From: cdoser@polari.online.com
Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps
Subject: Re: POPCORN
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:12:28 GMT
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)

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.

>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.

>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.

>(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.)

>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.

>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. 

>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.

>Corps just wouldn't tour, there would
>be no "state of the art" because there probably wouldn't be enough money,
>etc.  To be sure, without the audience, drum corps would be different,
>but they are not high on the list of goals a corps tries to achieve (of
>course, they are high on some corps' lists), although pleasing a crowd
>can influence the achievment of some of the goals.

>>and believe me, to program a good show is difficult. To program one that
>>appeals to all people is even more difficult than programming a difficult
>>one.

>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.


>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!

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

                                                        _ _ _         /|
                                                        | | |        / |
____________________________________________ (|----------------- ___/  |
| Cathy Doser        *     Black Watch       (|---____________  \ __   |
| P.O. Box 69271     *      1972-1978             / /   | | |  \ |  \  |
| Seattle, WA 98168  * 1978 Class A Champions    | |   =|o| |= | |   \ |
|                    *  'You are what you are,    \ \_________/ /     \|
|                    *  or what you want to be!'   \___________/
|_____________________________________________________________________|
|      cdoser@atc.boeing.com    |   cathyj@f104.n343.z1.fidonet.org   |
|_____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps