Lord of the Rings

[geluf]

So the music of Shostakovich and the like are OK for the field by Shore is too "masterful?"

I don't think there are too many corps putting crap on the field.

You completely missed my point and intent. Calm down.

Shostakovich and such is the kind of thing that is expected on the field. The point is that movie soundtracks very often are not seen as "legit" forms of music (which, in my opinion, is completely ridiculous). Therefor, if you're going to put it on the field, you have to do it in such a way that the audience will be able to appreciate it....otherwise it comes off as hokey and cheese-infested.

My comment about it being "masterful" was simply a compliment to Shore's work....which was, in my opinion, a masterwork of the medium. Nothing more. Please do not read more into it than is there.

[Orpheus]

Shostakovich and such is the kind of thing that is expected on the field. The point is that movie soundtracks very often are not seen as "legit" forms of music (which, in my opinion, is completely ridiculous). Therefor, if you're going to put it on the field, you have to do it in such a way that the audience will be able to appreciate it....otherwise it comes off as hokey and cheese-infested.

I always go into each season hoping that all the corps, no matter what they're playing, will perform it in such a way that the audience can appreciate it. - - Sadly, that's not always the case.

[crashhelmi36]

So the music of Shostakovich and the like are OK for the field by Shore is too "masterful?"

I don't think there are too many corps putting crap on the field.

Its not that, its just that movie soundtracks are meant for a movie. You know, as kind of a background to whats happening on the screen. I'm not saying that all movie soundtracks can't work on the field, I'm just saying its hard, and if it goes wrong, everyone knows it.

[triplefunk]

A lot of great corps shows have included "movie music." Just think of PR '93, Blue Devils '00 and '06, and "On the Waterfront" (Cadets '86, SCV '97). It s a fairly ignorant statement, anyway ... that the music isn't "meant for the field." If that were the case, well ... isn't orchestral music meant for the concert hall? Isn't Broadway music meant for the theater (... not to mention "Carmen," "Candide," "Porgy and Bess" and other operas)? Rock and jazz certainly aren't generally "meant" to be played by a 64+ member hornline. See what I mean?

You are taking it out of context. I said movie music complements what is going on in the movie. Do we see what is going on in the movie that the music is depecting on the field? Sure Colorguard may do some actions to give you an idea of what is taking place, but most of the time, atleast for me, you think of the movie and think of what is going on at that point in time.

Broadway music isn't about the scenery or the actions. it's about the music. the actions compliment the music.

[TitanSop06]

this is what i think. listening to Concerning Hobbits reminds me a lot of 89 SCV doing Masquerade. it has that same bouncing circus feel to. many of the songs remind me of other classical style music shows done.

[Orpheus]

You are taking it out of context. I said movie music complements what is going on in the movie. Do we see what is going on in the movie that the music is depecting on the field? Sure Colorguard may do some actions to give you an idea of what is taking place, but most of the time, atleast for me, you think of the movie and think of what is going on at that point in time.

If the movie music is any good, you don't need to be able to see what's going on in order to enjoy it. I've never seen "On the Waterfront" or most of the Alfred Hitchcock movies, but I know the music is great and can translate very well to the field. And I loved the Freelancer's version of "Jim's New Life" long before I ever saw "Empire of the Sun." I think that Howard Shore's music from the LotR trilogy easily fits into the same category as those compositions. Probably not quite on the same level as "On the Waterfront," needless to say, but it's still darn good stuff that can easily be appreciated on its own terms. And the color guard certainly doesn't need to do a literalistic interpretation of the music in order to portray it to the audience. (I remember that Les Etoiles played a lot of film music, and I don't think their shows ever tried to tell you "about" the films that the music came from. edit: in fact, a non-literal interpretation is usually better, IMO) If it's good music, then it's good music and some film music is just as capable of standing on its own as any other form of theatrical music.

Broadway music isn't about the scenery or the actions. it's about the music. the actions compliment the music.

... somehow that statement doesn't seem quite right to me. LOL ... see some Sondheim shows and see if you still think that. - - If you ask me, in most of the best musicals, "Cats" notwithstanding, if the music doesn't compliment the story it's not going to be a very interesing show! How often do the lyrics of songs from musicals written these days even make sense outside of the story? Sure, you want the music to be great, but the book usually has to be worthwhile, too. (edit: Well, come to think of it, I guess there are a lot of musicals of both kinds. Some where the story is just a framework for the music and others -- like 'RENT', any Sondheim show, and maybe even 'Miss Saigon' -- where the songs are a vehicle for the storyline. Most are somewhere in between.) Be that as it may, though, good music from any outside venue should be fair game for corps!

Edited January 4, 2007 by Orpheus

[Lance]

Dude, you need to watch On The Waterfront and a lot of Hitchcock films. Hitchcock, in particular, has the most visually stunning moments in film history, bar none.

[jake_the_hydra]

Why?

So the music of Shostakovich and the like are OK for the field by Shore is too "masterful?"

I don't think there are too many corps putting crap on the field.

Because it means a lot to me, and I don't want to hear it played in that fashion.

I find that when I discover a piece of music through drum corps- like Shostakovich's introduction to the 4th ballet suite- I appreciate it even more once I've heard the orchestral version, and I'm okay with the field production.

If I already know the music in what is essentially its highest possible form of presentation, then I just don't care to hear it any other way. And there's not many hornlines that I'd entrust to that music.

And whereas Phantom's productions of Shostakovich and Vanguard's and Star's of Barber opened me up to new worlds of music, putting Lord of the Rings on the field isn't going to help any drum corps fan discover new great music, because everyone's seen the bloody movies already anyway.

It's great stuff, I think Shore beats the hell out of Williams, I just think it's more sensibly left to the LSO.

However, I'd ALSO be happy if someone proved me wrong. These are only my initial thoughts.

To put this in perspective, I was pretty skeptical about 007 at first.

Edited January 4, 2007 by jake_the_hydra

[RegimentContra94]

You completely missed my point and intent. Calm down.

Shostakovich and such is the kind of thing that is expected on the field. The point is that movie soundtracks very often are not seen as "legit" forms of music (which, in my opinion, is completely ridiculous). Therefor, if you're going to put it on the field, you have to do it in such a way that the audience will be able to appreciate it....otherwise it comes off as hokey and cheese-infested.

My comment about it being "masterful" was simply a compliment to Shore's work....which was, in my opinion, a masterwork of the medium. Nothing more. Please do not read more into it than is there.

Just trying to figure out what you are saying. I'm not fired up and certainly don't need to calm down. Anything runs the risk of sounding "hokey" if not done correctly. My point is these guys know what they are doing. JD Shaw, Key Poulan, Richard Saucedo, Wayne Downey all seem to know how to get things done. You make it sound like arranging Shore is too difficult to do well because he is some kind of composing god. Arranging him isn't any harder than arranging anyone else.

[geluf]

You make it sound like arranging Shore is too difficult to do well because he is some kind of composing god. Arranging him isn't any harder than arranging anyone else.

Again, I said nothing of the kind.

When you have something so immediately recognizable in pop culture like the Lord of the Rings, it becomes that much more difficult to create a show that will appeal to the audience out of it. Because everyone's a critic, and there will be certain expectations. If you're not getting that concept, I don't know how else to explain it, so we might have to just let this one go.