SROM: Talking at Ken Mazur 3 (Fall 1998)

[Vince Lamb]

>From: ser...@juno.com (Stuart E Rice)
>To: gram...@hotmail.com
>Subject: SROM Page 9
>Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:08:27 -0700
>
>Section H6-H8.
> H. Talking at Ken Mazur
> H6. ENTERTAINMENT VS. ART (continued).
> H7. "ART" OR MARCHING? - THE EDUCATION FACTOR.
> H8. MARCHING VS. MUSIC.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>H6. ENTERTAINMENT VS. ART (continued).
>
>>Your caption can't produce *art* like the musicians can
>
>My caption MADE your caption. Again, you have not been paying
attention,
>and are not addressing the issues. Locomotion remains the most
accurate
>rhythmical behavior of the human body. You set your metronome to
us, not
>vice-versa. You followed us around throughout history until you
found
>rhythm.
> EVERY EXPERIENCE OF BODILY RHYTHM REVERBERATING IN OUR
STRUCTURE
>WAS FIRST PUT THERE BY LOCOMOTION. "Upright posture is the
surprise, the
>difficult event, the rapid and fundamental reconstruction of our
anatomy
>[and a construction, you'll recall, is an object which has a
particular
>purpose given it]. The subsequent enlargement of our brain is ... an
>epiphenomenon, an easy transformation." Yet, "it is not standing
erect,
>but bipedal *locomotion* that is uniquely human" (Morgan). That is
our
>body's function, Ken. And no matter what you musicians do, it will
never
>excel the beauty that can be expressed through our body's primary
>function. Choreographed marching.
> Precise (musical) rhythm is a product of locomotion. I have
>cited several studies in just the past few issues of SROM
establishing
>the fact that this is so. The brain does not insure the heart's
rhythm.
>In fact, while healthy locomotion creates healthier hearts, even the
>healthiest of brains can silence them permanently. One of
six "specific
>forms of stress and specific aspects of hostility" we are all heirs
to is
>a "disruption of the brain's control over heart rate, which can
cause a
>fibrillation, leading to sudden death" (Dr. Kenneth Pelletier, "Sound
>Mind, Sound Body," 1994).
> We insured your survival in war and peace. We created you and
>saved you. You set your pace to ours in parades and field shows
while
>developing creative rhythmic accompaniment to marching. You composed
>music (in which rhythm is the foundation) for the accompaniment of
>marching before self-conscious concert hall toe-tappers were treated
to
>the musical form and literature which grew from it. You have three
>options, Ken. Deal with the medium your interests serve (and which
>continues to serve the interests of percussion), join an indoor
>percussion ensemble, or take those of you who "don't need us," sit
down,
>and shut up. Literally.
>
>>and the current state of drum corp reflects this.
>
>Where has your head been buried the past 20 years? You cannot
identify
>any period in art history where a medium has progressed so quickly.
At
>least choreographed marching is a living, growing art form, unlike
music,
>which decays at the hands of today's garage bands and rots on the
>fur-covered bony shoulders of the rich and decrepit, peering down at
the
>symphony every week like vultures waiting for an animal to die.
> Drum corps' borrowed and recycled musical repertoire has
>*nothing* to do with original creations of music for two-dimensional
>dance as befits the efforts of those who produce original
choreographed
>marching year in and year out. And what has become of your
wonderful art
>(rudimental drumming). You're one to speak about producing art.
> Original choreographed marching is what the current state of
drum
>corps reflects, and that has been its direction for the past 20
years.
>Further, the reason drum corps finally accepted this 15 years ago is
that
>the activity was smart enough to know it cannot afford to upstage its
>primary medium - choreographed marching. Marching is primary. Its
>common knowledge, Ken. Where have you been? You're a lost man in a
lost
>world. Wake up and pull your head out of your drum.
>
>>Funny, but every drum set cat I meet asks tons of questions about
our
>playing >*technique* because they want to expand their musical
choices
>while >performing. (Better artistic choices - technique affects
art) We
>dont discuss >marching technique. They could care less.
>
>Since when is a "drum set cat" who "could care less" about marching
and
>authority on drum corps, let alone marching itself? Just how
ignorant do
>you think I am? You know better than to pass alley cats off even as
an
>authority on rudimental drumming. How much of this tripe do you
expect
>me to swallow, Ken?
>
>>The footwork and coordination behind a drum set is far more mentally
>>demanding than the LRLRLRLR (RLRLRLRLR) marching coordination,
>
>"Monkeys can count, too, study finds" (Columbia University). But go
play
>with your drum set and coordinate yourself, by all means. I'm a firm
>believer in the idea that people should do what makes them happy.
On the
>other hand, you're constant discontent tells me you have some serious
>frustrations which I'll wager have something to do with the fact that
>your degree in an allied but unapplied field has made you a little
boy on
>the outside looking in on the choreographed marching candy shop.
You're
>mismatched conceptions of music and marching couldn't be salvaged by
a
>new Garanimals wardrobe.
>
>>especially when the kids have been sacrificed for the marching
caption
>and tacet >over half the show.
>
>So what's your point. You're the "designer". You supposedly know
how to
>fix it, right? Go ahead - draw prettier "designs" with chalk or oil
or
>watercolor or crayon. Have ‘em hold hands so nobody gets lost during
>those practical "transitions" of yours. Hell, you sound like a
>persuasive architect (like most self-proclaimed "design" experts in
drum
>corps). Go nail a bunch of people together and create "human living
>spaces". Can't hurt ‘em any. They already look like crap, thanks
to the
>histrionics of miseducated know-nothings. "Abstract art: a product
of
>the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered"
(Al
>Capp).
>
>Go "design" your sandcastles. Just remember one thing if a pair of
feet
>come along and kick your "fine art" in your face. Choreographed
marching
>is a PERFORMING ART.
>
>>18 years marching on the field. 18 years practice, refining
technique
>which >refines the art and the artists choices.
>
>Earth to Ken....
>
>>What has the visual designer practiced? Mr. Potato Head 101? Play
>Dough >sketches? How to place a blue peg on a board with 127
others? How
>to >artistically sodomize kids?
>
>Yep. The visual designer has practiced exactly what you advocate:
>"design". A damn picture show. And for the way its increased even
our
>acoustic (not to mention choreographic) options, we might as well
stand
>around in the shape of a clover and play "I'm looking over a four-
leaf
>clover". There's your heritage of the "primary element" of music for
>you. And how has your knowledge of design and music contributed to
the
>choreography you practiced, Ken? Or don't you practice? Be a man
and
>admit it already. No, you don't. No matter how many pretty
pictures you
>can draw.
>
>>These people have wrecked the music, the marching and the judging.
>>Non-competitors who cant handle real comparisons. Artistic losers.
>Stop them >or go out of business.
>
>In terms of drum corps, I need not worry about going out of business
with
>uneducated persons like yourself asserting opinions misguided by
design
>in this performing art. I've been out of business for quite some
time in
>most respects. In the bigger picture, however, I'll never be "out of
>business" with choreographed marching touching on so many relevant
>social, creative, and scientific issues today. You read this SROM's
>Research of the Quarter and tell me that even a few decades worth of
>"artistic losers" are going to singlehandedly "wreck" choreographed
>marching (of course, the unoriginal music we've been cranking out
year
>after year might be another story).
> Sure, I am pretty much out of the dying business
(or "shrinking
>activity," as Gene put it) of drum corps, and I'll STAY out of that
>business until self-proclaimed do-gooders/authorities/fans like you
and
>the PFRC put up or shut up about your vaunted commitment to "place
people
>friendly to the aims and goals of PFRC ['to rid the activity of its
heavy
>design influence,' among other things] in positions of prominence
within
>all areas and organizations participating in the activity" as you
>promised. Stick to mopping up your own credibility and stop
screaming
>advice you're not qualified to give.
>
>>The Audabon Bon Bons did the off the field thing at 68 nationals in
a
>block >formation that showed off the marching technique of the
>kids....NOT the visual >artistic talent of the staff. Crowd loved
it.
>There IS power artistically in >knowing the *limitations* of 128
dots and
>designing accordingly. Symmetry >projects power in that case. Great
>artists know their limits.
>
>...GEEZ what is all this *crap*...
>
>1. How does one execute an "off the field thing" and how exactly
does
>that give you an argument about anything?
>2. How does a formation ‘show off marching technique'? (I'm going to
>regret asking that one). Think about it, Ken.
>3. How will "the marching technique of the kids" *ever* become a
more
>important thing to show off than the "visual artistic talent of the
>staff" if "visual artistic talent" isn't there to teach them?
>4. What other kinds of things do drum corps audiences ‘love'? In
the
>words of the art professor who (in the interest of marching)
instructed
>me privately for one year (and who you suggest never did so, even
though
>my college transcripts say otherwise), "nothing exceeds like
excess".
>You can lecture to me when you stop dichotomizing.
>5. What exactly is the "power artistically in knowing
the "limitations
>of *128* dots"? How many of these limitations are there?
>6. How does one learn these limitations? Flower arranging?
>Transcendental navel gazing? Drawing blueprints for a Tough Shed?
>Pouring paint on a pig and chasing it across the floor?
>7. How much symmetry does it take to project power? For that
matter,
>how many Ken's does it take to screw up 128 dots ("designing
>accordingly," of course)?
>8. As an "artist," what are your limitations in choreographed
marching,
>Ken? Mine are my limited understanding and experience as a teacher
of
>winter guard and percussion. Do you have limitations? Or do you
lack
>the humility to confess even your ignorance of bodily movement which
>gives choreographed marching (and thereby rhythm) life?
>
>You see, Ken, people like you are what gets choreographed marching
>devalued. Questions like this kind of nonsense that gets asked when
>people take you seriously. Stop hurting yourself, and this
activity, and
>open your mind to the truth.
>
>
>H7. "ART" OR MARCHING? - THE EDUCATION FACTOR.
>
>Heaven forbid we should steer this discussion back to relevance, but
I am
>obliged to insert some comments made by you which were set straight
by
>myself and others, and which get to the heart of the value of
marching as
>an educatable subject.
> We got steered into this miserable subject of painting by (of
all
>people) John Opedisano:
>
>Re: Stuart Rice on Marching (July 29-31) [1997]
>>
>>On Mon, 11 Aug 1997 02:28:20 -0400 (EDT) NOTINSTEP (Ken Mazur)
writes:
>>John Opedisano writes:
>>
>>>Liken it, if you will, to a realists painter using the paint
strokes of
>an >>abstractionist. Both are legitimate styles of technique (and
surely
>all involved >>in this debate can agree that by definition, style
>connotes more than one)
>
> CAVEAT: There is only one legitimate "style of technique" -
>Functional Style marching. John was never taught this, however. He
>learned to subject the body's natural technique to the style of his
>corps, which limits the body's ability to execute. On the other
hand,
>there are indeed many different *techniques of style*, each with a
>correct methodology, but none are of much avail without correct
>technique, which prepares the body for them.
>
>>>and worthy of discussion on some level, but not to say one is
correct
>and the <<other not. The issue is appropriateness.
>>>
>>>OP.
>
>What John (and others in drum corps) fail to see is that there is
only
>one correct technique which, when mastered, enables one to more fully
>master particular, individual styles. Picasso's early drawings bear
this
>out. They are very plain, coherent representations of everyday
forms.
>He could never have mastered cubism had he not mastered drawing
technique
>of more plainly representative art first (this is a little known
fact).
>This is not to say one cannot see the seeds of his style in these
>drawings. It just means he was obliged to subvert this style for the
>sake of technical practice.
> What's more, the more individuals are involved in the art, the
>more technique must be correct. Style cannot be effectively
developed
>without the foundation of correct technique. Musicians likewise know
>there is only one correct technique for each instrument, and only the
>masters disagree on just a few of the minor particulars.
>
>All artists must master technique before they master style.
>
>In reality, there is a very fine line between style and technique,
though
>it is fundamental - technique is measurable and mechanical, while
style
>is descriptive and aesthetic. Yet they are both sides of the same
coin.
>Whether one believes all techniques are legitimate, or just one
(there is
>truth in both arguments), one cannot say that correct "style" comes
in by
>way of many approaches to technique, nor that correct "styles" are
the
>products of one technique only. Ken exposes his ignorance on the
subject
>by stating the former:
>
>>A realists and abstractionists painting stroke is exactly same.
>
>This gross generalization (only one technique is required to paint
two
>different styles), suggests he does not fully understand what goes
into
>the different techniques of painting which enable the many different
>styles and eras of the medium:
>
>>It is the intent in the composition that is different.
Abstractionist
>pressure is on >the later strokes or additions. Realist pressure is
on
>the first strokes for they >have no adjustments.
>
>It is obviously absurd to suggest that the paint strokes of Seurat's
>Pointillism and Dali's Surrealism are similar. But in spite of
himself,
>however, Ken does unwittingly enable me to steer the discussion
toward
>the much needed argument for correct technique. The following
discussion
>on correct technique vs. excellence/innovation (which reveals the
>presence or absence of correct technique) later ensued:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Re: Stuart Rice On Marching (August 4-11)[1997]
>
>Stuart Rice:
>(Shirlee Whitcomb writes:)
>>(Adam Allbright writes:)
>>>We are making an unhealthy departure from our roots. Guards are
>avoiding >>the hard work of equipment basics and the even more
difficult
>task of >>cleaning to perfection by creating dirty, segmented shows
and
>hiding behind >>the phrase, "It's Art." "It's a New Level of Guard."
>
>Agreed.
>
>>I think that most instructors would deny that they create dirty
>segmented shows >and avoid cleaning in the name of art.
>
>:D Particularly in a critique! :)
>
>>They are working incredibly hard to achieve as high a degree of
>excellence as >possible. Let me ask if you have considered that
there is
>no such thing as >FREE rehearsal facilities any more; in some cases
there
>is incredibly limited >rehearsal space.
>
>And so the answer is "encouraging" guards to take MORE time to
>experiment? And who is funding this piece of legislation?
>
>>This has a gigantic impact on the amount of time available to the
>groups. >Believe me, this is a more frequently voiced instructor
concern.
> None of them >ever tell me that "it's art" therefore it doesn't
have to
>be clean.
>
>They probably are hoping you won't notice it can't be cleaned in that
>amount of time.
>
>>They implore the activity for help in costs of practice sites to be
>given an >opportunity to grow and achieve more.
>
>Perhaps they could be persuaded to concentrate more on the quality of
>experience rather than the pressures.
>
>>Perhaps you have heard an isolated comment about art
>
>I'm not sure you can find anything BUT isolated comments about art in
>corps and guard. :)
>
>>or perhaps that has become a sarcastic comment offered by others to
you
>who >have no clue about how we apply standards of art to this
activity.
>
>Arts [and artists] understand their medium. Once that is understood,
>then standards can be discussed productively.
>
>>Well, it's not "Art," it's BORING. It's cheap, worthless, and it
teaches
>your >guard members that the best way to win is the EASY way, and
since
>>EVERYONE ELSE is doing it, well, that makes it RIGHT. Someone,
please
>>prove me wrong.
>
>There is some truth here.
>
>>I am happy to offer input for your consideration but this final
comment
>>challenges my patience just a little. NOTHING which creates a
learning
>>opportunity is cheap or worthless, and obviously you are not in sync
>with what >lessons these kids are learning.
>
>Depends on the objective. Some are worthier than others. Problem
is,
>competition tends to blind us to the worthier ones.
>.............................................................|
>
>So, as you can see, our real challenge (even for those devoted to
>furthering "excellence" and "innovation") is first establishing and
then
>developing the correct technique which makes the marching arts an
>enriching, successful pursuit. For instance, it is better to teach a
>young rifle line to perfect a single toss which they can all catch
than a
>double toss which many will frequently drop. Technique in the
performing
>arts is not a crap shoot. Artists practice not only for perfection,
but
>for consistency.
>
>Unfortunately, choreographed marching had great difficulty in
breaking
>the "design" mold of the 1970's (don't let the talk of "advancements"
>being made in this decade fool you - the advancements where the
>choreography were limited to what choreographers were able to explore
>once they finally summoned the courage to take enough artistic
license to
>reposition the pieces on their BINGO cards). The static and
superficial
>backlash of this pursuit only reinforced outside perceptions of the
>"conformist" stereotype of marching, thus discounting its artistic
>viability until Zingali (drum corps choreographed marching in the
1970's
>was able to transcend this to some extent, but only because correct
>marching technique was still being encouraged and passed on from
WWII).
>
>Which leads us back to Ken, who is also a product of the 1970's
>"conformist" mold which his education in design and architecture
coddled
>almost to the grave. The trouble with his argument for "redemption
in
>design" is it was already perfected by someone just as ignorant of
the
>performing art (2-D dance) as he is:
>
>>"Marching itself is not a form of dancing ... because the dominant
value
>is >uniformity,"
>
>Not only is this author clearly ignorant of the beauties of marching
>choreography, but he also is clearly unacquainted with the beauty of
good
>marching technique; the purpose of technical instruction; and the
body's
>natural instinct for coupling stride length, frequency; and even
style
>with the body's natural rhythmic processes. These facts are all
>supported by independent research, and the lack of popular awareness
of
>and experience with them through our activity is damning.
>
>>"which is not a dance value,"
>
>On the contrary, uniformity is a natural consequence of any rhythmic
>movement (and dance is inescapably rhythmic), resolved through
emphasis
>on correct technique. We are not aware of such instincts in this
>activity.
>
>>"and, of course, the context is not of dance" (Sparshott).
>
>*as this author understands it*. He has neither appreciated, nor
>understood the ramifications of 2-dimensional dance, which is every
bit
>as legitimate as homophonic ("2-dimensional") music and pre-
Renaissance
>(2-dimensional) painting. Three dimensional techniques in
>two-dimensional painting (the Renaissance, established by
Brunelleschi in
>1413) and polyphonic composition (via Equal Temperament established
by
>Bach in 1722), though considered the 65th and 43rd most important
events
>in the last millenium according to LIFE magazine, are *not* the
birth of
>these arts or their geniuses. DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF THREE-
DIMENSIONAL
>TECHNIQUES IN 2-DIMENSIONAL DANCE (choreographed marching) ARE
>ESTABLISHED ANOTHER THREE HUNDRED YEARS LATER. We stand at the
threshold
>of a new creative era, led by the art of the 21st century. A visual
>performing art this time, and humanities' most universal language.
>
>Ironically, "dance" was defined by the author earlier who used
Hannah's
>accepted criteria, all of which he didn't enumerate or examine
thoroughly
>enough to realize that they are all satisfied by marching: "(1)
>purposeful, (2) intentionally rhythmical, and (3) culturally
patterned
>sequences of (4a) nonverbal body movements (4b) other than ordinary
motor
>activities [marching choreography is *not* common, though many of its
>rudiments, as is the case with dance, are easily found], (4c) the
motion
>having inherent and aesthetic value" (p. 103). What is immediately
to
>the point is ... the demand is for uniformity in keeping to the beat,
>taking no other rhythmic consideration into account" (p. 488).
>
>Point #4b could use some amplification. Marching technique, though
>cultivated for planar clarity far beyond that used for walking, is
not as
>extraordinary (which is not to say it isn't inherently extremely
>beautiful) as marching choreography, which places extraordinary
demands
>on the 2-dimensional dancer.
>
>Sparshott's ironically entitled "A Measured Pace: Toward a
Philosophical
>Understanding of the Arts of Dance (1995), is otherwise an
interesting
>publication (the above quote was from Hannah's "Off the Ground:
First
>Steps to a Philosophical Consideration of Dance 1988, p. 325).
>
>Sparshott continues:
>>"Drill as such is not dancing. The emphasis is on uniformity in
>marching and in >weapons handling, in which it is presumed
>
>... assumed, actually, part and parcel ...
>
>>that the uniformity and the associated qualities of precision and
>"smartness" are >aids to military virtue as well as evidence of it."
>
>We sold him on that by perpetuating these values from our war veteran
>traditions. Zingali shook us free from this.
>
>Ironically, Sparshott stated one sentence prior:
>
>>"baton [twirling] is a sort of drill that has broken loose from its
>moorings and >been developed into a rudimentary dance form." (p.
325).
>
>He does not believe dance could be strictly 2-dimensional. Nor do
we.
>And yet if music and painting were limited to three-dimensions,
Gregorian
>chant and its homophonic antecedents through 1722 could not be
considered
>music, nor could any pre-Renaissance artist through 1413 be taken
>entirely seriously in two dimensional media.
>
>Interestingly, when Sparshott went into some relationships between
>language and dance, which were chiefly inconclusive (but which have
been
>outlined in 2-dimensional dance through Planar Analysis and
presented to
>the academic communities of Sociology and Visual/Cultural Studies),
he
>confessed he knew of no relationships. That's what happens when you
try
>to bite off the whole third-dimension!
>
>
>H8. MARCHING VS. MUSIC.
>
>>Hmmmmm....no stupidic props this season. Could life be a circle?
>
>We must assume this has something to do with marching.
>
><Stuart:>
>>>Gee Rick, what have I done to you?
>
>>The funny crack about music being secondary to marching was about
it.
>
>Gosh, I must've really hurt his feelings to make him pack up his
marbles
>by pointing out that fact. Tell him I'm out of Barney the dinosaur
>Band-Aids, but I'll send him one with a Winnie-the-Pooh on it if he
needs
>it. In fact, I'll send him an extra one to protect that part of his
ass
>that the door hit on his way out.
>
>>We have had enough crap from the marching/*design* community
dumping our
>>kids in competitions.
>
>And the marching community has had enough of the crap you dump in
*its*
>competitions because of your arrogant music "education" mentality
through
>which you look down your nose at the accompaniment of marching.
Heaven
>knows how you persuade kids to put up with it who work their butts
off
>trying to make sense of your spin on marching. This crap goes
straight
>from your inexperienced mouth through the miseducated minds of young
>misnomered "designers" to frustrated youth and the abused performing
art
>they labor over. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Ken.
>
>>I have one tape here by a marching caption lunatic who thinks he has
>some kind >of artistic talent.
>
>Must be a friend of yours.
>
>>He sees great revalations and has emotional orgasms over simple
forms a
>second >grader could sketch.
>
>You mean the same "simple forms" that you thought were so great at
the
>ypsi show? You know, you would make a great armchair philosopher if
your
>inconsistent arguments didn't make you such an obscure chameleon.
You
>and your "forms". You're a man running around onstage at the New
York
>City Ballet, trying to chase down Balanchine to complain about the
>quality of his finger painting. You're the second grader, Ken.
Grow up.
>
>>The kids want this marching artist to come to rehearsal and teach
them
>art >concepts. I dont think he will show.
>
>I'm sure he won't. Given the energy you invest squabbling over what
you
>don't know, I highly doubt you have the humility, inclination, and
>especially the time to invite someone out to do a clinic. Your club
has
>proven that so far. Consider that another futile challenge to
redeem it.
> And yourself.
>
>>The tape was THAT embarrassing.
>
>Terrible, isn't it. You'll have to file a complaint with the
Architect's
>Guild (*sarcasm* - this caveat's for you, Ken. Everyone else gets
the
>joke).
>
>>My students will march just fine.
>
>How many band directors ... oops, music "educators," have I heard
*that*
>from. They're so ignorant of the art we *didn't* sell them that even
>their biggest budgets can't buy it from Hal Leonard.
>
>>(and just think what I will do to these visual design / choreography
>bastards if I >teach this winter. Forget playing the drums. You MUST
be
>*in character* AND >*EMOTE*. Bullshit. )
>
>Sure, I know what you'll do. You'll have an aneurysm, like the last
two
>decades of ignorant band directors have in the absence of correct,
>standardized marching education and warped drum corps marching
>instructors.
>
>>We have had enough.
>
>Hallelujah.
>
>>The marching caption can not be trusted with these kids anymore. (in
>more ways >than one.)
>
>And why? Because instructors like you who haven't been taught
correct
>marching not only think you have, but also think that incorrect,
>inconsistent marching technical methods taught to someone dragging a
drum
>around the field qualifies them to teach the art. To say you're
ignorant
>of correct marching is an understatement. You wouldn't recognize it
if
>it bit you on the leg. Say what you will, but the truth is you don't
>know where to go for that instruction. Nobody in drum corps does.
And I
>can't help ‘till you shut up and sincerely ask for it, Ken.
>
>>Marching is totally secondary. When it became primary, the sheets,
the
>>technique art and the design art went into a tailspin.
>
>You're an argumentative type of guy, Ken. Given the fact that you
>haven't posted an argument here yet, let me state it in argumentative
>terms: the morphological, physiological, neurological, biomechanical
and
>developmental arguments were posted, with citations, by myself, and
were
>given no response in kind. Even the philosophical argument was
posted at
>RAMD Virtual Symposium 1997 (which you attended, presented, and no
doubt
>voted). But you ignored it, and decided instead to runaway and
hide.
>Thus, the argument is over, and YOU LOST.
> But just in case you would like to take a shot at it in the
>future, I suggest you review them before doing so. Here, again, are
>those twelve arguments, a Symposium repost of a repost of a post:
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>APPENDIX 1.
>
>The following was posted on RAMD December 19, 1994, and is adapted
for
>this paper.
>
>
> Marching is:
>
> 1. Marching is an emerging art form with its own audience,
> history and development, theory, forms of application and
>practice,
> and allied fields of research.
>
> 2. The value of marching and its choreography has, over
the
> millennia, increased in expressive power and aesthetic
>refinement
> independent of any other creative endeavor or medium of
> influence.
>
> 3. Marching is practiced in a wide variety of settings
and for
>a
> wide variety of purposes, some more aesthetic and
expressive
>than
> others. Marching is usually executed cooperatively and in
>concert
> with more than one form of creative expression.
>
> 4. Marching is one of the world's rare art forms derived
from
>both
> ritual and function.
>
> 5. Marching is one of the most widely practiced endeavors
> (aesthetically, socially, and politically) of mankind.
>
> 6. Drum and bugle corps today are the leading
choreographers
>of
> marching in the world.
>
> 7. Original planar choreography (marching "design") is
usually
> created annually for drum and bugle corps, whereas original
>drum
> and bugle corps music is usually not.
>
> a. Drum and bugle corps are not the leading
producers of
> original music in the world today.
>
> b. Non-original music has been employed in drum and
> bugle corps (in accordance with its original function) to
> accompany original marching.
>
> I. Drum and bugle corps music has generally
> accompanied drum corps marching throughout history and has
> generally reflected the developmental history of drum and
bugle
> corps marching.
>
> c. The musical repertoire of the drum and bugle
corps is
> usually adapted from other media, and is usually not
composed
>for
> the medium of the drum and bugle corps.
>
> I. The musical repertoire of compositions for
band
> is generally superior to the musical repertoire of the
drum and
> bugle corps, and consists mainly of compositions created
for
> bands.
>
> A. The band as a marching art has been
> driven, historically, by the interests of musicians who
have
> popularized music written for and formally derived from the
> accompaniment of marching in that medium.
>
> B. Drum and bugle corps frequently
> "borrow" band music for the accompaniment of drum and bugle
> corps marching.
>
> 8. The individual generally responsible for "creating" a
drum
>and
> bugle corps show is a "show designer," drill designer or
> choreographer of marching. A "show designer" usually does
not
> arrange or compose music for the accompaniment of their
work of
> choreographed marching or provide for the same, though
they is
> usually assisted by the musical arrangements (and sometimes
> compositions) of others who usually create music for
> choreographed marching without a knowledge of the
> choreographer's intentions. This material is usually
provided
> before the creation of a work of choreographed marching,
and
> usually acceptably enough serves the needs of a
performance of
> choreographed marching, though with little or no regard
for the
> content of the choreography itself.
>
> 9. The history of marching with musical accompaniment is
of
> more ancient date than the history of music with marching
> accompaniment.
>
> a. The demand for performances of marching with
musical
> accompaniment is greater today than the demand for
performances
> of music with marching accompaniment.
>
> 10. Most of mankind's enlightened and refined arts
consist of
> creative inspiration (1) received by a single individual
and
>(2)
> transmuted to physical or temporal form as a work of
creative
> expression (usually called "art").
>
> 11. Creative inspiration:
>
> a. Is necessary for creation, creativity, and
aesthetic
> experience.
>
> b. Can be received by only one person in the pure and
> complete form for the creation of a single, original,
inspired
>work.
>
> c. May be disseminated to others by visual, oral or
>written
> instructions (who may also contribute to or disseminate
it).
>
> d. Is evidenced usually in (1) original creative
material
> appearing (2) in a given form, setting, or arrangement (3)
for
>the
> first time.
>
> I. Drum and bugle corps marching usually
contains
> more original creative material than drum and bugle corps
>music.
>
> A. Drum and bugle corps marching is
> usually a creation more inspired for drum and bugle corps
than
>is
> drum and bugle corps music.
>
> I. Drum and bugle corps or "drum
> corps" is generally a marching art.
>
> II. The choreographer ("show designer")
generally
> contributes more original material to a drum and bugle
corps
> "show" than any other single individual.
>
> III. Creative works which contain "borrowed"
> material are less pure than original material from a
creative
> standpoint.
>
> A. Choreographers of drum and bugle corps
> marching cannot serve the medium by "borrowing" material as
> well as they can by creating original material.
>
> I. Arrangers and composers of
> music cannot serve the drum and bugle corps by "borrowing"
> material as well as they can by creating original material
for
>the
> accompaniment of drum and bugle corps marching.
>
> ii. Arrangers and composers of
> music cannot serve the drum and bugle corps by composing
and
> arranging music as well as they can by composing and
arranging
> music for the accompaniment of drum and bugle corps
marching.
>
> d. Cannot be generated through cooperative
experience,
> though it may be received in this situation.
>
> I. Cooperative inspiration is an oxymoron.
>
> II. Inspired art is not created by the
cooperation
>of
> more than one individual artist or more than one creative
>medium,
> though it may be received or disseminated through other
> individuals or creative media in this situation.
>
> III. Creative inspiration is usually generated
in a
> creative medium of two or more elements principally
through the
> element with the greatest historical seniority.
>
> A. Drum and bugle corps marching is the
> creative element with the greatest historical seniority in
the
>drum
> and bugle corps medium.
>
> I. Arrangers and composers of
> music which accompanies drum and bugle corps marching
cannot
> serve the medium by composing and arranging music
> cooperatively for the accompaniment of marching as well as
they
> can by individual arranging and composition.
>
> 12. Choreographed marching today, as well as other
performing
> arts, is generally dependent on contributions of original
and
> adapted musical works for its appreciation, as are other
> interdisciplinary arts such as ballet.
>
> For anyone wishing to debate these arguments, I will be
happy
>to
> do so provided that (1) they CC: their comments to
> ser...@juno.com, and (2) they abide by the following rules:
>
> Please contend the above statements AFTER THE SYMPOSIUM
> VOTE IS CONCLUDED.
>
> - When contending for or against the above arguments (if
>against,
> please explain), please argue the statements themselves
and not
> inferences taken from them.
>
> - Be sure to base contentions with specific supporting
points
>with
> their source propositions.
>
> - For convenience, organization and efficiency in
disseminating
> your views (and in order to minimize fragmentation), please
> address the above list of arguments in its entirety. In
this
>way, you
> may be assured I will respond to any comments directed
against
> these statements.
>
> - Please feel free to start, AFTER THE SYMPOSIUM VOTE IS
> CONCLUDED, other "threads" on personal views regarding any
of
> the ideas listed above, but please do not plagiarize.
>
> - I move principles one through twelve, insofar as they are
>correct,
> be addressed and adopted for structural and instructional
> implementation by individuals and organizations professing
to
> serve the art of marching.
>
> Copyright ( C ) 1994 by Stuart Rice
>-------------------------------------------------
>
> These arguments were the first to be formally presented to the
>drum corps community on the subject, and therefore have seniority
(unless
>you can find any that pre-date these which I am obliged to pre-
empt).
>You are therefore obliged to address each and every one of them
before I
>need even to consider doing the same to yours. Tough luck.
> Marching has always been primary in drum and bugle corps,
modern
>and pre-modern. Audiences were paying to attend drum corps shows
long
>before they were buying recordings of our bastardized arrangements.
It
>became *obvious* that marching was primary when we finally had
someone
>worthy of the title of artist - Zingali, and when Salzman and the
like
>finally paused in their mission to "musicify" drum corps long enough
to
>look up and notice.
> But it took concessions in marching technique (don't confuse
it
>with ensemble, folks), made in the interest of illustrating the
creative
>possibilities of choreography at a time when the activity would have
>ground to a halt. If you think losing rudimental drumming was
tragic,
>imagine losing the activity which proves it ever existed. You have
your
>"designers" to thank for averting that.
> Now imagine losing any documented reference that the activity
>which gave birth to your art ever existed. You have people like me
to
>thank for the fact that anyone has any idea at all where to go
looking
>for the remains of rudimental drumming,. This doesn't even mention
the
>fact that rudimental drumming couldn't have found its feet without
the
>fundamental, more accurate measure of locomotion to build from.
> YOU'RE WELCOME.
> It's true - we also had no educational standards to maintain
or
>restore good marching. Now that bad technique has made the art
uglier
>and less enjoyable, we are paying the price for Zingali's haste to
save
>the activity. But we are learning along the way, as every fledgling
art
>form has. And the art will continue to progress down that path, in
spite
>of those who think the world revolves around the recycled stick
tricks,
>props, costumes, dance, equipment, and even music which it
accompanies.
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.