towards a formal method in drum corps aesthetics

[MikeD]

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.

There is a strict formalism...and every element is indeed assessed before it is added. It took over a dozen years to get amps passed, for example.

[asifindnoarta]

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.

I believe you are missunderstanding the intention of this thread which I have taken to be a general discussion on the standard of Drum Corps. I think this thread is meant to provide for a discussion about the artistry of design and whether or not it can be improved. I think that "I hate amps" is not quite the point.

[Lance]

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.

How do you know when the full expressive potential of the basic formal elements of drum corps have been fully exploited? And is that really the only criteria for making a change "necessary?"

Before females were allowed to march, had the basic formal elements of drum corps at the time been fully exploited? How do you know. Before putting a grounded pit in front of the field, had the basic formal elementsof drum corps been fully expolited? How do you know? Before the addition of valves 1,2, or 3, had the basic formal elements of drum corps been fully exploited? How do you know?

If you answer "no" to any of these questions and more importantly, justify why, then all of the changes I mentiond are also unnecessary.

[MikeD]

I believe you are missunderstanding the intention of this thread which I have taken to be a general discussion on the standard of Drum Corps. I think this thread is meant to provide for a discussion about the artistry of design and whether or not it can be improved. I think that "I hate amps" is not quite the point.

Well...here are some pertinent comments from the thread originator...

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

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 think a scaled-down pit could do just as good a job, and unamplified at that

[asifindnoarta]

The thread originator also mentioned that he may not be averse to amplification-use as long as it is done elegantly. I believe that you are making this thread about electronics more than anyone else. I also propose that we suspend any discussion of amplification, or for that matter, any discussion on whether or not we are in fact discussing amplification.

[publius]

How do you know when the full expressive potential of the basic formal elements of drum corps have been fully exploited? And is that really the only criteria for making a change "necessary?"

Before females were allowed to march, had the basic formal elements of drum corps at the time been fully exploited? How do you know. Before putting a grounded pit in front of the field, had the basic formal elementsof drum corps been fully expolited? How do you know? Before the addition of valves 1,2, or 3, had the basic formal elements of drum corps been fully exploited? How do you know?

If you answer "no" to any of these questions and more importantly, justify why, then all of the changes I mentiond are also unnecessary.

LanceSquire,

I have already addressed on this thread how the addition of valves and development of the pit have affected drum corps.

Females should be allowed to march because some females are better than some males at moving and playing. If you don't allow females you decrease your talent pool. Allowing females was a necessary change.

When I say "necessary," I don't mean in some way intrinsically necessary, but rather necessary within the developmental schema I've set forth for the artform.

When I say "fully exploited" I mean it as an essentially relativized term; it is about the pursuit of unattainable perfection. In scoring, no show will ever get a 100, but it is still theoretically possible to get a 100. The idea is to get as close to the ideal as possible. If every show were performed perfectly, then the judges evaluate by show design. Designers need to approach their design with the same "as good as possible" mentality as drill and music techs approach the cleaning of the show. The benchmark for when formal elements of any given era are "fully exploited" is a revolutionary show, like Cadets 85 or Star 91 and 93. As long as we keep trying to be perfect we'll keep getting better.

[asifindnoarta]

How do you know when the full expressive potential of the basic formal elements of drum corps have been fully exploited? And is that really the only criteria for making a change "necessary?"

Before females were allowed to march, had the basic formal elements of drum corps at the time been fully exploited? How do you know. Before putting a grounded pit in front of the field, had the basic formal elementsof drum corps been fully expolited? How do you know? Before the addition of valves 1,2, or 3, had the basic formal elements of drum corps been fully exploited? How do you know?

If you answer "no" to any of these questions and more importantly, justify why, then all of the changes I mentiond are also unnecessary.

I think that you make a good point and I think that we should try to agree on the "formal elements" of Drum Corps. Or at least we can attempt to agree. I offer my suggestions:

People marching (or not marching) on a football field, often in set patterms that move according to music played by the members on brass insturments or percussion insturments.

Notice that I didn't not exclude any electronics or amplification. I did exclude insturments that are not of the brass family simply because I feel that brass instruments hold a greater visual aesthetic value. In other words, one marching with a trumpet simply looks better than one marching with a clarinet. Their arms are up and symetrical; more presence; etc. Brass insturments also are louder, and although amplification would solve the volume problem, I think that, aesthetically speaking, a large volume that is produced acoustically is more desireable than not. Also, brass insturments require less maintainance and are cheaper.

Please, I ask you all to offer any alterations or suggestions to my idea of the formal elements of drum corps.

[MikeD]

I think that you make a good point and I think that we should try to agree on the "formal elements" of Drum Corps. Or at least we can attempt to agree. I offer my suggestions:

People marching (or not marching) on a football field, often in set patterms that move according to music played by the members on brass insturments or percussion insturments.

Notice that I didn't not exclude any electronics or amplification. I did exclude insturments that are not of the brass family simply because I feel that brass instruments hold a greater visual aesthetic value. In other words, one marching with a trumpet simply looks better than one marching with a clarinet. Their arms are up and symetrical; more presence; etc. Brass insturments also are louder, and although amplification would solve the volume problem, I think that, aesthetically speaking, a large volume that is produced acoustically is more desireable than not. Also, brass insturments require less maintainance and are cheaper.

Please, I ask you all to offer any alterations or suggestions to my idea of the formal elements of drum corps.

My definition: People creating an exciting integrated presentation of music and movement.

That's it.

[asifindnoarta]

My definition: People creating an exciting integrated presentation of music and movement.

That's it.

So if I go ice-skating alone while playing a clarinet is that drum corps?

[Lance]

LanceSquire,

I have already addressed on this thread how the addition of valves and development of the pit have affected drum corps.

Females should be allowed to march because some females are better than some males at moving and playing. If you don't allow females you decrease your talent pool. Allowing females was a necessary change.

When I say "necessary," I don't mean in some way intrinsically necessary, but rather necessary within the developmental schema I've set forth for the artform.

When I say "fully exploited" I mean it as an essentially relativized term; it is about the pursuit of unattainable perfection. In scoring, no show will ever get a 100, but it is still theoretically possible to get a 100. The idea is to get as close to the ideal as possible. If every show were performed perfectly, then the judges evaluate by show design. Designers need to approach their design with the same "as good as possible" mentality as drill and music techs approach the cleaning of the show. The benchmark for when formal elements of any given era are "fully exploited" is a revolutionary show, like Cadets 85 or Star 91 and 93. As long as we keep trying to be perfect we'll keep getting better.

Your premises are inconsistent. You fail to address whether or not all male corps had exploited the formal elements of drum corps at the time; if not, then by your own explicitly stated schema, females being allowed to march was unnecessary. Instead, you changed your premise for whether or not they should be allowed to march from "change is unnecessary unless the formal elements of drum corps have been exploited" to "change is sometimes necessary if it increases a corps' talent pool." I don't blame you for that, but it's all that's going to happen in this thread. Over and over. Also, I think you'll find that a lot of people would disagree with your choice of shows that "benchmark" the full exploitation of drum corps formal elements status quo. But thanks for the explanation. :)