From: dci@cs.washington.edu (Donald Chinn)
Subject: Entertainment and Effectiveness, Round 2 (was Re: POPCORN)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 00:15:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.071228.29734@polari> cdoser@polari.online.com writes:
>dci@cs.washington.edu (Donald Chinn) writes:
>
>>>community has forgotten what effect for the audience is. I love intricate
>>>music that is difficult to perform, I have played it myself. But it
>>>has to also be entertaining, or it is not -effective-. As a friend,
>
>>I strongly disagree with this last statement.  While to you, GE =
>>effectiveness = entertainment, I think entertainment is only partly
>>correlated with effectiveness.  I would phrase it like this: entertainment
>>is one possible effect that can be achieved.  Take your symphony orchestra,
>>dance troupe, vocalist, etc.  The best organizations in the world are not
>>necessarily the ones who are the most entertaining.  To me, the mark of a
>>good orchestra/dance troupe/etc. is their ability to communicate to the
>>audience, whether it be via entertainment or in a complex
>>musical/visual/whatever way.  As a final analogy, the best movies are not
>>necessarily the most entertaining ones.
>
>As someone who has been in this field for years, I have to disagree with
>your assesment of effect in this sense. Whether or not it is a happy or
>sad experience, to be effective it has to entertain. If you are not
>entertained, it would not be effective -to you-. Communication is one
>of the keys of entertainment, and you agree that it is effective. Your
>analogy of the movies is an interesting one. What is best? Is best the
>one that was a difficult one to make, but no one watched or liked?
>I agree that the most popular one isn't always the 'best' one, but it
>is the one that was entertaining enough to draw people to it, and it
>was -effective- in its communication of entertainment.
>

I still stick with my characterization of entertainment and effectiveness:
that entertainment is one kind of effect that can be achieved.  The effective
portrayal of sadness, morose, struggle, the wanton destruction of planet Earth, 
and death are not, to me, entertaining in general.  But they can be effective.

I think this whole disagreement hinges on what each of us thinks is
entertaining.  Looking at a dictionary, "entertain" means (among
many other things) "to hold the attention of."  This definition is
more in line with Cathy's definition of "entertainment" than mine, but
it is not what I think people mean when they talk about entertainment
in drum corps.

When I hear "entertainment" when talking about drum corps, I think people
are referring to the kind of feeling they get when they see a company
front, when they hear the horn line blasting away at full volume, or when
they see 16 rifles rise to the same height in a toss and land exactly at
the same time (in the hands of the throwers!).  It does NOT refer (at least
the way I interpret the word "entertainment" in drum corps) to the feeling
people get when they hear "Symphonic Dances for the Contemporary Child",
"Firebird", middle of "Peterloo Overture", "Amber Waves", ...

Judging from other comments you have made, this is the type of feeling
you seem to be referring to (i.e. the company front feeling).  Yet, you
also seem to indicate that entertainment in drum corps is anything that
will keep an audience's attention.  The former (company front, etc.)
definition is a restricted definition of the latter (anything that holds
attention), assuming that company fronts, etc. in general hold the attention
of people.  Let's be clear about which definition we are talking about.
I will always use "entertainment" in the company front (i.e. visceral)
sense.

The ultimate evidence to me that entertainment does not equal effectiveness
is that VK was far more entertaining to me than the Cavaliers, yet got
lower GE scores (as they should have, IMO).

>>VK's Russian scene (just before the "The Party's Over" sign) was, to me,
>>one of the most effective moments of their show, partly because it was
>>juxtaposed (I always wanted to use that word in a posting on drum corps ...)
>>against the lighthearted rest of the show, but mainly because it portrayed
>>exactly the right mood for the statement (if any) it was trying to make.
>
>"The Party's Over" was a lighthearted moment, and wasn't really juxtaposed
>against lighthearted moments. Poignant is more like it.
>

I was referring to the whole scene before "The Party's Over" sign, not
the sign itself.  To me, that scene was not entertaining, but highly
effective.

>>The Cavaliers show had plenty of effective spots.  The same can be said of
>>the Cadets, Star, right on down the line.  Just because, say, Star was
>>not as entertaining as, say, VK doesn't mean that Star was not as effective.
>
>Please tell me what effect they did convey to the audience? There were
>certainly moments when they did connect with the audience, and they did
>effectively convey their message. That was entertaining to them.
>

Ok, here is a short list of scenes in various shows that I think were
effective but not entertaining (according to the "company front" definition
of "entertainment").  Cavaliers: the middle part of the Peterloo Overture
where they conveyed (musically) the revolt of 1819.  Cadets: the incredibly
beautiful flowing middle part of their show (where the color guard were
in groups of 5 -- four of them lifting the fifth through the air).  Star:
Amber Waves.  BD: El Congo Valiente.  Phantom: the Burning of Moscow scene
(music from Tch.'s 6th Symphony -- not exactly "entertaining" music).  Blue
Knights, Freelancers: the whole show (pretty much).  The list goes on, but
I hope the examples contrast enough with: Cavaliers' Gavorkna Fanfare, their
ending, BD's When a Man ..., Madison's whole show (pretty much), VK's whole
show (sans the Russian scene).

>>(Side note: Did anyone else think that the most moving part of Star's show
>>was the "Amber Waves" section of their show?  Those solos, those small
>>ensembles, those contras!)
>
>(Side side note: what contras? 16 and no volume level! And no, to others
>out there, I'm not advocating loud rasty contras. It's just that 16 of
>those horns usually produce more. It was said that the horns were a bit
>restrained this year.)

I inquired earlier about this.  I thought it was strange that Jim Prime,
a great arranger, would have 16 contras yet not have them displayed (musically)
very prominently.  I think the answer (I'm not sure, though) is that 16
contras has a different sound and feel than 10 contras (very much like
how 4 clarinets sound a lot different than 15 clarinets).  That is, volume
is not the only thing that can change when more horns are added.  He is
very much into mixing musical ensembles to get different musical textures.

>>In short, the GE caption is more than just an entertainment caption
>>(although it has a part in the GE dept.).  Nor is GE a popularity
>>caption where the most fans who like a show should get better scores
>>GE-wise.  What is GE then?  It is a caption that assesses the ability of
>>a corps to communicate to an audience, whether it be happiness, sadness,
>>or the destruction of planet Earth.  A fan doesn't have to "like" the
>>statements a corps makes for it to make an impression on him/her (i.e.
>>be effective).  Nor does s/he have to stand up and cheer wildly (throw
>>toliet paper, rip his/her clothes off and throw it at the corps, etc.)
>>for the show to have been effective.
>
>I do agree with you here for the most part. I would like someone who has
>access to the sheets or a rule book to upload the listings for these
>sheets so that we have the DCI description of this. Each of us has
>our own meanings, but we really are discussing that caption.

My point in this paragraph was, again, that effectiveness does not necessarily
imply entertainment (where, again, "entertainment" is in the company front
sense of the word).

>>I also disagree with the statement that without the audience there would
>>be very little for a drum corps to do.  The original reason for the existence
>>of drum corps was to build camaraderie amongst members and be a youth activity.
>
>Unfortunatly, here is where my age shows. I do remember what corps were
>for originally. They were formed in the early 20th century as outgrowths
>of military vetrans groups, American Legion, etc. Up until DCI was formed
>they still controlled things, and did indeed inhibit the creativity of
>corps. But it is not true that they were formed by themselves for
>camaraderie or youth activity. They were formed to entertain the
>Legionaires, and compete against other Legion units. 

I admit I watered down the origins of drum corps.  However, it is a fact that
drum corps has many purposes.  Here is a list:
1. Youth activity
2. Music education
3. Performing for audiences (this is more of the "business"
     end of the equation)

Note that the audience is only in one of the three purposes I listed, although,
as I have mentioned before, they can influence (1) and (2).

>>These function have expanded to include music education.  While I agree
>>that the audience plays an important role in drum corps, drum corps as an
>>activity can survive without fans.
>
>I couldn't disagree more. I have seen the activity slowly wither away.
>The audience has been leaving and shows that were held for decades have
>been dieing. Corps would not be able to tour, true, but there would be
>very little if nothing to do if they couldn't. They would be like paintings
>that are stored in a closet. They would not be entertaining or effective.
>I've been in corps, and playing for the audience is everything. Standing
>in front of 40,000 screaming people is the ultimate high. I was a performer,
>and the audience was my drug. I can't imagine just playing for a wall.

I think the correct statement is that "drum corps as we know it today would
not exist without the audience."  It is not clear to me (although you may
have some solid evidence) that the decline in the numbers of drum corps is
directly attributable to the fact that drum corps are becoming more
sophisticated and appealing to highbrow tastes.  From what I know, there
are plenty of reasons (including that one): high costs of petroleum and
stadiums, anti-Vietnam sentiment, more things for kids to do these days, etc.

Two things about the thrill of performance.  Just because you (and a lot
of kids in drum corps) play for the thrill of seeing screaming fans does
not mean that that is the main factor in determining repertoire.  Secondly,
it's not the case that the Cavaliers, say, are playing to a wall.  They
are playing, say, to the 5000 fans who want to hear what they are going to
play.  I admit that if NOBODY likes what the Cavaliers played, then they
shouldn't do it, but to conclude that they have to appeal to all 40,000
is (to me) a fallacious step in reasoning.

HOWEVER, just because the audience plays a role in the drum corps equation
does not mean that it should have absolute say as to where it goes.  My
personal feeling is that the vast majority of people who watch drum corps
LIKE the way the repertoires are.  I personally am quite satisfied with the
mixture of styles that exist right now; we just need twice as many corps with
the same mixture of styles, plus a few more new styles.  So maybe I don't like
one or two styles out there, but better that than having styles within a
relatively narrow band of styles (i.e. no Cadets, Cavaliers, Star).

>>If a show has to appeal to a large fraction of the audience to be
>>considered good, then I believe we will get a least common denominator
>>effect where every show looks the same, appeals to the same common
>>senses and tastes that we all have, etc.
>
>Under that ideology, the corps of the '70s were all the same since they
>were "more simple" than current corps. Nothing could be farther from the
>truth. There was as much difference then as now. The corps did play to the
>audience more then, and they got the response. There is -so- much latitude 
>under common taste that I can't see there being a problem with it. In fact,
>I don't see much difference in the drills of the top 12. They look a lot
>alike, so I can make the argument that things are no better today.

I agree that there is a fair amount of latitude under common taste, but
there is so much more that drum corps CAN be, tastes that drum corps
CAN address.  Audience response (i.e. how loud people clap, how much
toilet paper is thrown, etc.) to me is NOT a good indication of how
effective a show is.  I am not going to rip my shirt off and throw it
at VK during their Russian scene yelling and screaming, for example.
So to say that corps are not effective anymore is, to me, unsubstantiated
(at least by that criterion).

Well, whether you can see qualitative differences in the drill in the top
12, I think there are.  Let's see.  Star's drill is (qualitatively) different
from Cavies, who are different from Cadets, who are different from BD (!),
Madison, Crossmen, Phantom, SCV, Blue Knights, VK.  Maybe when you get down
to the corps ranking 15th or so on down, there might not be much difference.

>>Shows that are either musically
>>or visually significant will not be encouraged.  Basically, drum corps
>>will be little more than the musical equivalent of circus music.
>
>Now Donald! Circus music? That's unfair!

Maybe it's unfair.  But the point is that drum corps will not progress
in any significant artistic or musical way.  Oh sure, there will be some
advances, but they would be akin to the advances in the kinds of music
nightclub singers sing (a la Musak).

>>I think drum corps needs a group of corps that are willing to go for
>>the entire crowd (e.g. VK, Madison, etc.).  But drum corps also needs
>>to have the Cadets, the Stars, the Cavaliers, etc. who will go for
>>particular audiences and explore what specific kinds of feelings,
>>emotions, etc. can be conveyed via drum corps.  Sometimes it works,
>>sometimes it bombs.
>
>I would say that there were a lot of bombs lately if there is all this
>discontent among the fans. It isn't only on the net, either. It is
>systemic, and widespread.

I don't think so.  I heard a lot of applause at DCI Finals (if that is
an indication of content amongst fans).  Maybe the fans aren't yelling
as loudly, but that still doesn't mean they aren't content.

>I hope you understand these are not flames, just opinions. I do enjoy
>to discuss things, and this is certainly lively!

Flames only occur when people misunderstand each other (DAMMIT!  :-).
I think we each have conveyed our thoughts relatively clearly.

As a final comment, I have throw in my usual anti-competition statement.
This whole discussion probably would not occur if there were not
such an emphasis on competition in drum corps.  We should look at the
shows for what they are, not for the marks they get.  In the end, we
like what we like, regardless of what the judges think.  And if we view
the scores as something for the kids' benefit (as I mentioned before),
then there is no reason for fans to be upset about scores, because fans
are there to be entertained (in the more general "hold attention" sense)
and not to be music educators.

To alt.drumcorps readers: I think I have expressed my opinions on this
topic to the point of boredom to the rest of the readers.  What do other
people think?  Surely there are more points of view on this topic than
just two (or maybe there are only two ...).

-- Donald
p.s. Man, this post is almost 300 lines (most of it is quotes, though)!
Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps