What would you think if...

[MarimbaManiac]

2 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

Beautifully written. And what happens when the judges decide that this proper staging is fine and possibly even superior to traditional staging? Wait a corps consistently sitting around #15 cant afford to do that? Sucks for them!

Yup, it does. Oh well.

[cfirwin3]

8 minutes ago, garfield said:

"...absence of specificity..." , and "...vague references...", and, of course "I don't disagree..."  (so we can stop there, right? )

You're right: it does raise more questions that need addressed in the sheets.  I guarantee you that, if the emphasis on A&E or props are less pronounced in placement, the corps would limit their uses to ways that actually improve placement.  Occam and Pavlov simplicity, really.

And, in all of your (interesting) talk of communication adjudication...  If you're teaching a student and your adjudicator is judging your use of the same tools that all of your peers are using  -- or not because your school can't afford those tools, and you have to spend more of your teaching time raising funds to buy some or any tools just to "compete" (for your job, for state funds, whatever)...  You see where I'm going.  It's not a level playing field in which to "judge" anything.  Same here in the use of these "tools" of the drum corps trade.  That said, the teacher's interaction with the student is not the same dynamic here; the corps are not teachers, per se and the judges are not judging the interaction between the teacher and the student, per your own admission.  They're judging the use of the tools and the professional credentials of those charges with making them run well, not the show's impact on the audience.

 

But the guidance documents DO address communication.

I am of the opinion that judges are indeed dealing with how a drumcorps program addresses an audience (among other things).  They are doing this as members of the audience, with the best seats and as observers of the audience among them.  Certainly there's much more to consider in adjudication, but not less.

With respect to the dependence on a certain type of tool set, that is an imported assumption that isn't defined as true in the guidance documentation.  So long as the corps that have nice gear are also marching/moving and playing the best, there is no reason to ascribe success to the gear itself.

Likewise, I think we can observe that having stuff isn't the same as innovating.  It's the corps that do something uniquely different that get top billing.  The driving force there isn't the gear, it's the idea.  And as in teaching (which is just communication), effectiveness is dependent on ideas and never on gear.

I think that these conclusions about gear dependency require the viewholder to put all of the eggs in a tiny basket without cause.

[garfield]

2 minutes ago, MarimbaManiac said:

 

...but what is exactly the point of this? To level the playing field based on an arbitrary number so as not to upset those that can't keep up? Limit the product's potential because there are a few that don't want to take their products in the same direction?

PASS

The programs being produced today are some of the most dazzling and impressive spectacles that have ever been fielded in this activity, and that is good for everyone involved, corps and audiences alike. It's not just because of the money, but because that money is being paired with brilliant designers that are given the means to think outside the box, and members that are being trained to be playing and moving machines. The props and technology facilitate that, and to put an arbitrary cap on the possibilities based some misguided attempt at parity will severely limit the quality of the products moving forward. 

 

 

Granted.  They are as dazzling as most three-ring circuses.

But this is a competition, supposedly, that adjudicates based on the "Effect" of using props and A&E.  

Everything you say is true.  So let's remove the competition entirely then and just allow the corps to present productions only.

What designer has to think "outside the box" when he has "the box" to do the thinking for him/her?

 

[cfirwin3]

9 minutes ago, garfield said:

...and how does one corps become "competitively" the best when the rubric used is the "favorable effects" of spending thousands it doesn't have on the tools that enhance the design and, hence, their score?

Apparently, "competitively the best" includes, nay requires, entry into the arms race.

 

You seem to be making an unsupported claim.  The adjudication sheet is much bigger than a corner of the GE caption.

All of the elements of excellent performance still hold the bulk of the sheet.  Winners have to play and march well... there's no getting around it.

[Cappybara]

11 minutes ago, MarimbaManiac said:

 

...but what is exactly the point of this? To level the playing field based on an arbitrary number so as not to upset those that can't keep up? Limit the product's potential because there are a few that don't want to take their products in the same direction?

PASS

The programs being produced today are some of the most dazzling and impressive spectacles that have ever been fielded in this activity, and that is good for everyone involved, corps and audiences alike. It's not just because of the money, but because that money is being paired with brilliant designers that are given the means to think outside the box, and members that are being trained to be playing and moving machines. The props and technology facilitate that, and to put an arbitrary cap on the possibilities based some misguided attempt at parity will severely limit the quality of the products moving forward. 

"But corps did it for many years without tech/props/etc"

Yes, and those shows were a snooze compared to what's being put on the field today. If DCI today looked like it did in the 70's I personally would have no interest, and I'm sure most people who have grown up in a world with technology and advanced sound design being as ubiquitous as it is now would agree. 

 

Limit the product's potential? I see it more as saving the product itself. 

[garfield]

4 minutes ago, MarimbaManiac said:

Yup, it does. Oh well.

Wow, so you're in favor of the emergence of another "Super-Duper League of Extra-Special Corps That Are the Draw", then, is that right?

There are sometimes outside board member positions available in DCI.  I please ask that you not apply.

 

[MarimbaManiac]

Just now, garfield said:

Granted.  They are as dazzling as most three-ring circuses.

But this is a competition, supposedly, that adjudicates based on the "Effect" of using props and A&E.  

Everything you say is true.  So let's remove the competition entirely then and just allow the corps to present productions only.

What designer has to think "outside the box" when he has "the box" to do the thinking for him/her?

 

Nice quip, but it's without any sort of meaning. 

A&E and props are used enhance what's being put on the field by the members, as designed by the designers. Without a compelling design, or talented members to execute it with sustained excellence, it means nothing. They work in tandem to create the ultimate product, and its success is based on all parts of that synergy firing on all cylinders. 

What does amplifying a brass section do, if the brass section isn't performing well? Does it magically make them better, or does it simply amplify their mistakes? I think everyone here is misunderstanding and overestimating what live sound is able to do. Balance and mix multiple tracks, and tune to adjust to the room? Sure. Master, edit, autotune, and correct mistakes LIVE? Ummm no. 

What the members DO is still at the forefront, it's just being enhanced in a way that's allowing them to present their work in the best possible way. 

[cixelsyd]

11 hours ago, cfirwin3 said:

Football fields are not natural settings for brass ensembles of any size.  Especially ones with soloists.

For the competitive drum corps, football fields are their natural setting.  Always have been.

Quote

I recently saw Carolina Crown.  And my wife (who is a music educator like myself, and a conservatory trumpet player) said, after the duet section on Gabriel's Oboe "That was played perfectly".

She knew that it was played perfectly (and by the way... it was) because they were being amplified for us to hear them play it perfectly like great brass players are supposed to play on brass instruments... not forced and idiomatic to a bygone era (much less than perfect).

Perfection and idiom are two different things.  Moreover, what is considered "perfect" in one idiom could be all wrong in another idiom.

Quote

Name one circumstance where amplifying an instrument (live) resulted in hiding the player's faults and improved the perception of their ability.

That is an inherently unfair question, since one cannot know the faults unless they could hear both amplified/unamplified versions.  Nevertheless, if the fault is an inability to project, amplification would absolutely hide that fault and improve perception of ability.

10 hours ago, cfirwin3 said:

Think about your shows (again it doesn't matter if this was competitive or not, it's all the same).  When there was a soloist (bear with me, this is not merely about soloists) where on the field were they typically positioned in the show at the moment that they played?

This may not be a perfect example as many sins are committed in staging acoustic soloists.  But my guess (as would be with the vast majority of fully acoustic era drumcorps) is that they were positioned on the front sideline (unless it was a backfield effect, or something acoustically special).  The reason for this is because the position adds a major benefit to being heard on most passages.  

I disagree, actually.  First of all, many BITD soloists were not staged very far away from the remainder of the horns, so there was no significant projection advantage on account of staging.  Going back far enough, some did not even step out of line.

The real reason soloists began to step forward was so that the audience could see who was soloing.

Quote

Now... that is all gone.  It's gone.  There is no more of that type of restriction on great players.  They are able to show what they can do without working against themselves.  And the solos sound like they would in a concert or recital hall.

If I wanted to hear concert hall sound, I would go to (wait for it) a concert hall.  I certainly would not go to a football field.  Neither the windy outdoor field nor the echoing indoor one will suffice.

You seem not to grasp that there are people (like myself) who like drum corps specifically because of the idiomatic idiosyncrasies you sneered at earlier (i.e. the idea that brass players have to project in the context of a football field venue).  I go to drum corps shows specifically to hear what brass and percussion players can do in the unforgiving environment of an open field.  I do not want electronics amplifying those sounds, or synthesizing other sounds, in order to make that field vaguely resemble a concert hall.  In fact, the drum corps activity was pretty much the last refuge FROM electronics until recently, and the emphasis on acoustic sound and performance skill was what made drum corps unique.

Quote

Now I know that this is all about ensembles... but again, the same rules apply.  For whatever application, microphones and amps are not capable of highlighting something of a lesser quality and making it out to be a better quality. 

True.  That is where the sampling comes in handy.

[MarimbaManiac]

1 minute ago, garfield said:

Wow, so you're in favor of the emergence of another "Super-Duper League of Extra-Special Corps That Are the Draw", then, is that right?

There are sometimes outside board member positions available in DCI.  I please ask that you not apply.

 

The line is drawn at what is allowed by the rules. 

The corps have voted down rules that limit brass amplification. 

It seems they have decided where the line is, and they don't agree with where you would like to put it. 

[Glenn426]

20 minutes ago, MarimbaManiac said:

 

...but what is exactly the point of this? To level the playing field based on an arbitrary number so as not to upset those that can't keep up? Limit the product's potential because there are a few that don't want to take their products in the same direction?

PASS

The programs being produced today are some of the most dazzling and impressive spectacles that have ever been fielded in this activity, and that is good for everyone involved, corps and audiences alike. It's not just because of the money, but because that money is being paired with brilliant designers that are given the means to think outside the box, and members that are being trained to be playing and moving machines. The props and technology facilitate that, and to put an arbitrary cap on the possibilities based some misguided attempt at parity will severely limit the quality of the products moving forward. 

"But corps did it for many years without tech/props/etc"

Yes, and those shows were a snooze compared to what's being put on the field today. If DCI today looked like it did in the 70's I personally would have no interest, and I'm sure most people who have grown up in a world with technology and advanced sound design being as ubiquitous as it is now would agree. 

 

This reminds me of a summation from a staff member describing another top 6 corps show this year compared to theirs;

"They are doing a Marching Band show"

The implication being that they have a full out stage production (akin to Cirque du Soleil)

And that comparison hit me like a ton of bricks.. Because that is exactly what DCI is putting out now... At the top of the activity we are being treated to Full out stage productions.. And that is the draw that the top designers have.

A Professional Level and quality of Entertainment that compared to Cirque is a bargain at the price paid for admission.

And you know what I am here for it... For DCI to survive as an idiom, It has to be seen as an Entertainment entity, Where the competition is not BOA or other marching bands but full out professional entertainment venues. DCI has to earn its dollars from Broadway, From Cirque in Vegas, from Professional Sporting Events... How Does DCI Survive?

Make it target audience choose to spend money on DCI instead of going to be entertained in the many other professional entertainment venues..

Edited August 7, 2019 by Glenn426