Stu

> I have always seen them classified as a percussion instrument, and as such, I consider them one. There was a time before you were born where aerophones were "not" classified as percussion instruments; and your admitted acceptance of them now is clearly based on the fact that you have never "seen" them classified otherwise. Well there was a time before a person born in 2009 where synths were not classified as pit percussion instruments in DCI. So, utilizing your reasoning, a person born today can in the future accurately say they are acceptable instruments in a drum corps because they will have always "seen" them accepted as such in DCI. > if rules changes DETRACT from the product... That statement is nothing more than a subjective opinion; some will say Detract, others will say Additive.

I did not say aerophone "auxiliary" instruments were woodwinds; I said that they were "wind instruments" being classified as percussion which in turn somewhere down the line of history caused a definition change in the term percussion instrument. Moreover, even you have to admit that there was a time, long ago though it may be, in which areophones were thrust upon percussionists by composers and the definition of percussion was therefore forced to change. And since today you, and the three college professors, two who are also drum corps judges, as well as those above them, all accept instruments which produce sound by wind instead of striking as percussion instruments, to be consistent, you must also accept the ever changing definition of a Drum Corps for the same reasons. Otherwise your acceptance of one musical changing definition but not the other creates for you a sort of belief structure dilemma. Also, I am not for banning anything; what I am for is accepting various rules changes as long as the rules do not change mid-season for a competitive organization. If the rules prior to a season "add" something then it is fine with me; if the rules prior to a season "ban" something that is also fine with me. To me we are talking about a competitive art form which needs to have a set of rules yet is open to change according to consensus of a voting body. (We are not talking about a life/death situation here). Now, it is your turn to have fun showing me the errors of "my" ways!!!

Brasso, Charlie, and MikeD: In the United States we have Football, but the foot only touches the ball around 1 percent of the time during an entire game whereas the hands touch the ball around 95 percent of the time; There is nothing Stock anymore in the National Association of Stock Car Racing (NASCAR); yet these names are still applied in a respect to tradition. So why can't the title Drum Corps follow suit as it morphs over time?

Jeff: Check you music history. Aerophons have "not" always been classified as percussion. Those wind instruments were put in the hands of percussion players by composers "before" they were designated as auxiliary percussion, then the conductors had the percussion players perform on those instruments, then the aerophone instruments became accepted as played by percussionists, then and only then was the definition of "auxiliary percussion" coined for those instruments; at that point the shift in the definition of percussion had to change to accommodate the areophones.

Thank you Mike for being consistent; now what about Jeff????

Jeff and Mike: You both have “agreed” so far with the following: Usage of various implements can create definition change (the introduction of aerophones caused the definition of percussion instruments to be altered not the other way around); Definitions can change over time; and Authoritative Pronouncements make those definition changes official. So…. for you to be consistent with that belief structure, if enough corps’ convince the drum corps Authorities upon high to make pronouncements over time allowing Bells, then Dancing Guards, then Grounded Keyboards, then Bb horns, then amps, then synths, then guitars, or even the possibility of allowing future woodwinds, and many of the corps’ integrate these instruments into their programs, the official definition of Drum Corps can also officially change over time. Or would you like to rethink your acceptance of aerophones as being defined as percussion instruments?

Thank you; waiting for Jeff to reply.

Mike and Jeff Next question: So you accept that musical definitions are not set in stone, and therefore definitions can change over time as well as change according to authoritative pronouncement?

> You are DCP's very own Devil's Advocate! I am told that I look like this -->

Mike: It is true that music dictionaries classify these instruments as "auxiliary percussion". However a person has to accept the fact that for this to occur the definition of percussion had to be altered from strictly striking, shaking, and scraping to accommodate these aerophones within the percussion section. So, I take it that you accept that definition alteration change of percussion? (I still am awaiting a reply from Jeff on this same question).

DCI could be wrong, or they are wrong? The word usage is important. But more importantly, in your opinion, it is wrong to have non-brass wind produced instruments in the percussion section of a drum corps? I will wait for this answer with much anticipation!!!

So, let me get this straight. The three college professors, two who are DCI judges, and the experts above them think that the proper way to produce a sound on a slide whistle, a bird call, and a samba whistle is by “striking” them? Well by golly, I have been playing the darn things wrong all these years!!! I have used my breath (ie wind) to produce sound from them. So could it be, is it possible, that those “experts” are wrong in their assessment and those instruments are actually wind instruments played by percussionists?

> I would think you would learn more at a "lower" corps. The "upper" corps membership includes people that normally require less education, so they center on training. I agree with you in the sense that there is more learning of the fundamentals in the lower level corps', like learning math at a Junior College; but to say nothing much is learned by those performing with the upper corps' is like stating there is not much learning going on in a PHD Program at and Ivy League school. > Most of the things listed above in the quote are all about ego. Granted, there are performers that need that ego rush, but not all need it, or even want it. Ego in of itself is not a bad thing; and it is possible to have humility, humbleness, and ego at the same time. It is only when it turns into condescending rhetoric that ego turns sour. Just look at the character difference of David Robinson and Dennis Rodman; both have egos, but Robinson also exhibits humbleness and is never condescending to others. And, once DCI moved into the realm of Major League this "ego" of which you speak entered the picture. And for competition success, I contend that "ego", good or bad, propels the New York Yankees to all of those world titles and it is "ego" which propels the Blue Devils to all of their world titles. Any person without ego and ambition will not become successful at competition. And if competition is not important in DCI, then why hold auditions and keep score?

> You fully support the contention of the original G7 proposals that the top corps are something better than all the rest, and therefore more deserving of receiving the larger portion of the funds generated by DCI? No, I do not agree with the original G7; they wanted to relegate all non-G7 WC corps' to an inferior position without any regard to quality of performance or placement, and they wanted to eliminate support for the Open Class all together. That is dictatorship and is an atrocity. What I am stating is that there are experiences gained at the upper level which are non-existent at the lower level and due to the lack of those experiences at the lower level the financial burden to the performer should cost less. As a corps climbs higher in the ranking, the experiences also rise, and so should the performance dues to march in that corps. Just like it costs more to go to a high ranking university more than a typical junior college. So, lets say The Academy bumps into the top twelve, then the top six, then the top 3, then becomes the Grand Champion, each of those stages brings with it higher and higher experiences. > Since their programs are more valuable, they should cost more to run as well, right? The problem of cost mainly comes into play when a lower level corps staff wants to "immediately" travel as much as an upper division corps; this skyrockets their fuel, food, insurance, staff compensation, etc... However, if a lower corps begins with the expectations of incremental growth, they can start small with lower performer dues, then grow slowly and increase their dues according to their competitive success. DCI is not an exclusive club like the G7 wanted; and I despise their effort to make it so. I believe that "Any" corps should be able to climb that experiential ladder and become a top corps, but it should cost the performers less and less as they audition for corps' the lower down competitive chain.

I get to have some fun going up against Jeff on this one! Many Wind Instruments have been placed in the Percussion section by Orchestral Composers; but that does not make them Percussion Instruments, they are still technically Wind Instruments. Here are definitions from Merriam-Webster proving my contention: Percussion: The Beating or Striking of an Instrument; Percussion Instrument: A Musical Instrument making sound by Striking, Shaking, or Scraping. Wind Instrument: A Musical Instrument making sound by wind; especially the Player’s Breath. So if they are fine by you to be in the percussion section of a Drum Corps, it appears to me that you are you willing to accept "non-percussion, non-brass wind instruments" in the Drum And Bugle Corps activity. Correct?

> the drum corps experience doesn't diminish when you leave the "top". I am not knocking lower division corps'; and I certainly see value in them as it applies to many things one can receive in upper corps' such as education, social networking, travel, entertainment, and performance. But anyone who has ever been in a corps contending for the World Class title can attest that there are Diminished Experiences the lower the ranking (which unfortunately come across as elite egoism to those who have never had those experiences). The "diminished" experiences of lower division corps' include: Not competing for the gold, silver, or bronze; Not performing in front of the huge audience that materializes for the top six at WC finals; Not going on under the lights at local shows; Not rehearsing as long due to the need to get to the show site earlier; Not receiving instruction for the most successful designers and instructors in the business; and a multitude of others diminished experiences. And it is because of these diminished experiences that lower corps' should cost less to be a part of than upper corps.

The cost-benefit ratio is up to the individual; and I currently believe it to still be acceptable at the "upper World Class level". However, I personally do have a problem with a lower level Open Class yearly dues being just as high as an upper level World Class dues. If academic institutions reflected drum corps', yearly fees at Junior Colleges would cost the same as the yearly fees at Ivy League Schools.

a) There was a sax player I ran into who name dropped all the time that he had played with this famous cat and that famous cat; come to find out all that had happened was he would go around to open mic nights where occasionally pros showed up and the guy would jump up on stage for half a chart with these cats which in his mind constituted resume material as, "Yes, I played with such and such cat". This sounds eerily similar to the way Howdy makes his claims of notoriety. b) There is a really funny NASCAR commercial where a high school guy obsesses over a beautiful girl and he is in Love; they attend school together, walk in the halls together, so technically they are associated with one another, and he wants to paint a NASCAR as a Love care in her tribute; the funny tag line is at the very end where the girs says, "Who?". In real life it appears that Howdy is the guy (in this case holding an Olympic Medal in his hands) and Olga Korbut is the girl!!!

> The problem we have is that we cannot seem to separate execution from content I am all for receiving judging credit for high execution, and please realize that I am not knocking the history of drum corps; however, with that in mind, which is more "exciting" and "entertaining" to watch from the perspective of the audience, I mean really: A 2010 Drum Line performing all over the field with awe inspiring spectacular maneuvers (ie content), or a 1980 Drum Line pretending to be an perfectly aligned "elevator" on the 50 yard line for the shear sake of minimizing ticks (ie execution)? > They had to be in a tick system, as there was less margin of error. At that time an error was an error, regardless of the content. I think today we tend to make concessions for performance based upon the content. Of course the Tick was clearly Objective in nature and not Subjective, correct? And if you claim Objective, what percentage of an inch out of form alignment qualified as a Tick? What percentage out of foot angle alignment qualified as a Tick? What percentage out of rifle angle alignment qualified as a tick? What percentage of stick height misalignment qualified as a Tick? And, how were those Ticks "accurately" measured? The only thing a (strict) Tick System did was make corps' scared to experiment with spectacular drill content so as to please a microscopic minded judge looking for what could be subjectively determined as a mistake.

Hey Jeff: My interaction with Howdy in another thread has moved me from a -29 to a -5 in just two days; and I have even placed in my signature space a request for people who agree with me to give me a red negative!

> Still...finals is the end game, the reason we go all summer. it SHOULD have bigger attendance. It used to do just that. The question or questions is why Doesn't it? My opinion on falling Finals Attendance: 1) Lack of “unpredictable” excitement from the placements from regionals to finals; for example a Seattle Seahawks type group with a losing record will never in a million years knock off a previous years grand champion New Orleans Saints type group during finals week. 2) Although there is somewhat of a quality variation, there is not that much of a change in “the top 12 show” from regionals to finals(and the super bowl or world series analogy does not apply due to number 1 above). 3) Not much interest in people becoming Grateful Dead type groupies following corps' from regionals to finals. 4) A person can go to a regional within driving distance, see all corps’ perform, and then use the other portion of their expendable income on something else they enjoy equally as well. My "Utopian" Fix: 1) At local shows and regionals no public announcing of scores, just placements (corps' would be judged and receive feedback from judges and receive their own score, but not any other corps' score, privately); during finals week only announce advancements from prelims to simis and simis to finals; then publicly announce scores and placements during the Finale Retreat after the finals performance. This will help keep the public suspense going all the way until finals. 2) Never have "all" of the corps' compete at one venue until prelims of finals week. Make the regionals half WC corps and half OC corps and mix up the corps at each regional. This will mean for anyone to see all corps together in one place they have to travel to finals.

> I was not treated properly. I knew you looked familiar; you are the guy on the couch on the Geico commercial who says that the color Yellow makes him sad! > As for Chris please don't kick the guy when he is down. This is not about Chris; I am not holding anything against him; I truly believe that he was a very impressionable teenager who was grossly misguided by an irresponsible adult; and three guesses on which adult I am referring to! > I am a brass guy. Call me pragmatic I have over 30 years experience teaching marching and brass and I know what works. I was taught by the best, and blah, blah, blah... Congratulations!!! You are certainly a legend in your own mind!

Are you kidding?!?! Everyone has the right to post their own opinion (as long as it is not malicious in nature and follows the proper protocol of DCP). However, there is no such "right" mandating others to respect that opinion in existence; not even in the Constitution of the United States! In a free society, Respect, and for that matter Disrespect, is earned.

> Bring Drum Corps back on ESPN2! Go find out how much DCI had to fork out to get the ESPN2 package and then re-post. > I’m not the brightest lamp in the room but it does not take a rocket scientist to know that attendance is off. At larger huge venues like MTSU that may be the case. But at local shows where the corps’ perform at high school stadiums the majority of shows are near sell-outs. > Lucas is symmetrical, so the comparison of attendance on the home side of both stadiums is probably negligible. It is an illusion; if the same number of people attended a show in Bloomington and Indy, it would “appear” that there were more people at Bloomington. Also, it is more exciting to perform in a stadium where the home side appears packed than a huge symmetrical one in which looks mostly empty. And that illusion is vital concerning the psychology of marketing an event! > If there were more local small-venue shows in my area I would go. That is up to local sponsors not DCI and the up-front fee to get the elite WC corps is a rather large gamble. Also, if you go west from Georgia there are a bunch of Local shows. > The Interaction between audience and performing corps is ESSENTIAL. Drum corps is more like a rock concert in those terms then a orchestra concert or play or musical. Sometimes I think DCI forgets that the venue has just as much an effect on the performance then any other factor. Yes, Yes, Yes! If it appears to the public that a smaller event is "packed" as they drive by, as opposed to seeing a "sparse looking crowd of the same size" at a large venue, then more people will be curious to enter the next time around because it appears "everyone" is going to that event. And lets face it folks, no DCI corps will ever have the following of U2 or the Rolling Stones!

> One only has to look in the stands or read on DCP to see that attendance is way off the mark at shows and at finals. Over the past three years I have been to many local shows all around the nation as well as regionals and finals. To me it is a venue capacity issue not a shear numbers issue. Every local show that I went to was packed to overflow; this is because 2,000 people at each show were attending an event at stadiums with 2,000-seat capacities. Finals in 2008 was pretty well packed and the energy was high, but the stadium capacity was much smaller than Lucas. When you have 25,000 people attending finals a venue that holds 30,000 it is a packed house, almost a sellout, and energy levels are high for both the audience and performers; but when you have 25,000 attending a venue that seats well over 60,000, the attendance looks rather sparse and it can seem dull in comparison. Therefore the problem is "not" lack of attendance because if you address the percentage of ticket sales vs seating capacity at local shows DCI is doing very well; but the problem is directors like GH thinking the elite corps' should be able to pack Lucas, the Alamo Dome, etc. at the same percentage of capacity in which they pack a standard high school stadium for local shows. My solution, but like every other paltry nobody has no sway with DCI, would be to hold the regionals and finals at University stadiums like Bloomington or Madison instead of Pro stadiums like Indy or Atlanta.