NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/drumcorp/2312

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 11.9 KB | 223 lines

Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!yuma!gordons
From: [e-mail] (vahl scott gordon)
Subject: 93 Madison - still more
Sender: [e-mail] (News Account)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:53:17 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: mozart.cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University
Lines: 211

Mike retorts:

>>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.

Repetoire-wise, most jazz and classical artists repeat a considerable portion
of their repetoire over and over again.  Why?  Because the more you understand
a piece the more you can do with it.  It's difficult to be creative if you're
always coming out of left-field (there are exceptions).  Of course Wynton has
a larger repetoire than Madison -- Madison only gets 11 minutes per year!
But percentage-wise, Madison probably plays a LARGER percentage of music
they've never played before than Wynton does.  For example, take 1988.  About
1/4th of that show was completely new musical material.  Do you honestly
think that a quarter of the music Wynton plays in a year are songs he's never
played before?  I doubt it.  But Wynton plays different improvisations,
different arrangements, etc to make it a new and creative achievement
even when he plays a piece that he's played a thousand times before.
Similarly, Madison reworks their signature pieces to try new things, or to
try to draw more energy from them.

I like Madison's mix of past and new.

>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.

Then you would have to question the nucleus of any classical musician's
repetoire. (or jazz musician's).  To reduce musical creativity to questions
of repetoire is completely missing the point.

I'll try my best to quote Wynton on Louis Armstrong:  "The highest form of
musical artistry is nuance.  Louis' solos from his later years are virtually
impossible to copy, because they contain such nuance."  (quotes should be
taking with a grain of salt... I have the exact quote on a video at home).
I should also add that in his later years, Louis played the same songs over
and over again.  I'm not saying he was being creative -- Wynton is.

>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?

Let's see, Madison has played Malaguena what, 3? 4 times?  In the past
20 years?  I think you're exaggerating.  Also, I never said anything was
wrong with playing new music.  I just said that I also don't see what is
wrong with playing old music.  Also, what percentage of people involved
(members, staff, audience, judges) were around the last time they played it?

>>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!

I never said that applause implies creativity.  You asked for a defense
of repeating musical selections.  My response was that the amount of
applause and *thrill* for so many people (audience and corps members)
makes it worthwhile, at least for SOME corps.  You're right that Madison
got lots of applause in 1991 for City of Angels (I was one of the rabid
cheer-ers... that was my favorite show that year!).  I AM NOT SAYING THAT
IT IS BETTER TO REPEAT... I AM NOT SAYING IT IS BETTER TO NOT REPEAT...
I AM SAYING THAT THE WHOLE QUESTION IS IRRELEVENT.  Who got more
applause; 1991 Madison or 1988 Madison?  I think they generated equal
response, I think they were equally creative, and I think it doesn't
matter a whit that one included repeat material and one did not.  If anything,
the 1988 show had the ADDITIONAL oomph of being a piece that stirred some
emotions from people that remembered their performances of that piece from
years ago.

>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?

I never said I didn't like that show.  In fact I liked it very much.
I'm glad they're bringing back "Remembrance" because it is a WONDERFUL
piece, and unfortunately they performed it with a relatively weak corps.
It'll be really neat to hear it performed by a strong corps.  I also never
got to hear "Strawberry Soup" live, which should be a thrill.  "Numero Uno"
never thrilled me much on the record, but I'll wait and see.  I know it's
never the same on the record as live.

>>What about the challenge of playing intricate and difficult music?
>
>So presumably Star, Cadets, SCV, Cavies play cakewalk charts every year?

You're putting words in my mouth.  Of course they do.  But Madisons music
isn't any easier than theirs just because a different group of 128 members
played the same piece several years before.

>>What about the joy of being a part of a long, proud heritage?
>
>...and corps like Cadets or SCV have no heritage....

Again putting words in my mouth.  Of course they do.  I never meant to
imply that they didn't.  With Madison, part of their heritage is some of
their signature tunes.  Why not just enjoy it?

>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!!

They do something new every year.

>>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.

We can agree to disagree.  It's NOT too big of a part, IMO.  Every year I
love their shows; they never fail to entertain me in a BIG way.  I'd be
sad if they followed the trendiness of so many other corps who have decided
that in order to win, they MUST play something obscure.  Why?  Because
drum corps cops tell them that they can't be creative with old music.

>>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.

I NEVER said that 1988 Madison deserved to win.  In fact, I don't even think
they deserved to be in the top 5.  But (and this is an important point), if
they WERE the best, then they should win, IN SPITE of playing Malaguena.
I don't think they were good enough.  I thought they were sloppy.  I did LOVE
the show; it was the most entertaining show of the year.  But you're implying
that they didn't deserve to win because they played Malaguena.

The point I'm trying to make is that the determination of who should win
should be made without regards to what that corps played in past years.

>I agree that both of the West Side Story productions cited were innovative.
>Both had also neither been previously performed by the respective corps.

So what?  What difference does it make WHO played it before?  Blue Knights
have gotten just as much flak for copying Garfield as you're giving Madison
for copying themselves.

>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?

Ah, now let's discuss innovation vs creativity.  I don't think it's
reasonable to expect every corps and every show to be completely innovative.
There are rare exceptions (76 BD, 84 Garfield, 87 Garfield, 91 Star, come
to mind -- all of which [by the way] consisted of music that was played
previously).  But mostly we have to accept that innovation comes in
increments.  Madison has innovated through the years especially in areas of
dance and brass demand.  If we're talking about creativity, I think that
all of the top 12 corps every year are VERY creative.  I think it's fair to
demand creativity, but demanding complete innovation will result in cacaphony,
without increasing innovation.  Why?  Because a show isn't innovative just
because nobody played the music before.  There's a lot of confusion about that.

>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...

I disagree that creativity comes from telling a story.  I believe that
when Wynton plays a Parker tune he can be creative.  Similarly I believe
that it is possible for a drum corps to be creative and still use material
that they have played before.  I also believe that it is possible to be
innovative using previously played material.

>>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.

Set by whom?  I say let each corps do their thing.  Garfield's style is to
do something radical every year.  Madison's is not.  I'm glad both are there.
I'll bet they'll both have great shows this year!  Maybe one of them will
do something innovative, maybe not.  I'm sure they'll both be very creative.

Scott