SCV's show was an epic musical fail.

[Bluzes]

3 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 I guess I'm stubborn too for preferring and liking SCV music perhaps more than I should have.

To me it's about moods how one feels in the moment the first time you hear something, likes/dislikes then carries a lot of weight. It's only drum corps that can change my mind latter, other music I seem to be more consistent in likes/dislikes. 

[Cappybara]

2 hours ago, Newseditor44 said:

It's clear the OP (and some of us) have far too much time on our hands. Far far too much time...

That's what happens when you get a music degree 

*ducks*

[MarimbaManiac]

On page 6 of this thread, MarimbaManiac suggested that composers like Persichetti, Sessions, Cage, Stravinsky, etc can't be considered avante-garde anymore. I disagree! - That's fine. You're allowed to be wrong.

Maybe they aren't considered avante-garde in music schools, but (in case you didn't notice) the general public never got as far as any of those composers. So in that sense they absolutely are (still) avant garde. - Ok, so facts and definitions of terms are now predicated on what the majority of the general uneducated public knows about those terms? Am I being trolled, are you actually Donald Trump?

You think John Cage is "old school?" Try performing his Third Construction flawlessly. - Level of difficulty of performance has nothing to do with whether something is avant-garde or not (also I never said old-school, that's your term). 

And what about a piece like Frederic Rzewski's Les Moutons de Panurge? You think that's old school??? It's every bit as "innovative" as anything with that label today.  - You're allowed that opinion, but again you would be wrong. 

Sorry—forgot to add: I really don't think my Juilliard degree means much... - This I agree with.

I only mentioned it to show that I'm not a musical amateur, but someone with somewhat high-level musical training and professional performing experience. - Dude, you have a Bachelors degree in (I'm assuming) Percussion Performance. So you have a lot of experience playing and interpreting a narrow swath of orchestral rep, and a general knowledge of music history and theory up through the second world war. That's about it. Whether you got that degree at Juilliard, Indiana, North Texas, or any other accredited  public program doesn't matter, the curriculum is the same. Not super swayed by your appeal to authority. 

Your knowledge of contemporary music is limited. Your understanding of the term avant-garde, and everything that happened after post-modernism is lacking. Take a listen to Brian Ferneyhough, Beat Furrer, Georges Aperghis, Luciano Berio, Helmut Lachenmann, Harry Partch, Unsuk Chin, Alvin Lucier, Pauline Oliveros, Jonty Harrison, Grisey, Saariaho, Haas....SO MANY OTHERS. People who are alive today, or who have contributed to actual avant-garde music in the last 50 years. 

Because of your attempts to appeal to your authority, and your lacking of understanding of these basic musical ideals, and subsequent dismissal of the Vanguard's music based on your wildly fallacious assumptions, your entire argument is moot. 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by MarimbaManiac

[Bluzes]

I am focused challenged and do not get the point of this thread. Are we demeaning the original composers that they did not write good enough music to please music academia scholars today? Did the staff not interrupt the composers correctly, the MMs were not  up to the challenge? All this psychobabble from superior beings is confusing some of the unwashed masses that would like some specifics. What do you mean "epic musical fail" please stoop to my level and point out some tangible/real things that failed.

[BRASSO]

27 minutes ago, Bluzes said:

To me it's about moods how one feels in the moment the first time you hear something, likes/dislikes then carries a lot of weight. It's only drum corps that can change my mind latter, other music I seem to be more consistent in likes/dislikes. 

 good point... re.mood.

[BRASSO]

54 minutes ago, MarimbaManiac said:

 

Sorry—forgot to add: I really don't think my Juilliard degree means much... - This I agree with.

 

 

  To be fair, in his follow up, downnplayed that Julliard Degree, and substituted in the follow up that he subsequently ( his words ) " 25 years ago, launched a now- very- successful career in Marketing and Communications ". I think thats important for us to learn as a follow up to... you know... as to what makes for " an epic fail in music," and so forth.

Edited August 14, 2018 by BRASSO

[BoyWonder1911]

The purpose of the show as it was written was to win a gold medal. 

It wasn't to move the audience or communicate a life lesson or a story or anything of the sort.

They won because they were darn good at performing it, and they were better than anyone else at performing their show. Their GE even came from execution. Which should not be the case IMO but it was obvious that's how it was scored, because tbh this was a pretty dismally created show for those purposes as far as story telling and getting a point across.

This show even could have been called anything else besides what it was called and it still would have won. It didn't communicate the story of Babylon at all. Or the tower of Babel or whatever they were trying to communicate.

 

All they did was run around and run on top of scaffolding so they can show off the fact that they graduated elementary school recess.

 

The show meant absolutely nothing to me.

But they executed the living crap out of it. They designed this show to win the gold by out doing BD at their own game.

 

Now, it would be nice for next season to get back to real drum corps shows. I think this era of experimentation has run its course. 

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by BoyWonder1911

[Mephistopheles]

7 hours 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

Slow down rook. You should try posting in either of these places vs here on DCP.

reddit.com/r/iamverysmart

or

reddit.com/r/iamverybadass

Take your pick.

[sched88]

2 hours ago, wilme861 said:

To sort of jump on this, I remember watching a standstill of SCV and being surprised at how much I was thinking the show was just "meh". This is just my personal opinion with their music, and I appreciate the OP's post and opinion on it, but I actually do tend to agree with him on SCV from the music side of it. As a whole, I thought it was a great show and was entertained each night I watched it. I was just surprised how much of a difference a standstill made for me.

When I was at Allentown for DCI East, the Mandarins performed their show as a standstill because of the rain.  I was totally bored with it because there was no movement or color guard to go with it.  When I saw them at the theater for prelims, I really enjoyed it because the movement and color brought the music to life and visa versa. That's what makes drum corps so cool to me.  I like the music and movement together.  One without the other just isn't as exciting in the context of drum corps. I wouldn't expect the same if I was going to an orchestral concert.

[jthomas666]

2 hours ago, barigirl78 said:

While judges do see the shows several times, I think they are intended to judge the performance that is in front of them.  At some point in every season, they are seeing a corps for the first time.  DCI tries to rotate judges to different captions over the course of a season.

There were two judges in Finals--Rothe and Romanowski--that only judge three shows prior to Finals.  Rothe saw SCV twice before.  Romanowski saw them only once prior to finals.

I don't know to what degree judges watch shows when they aren't judging.  Are they supposed to?  But, it's not a given that they've seen the shows more than the fans have.

 

OK, thanks for the info.  I was under the impression the judges saw the shows on a more regular basis.