From: rwberry@hubcap.clemson.edu (Robert W Berry)
Subject: Re: POPCORN
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:44:42 GMT

cdoser@polari.online.com writes:

>dci@cs.washington.edu (Donald Chinn) writes:

(Somebody writes ... it has to be entertaining or it's not
effective....)

(Donald basically disagrees...)

>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.

Well, as usual ( ;-)!!) I have to disagree.  However, there is a chance
this is a matter of semantics.  What exactly does it mean to be
"entertained"?  Moments can be *incredibly* effective, without being
entertaining at all.  As an example, I recently viewed the AIDS
memorial quilt.  I was nearly moved to tears.  The quilt *definitely*
had an effect on me.  Was I entertained?  No.

Back in '84, there was a family from Spirit sitting next to me at a
show.  They said that they didn't think Suncoast's show was effective at
all.  I asked why, and they replied that it dredged up too many bad
memories.  Were they entertained?  No.  Were they affected?  Definitely.

Entertainment, IMHO, connotes a joyful, light experience.  This is not
to say I don't enjoy heavier performances, just I don't find them
"entertaining".

>>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.

Star conveyed several feelings of national pride.  They evoked images of
a lot of what makes the US great.  However, I don't think Star's show
was designed for "entertainment" only.  They made several strong
statements, and had several striking images, but I have to agree with
Donald, they weren't entertaining in the connotation I use.  (BTW, the
Merriam-Webster says entertain means "1: to treat or receive as a guest
2: AMUSE, DIVERT 3: to hold in mind".)  Was Star amusing?  No.
Diverting?  Possibly.  Once again, a matter of semantics.

( Donald praises Star's contra line...)

>(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.)

Oh no, here it comes.  Cathy, I agree with you here.  I really don't
think Star has ever had a contra line on par with the rest of their
hornline.  I really sensed no presence from their contra line at all.

...

>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. 

Some corps were not outgrowths of the AL or VFW.  Many were initially 
sponsored by boy's clubs (including the Boy Scouts), Shriners, and
Masons.  It was only later, when the VFW and AL nationals gained
prominence that almost ALL corps were sponsored by an AL or VFW.

>>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. 

Well, I agree with Cathy here.  Drum corps definitely needs fans. But
for different reasons.  First, it *is* more fun to perform for lots of
people.  But I remember when most shows (at least the ones I marched in
with the Black Knights) were basically side attractions to a county
fair or something of that same ilk.  I think drum corps needs their fans
to pay the bills.  The fans are a lot of what keeps corps going all year
round.  Without an audience, they will stop having shows.  Without
shows, they'll eventually stop having corps.

>I have seen the activity slowly wither away.

This is funny, I perceived it as growing in popularity.  While there may
not be as many corps as there used to be, most of today's corps are
quite accomplished.  The performance level is higher, and drum corps is
finally getting away from the "bastard son" status which has haunted it
for years.  Almost every show I went to this year was *extremely*
successful.  As a matter of fact, most of the smaller shows were very
nearly sell-outs.  Maybe things are different on the West Coast? 

...

>>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.

Ooohhh, I must have missed this originally.  What Donald is suggesting
seems a lot like my perception of senior corps.

>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,

No, Donald never said anything about "simple", he said the shows had to
appeal to a large fraction of the audience.  These are not the same.
In the 70's each drum corps had it's own style, but I feel that the
shows then were more basic, and therefore easier for the audiences to
get in to.  A lot of people *HATED* Garfield in 1982, because they were
different (MY GOD, THEY'RE NOT PLAYING A SWING TUNE THIS YEAR!!!)  I on
the other hand, thought they were sheer genius.  Garfield's show in
1982 was subtle and sophisticated.  Show's are so much more
sophisticated than that now, that a lot of what is going on goes right
over the audience's head.

>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.

Cathy, if you can't tell a difference (a RADICAL difference) in the
visual books of the top 12, you need to brush up on your visual skills.
The are really two majors styles present (I call them the "postcard"
style and the "transition" style) in most of the top corps (because of
the two major influences in today's drill design, Steve Brubaker and
George Zingali.)  These styles are evident even to newcomers.

Drills from the 70's can't even *begin* to compare with drill from
today.  I feel that the visual aspect of drum corps is the aspect that
has made the most radical changes in the last 20 years.

>>or visually significant will not be encouraged.  Basically, drum corps
>>will be little more than the musical equivalent of circus music.

Ooooohhhh!! It *IS* senior corps!!  (Now I *KNOW* I'm going to get
flamed.)

...

>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.

Cathy, where do you see all this discontent.  For the most part, I
percieve that people seem to be HAPPY with the direction the activity
is going.

Well, I've rambled long enough.

Later,
Bob

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=- Bob Berry -=- Net-Guru's Inc.        ! rwberry@hubcap.clemson.edu   -=-
-=- Teach them quick, before they think. ! 803-654-7623 || 803-656-1076 -=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-