NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/drumcorp/2388

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-24 | 7.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy!miavx1!miamiu!mhughes
Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps
Subject: Re: 93 Madison - still more
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 23 Nov 1992 11:01:57 EST
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service
Lines: 132

I respect Scott's position on this matter.  I just want to clarify
a few points, and then as you say, be content by *agreeing to disagree.*

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (vahl scott gordon) says:
>
>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.

On the other hand, take 1992 for instance.  Or how about 1993?  About 0% of
these shows are completely new musical material.  Even the year you cite in
your defense consists of 75% re-used material.

I think you've stated my position as well as I could.  When you have as large
a past repetoire to draw from as Marsalis does, I have no problem.  He has
NUMEROUS opportunities to mix in some of his older material with newer stuff,
while retaining a freshness to each concert EXACTLY because he has a large
body of music to draw from.  When you are limited to 11 minutes per year,
however, as well as a much more limited past repetoire, following the same
practice is, IMHO, not interesting.

Face it, if Wynton were the same quality artist as he is but only had about
2 or 3 hours worth of material in his arsenal, and was constantly dredging
it up at every concert (in a proportion which you state....more than 75%),
would you still feel the same about his musical creativity?

>
>>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.

Once again, it is a question of the size of the past repetoire.  Also, I'll
ask you to again read the first line of my post (or any of my others).
Where have I ever said that musical creativity is solely a question of
repetoire?  I've ALWAYS said that it is an ELEMENT of musical creativity.
>
>
>>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?

What percentage of the people involved were around the first time they played
"City of Angels"?  What percentage were around the first time they played
"Rememberance"?

As for "Maleguena", I was around in 1980.  For a corps thats dwells on
heritage as much as Madison does, I think that a sizable portion of the fans
supporting them (more sizable than apparently you believe) HAVE heard these
charts before....that's one reason they are as popular as they are.

As far me *exagerrating* my point, I could say that you forgot to mention
Madison's repetition of "Slaughter", "City of Angels", "Numero Uno",
"Strawberry Soup" and "Rememberance", all within the past 10 years, not 20.
>
>
>>>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?

You were specifically defending Madison with these comments, as I recall.
One can only assume that you have defended Madison with something you felt
was specifically to their advantage.  Sorry if that's not what you meant.
>
>>
>>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.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.  Never, EVER did I say that playing
"Maleguena" should have precluded Madison from winning in 1988 (or any other
year).  Once again, read my posts.


Regards, Mike Hughes