towards a formal method in drum corps aesthetics

[publius]

Drum corps considered as an artform.

Though it didn't start that way, the activity has continuously evolved such that, at least since its institutionalization under DCI, any year of drum corps looks substantially different from what was going on ten years on either side of it. Arguably George Zingali made the biggest contributions in this respect by revolutionizing how drill moves and how it is marched. The gradual addition of valves to G bugles and the eventual switch to any-key brass, along with the expansion of the pit, greatly increased the potential musical range of drum corps. Individual performance levels have also risen startlingly: the Cadets in 1993 and 1999 approached the actual limits of the human body in motion, the 2002 Cavaliers exhibited at times near-perfect hornline intonation, and the Blue Devils have consistently executed programs of incredible all-around individual demand at the highest level.

If we take a drum corps “show” to be a series of musical movements that players perform while marching in shapes around a football field (or, alternately, a sequence of dots evolving in forms set to music), then these innovations, occurring in different flashes of brilliance from 1985 to the present have the effect of rendering infinite the expressive potential of drum corps within these constraints. It is a failure to recognize this fact that has led some imagination-deficient designers in recent years to lobby successfully for the addition of electronic amplification, a perverse intrusion on the medium’s acoustic sound world that destroys more effect than it can ever create. Drum corps has not become creatively stagnant out of a lack of material; rather, it has done so because show designers largely do not define themselves as artists, that is, as technicians.

Before I pursue these ideas further:

What does the DCP forum community think?

[year1buick]

Drum corps considered as an artform.

Though it didn't start that way, the activity has continuously evolved such that, at least since its institutionalization under DCI, any year of drum corps looks substantially different from what was going on ten years on either side of it. Arguably George Zingali made the biggest contributions in this respect by revolutionizing how drill moves and how it is marched. The gradual addition of valves to G bugles and the eventual switch to any-key brass, along with the expansion of the pit, greatly increased the potential musical range of drum corps. Individual performance levels have also risen startlingly: the Cadets in 1993 and 1999 approached the actual limits of the human body in motion, the 2002 Cavaliers exhibited at times near-perfect hornline intonation, and the Blue Devils have consistently executed programs of incredible all-around individual demand at the highest level.

If we take a drum corps “show” to be a series of musical movements that players perform while marching in shapes around a football field (or, alternately, a sequence of dots evolving in forms set to music), then these innovations, occurring in different flashes of brilliance from 1985 to the present have the effect of rendering infinite the expressive potential of drum corps within these constraints. It is a failure to recognize this fact that has led some imagination-deficient designers in recent years to lobby successfully for the addition of electronic amplification, a perverse intrusion on the medium’s acoustic sound world that destroys more effect than it can ever create. Drum corps has not become creatively stagnant out of a lack of material; rather, it has done so because show designers largely do not define themselves as artists, that is, as technicians.

Before I pursue these ideas further:

What does the DCP forum community think?

I'm not convinced that sound amplification was added out of creative desperation, but rather to add depth to the shows.

When sound was first introduced into movies, many people argued that it killed the art form. Because of technical limitations with early sound recording equipment (which often times had to be hidden within the shot) there were less creative compositions, moving shots, etc. To make it worse, some well established silent film actresses had horrible voices-- till then, it hadn't mattered. True, it took a while for the kinks to be worked out, but it certainly didn't kill the art form. As usual, the problems were eventually worked out. Many other innovations in the medium have come around since, such as 3-D and computer animation (which, it could be argued, was also rather distracting at first-- maybe still...)

I wasn't crazy about the idea of amps at first either, but I've since decided to give it a chance, and a little time. Rather than being the next "smellovision," it could become as integral to drum corps as wide-screen and surround sound are to film now. (And I, for one, would rather have the cinema we have today, rather than that of 1920--regardless of how good some of the work from that time period was...)

[MikeD]

Drum corps considered as an artform.

Though it didn't start that way, the activity has continuously evolved such that, at least since its institutionalization under DCI, any year of drum corps looks substantially different from what was going on ten years on either side of it. Arguably George Zingali made the biggest contributions in this respect by revolutionizing how drill moves and how it is marched. The gradual addition of valves to G bugles and the eventual switch to any-key brass, along with the expansion of the pit, greatly increased the potential musical range of drum corps. Individual performance levels have also risen startlingly: the Cadets in 1993 and 1999 approached the actual limits of the human body in motion, the 2002 Cavaliers exhibited at times near-perfect hornline intonation, and the Blue Devils have consistently executed programs of incredible all-around individual demand at the highest level.

If we take a drum corps “show” to be a series of musical movements that players perform while marching in shapes around a football field (or, alternately, a sequence of dots evolving in forms set to music), then these innovations, occurring in different flashes of brilliance from 1985 to the present have the effect of rendering infinite the expressive potential of drum corps within these constraints. It is a failure to recognize this fact that has led some imagination-deficient designers in recent years to lobby successfully for the addition of electronic amplification, a perverse intrusion on the medium’s acoustic sound world that destroys more effect than it can ever create. Drum corps has not become creatively stagnant out of a lack of material; rather, it has done so because show designers largely do not define themselves as artists, that is, as technicians.

"If we take a drum corps “show” to be a series of musical movements that players perform while marching in shapes around a football field (or, alternately, a sequence of dots evolving in forms set to music)..."

If that IS a valid assumption...then the pit itself is no more relevant than amps. You seem willing to accept that stationary group of instruments/performers but not the fact that they may be amplified?

OTOH...a micced vocalist frees up the rest of the corps to continue doing it's "series of musical movements that players perform while marching in shapes around a football field" if a voice element is thought to be a good idea to the design staff.

If you believe your definition....you should be happy that amplification of voice was passed...and neutral to the amplified pit...yet really against the pit's existence at to be 100% true to your vision.

Before I pursue these ideas further:

What does the DCP forum community think?

I think you are going to get a wide array of answers to this.

For me...MY answer is...not much.

[publius]

I didn't say that amplification has killed or will kill the activity; I said that it was an unnecessary addition in light of the fact that the full expressive potential of the basic formal elements of drum corps has yet to be fully exploited. When that does occur, I expect that the shows of today will look as dated as those of the 70's now look to us. I personally value the idea of all drum corps sound being produced acoustically, but I concede that an elegant use of amplification may be possible. I don't believe that any corps has yet justified their own addition of electronics, i.e. no show has had electronics that actually made the show better. In addition to the stupid voiceovers in Cadets 05, the pit is also too loud for my taste. I would like that show much better if it had no electronics.

[publius]

By writing as an alternate working definition of a show "a sequence of dots evolving in forms set to music," I allowed for the possibility that some players contribute to the music without moving. I do, however, believe that a discussion of the value of a stationary pit is worth having. Drill could certainly be more complex if all 135 corps members were marching on the field. In addition to impoverishing the drill, I would argue that the pit contributes the least general effect to a show (with the soundscapes in Star of Indiana's 1991 and 1993 shows as notable exceptions) while conversely taking up the most equipment truck space of any given corps. I think a scaled-down pit could do just as good a job, and unamplified at that. Maybe pit instruments would only be played at certain crucial points of the show by players who march to the front sideline and then rejoin the drill afterwards.

Though drum corps became an artform by sloughing off traditional military residue and replacing it with aesthetic ideas arrived at by way of reason, it has at the same time amassed its own body of unquestioned tradition (e.g. a large stationary pit) that may or may not be valuable. I believe a strict formalism is needed, in which we assess every single element of the activity in terms of its contribution to GE.

[year1buick]

I didn't say that amplification has killed or will kill the activity; I said that it was an unnecessary addition in light of the fact that the full expressive potential of the basic formal elements of drum corps has yet to be fully exploited. When that does occur, I expect that the shows of today will look as dated as those of the 70's now look to us. I personally value the idea of all drum corps sound being produced acoustically, but I concede that an elegant use of amplification may be possible. I don't believe that any corps has yet justified their own addition of electronics, i.e. no show has had electronics that actually made the show better. In addition to the stupid voiceovers in Cadets 05, the pit is also too loud for my taste. I would like that show much better if it had no electronics.

I never said that you did-- I was just drawing out an analogy (to: "destroys more effect than it can ever create"). What benchmark will you use to determine when drum corps is "fully expressed?" That's pretty subjective, and hard (impossible) to define. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that your preferences regarding the use of electronics are invalid, but that different people's opinions and tastes will (naturally) vary-- one man's undercooked hamburger is the next's steak tartar.

[asifindnoarta]

I believe that the competitive aspect of DCI and Drum Corps may be the single most powerful force working to inhibit the creative and artistic approach to show design. Design teams create shows with the understanding that their creation will be judged in direct comparrison with other shows. As a result, designers adopt the mindset that a show must be designed not only in terms of its own intrinsic virtue, but also to be better than other similar creations. Because shows are judged in terms of performance and technical execution as well as design, designers remain cognizant of the technical capabilities of the performers and design accordingly. I am willing to suggest that often the "best" design moments in drum corps are those that require the highest demand in terms of technical performance in difficulty. One could then make the argument that, since designers are aware that performance is as much a part of winning as design is, they design shows with performance in mind. The result is sacrafices in design in order to produce better performance levels. We have all seen this happen. It is often referred to as "hosing parts". A perferable design concept will be sacraficed and replaced with a less desireable design concept to allow for better performance levels.

I would argue that the limitations placed on organizations by DCI create these design comprimises. With no age cap a designer could fix performance issues by utilizing members with more talent. With no time constraints desiners could work on shows for years and eliminate performance issues rather than fix them quickly and in time for finals through design alterations.

Most importantly, designers would design shows assuming that the performance level would be perfect. If this were the case, no artistic comprimises would exist.

I ask you to imagine an artist - a writer. They think, "I cannot include this beautiful and poignant chapter because it may strain my technical writing capabilities. Since I only have a month to compose this, and since the merits of my novel will be judged through a direct comparrison with several other novels, and since my novel must only be 100 pages in length, I must comprimise the artistic integrity of my creation.

[publius]

What benchmark will you use to determine when drum corps is "fully expressed?" That's pretty subjective, and hard (impossible) to define. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that your preferences regarding the use of electronics are invalid, but that different people's opinions and tastes will (naturally) vary-- one man's undercooked hamburger is the next's steak tartar.

The history of the activity tells us pretty clearly that it will never be "fully expressed" - it continues to evolve, hopefully for the better. If you told the 1983 Cadets what they would be marching in 93 they wouldn't believe you.

At the heart of my criticism is this: I think that the vast majority of shows produced in any given year are boring, and it doesn't need to be that way. Those who are satisfied with the current state of drum corps are settling for an unnecessarily low standard.

[asifindnoarta]

The history of the activity tells us pretty clearly that it will never be "fully expressed" - it continues to evolve, hopefully for the better. If you told the 1983 Cadets what they would be marching in 93 they wouldn't believe you.

At the heart of my criticism is this: I think that the vast majority of shows produced in any given year are boring, and it doesn't need to be that way. Those who are satisfied with the current state of drum corps are settling for an unnecessarily low standard.

I agree. There is no reason for why shows should not be more exciting, more difficult, performed better, designed better, faster, louder, more in-tune, more beautiful, more moving, more artistic. Shows can be better. Shows should be better. The standard is too low.

[MikeD]

I didn't say that amplification has killed or will kill the activity; I said that it was an unnecessary addition in light of the fact that the full expressive potential of the basic formal elements of drum corps has yet to be fully exploited. When that does occur, I expect that the shows of today will look as dated as those of the 70's now look to us. I personally value the idea of all drum corps sound being produced acoustically, but I concede that an elegant use of amplification may be possible. I don't believe that any corps has yet justified their own addition of electronics, i.e. no show has had electronics that actually made the show better. In addition to the stupid voiceovers in Cadets 05, the pit is also too loud for my taste. I would like that show much better if it had no electronics.

Shows of any era will look dated down stream.

All I am taking away from the thread so far is "I hate amps" and an attempt to put a nice shiny bow on it. The above last few sentences serves to reinforce that to me.