Music and Visual Integration

[jake_the_hydra]

So, there's been lots of talk about hornlines and music programs and Phantom was this and the Cavaliers were that but the Blue Devils were this, etc. I'm not creating this thread to really attack or defend any corps- (though I don't doubt it might end up there anyway) we all know where I stand on these issues. But I'd like to find out where some other people stand.

A lot of people listen to drum corps and put great importance on their ability to assimilate, comprehend, and enjoy the music. Which is fine. That's why it's music, I guess. I like to listen to drum corps too, and a lot of you know which drum corps I love to listen to and love the music for, and it seems like I'm in the minority in my tastes! Which is fine. I'm very new school. I admit it.

(I also hate recognizable melodies, or demanding brass books that have depth and emotional content! :P )

But drum corps is a little different, I think. I don't really listen to drum corps. Not as much as I would watch it, anyway. I would NEVER buy the CDs, first because I'm poor, and second because I much prefer to watch shows.

My thesis: It seems to me that only listening to drum corps is like only watching drum corps.

Wouldn't it be absurd to watch someone's show after pressing the "mute" button?

Seriously- we divorce the music from the visual and expect it to be very satisfying. And there are plenty of shows I listen to and am satisfied with. But there's NOT a lot of drill where I can not listen to the music and be happy with. One coprs in particular, obviously, I could watch the pyware for hours and be pretty amazed. But that'd be stupid. Because the two are supposed to go together.

In any sense, I guess I'm making the point that taking the music or visual out of the picture is like bastardizing drum corps. It's not complete. It's a shadow of what it's meant to be. Which is a bastardization of a bastardization, because drum corps is meant to be experienced live anyway.

So really- is demanding that the music be accessible on its own as unreasonable as demanding that the drill be accessible on its own? Because honestly, what corps drill would you watch on silent?

Doesn't sound like much fun to me . . . but that's where I come from. As I've said, I'm very new school. And I am very much a total package guy.

[Lance]

I'm more music oriented, but both are important. I like being able to listen to the corps program by itself, and I haven't noticed a big difference in the number of corps, per year, that I find enjoyable to listen to on their own. It's usally 5 or 6 per year.

Anyway, here's my thesis: Watching a show without the music can provide no entertainment, but listening to a show without the visual can provide quite a lot. Therefore, music is more important than visual.

Wait, that's not a thesis, it's an opinion and it's not supportable with verifiable evidence. I guess maybe it's just the devil's advocate coming out in me.

[bawker]

I stand about where Lance does...I like to listen to corps on CD more than watch it on DVD.

It's only half the picture, for sure, I understand that...but a lot like the audience/performer "entertainment" symbiosis, it just depends on which side of the argument you fall on as to why it's more important.

Truth be told, I've listened to the Cavaliers show twice since I got the CD's. I can't really get into that show without the visual...and that's fine. That's the way the shows are designed, and shows true intergration.

My most listened to shows are Carolina Crown, BK, Bluecoats, BAC and Phantom...no surprise that these are (IMO) among the most "straightforward" brass books (that is, you can divorce yourself from having to have the visual to complete the picture, not slamming other corps here).

Objectively, what's more important for a program (and the sheets/green shirts)? Both.

Subjectively, which one do I prefer? The music.

:)

Edited September 7, 2006 by bawker

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Objectively, what's more important for a program (and the sheets/green shirts)? Both.

Subjectively, which one do I prefer? The music.

:)

But that's where a lot of people make their mistake. It happens all the time on DCP "Corps X should play blah blah blah" or "Corps X should focus more on good music". It's ok to feel, that as an individual fan, music is more important to YOU. But the mistake is when you try to transfer that to the corps or activity itself. A drum corps show is designed to be marched and played on a football field with drill and guard, viewed and listened to live with all aspects being judged. Since that is how the activity is set up, that is how shows shouw be designed. The personal desires of a few fans are not key to this. This is a musical and visual activity. Not a musical activity that happens to have a bit of movement. If enough fans want to petition the BOD to have marching removed from the DCI judging rubric, than it will be a musical activity. But until then, it's best to not lose sight of the real purpose of a show. And that real purpose is NOT to cut some great sounding CDs.

[PhantomR]

As Fielder said, "yes."

~>conner

[Matt_S]

A quote from Scott Koter posted by Mike Boo in another thread:

SK: Too often we have been criticized by Internet users that did not see the show based on their soundtrack/MP3 assessment. I personally find it amusing as it would be like movies being offered Oscars for best picture based solely on their soundtrack.

I recently purchased the soundtrack for “A Beautiful Mind” and was initially disappointed. When I saw the movie, I was mesmerized by the music and the haunting motives used throughout. When I listened to it separately, I realized that it was impossible to separate the music from all of the other elements of the movie. This is what we do at The Cavaliers. We want the audience to watch our movie and listen to the music...one cannot exist without the other.

Combine that with the Fiedler quote from the broadcast that Conner provided, and you have my exact answer. Small wonder, then that Cavaliers have been my favorite corps for a while.

I listen to the CDs all the time, but they always leave me wanting to watch the DVDs. I have a huge library of shows on my computer, but every time I listen to a track I recognize that I'm listening to just half of a show. Shows are meant to be seen live, and that includes both music and visual, in equal parts.

[sburstall]

I listen to the CDs all the time, but they always leave me wanting to watch the DVDs. I have a huge library of shows on my computer, but every time I listen to a track I recognize that I'm listening to just half of a show. Shows are meant to be seen live, and that includes both music and visual, in equal parts.

That being said, then why put out CDs, DVDs and show it on tv??

[Matt_S]

Seriously? Do you really not know the answer to that question? I would think it's pretty obvious. People enjoy what they see, and DVDs and TV allow them to see it again. CDs allow them to hear the show again (though that's only half the show ^_^). But I don't think there's a drum corps fan to be found who would say that the CDs, DVDs or TV broadcast can compare to seeing a show live.

Every performance is meant to be experienced live. I can watch Blue Man Group on DVD, Cirque du Soleil on TV, I can even watch my favorite sports teams on TV. But there's no question that given the chance I would always rather watch each of those events live.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Maedhros

[madscout96]

I think Fiedler said "Yes" in response to the question of which is more important, design or performance. Just clarifying.

I think that both are equally important. 15 years ago I think music might have been more important. But this is a new era in which visual and music have equal importance.

However, I don't think that every corps balances the two equally. And of those that favor the visual, either it's not interesting enough musically to make the whole package really great, or the visual itself isn't interesting enough either. For example, Carolina Crown had alot of neat visual effects that made me say, "wow, cool". But they seemed to be isolated from each other. Their theme was "InTRANCEit" or something like that. I don't know what that means! I didn't read any notes on it before seeing them, perhaps I should have. But I didn't get it, really. Cavaliers on the other hand, had neat visual effects that made me say, "wow, cool!". Those effects were not isolated from each other, they fit into a theme that was concrete and that everyone could easily understand: "Machine". One word tied the whole show's visuals together! Everything was machine-like. I don't remember too much of their music, but I remember tons of their visual effects! Their visual package made it worth the not-as-memorable music (at least when the music stands alone). Blue Devils, similar thing. One word: "Godfather". Tied the whole show's visual package together. I didn't have to read notes on Blue Devils' or Cavaliers' shows before watching them to understand them!

[MarimbasaurusRex]

If you have music, you have a show, even if you just stand around. If you have no music, you have no show, or not much of one. Even theater and dance, visually driven genres, really don't exist without music. Imagine TV without a speaker. There is no such thing. But, there is TV with no screen, called radio. Music is the glue and without it the rest falls flat.

With that in mind, music is the more important of the two, even if that music is incidental.

Note that when the shows are announced they don't list the drill moves as the repertoire.

Music is a high art. Drill is dots on a grid, right up there with Light Bright and aliased 12 dpi graphics. It is not in the same league with any legitimate visual art (sorry, drill guys). The movement of those dots may be very effective and require meticulous planning and rehearsal, but ultimately it is low-res. Drum corps would certainly be less interesting without it, but it would still exist (see the late 70's).