Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps
Subject: Re: Scouts 93
From: <MHUGHES@MIAMIU.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 18 Nov 1992 15:01:15 EST
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

In article <Nov17.183352.50167@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon) says:
>
>From: <MHUGHES@MIAMIU.BITNET> Mike Hughes says:
>
>>Yes, there is something to be said for history and the repetition and slight
>>variation on it.....the trouble is that it's damn near the ONLY thing that
>>Madison is capable of these days.  Just look at the past few years:
>>
>>      1986 - Gershwin music from the 1970s regurgutated
>>      1987 - (I forgot this one...sorry)
>>      1988 - Maleguena regurgitated for the umpteenth time
>>      1989 - Slaughter on 10th Avenue regurgitated for the umpteenth+1 time
>>      1990 - an original show that I actually liked (but noone else did)
>>      1991 - City of Angels...an excellent production
>>      1992 - City of Angels...an excellent production (yawn)
>>      1993 - excerpts from the 1981, 1983 and 1990 shows
>>
>>C'mon!!!!!!!!!!  How can you defend this lack of musical creativity?
>>Would you defend the corps if they did the same drill moves year after year?
>>Used the same guard uniforms and equipment?  Etc, etc, etc....
>>
>>Mike Hughes
>
>I think you're confusing musical creativity with playing different songs.
>Would you contend that classical musicians all necessarily have no
>musical creativity because they play pieces that have been played before?
>Does Wynton Marsalis have no musical creativity when he plays an Ellington
>or Parker song?
 
Certainly not, nor would I ever contend as such.  But Winton Marsalis or
the Vienna Philharmonic have a much, much, MUCH larger repetoire than Madison
apparently has.  Also, do you contend that ALL Marsalis plays is Ellington or
Parker?  Or that all the Vienna Philharmonic performs is Mahler?  Surely you
are not.  But, if it were the case that Marsalis or Vienna were so musically
narrow-minded, I would be venting as much on them as I am on Madison.  I dare
say that neither would be the success they are today if such were the case.
 
Read the first line of my post....I said *There is something to be said for
history and the repetition and slight variation on it...*.  This means that
I have no problem with a corps playing a signature tune or a chart from the
past, but when it makes up the NUCLEUS of your entire repetoire, then I have
to question musical creativity.
 
Musical creativity (to me) by definition means expanding ones musical
horizons through new techniques, new musical devices and NEW MUSIC.  Sure,
one can continually rearrange Maleguena until the end of time, but at some
point, in an idiom restricted to bugles and percussion, the freshness of the
chart justs disappears.  What is the big problem with playing new music more
often that is in the same style?
 
>How do I defend the use of previously used material?  How about the
>screaming applause that Madison manages to get nearly every year? (well,
>there was 1990 but you liked that show).
 
Screaming applause does not imply creativity.  It implies popularity.
I'm not arguing that Madison is not a popular corps.  But it seems to me that
they were just as popular in 1991 when they did City of Angels.  News flash:
that was a new chart.  Looking back occasionally is fine...I'm just saying,
why not uncover some new charts more often?  Hell, you may even come across
a work that'll become a new signature piece!
 
Re: 1990, just listen to that show.  Musically it was one of Madison's most
sophisticated productions.  The slam on it was that it was visually slow.
Does that mean it wasn't musical?  Or wasn't creative?
 
>What about the challenge of playing intricate and difficult music?
 
So presumably Star, Cadets, SCV, Cavies play cakewalk charts every year?
 
>What about the joy of being a part of a long, proud heritage?
 
...and corps like Cadets or SCV have no heritage....
 
>Getting the opportunity to play music that you've always wanted to play?
 
I dare say that *getting the chance to play "Numero Uno"* is pretty far down
on the list of reasons why people audition for Madison.  In fact, with regards
to "City of Angels", I'll bet that most people who marched Madison in both
years 1991-92 wouldn't care if they ever heard "Angels" again.
 
The chief reason people want to march with Scouts is that they are an exciting
GE-oriented crowd pleasing unit.  Are you saying this can only be accomplished
by pulling out old charts?  Even Madison does something new on occasion!!
 
>Looking back is part of Madison's style.  It's part of what draws people
>to play in their corps, and it's part of what fans look forward to when
>they take the field.
 
That's fine.  It's just TOO BIG of a part, IMO.
 
>There should be room for this in the activity.  What is WRONG with this???
>If in the process of putting together such a show a corps is the BEST,
>then why shouldn't they win?
 
If the Maleguena production in 1988 were the BEST show out there, performed
to the HIGHEST level of precision, then they would certainly have deserved
the crown.  Those who were there at Arrowhead that night (myself included)
heard other corps (namely SCV and BD) who performed better.  Maybe Madison
was viscerally more exciting, but that doesn't mean they were better.
 
>But let me get back to my discussion of what innovation is.  Do we penalize
>corps for using flags?  After all, flags have been used before.  No, we say
>it's how they USE the flags.  But apparently DCI doesn't think this applies
>to music.  Why does innovation have to mean songs that have never before
>been used on the field?  Remember Garfield 84, one of the most innovative
>shows
>in history?  West Side Story was one of the most often played pieces in corps.
>But it was WHAT they did with it!  Remember the groans when Sky Ryders
>announced that they were going to do it too in 87?  But what THEY did with
>it was regarded as thoroughly innovative!  The feeling lately seems to be
>that you won't get good marks from DCI unless you play songs that no
>drum corps ever played before.  (especially not your own, even if it was
>20 years ago before any of the staff or members were even born)
 
I agree that both of the West Side Story productions cited were innovative.
Both had also neither been previously performed by the respective corps.
My question is: what was so innovative about Madison's treatment of Slaughter
in 1989 as opposed to the 1982 production?  Or 1988's Maleguena as opposed to
1980's? (Or 1981's, for that matter?)  Or 1992's City of Angels as opposed
to 1991's?  Other than the fact that all were just re-arrangements?
 
You are comparing apples and oranges.  West Side Story was programmatic
music, from a musical which many people were familiar with, which told a
story.  There are many ways to tell this story...(Hell, Phantom told it
again in 1988 with their Romeo and Juliet production.  All West Side Story
is is an updated R&J).  Hence, a lot of the creativity in the corps' WSS
productions was in HOW they told the story.  Madison's music is not very
programmatic.
 
Also, WSS is a 2 hour musical, so any corps production would include only
roughly one-tenth the available musical material.  Thats one reason for
the number of times we've all seen WSS.  On the other hand, Maleguena is
Maleguena, Slaughter on 10th Ave is Slaughter on 10th Ave, etc, etc, etc...
 
>Don't get me wrong, I think it's GREAT when a corps plays new music.
>I also think it's GREAT to be blown away by a piece that is known to be
>a good vehicle for drum corps innovation.  There should be room for both.
 
Agreed, but in sensible proportions.
 
-Mike Hughes