ADDRESS: Between Two Worlds: Art vs Entertainment in Modern Drum Corps Mr. Matt O'Brien If you listen to the audiences at most drum corps shows, or read any number of postings on the drum corps newsgroup (RAMD), there's an obvious battle of tastes at hand in the drum corps community. On one hand there are the aspirations of many of the corps' members, designers and judges for shows which can be seen as thoroughly composed works of "art". On the other are the desires of many older fans and alumni for more "traditional" shows, which are less geared toward "themes" (intellectual and/or artistic effect) and more toward the pure physical thrills of watching loud and exciting music (generally free of any greater artistic/intellectual aspirations). This is a argument similar to that being discussed on a daily basis in the offices of most non-profit performing arts groups, with Artistic Directors constantly having to try to balance the aspirations of new, untraditional or financially risky artists with the financial needs of maintaining healthy box office receipts through doses of popular (if somewhat traditional) programs. As a drum corps alumni and staff member from the 70's and early 80's AND as the Artistic Director of a mid-sized performing arts organization, I can sympathize with the desires of both camps, and while I don't think there are any quick solutions to the argument, I suspect there's more common ground than may be believed. The first thing which should be considered and agreed on is the basic nature of the drum corps program. In theatre terms, we generally look at given projects as being either "Presentational" or "Representational". Examples of Presentational shows would include Broadway musicals like "Cats", a circus like Ringling Bros, a Las Vegas review, and most other shows in which the performers or material implicitly acknowledge the fact that they are working in front of an audience. Generally speaking, Presentational shows don't attempt to try to get across anything resembling a "Big Idea" - the idea of the show is in the pure entertainment and emotional value of the work itself. A Representational piece, on the other hand, is very much geared toward forcing its audience into parsing a greater meaning from the work. It may also try to shape a new understanding of the world or the artform. The works themselves may appear clouded in a sense of mystery, make extensive use of symbolism, or be referential to other (sometimes obscure) pieces of work. In most cases, Representational works will take a traditional form (play, composition, novel) and then turn the conventions of the idiom on their ear. Representational works are also generally serious minded, and may be speaking toward human emotions which are negative or not easily named or discerned. Examples of Representational works would include James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake", the work of avant garde groups such as Wooster Group and the musical works of Schoenberg and John Cage. The history of the Arts in the 20th Century has largely been the history of Representationalism. In the 19th Century, for example, paintings were commonly of traditional subjects (portraits, landscapes) with a fairly realistic approach, and the work was done with an eye toward marketability. While this certainly didn't preclude individual artistic expression and excellence, it did force the artist to keep an eye solidly on his prospective audience. But with the introduction of the Impressionists and then the Cubists (Duchamp, early Picasso) early in this century, the goals of many artists came to be less about selling the work and more about exploring the artform itself. Painters, composers and writers began working with unusual artistic compositions as audiences, patrons and critics stood and watched in apprehension. Some of the work produced in the early portion had such a changing effect that is now considered fairly mainstream (such as the works of Magritte and Picasso, and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"). Other pieces are seen as still-revolutionary (Joyce's "Ulysses"). And a good portion of the rest came to be seen as excessive, trendy or trite (almost everything by the DaDa-ists; some of it may be amusing, but most of it is just as easily forgotten). Drum corps is right now undergoing a similar process. We've had a decade or more of rapid changes in show design. Some of these changes will be (or already have been) embraced as sensible and good (mainstream), others have been or will be seen as abject failures, and the verdict is still out on some others. But there is one thing which can't really change - and that is the basic nature of the drum corps environment. The drum corps form is, regardless of how you slice it, a Presentational form. The performers acknowledge the audience, and the general goal of the corps is to entertain and amaze the audience and judges through showmanship and excellence in musical/visual performance. At least this is what many of the FANS think the goal is.... But it would appear, from the last several seasons, that many corps now have as goal the broadening of the form to include "artistic" expression of narrative or intellectual/philosophical content. While this type of program still utilizes the traditional elements of the drum corps show, it introduces the additional layer of a "story" or some fairly serious "idea" to the total production. This would include programs which work with a self-professed unifying theme and, while not expressly using either "story" or "idea", add visual elements which hint at some great emotional event within the program - without giving an explicit explanation of what the event might be. Examples would include the Phantom Regiment's "Ring" show from 1997 and the 1994 Cavaliers show, both of which employed symbolic physical actions by color guard members, but did not make explicit to the viewer why the actions were important. So do these "story" or "concept" shows work as serious art? Generally speaking, I'd have to say no. Not as "serious" art. Because the means of expression in drum corps are severely limited (by performance lengths and rules, venue and lighting equipment, and the "marching" requirements of the activity) there is a limited amount of narrative or intellectual communication which can truly take place. By using a medium which has, at best, limited room for intellectual communication, the designers who attempt "Big Idea" or "inspired by story X" shows are doomed to failure from the start. The audiences really can't "get" all of the ideas or stories being communicated, because the framework of the artform doesn't allow for it. While there will undoubtedly be performance and design elements in these shows which earn audience approval, there is also usually a nagging sense on the part of the audience that they have been somehow left out of the equation. Worse, the work in these "serious" shows is occasionally so inappropriate to the medium that it becomes embarrassing to watch. The shows which do seem to work are those which may have unifying elements, but don't attempt to get across serious or meaningful ideas or stories. While there may be some "story" aspect in these shows, it's generally one of short and simple "good guy/bad guy" conflict (Madison's "Pirates" show) or of simple and recognizable human behavior (Cadets of Bergen County's drunken cowboy). In these shows, the role-playing (I'd hesitate to call it "acting") of the performers does not attempt to make any great display of emotional states - in fact, the role-playing is fairly tangential to the main body of the show. The focus of a good show is solidly on the emotional effect created by the musical selections. The visual program (including drill and guard work) can contribute greatly to the overall effect, but without well chosen musical pieces, the visual program has little to support. It's obvious that many designers and corps are trying to "push the outside of the envelope" . But before one can do this, the basic shape of the envelope needs to be properly assessed. A drum corps show can strive to break new musical and visual ground, but it's designers have to be able to realize that not all elements can be effectively expanded. Chief among the unchangeables is the primacy of the musical selections. Those shows which have been put together with visual or intellectual/narrative elements placed first are the ones least interesting to watch. So which elements CAN be expanded? By means of good example, the 1993 Star of Indiana program, controversial at the time, was notable principally for its unusual musical material. While the musical aspect of the show may have been intimidating, interesting or boring, (depending on your taste), it was also the only aspect of the show which was really revolutionary. The design staff knew when to stop. If, for example, the Barber section had included scenes of a guard member playing "Medea" graphically murdering her children out of marital spite - the show would have been an unwatchable and pretentious mess. The emotional tones of Barber and Bartok's pieces were well served by the minimalism of the visual program (plain white uniforms on the musicians, plain black bodysuits on the guard, stark geometric implements). So while this show effectively brought unfamiliar music to the medium, it did so in a style which kept focus ON that music - and on the performers executing it. Because they focused on showing off their musical and marching cajones and didn't attempt to have the program "mean" anything, they succeeded. This is one of the best (and few) examples of a "serious" Presentational show. And it was rooted in the musical selection - the visual was purely supportive. Other examples of recent shows which worked include the 95 Cavaliers "Planets" show, Madison's 95 and 96 Latin shows, CBC's 96 Western show and Phantom Regiment's 93 show. In every case the music and the performers were the star of the show. They all had strongly written visual programs to go along with the music, but no great communication was attempted on the part of the programs, and as a result, the audiences were able to follow them closely and clearly. They respected the nature, limitations and needs of the artform. One other consideration is the closeness with which the program should be matched to the personality of the performers. Too many corps have gotten in to the habit of switching musical and attitudinal identities to try to become like the corps which are winning. This has resulted in a severe watering down of the entertainment pool. At a show I attended just a couple of seasons ago, the evening's line-up was a solid mass of 20th Century symphonic and wind ensemble music. Well, nothing against any of the composers represented, but there is demanding and exciting music available in a number of other genres, including jazz, rock and world music. The music chosen should be a reflection of the unique and individual persona of the organization. Since CBC, SCV, Cavaliers and Phantom seem to have most aspects of classical and wind ensemble music covered, it would strongly benefit other corps to seek elsewhere. This is one general aspect of show design which is currently in need of serious fixing - the sometimes numbing sameness of musical selections and styles. Kudos to the Crossmen for returning lately to their jazz roots - now if only more corps will follow their lead. The introduction of unusual props, colorguard equipment and dance work in shows is something which can be applauded - but only in cases where the designers can truthfully say the props are well-chosen and visually effective (SCV's big flag at the end of "Miss Saigon"), the new guard equipment is visually captivating (Star's spinning disks from the early 90's) and the dance is professionally choreographed and executed.=20 This last item is one I'd like to briefly address. If a corps does not have access to a REAL choreographer and someone who can correctly train the members in proper physical technique, then, in my opinion, they're best off leaving the dance elements alone. I have seen an unfortunate number of corps (including DCI finalists) where it was obvious that the performers and "choreographer" were attempting work way over their heads, either physically or aesthetically. Nothing done badly is impressive, and in this activity, where the musical and visual professionalism is so strong, poorly conceived dance or "acting" segments stick out in marked and unfortunate contrast. So, to sum up, shows which use emotionally powerful music, back it up with appropriate visuals, have a clear sense of focus - and don't attempt to tell involved stories or make serious statements - are the shows which seem to work best. If a show needs to be explained to its audience, it also probably needs to be re-written. If a show fails to generate much audience response , it probably needs to be pumped up. In short, it can be "art" - but it first has to have a sure sense of entertainment value. I have a card given to me by one of our first production assistants which says "If you bore me, then you're not my friend". Drum corps needs to be actively looking for friends. My final thoughts here are on the future. Having been involved in drum corps for 10 years as participant and staff member, and now for another 13 as interested spectator, I've seen some amazing musical and artistic growth. But, as with any rapidly evolving art or technology, there are some participants who will end up excitedly running headfirst down a blind alley - only to find themselves stranded and bruised when they hit the dead-end. I'd suggest that over the next few years the activity take some time to re-assess what the past decade has wrought, and whether we are, in fact headed in a good direction. Without recommending that we just turn back the clock, I am suggesting that there are production elements and conceits from earlier periods which might be worth reconsidering. I'd strongly recommend that corps drop the convention of naming their shows - both because the names are occasionally laughably pretentious and because the convention intimates that ALL serious corps use a "theme" approach. In fact, the musical variety of older non-thematic programs was one of their chief attractions (e.g. - the 1974 Kingsmen used Bernstein, Berlioz, Kenton, Tower of Power and Stravinsky in a 13 minute show - try coming up with a concept which encompasses THAT!). If one of the goals of the "educational adjunct" approach of DCI is deepening the musical knowledge of the corps members, this musical knowledge can be most effectively deepened by widening the variety of musical genres the members are exposed to. I don't remember the last time a I saw a corps playing a show which used music from wildly contrasting idioms - but it would be nice to see someone try it again. More corps need to be able to see their shows as being an outgrowth of individual corps' character - about the CORPS more then about the theme or design, and hence a little more "art-proof" then they may have believed. I'd also suggest DCI look at reforming the judging process (again!) to put the preponderance of score on proper technique and execution, with a greatly reduced portion given to show design and effect. The movement away from the tic system was also a movement away from a truly objective evaluation of the member's performance. I appreciate that the build-up system encouraged greater risk-taking on the part of show designers - but design is not what the judging system of a youth activity should really be concerned with. If the lesson we want our members to learn is that ALL marching members have an equal chance to succeed on the field of competition, then we owe it to them to reform a somewhat spurious judging system heavily weighted on the work of non-marching individuals. If the activity is really supposed to be about "The Kids", then "The Designers" should be de-emphasized in the scoring process. Scott Stewart's suggestion of taking into account only general effect actually achieved rather than attempted also seems to be a move in the right direction, one which rewards effective live performance skills of the performer and only indirectly the conceptual skills of the designer. In a Presentational artform, it's what the audience "gets" that counts. If corps can learn to largely disregard the judges (whose aesthetic tastes and perceptions may or may not be good), and put the needs of the audience second only to the educational and physical needs of the members, then we might find a way to increase audience size, loyalty and enjoyment, without drastically compromising the artistic goals of the staffs and performers.