I'll humor you: I get cubist paintings. I get architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright. And I get music by Steve Reich, Igor Stravinsky, Vincent Persichetti, John Cage, and countless other "challenging" composers. I have a very sophisticated musical ear. My favorite composer is Charles Ives—I've listened to his Concord Sonata hundreds of times—and every time I hear something I didn't hear before. (And trust me—Ives' Concord Sonata is light years ahead of any DCI show in sophistication.)

Some of you will think I'm just an old fart who doesn't understand current music. At this I just shake my head and laugh: have you noticed that people still love The Beatles, Beethoven, Mississippi John Hurt, and Joni Mitchell? This music isn't any less relevant and popular today than it was 25 or 100 years ago.

When it comes to music, you can't get rid of the fundamental elements that make music great without destroying it:

1. It moves you emotionally on the FIRST listen.
2. It is memorable—you can actually hum or sing some of it after one hearing—and ALL of it after several hearings.
3. It has a steady, consistent pulse that you can slip into and feel—in a sustained way—while you listen.

SCV's show had NONE of these qualities on the first hearing (or second, third, or fourth). which is why I call it an epic fail.

What disturbs me even more than SCV performing this show (who has a long history of connecting emotionally with audiences through great music) is the fact that DCI judges apparently reward this "music" that is devoid of any characteristics of good music. Yes, I know—they're judging more than the music (I already acknowledged this), but the judging community has lost its way. Clearly judges are more focused on difficulty (in the form of chaotic, disjointed shows packed with tempo changes and 32nd-note runs) than they are on emotionally connecting with audiences.

---
In many ways, I guess we've gotten what we deserve. It's widely acknowledged that young people today have an average attention span of seconds. Maybe show designers are catering to this? Maybe we—as an American species—have lost the ability to focus on something more than 10 seconds without needing an abrupt change? Listen to pop music today and it's clear that it exists on a level far lower in intelligence than it ever has in the past (just look at all the hit songs about nothing more than partying). Even the Academy Awards have officially decided movie audiences are dumb–they've created a new Oscar for "Best Popular Film."  (Because a popular film can't be intelligent or have depth.)

If anyone out there disagrees with my premise that SCV's show was a musical fail (and I'm sure hundreds or thousands do), feel free to explain (hopefully in more than single-syllable words) why you think it was great. Tell me how this show moved you emotionally. And as proof, record yourself singing some part of SCV's show and post the MP3 here. :-) (Corps members and staff who performed/arranged the show aren't allowed–your impartial judgement is long gone).

Scott

Image result for skyfall memes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SWriverstone said:

There's a well-known and studied psychological phenomenon called the mere-exposure effect (also called the familiarity principle). It means people develop a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them. 

Scott

 No, this is not what the Theory implies at all. It does NOT suggest that repeated exposure to something results in a " preference ", nor even " a liking " for it. You need to reread what the Theory is attempting to advance. Without going into detail, it suggests a " more positive " reaction can be noted by repeated exposure,  in other words, its possible to dislike it less, upon repeated exposure, the Theory claims.. The Theory makes no claim at all about one " preferring " or " liking" something that previously was " unliked ", or " unpreferred" upon 1st exposure. Its quite possible, with repeated exposure,  things become less odorous, than initial exposure, but still " unpreferred " and still " unliked " by the recipient(s) despite multiple exposures to it.

Edited by BRASSO
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, SWriverstone said:

I watched SCV's show with an open heart and mind.

 

58 minutes ago, SWriverstone said:

It left me cold and feeling completely flat.

I'm not judging your statements, but could I have some more context? Did you watch all the other shows as well? Do you feel the same way about them, or do you judge some to be good music?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Thanks, SWriverstone, for letting me know how misguided I have been! I will endeavor to un-love SCV's show, starting right now!

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...