Thomas 1

Brennan Thomas

Professor Vaughn

ENGL2089-012

22 November 2017

Dissonance: A Study of a Discourse Community in a Period of Change

The University of Cincinnati Bearcat Marching Band is a 250-member instrumental

music performance group composed of students from all majors and backgrounds. The group

performs at every home football game and other university sanctioned events. The band is under

the authority of the director, followed by assistant directors and other hired staff. A secondary

organization, the Band Council, manages social activities and other matters not directly related to

performance. The band itself is divided into sections by instrument, with each section under the

direction of section leaders. Recently, the band has acquired a new director, and the change in

leadership has affected both how the band is run and the interactions between members and

authority figures. The present research aims to establish the presence of a discourse community

within the marching band, and to examine how interactions within the band occur.

The concept of discourse communities existing within instrumental performance groups

is widely accepted. Linguist Ann Johns uses an orchestra as an example of a discourse

community:

To learn more about these communities, I interviewed a bassoonist in our city orchestra.7

Along with those who play oboe, English horn, and contrabassoon, this musician

subscribes to the major publication of the double-reed community, The International

 Thomas 2

Double Reed Society Journal. Though he has specialized, double-reed interests, he

reports that he and many other musicians also have general professional aims and values

that link them to musicians in a much broader community. He argues that all practicing

musicians within the Western tradition8 share knowledge; there is a common core of

language and values within this larger community. (Johns 503)

While Johns’ research establishes the presence of a discourse community within the larger

musician populace, it fails to analyze the communities that are present within a singular

ensemble. Prior research on marching communities notes the presence of discourse communities,

but rarely extend the analysis further into member interactions. There is also little research on

how these communities’ interactions shift during a period of significant change within the group.

The present research establishes the presence of a discourse community within the University of

Cincinnati marching band, observes how interactions within the community change during a

transition of authority, and studies how the division of marching bands into sections affect

members’ attitudes and interactions within the group.

According to linguist John Swales, there are six characteristics that define a group as a

discourse community:

1. A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.

2. A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.

3. A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide

information and feedback.

4. A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the

communicative furtherance of its aims.

 Thomas 3

5. In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific

lexis.

6. A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of

relevant content and discoursal expertise. (Swales 24-27).

By applying these characteristics to the University of Cincinnati marching band, it can be

established that there is a discourse community present. The band’s primary goal is to perform at

a high level to support various other groups in the UC community. Its website also states that it

“is focused on providing enjoyment to the band members and audience and has emphasized the

importance of a cohesive band dynamic” (1). Members of the group have a multitude of methods

available for communication. Directors use an application to send reminders and drill charts

directly to members cell phones, and an email list is used to send more thorough announcements.

A Facebook group also exists for general announcements, and individual sections have groups

for section-specific topics (2). Leadership often uses these methods of communication to send

out surveys regarding members’ attitudes, opinions, and ideas. Members with individual

inquiries can contact leadership directly through email (3). Members are expected to attend all

rehearsals and performances. Rehearsals are held twice weekly, with additional rehearsals by

section each week. Performances are scheduled as required, usually with several months’ notice.

Since these expectations are “how things get done” (Swales 26), the marching band thus

possesses the genres of rehearsal and performance (4). As a musical performance group, the

marching band clearly possesses a specific lexis. Musicians have generalized knowledge of

musical terms that are required to fully understand the requirements of a piece of music. In

addition to widespread musical lexis, the University of Cincinnati marching band has developed

its own specialized lexis with which to communicate, such as the acronym TUCBIDG (The UC
 Thomas 4

Band Is Damn Good), and the phrase “on the rail” to signify when members are expected to be

ready for the pregame performance (5). Membership in the band is allowed on the basis of an

audition to assess proficiency. Newer members are taught and integrated into the group by older

members, often section leaders, and all members defer to a hierarchy of authority that includes

the directors and elected officers (6). It is thus evident that the UC marching band satisfies all of

Swales’ criteria for a discourse community.

Now that it has been established that the UC marching band is in fact a discourse

community, it is possible to analyze the interactions within the community. The analysis in this

research was accomplished through observation of the bands interactions during rehearsals and

performances, as well as through a survey, created by myself, given to members of the

saxophone section. The survey was designed to gauge members’ opinions as to their status and

role within the band as an entire organization as well as their section’s role, their interactions

with authority, and their views regarding other sections.

As stated previously, the marching band has recently experienced a change in authority.

The previous director retired after several decades of instruction and a new director who had no

previous affiliation with the band took over. Unsurprisingly, many members of the band have

reacted negatively to an outsider taking the supreme authority role. One of the candidates for the

director position had been an assistant director for several years, and several members felt it

unjust that an outsider was preferred over an individual that had already been integrated with the

community. In addition, the goals of the new director appeared to differ from that of many of the

students. For years, the marching band had performed at an acceptable level under the previous

director. The new director, however, immediately set loftier goals, which did not align with the

previous ones. One student responded, “They are definitely trying to make examples of people
 Thomas 5

and establish stricter guidelines to counteract the newness” when asked how the change in

directors had affected their interactions with authority. It is interesting to note that the student

specified “to counteract the newness.” The student suggests that both the director and the

members are aware of the limitations of a newcomer in affecting the goals a discourse

community, no matter what level of authority the newcomer may have. The new director

therefore had to impose stricter guidelines to establish authority and impose new goals within the

community. An issue that stems from this is that of accessibility. In previous years, the director

had an open-door policy, so students that needed to communicate directly could do so. The new

director appears to have enforced the hierarchy, requiring that students communicate issues to

assistant directors. This creates potential issues, as many problems require the head director’s

attention and assistant directors do not always communicate well among the structure. One

student lamented, “if directors don’t communicate with the rest of the structure then it doesn’t

work at all.” Members of the band feel that their needs are not being taken seriously if they are

not important enough to require the attention of the director.

Despite the apparent dissatisfaction with the current state of authority within the

community, several members commented that the change in leadership has had a positive impact

on the performance of the ensemble. One student responded, “A new energy and drive has

developed,” while another stated “We’re preforming [sic] at a higher level then [sic] before.” It

should be noted that these are the same members who expressed frustration at the current

authority. While members are not satisfied with the steps the new authority is making, they do

accept that these steps are pushing the band into a higher level. This may reflect a profound

difference in goals. Many members do not care about what level the band performs at; that is not

their goal. For many, perhaps a majority, participating in the band is primarily a social activity.
 Thomas 6

This is not in line with the new director’s goal of a high-level ensemble. Therefore, while

members accept that the new director is improving the community as a performing group, they

feel that the way that goal is being accomplished stifles their own goal of socializing and having

fun, without having much of a time commitment. This is of course a generalization, as several

members have the same goal of a high-performance level as the new director, and are satisfied

with the changes made. However, the general mood of the ensemble is as stated above. The

differing goals of the members and the director created a dissonance within the community, as

the members feel their opinions and wants are not being given sufficient respect, and the

authority feels that the performers are not meeting the expectations of the ensemble. This issue is

not exclusive to the marching band. While examining the CCM Philharmonica, a prestigious

ensemble in the College-Conservatory of Music, Grace Hartman found that “The absent effort of

these students reflects their failure to enculturate themselves into the discourse community”

(Hartman 7). The students that have expressed distaste for the new authority have failed to

enculturate with the new goals of the community, and therefore do not put forth effort toward

these goals. With time, it is possible that the differing goals will become more aligned. The

authority may become more lenient and accept the casual nature that many members appear to

desire, or the ensemble may hold itself to a higher standard of performance. It is unclear at this

time which direction the goal of the community will shift, but a greater amount of

communication between levels of authority may be necessary for this to occur.

Another interesting component of marching bands in general is the division of the group

into sections by instrument. The band is divided into three main instrument types: woodwinds,

brass, and percussion. There are other visual components, such as color guard and twirlers, but

the present research focuses on the three instrumental groups. These three groups are then
 Thomas 7

divided further into sections, such as flutes and clarinets for woodwinds, trumpets and trombones

for brass, and pit and battery for percussion. This division is intended to help develop the

performance more quickly, as instruments generally play different parts in a single piece of

music and therefore require individual attention that does not necessitate the full band’s

participation. When asked how the section division helps to achieve the goals of the band, one

student responded, “By giving different sections different jobs to specialize in, you achieve a

greater product.”

Dividing ensembles into sections is a necessity for any creation of music, but it can create

issues with communication within the group. Working primarily with one subgroup within the

band limits interactions with members in other sections and causes other section members to be

viewed as “outsiders” despite being members of the same community. When asked about

interactions with members of other sections, one student responded that they “Don’t interact with

other sections as much because we aren’t always around each other.” These feelings can be

amplified by the authority of the band, depending on how the directors utilize section divisions.

In the UC band, much emphasis has been placed on the brass since the change in directors. Many

of the hired assistants are experience with drum corps, which are all-brass bands, and therefore

woodwinds tend to be pushed to the side during rehearsal. One saxophone player remarked, “I

think our section, like other woodwind sections, is resentful of the attention the brass always

gets.” This resentment, in turn, may be redirected towards brass players themselves.

Separate from rehearsal interactions, individual sections tend to gravitate toward specific

personalities. When a new member joins a section, the individual tends to assimilate and, spurred

on by both members within the section and generalizations from members outside of the section,

begins to adopt similar mannerisms and ideology regarding the band. This makes generalized
 Thomas 8

statements about a specific section, such as “trumpets have big egos,” surprisingly accurate. An

alto saxophone player stated, “Other sections are much more critical and mean to one another”

when asked about impressions regarding other sections. This may be referencing the stereotype

that upper woodwinds such as flutes and clarinets have more drama within their section than

other instruments. Members may also be aware of stereotypes regarding their own section, and

either reject or embrace them. A common stereotype about low saxophone players is that they do

not care about performing well and therefore do not try as hard. This implies that low saxophone

players view marching band as a social activity rather than a performance group. Many low

saxophones proudly embrace this stereotype. In fact, members of the low saxophone section in

the UC marching band have been the most vocal about their dissatisfaction with how they are

being pushed under the new director. However, a few members reject stereotypes given to their

sections. This can create tension within a section, as members are required to be in proximity

with individuals who do not share their ideology regarding the group’s performance. One low

saxophone player has expressed frustration at her section for not striving to perform at the

highest level possible. This has resulted in multiple arguments, when some members do not think

others are performing well enough, while the other members believe it is not a significant issue.

The stereotypes about sections can help members to find a group where they best fit in, but can

also lead to large amounts of tension among members if they do not agree.

The University of Cincinnati marching band has entered a period of significant change

from past years. The changes appear to have improved performance level, as well as heighten

member anxieties. The issues of individuals within the community may be simply a result of

stress due to a change in leadership, but also may reflect a significant difference in goals between

members and authority. These differences will need to be resolved for the group to work towards
 Thomas 9

a unified goal. This is true of all discourse communities, as a singular goal must be established

between all members for any community to operate. The band is a unique form of discourse

community in that it is subdivided by nature. This allows for interactions within a community,

but between subgroups, to occur. While these subdivisions are necessary for a band to function,

they often create undue tension between members and can lead to interactions that do not benefit

the bands goals. Tensions from both a change in leadership and section differences make it

difficult for goals to be achieved, but – based on reactions from both members and outsiders –

the band continues to work through these obstacles and excel.

 Thomas 10

Works Cited

Hartman, Grace. "Written Word in an Aural World." (2014): 7. Web. 21 Nov. 2017.

“History of the Band.” University of Cincinnati Bearcat Bands, University of Cincinnati Bearcat

Bands, 2017, www.ucbearcatbands.com/home/about/history-traditions/.

Johns, Ann. "Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership, Conflict, and

Diversity." Writing about Writing: A College Reader. 1st ed. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and

Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 499-518. Print.

Swales, John. "The Concept of Discourse Community." Genre Analysis: English in Academic

and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990. 21-32. Print.

Thomas, Brennan. “Band Survey.” Survey. 19 Nov. 2017.