Are we bored of the old stuff yet?

[smj02]

Just because a few corps are pushing the envelope with the new rules changes doesn't neccessarily suggest that the entire activity will be moving this rapidly in a new direction. Sometimes the envelope isn't just pushed, it's torn apart - sometimes corps attempt more than fans and judges will accept. Cadets marched 80-something horns with a handful of guard in 1986 - an experiment that hasn't been duplicated since. Blue Devils and, to a lesser extent, Seattle Cascades relied on spoken narration as a means of conveying a storyline last year, and both corps experienced a drop in placement. Did they cross a threshold of going too far? To my knowledge, no corps is using this approach this year, so the short-term answer seems to be yes.

As far as hornline design evolution, much of the territory has been traversed. Phantom is trying something new this year with the expanded low brass line during Ave Maria...isn't that what you're looking for? Musically, most styles of music have been attempted...assorted types of mutes and accessories have been used...shows have spanned the spectrum between the whole hornline giving it all from start to finish to small ensembles playing short phrases at moderate dynamic levels for the majority of the show. Corps have experimented with dissonant voicings...creative means of tension and release...layering of different voices/rhythms/tempi/dynamics throughout the ensemble...etc... I guess my question for the original poster is, what ground remains unexplored in terms of hornline writing? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see continued development of new ideas for the brass...but I think that aspect of brass writing is being pushed to the back burner, as writers are forced to turn their creative attention to making the musical product better coordinated with the visual product.

The recent (since the mid-90s or so) push in drum corps innovation has been in drill design, new sounds/styles from the percussion, and total show integration. The corps who have been pushing the boundaries expanded by the recent rules changes have been focusing on the latter two areas because those are the current creative frontier in drum corps. I think another reason that recent drum corps "evolution" has focused on amplified percussive and vocal effects is that this seems to be where the judging sheets allow the most bang for the buck in terms of innovation. Evolution is essentially changes due to the pressure of natural selection...in the drum corps world, the "selectors" are the judging sheets. Right now, the greatest potential reward for innovative efforts - in terms of the sheets - is in percussive/vocal effects (Music GE) and total show integration (Visual GE). And the fact is that it requires less creative effort to stick a new pit instrument in front of a mic than to simulate a similar effect with existing percussion instruments or unique hornline voicing.

So, to sum above the above drivel...like it or not, for the last decade corps have been pushing the visual/percussion design envelope, because that's where the points are. Brass arrangers have been expending much of their creativity on integrating the music with the visual, rather than creating new sounds with the hornline. The explosion of recent rules changes has set off a surge of experimentation, which seems to be the concern of the original poster. Although all corps are trying lots of new things, fewer than half are making drastic changes to show design. Many of the more radical attempts have failed to pay off in terms of competitive success. True, the Cadets won last year - but that was a combination of show design, stellar preformance levels, and a bit of an off-year from their top competitors of recent years. And "old school creativity" hasn't been completely lost - what about the Cavies' dissonant backfield mello phrases last year? The samba feel worked into Dvorak by the Glassmen? I don't think the activity is changing as quickly as some think, and I don't think creativity entirely centers around the recent rule changes. I think the current trend of experimentation will slow down a bit provided the rules stay the same for several years.

<sorry, about to go off on a tangent>

My greatest concern about the recent trends in drum corps is their impact on typical fans at the shows - fans who only get to see the show once or twice a year in a small stadium. Too many of the recent changes have been focused at the judges' box, to the exclusion of much of the audience. I don't understand why shows have to be designed so that they'll score better in GE when they get to a bigger venue where the box is higher, or why it is acceptable for the amps to overpower the hornline in the front of the audience - or to be inaudible to fans on the 10 yard line - as long as the balance is correct in the box. I increasingly find myself needing to get the best seats to truly enjoy a live show, to the point that I won't consider randomly driving a few hours and buying tickets on the day of a show. If you truly want to analyze "General Effect", stick a third GE judge in a random location each night. This judge would judge similar criteria to the judges in the box - not a "fan reaction judge" - but would ensure that most effects are visible and audible from all portions of the stands. I bet the fan experience would be enhanced tremendously if corps are forced to design a show that reaches every seat in the house. Yes, I realize there are many logistical hurdles to this. But isn't the fan experience crutial to the future success of the activity? I'm sure DCI wants to attract larger audiences, so shouldn't they ensure that every seat gets its money's worth? Maybe this should be the next path of drum corps "innovation".

[Otowndrumin]

I think our society is hooked on what the "new" is. When we look back we see things that are dated and perhaps associate the mediums of the time with other events that were not such positives in our lives. We, as a society, tend to remember the bad more than the good. Come to your own conclusion, watch "game-tape" from years past. Shows are okay and certain ones like 93 Star 96 “Defiant Heart” still gives me Goosebumps. These shows were all brilliant and well thought out but when compared to shows today or let’s say if they were performed today they’d seem to lack creativity, Why? Well because the designers of today’s shows are always pushing the envelope. We’ve got crazy well thought out themed shows that are amped to the max on caffeine and soundboards running the show. Change is inevitable, Change is good!

[notabando45]

I don't agree with this opinion. Last time I checked, corps are being very creative with the brass and visuals. The performances this year of just brass and visual will probably be at a higher level than 2000 or 2001. The addition of an amplified voice or instrument is nothing more than an added element. It's as simple as that. It is not creative to just include amplification, it is creative to do something cool with it.

On another note, I still don't see what the big deal with amplified voice is. For awhile, voice has beel allowed in shows. The only difference is that you use a neat thing called technology to let the audience hear something better. I agree that it should not be over-used, just as any other element in a show. However, in principle it is not a big deal.

[mistertoo]

.

Edited July 14, 2006 by mistertoo

[madscout96]

The definition of creativity from various dictionaries:

-producing or using original and unusual ideas

-involving the use of the imagination and original ideas

-new and original

-characterized by originality and expressiveness; imaginative

-having the qualities of something created rather than imitated

NONE of the definitions limit creativity to something that uses the same (said) tools that have already been used for years

Any desire to use the same tools until all possible ideas have been exhausted is a personal preference and not a definition of creativity

None of the definitions REQUIRE creativity to be something that uses DIFFERENT tools either.

On another note, I still don't see what the big deal with amplified voice is. For awhile, voice has beel allowed in shows. The only difference is that you use a neat thing called technology to let the audience hear something better. I agree that it should not be over-used, just as any other element in a show. However, in principle it is not a big deal.

Voice has been allowed for a few decades, yes. And perhaps the fact that they were not legal to amplify ensured that voices were not "over-used". Now with amped voice, over-use is entirely possible.

Edited June 23, 2006 by madscout96

[wayback]

DCI certainly seems to be choosing a very narrow set of simple design features as its benchmarks for aesthetic value. (fast=good, flash=innovation, new=better)

(WARNING TO ALL YOUNG PEOPLE: FEEL FREE TO MOVE ON WHENEVER YOU SEE THE FOLLOWING 6 WORDS)

I remember back when I marched. We were hamstrung by bad horns, smaller budgets, fewer music majors, inconsistent management, etc., but the activity showed a much wider variety of styles, both musically and visually, and was making HUGE musical leaps with each passing season. If you took someone from DCI finals in '82 and (using my time machine) plopped them down at the 2005 finals, they might say "ahhh! so DCI decided (in '83) that Cadets visual progran was the new definition of "good", and that's the aesthetic path everyone has had to follow in order to stay competitive".

Go back and look at the drill from the early years of the Cadets rise to the top, and you may see what we saw (maybe not): the forms, the speed, the marching style, are all designed to hide errors - which is very smart, the true innovation being not the surface 'style', but the idea of designing a style specifically to defeat the system. (defeat is the wrong word...maybe they just changed what the judges look at?) The amorphous nature of the forms and the speed with which they changed made them look cleaner, because they could not be dirty - a squiggle CAN'T be 'wrong' like a line can. I'm not saying that lines are therefore "better" in some way, but something has been lost. Our homogenous, vanilla group of top contenders are much more similar than the top dogs of days gone by( IMO, of course). The Cavies today are much more like the Cadets of the early '80s (visually) than they are like the Cavies of the early 80's, and you could say this of almost every corps. You could define this as 'success' for the Cadets/DCI, or as a consolidation - a shrinking of the activity.

I guess the question I'm trying to grope my way to is this: did we lose our chance to develop the activity in the direction of greater musical variety, maturity and authenticity? Did we swap substance for speed? What would a 3-valve B-flat Tim Saltzman or John Simpson music major horn line sound like, standing for...OMG a whole minute?! Am I really just that old? Do I just not get it? They are running around like chickens with there heads chopped off out there, but they don't sound THAT much better than we did on our crappy horns!

I LOVE the current stuff (although it may sound otherwise), I just think that the activity is capable of so much more, musically. I think that musical growth has been neglected in favor of the visual program, because flash is easier, and sucks in the crowds. (I think that's a dead end - there's only so fast you can run when playing, but music can grow forever. and I don't hear it.)

Am I wrong? I think I'm feeling the same thing as the original poster, that something is missing, but I don't really know what it is. I'm thinking out loud. Thanks for listening.

[wayback]

I wish I could've read your post first SMJo2. Insight

[SF2K4]

I'm still at a loss as for why narration ever started... I still don't find any narration entertaining. Voice I can deal with.

[wayback]

Hmmmm...narration innovative? Didn't every old-style marching band in the 60's and 70's use it? They did here in SoCal. It's actually considered really retro in the broader art world to feel the need to explicate everything. Ambiguity and abstraction are more stereotypically "modern", yes? I find it ....I think cheesy is the technical term.

Narration, to me (and this is my own bias) is just like going to the art museum and seeing a painting with a page-long text on the wall in explanation. If you cannot communicate or express yourself by painting, you are not a painter.

If you feel you cannot express yourself adequately with drums & bugles (ie if you feel the need to speak), you might want to choose another medium. Theater comes to mind. If you can't express yourself without woodwinds, there are ensembles that are available. If you can't find an venue for your particular vision, perhaps you should create such a thing for yourself and prove its value to the world (THAT is innovative - creating your own medium/venue)

I think narration/amps/woodwinds are all very interesting, but putting them in corps is unfortunate IMO. That's like joining a club for vegetarians and helping them 'evolve' by bringing meat to dinner. there's nothing wrong with meat, but why would you feel the need to bring it there? There's certainly nothing 'innovative' about meat. There is plenty of room for 'evolution' in vegetarian cooking, and there are plenty of people hungry for meat right across the street!

Are we bored now by brass and percussion?

Is there some deficiency?

If you think something is 'innovative' because it's 'new', that probably just means you haven't gotten out much. There's nothing new under the sun, only things WE haven't seen before. Corps is a very small and insular world for KIDS. If you want to show how creative you are, step out into the marketplace with the adults and try to see if such a thing can survive apart from DCI. Otherwise, I think we should keep all this big talk about innovation and creativity in perspective.

It's marching. It's fun. It's for kids. It's traditions are it's strength.

(ps no one who compiles definitions for dictionaries is an authority on creativity, and quoting such a definition doesn't clarify anything. There are whole philosophy departments filled with aestheticians who can debate the diverse meanings of that word forever. see "modernism" "post-modernism" etc)

[jwillis35]

Some excellent write ups. And 'SMJ02," that was an excellent post.

I agree with the person that had the disagreement with the phrase "change is good." This statement is shallow, and when used inappropriately it fails to convey any significant definition regarding what was changed and why. As was pointed out, change is NOT always good. The better saying is "change is inevitable." In some cases it is good, and in others it is bad, but the reality of all things, or most things in life, is that change will happen.

In drum and bugle corps, change has been part of the game for many, many years, dating back to the Civil War, and even further back. In the 20th Century we saw changes with instrumentation, the instruments themselves, going from a true Color Guard to a guard or flag line, and we have seen the implementation of the pit and its continual evolution. Marching styles have changed, drills writing has changed, the music has changed, and the uniforms have changed (well, except for one with the exception of these past two years. Today we find ourselves in the middle or more change, with amplification, voice, narration, and the even more expanded role of the pit. Some of this change is good, and some of it was not, or perhaps was not necessary.

In addition to these changes, corps have been forced to develop new and better methods of running the organization. Bingos and other fund raisers must be better run, more efficient; and the management of a corps must be better trained. There is a long line of tomestones with the names of past giants of the activity engraved on the marbel because the old ways were no longer good enough in a tough and expensive economy. Here we have seen many changes, and many of them for the good of the activity. In this case, change took place because it had to. Economy, public education, and more enforcement for how non-profits run their businesses basically forced this change. The creative changes do not come as a result of force, but in part because of competitive status and the "been there, done that" syndrome.

When I used to see someone wearing a shirt that saying on it, or if someone brought up the phrase in conversation, as if it was the greatest saying, I used to think to myself "is this saying suggesting that once you do something it is time to move on?" I mean, heck, people enjoy sex and it doesn't mean that once they have it that they will stop. One of my favorite foods is spaghetti (I love Italian). I am not about to have it once and then move on, never returning to that great dish. But when it comes to artists and musicians, creativity is a bit different. As a musician I can appreciate the drive and creativity these designers have in perfecting their art, but also in re-defining it and altering it. Sometimes this can lead to innovation, and other times it leads to an extension of an already existing idea. Rarely does it lead to the exact same thing. And this is where things become difficult to understand.

When John Williams composes a soundtrack, he must first write music that reflects the moods and characters of the motion picture. His instrumentation is usually very similar from movie to movie, but the music cannot be the same, although there is a style present that unmistakeably says "Williams." But he is always looking for that new theme, a new twist in orchestration, and perhaps some completely new effect. This is his creativity at work.

Artsists in the drum and bugle corps genre are really no different. They are always looking for new ways to treat forms, music, and for new themes that can present emotional and entertaining content to the listener. The saying "been there, done that" does not ring true when they consider its warning, "don't always do things the same way." There mere term creative cannot be used if something is exactly the same, yet we who love drum corps do not always have a need to see things change. As was said before, using bugles, drums, pit, and guard in the many ways possible can be a creative thing. There are times I feel the activity is trying too hard to push forward instead of slowing down and enjoying the smell of the roses for a while. But it is a competitive activity, and it is here where the creative aspect is given a swift kick in the pants to stay ahead of the others guy's creativity. The pressure to be top 12, or whatever the goals are, has often led to instant creativity by demand for scores and fame and, well, for something new and innovative.

In artistic terms, change is good because it keeps the artists on their toes, and it allows them to express their passion for the new and exciting, all the while enhancing the old, the tried, the true, and the traditional methods of the drum corps genre. Change is not always good, but it will happen. Creativity is not always good, but it cannot be ignored, not for a drill writer or brass arranger. They can show restraint, perhaps even purposely write to the specifications given to them by those who hire them, but they are always thinking about how they can put their unique stamp on their product. It is human nature, and moreso than any other demand placed on these artists, it is human nature that has caused this creativity to blossom. Just like the other sayings quoted here, human nature is fragile and fallible. It is full of uncertainty and steeped in pride. It is what it is, the most natural part of the human condition. This is why we can't all agree on what shows to like and not to like, or what styles are the best, or what constitutes entertainment, because the most natural of inclinations that these show designers utilize for their product, is the same inclination that we use to judge their product.

Enjoy the shows!

Go Bluecoats!