Jump to content

Tekneek

Members
  • Posts

    1,648
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Tekneek

  1. The problem seems to be that they submit for license in October, but don't hear back sometimes until May or June. What are they to do if they get denied the rights? That's pretty late in the production cycle to make any significant changes to the program.

    That being the reality we have, it would seem to me that the current cycle is not large enough. These things will need to be planned and committed to, for good or bad, much earlier and part of long term planning. Typically, there are at least 6-8 corps that know they will reasonably be in the top 12 each year. Such that they should, from the very beginning, be laying all the groundwork to secure everything well in advance as much as possible. They don't have to spend their off season months hoping to keep the organization alive and can afford the luxury of longer term planning and strategy. The rest of the corps might very well be uncertain they will even field a corps next summer, so their inability to commit to programs 18-24 months in advance might be reasonable. Is there any real reason, other than choice, that prevents the perennial top corps from engaging in this longer term planning?

    • Like 1
  2. It's because he's assuming the the individual corps are responsible for synch and mechanical rights, and that they should get those when they secure performing and arranging rights....which is absolutely *not* how the process works. At all.

    I assumed no such thing. You're talking about legal responsibility, as in who must legally be responsible for such an arrangement. There is nothing in copyright law that prevents a drum corps from working with DCI and whatever partners ahead of time to try to make sure that the proper clearances are obtained before the show is even put onto the field. They know exactly how they intend to use the different elements, which could then be pushed through the process. You don't have to have a finalized performance recording in order to pursue such clearance and rights arrangements.

  3. There were multiple shows where electronics were missing at times during the show. Judging from the behavior of people near the sound board, these outages were unexpected and unintentional.

    I would expect there to be some sort of indication in the scores that this happened, similar to a portion of the horn line missing notes. Otherwise, why even have any judging at all?

  4. The real problem is that we has copyright law in this country that allows for music that is decades old (from composers that have been dead for decades) to not be in the public domain.

    Copyright law is in serious need of reform. Public domain is all but officially dead at this point.

    It's a shame that the corps don't feel that having appropriate clearance is in their best interest. Having the ability to listen to records/tapes/CDs and watch videos of shows was a huge thing growing up. Not getting your crap in a row destroys that possibility. Nobody wants to watch a video with a black screen or silence for some portion of the show, and they certainly don't want to have that when listening to an audio recording.

    • Like 1
  5. I've advocated for less rules, even all-age, any-number of members, woodwinds, etc...

    My constraint is a function of time. You can use anything you want, but you have only 15 minutes to get it all done (enter, show, exit). That's 2 less minutes than now.

    Roll in the electronics, collect 140 volunteers from the stands, have them dance for 12 minutes, then disconnect and roll out the electronics. Rinse and repeat all summer.

  6. If we're gonna go that route...

    Better to use a patch for a sound than to make up for tubas when you have 16 of them...

    Better to use a patch for sounds than to use a pitch bender when the same effect can be done on a brass instrument.

    Should I keep going?

    As I've said before, sounds are one thing. When you go using brass patches it's a whole different thing, and should be against the rules honestly. If you can't play it on your instrument well enough to the point that you have to use a patch on a synth, you should just pack it up and go home in my opinion.

    Is there a rule that prevents a corps from producing all of the horn sound from the electronics and marching the brass as props?

  7. Great line from David Edelstein's review of Suicide Squad (in New York magazine):

    "Promiscuous CGI makes even the miraculous seem ho-hum."

    That's how I often feel about drum corps electronics (and sometimes about amplification).

    Amplification is great to the point that it allows someone to perform a pit instrument accurately without having to worry about banging on it loud enough to project the sound up to the pressbox. When it is used to employ elements that don't really work/fit onto the field and instead are toys used by staff/directors to pretend they are "pushing their artistic boundaries", it fails miserably. To this day, I have not seen any use of electronics or other use of amplification that I thought justified having it on the field. Not once have I ever thought, "Now that is something amazing that makes me happy they've made this rule change..." I keep trying, because I am apparently a bit of a masochist, but nothing has convinced me yet.

  8. DCI will be in a position where they have to get commitments from their partners during Championships Week that they will serve everyone equally and make sure that information is very visible. This is like going back in time 50 years.

    Ultimately, I think this law will get thrown out because it grants discriminatory rights to religious people that it does not grant to non-religious. I can refuse to serve you because of my religion while Bob cannot refuse to serve you because he has no religion. I cannot fathom why that should be alright.

    • Like 3
  9. I have found out that their website has been hacked, including their webhosting account being compromised. Attackers have created subdomains and are hosting phishing attacks from it. I can disclose further details through PM to anyone who can relay it to the corps.

    I can't tell, from the outside, the extent of the damage they may have caused given that they likely have complete access to everything connected to the hosting control panel for the account.

  10. From a few friends on staff there, I understand that Dr. Snead, the guard caption head, drill designer, and program coordinator all resigned finals week or soon after, and NOT in reaction from pressure to leave. So as the poster in the other thread states, I too think overhaul implies something different than perhaps what is really happening. I am curious as to why that many important people all leave at the same time.

    It is usually for personal reasons.

    From the baseless speculation department, they may have felt that their work was done and it was time for someone else to tackle the next challenges that the corps will face.

  11. Well, attendance is important, but what garfield was pointing out is that maximizing attendance was not the top priority in choosing the 10 year LOS contract. And regardless of those considerations, if attendance is growing, then it's fantastic news.

    Surely better than the alternative, but I would've thought they would've done better with the schedule certainty than they have.

  12. But the deal with Indy was never about the fans or getting more of them in the seats at the Can.

    So? If DCI is publishing attendance numbers, then attendance must mean something to them. From a business point of view, having your event at the same venue during the same part of the year each year, should really bring the people out. This is supposed to be a NATIONAL competition, so it is supposed to bring out a NATIONAL audience. When I attended, there were people from all over the country there.

    It was always about a favorable venue contract, environmental consistency for the corps, and linking up with a city that is home to many parallel performance arts activities.

    Yes, I get all of that. Why publish attendance numbers if they aren't important? Why bother attracting attention to it?

  13. I am glad historical numbers were presented in this thread. I would say it is disappointing that they weren't able to generate more momentum out of having the same Finals location for several years in a row. Given that people could have been planning travel so far in advance, the fact that it wasn't bringing more people out should be a concern (not something to pat anybody on the back about). Having to subsidize local sales, despite having years to market your annual events to the locals, is troubling.

  14. I realize fuel prices are a lot higher than they used to be, but what are the other reasons that tour fees/dues/membership/etc for corps have gone up way faster than inflation? Were people really paying close to $2000 (What cost $3000 in 2012 would cost $1916.95 in 1993) in 1993? I don't recall it costing that much to march with anyone back then, but maybe it was. That is the equivalent of $3000 in 2012, based on CPI inflation data.

  15. I too blame DCI for the touring model but as I said, if the director is business savvy, they should make decisions that will lead to success for their corps.

    So there aren't any changes that could be made, at a higher level, that might improve conditions? All that can, and should, be done is entirely at the level of director for each individual corps? Is that essentially what you're saying?

  16. Maybe if David Gibbs, etc. just had to give a speech thanking the lower corps (plural) for the excellent training their members received in the lower ranks, it would at least remind them on a yearly basis that they wouldn't be there without the lower corps. Then maybe their appearance fess wouldn't be at risk, and there wouldn't be shows that exclude them. Ah, pipe dream.

    Ultimately, anything that reminds them they are standing on the shoulders of others would be an improvement.

  17. No. Lower corps have the participant first. For an ENTIRE SEASON. The kids wears the uniform, sings the corps songs, rides the buses, eats, sleeps and breathes that corps. I can't imagine a BETTER situation for the lower tier corps to KEEP that kid. And yet that kid chooses to leave ...

    Why Brasso?

    In my experience, most of them were intending to leave from the beginning. They knew they weren't yet good enough to walk into the top corps and hoped they could get one season under their belt and leave. Here's the question... How many of these would the lower tier corps accept as members if they knew the member had no intention of staying? They might take some, but they might choose not to take others, and instead take a kid who never would want to leave (even if they might not be as a good a performer yet). They send some kids home, that never come back, in favor of kids who have no intention of staying. Maybe these kids should be honest and upfront about their intentions, so the corps can make informed choices as well.

  18. The problem that needs fixing is NOT that top corps are stealing kids. The problem is that kids audition for those corps and don't march elsewhere. The transfer fees do nothing to address the problem. There are PLENTY of kids auditioning -- they just want to march in their chosen corps and not elsewhere. Fix THAT and you're actually making a worthwhile change.

    That's also a good point. How many of them hand out audition details, contact numbers, etc, for people they are cutting. I'm guessing they simply do not care.

    As so many have pointed out, many of the performers in the top corps have marched elsewhere (at a lower tier corps). So those corps had (and have) first crack at retaining those kids. If a kid leaves a corps to perform next season at another (higher ranked) corps, who do you blame? The higher ranked corps didn't pay or recruit him. Why blame them? The fault (if there's fault to be assigned at all) lies with the lower tier corps who failed to engender the performer's desire to remain.

    I would say, from experience, that it isn't entirely true that they do not recruit them. I am personally aware of some famous names in the drum corps world talking up players from some corps to come out for them in the fall. Some even talking to members who are still in uniform at Championships.

    Why do those kids want to leave for the upper corps? Largely because those corps write better shows and teach their kids to perform them more effectively. So the magic bullet is: design shows your kids *want* to perform AND that are within their grasp to perform. And then teach those kids *all* the skills they need to perform it. If a performer thinks he's on a team that is ACTIVELY moving up, there's a good chance they're going to want to stay. Being part of a team that's moving UP is exciting as ####.

    Which really isn't a magic bullet at all, is it? These are things that most instructors and designers know. So the difference is (IMHO) ....following through.

    People want to stay if they prize loyalty above glory seeking. Of the people I've known that wanted to climb the ladder, some were looking for a better experience, some were looking for better instruction, but most were glory seeking for a championship. Let's not pretend it's more than that.

×
×
  • Create New...