From: dci@cs.washington.edu (Donald Chinn)
Subject: Re: POPCORN
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:18:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.041603.2945@polari> cdoser@polari.online.com writes:
>I don't want it to become an elitist sport. To misquote Shakespere,
>"The audience is the thing". Without them, there would be very little
>for a drum corps to do. The crowd is a very important part of the 
>formula, and has to be taken into consideration. It is supposed to
>be in a caption called....General Effect. Unfortunately, the judging
>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.

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 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.
(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!)

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 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.
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.  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.

>Stanley Knaub has said for years, "Difficulty for difficulties sake is
>not a good reason for doing something". It -has- to be entertaining
>and that is the harder thing. It is not only the elite that they should
>be aiming at, but the entire audience. I have marched, taught, and judged,
>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.  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.

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.


If I recall, this whole discussion, POPCORN, and FIFE (Fans in Favor of
Entertainment) began because there were general feelings amongst fans
that entertaining corps were being "ripped off" in the judging process.

I've said it before (in print) and I'll say it again:  Competition has
blinded our sense of values, and may spell drum corps' ultimate demise.
Once we move away from the attitude of "this corps should have gotten a
higher mark", "this corps should have beaten that corps", etc. being
central to our way of looking at drum corps, then we can see performances,
the activity, and (dare I say it) ourselves far more clearly so that
we can move forward.

Look at how many discussions on alt.drumcorps have been centered around
the rankings: Star bashing (started because someone felt it was unfair that
the "rich" corps that weeded out fat people wins all the time), VK bashing
(started because someone felt that VK put "crap" on the field and yet placed
well), writer's polls, POPCORN.  Very little has been said about what has
actually been put on the field!  Does anyone care about the music, marching,
etc., or are we so obsessed with trying to determine who is No. 1, as if that
very statement had any meaning?

I'm NOT saying that we should halt all discussion about judging, etc.
However, I am saying that we should look at WHY we are discussing what
we are discussing.  If we have the point of view that the judging process
is not just for the audiences' benefit (in reality, they are mainly supposed
to be for the corps members' benefit), then we can more critically examine 
the judging process, competition, and rankings.

What started out as a small response turned into something almost out of
control ...  Luckily, these are just opinions.

-- Donald
Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps