Leaderboard

Dude, please stop. I've tried to let you go on this, but come on. I was in that hornline, if anyone would know what was making that sound, I think it would be me. Just let it go, we all know you hate amps and synths, but stop saying that every loud moment from a drum corps show is because of the electronics! That entire impact was only the hornline. There was a synth part, but it was not during the impact. That part was pulled before Finals Week. let it go, you can keep your stupid little delusions, but please, stop trying to take down good drum corps shows because of it.

Right... nobody prefers older technology... because nobody prefers classic cars, I don't know people who still use notepad for software development, nobody ever complains about cell phones, there aren't people who prefer older movies or music to the movies and music of today, and everyone prefers modern art over classic art. You are right, progress in drum corps is completely different

I am less impressed since I marched, which is unfortunate for me, IMO. I try to step away and watch as a fan, but I watch shows a lot more critically than I did before I marched. just want to clarify it has nothing to do with what the kids are doing on the field, just that since I have done it, the people on the field are no longer doing "something that I could never do." I hope in time I will be able to watch less critically again.

Ok, 34 pages. PIONEER had a much better show in 2010, just everyone else stepped it up. Lots to do for this Drum Corps but, I sure am pulling for them in 2011. Go PIONEER.

i'll always be impressed by what kids do in dci, even if i don't continue to like the direction the activity is going.

I would pay money to see the BOSTON CRUSADERS 2010 live one more time.

I had been out of the arena for quite some time prior to attending shows again this previous season, and while there are some aspects of modern Drum Corps that don't completely appeal to me, I admit I was indeed very impressed. Crown has one of the most beautiful horn lines I've ever seen, Cavs guard was simply amazing, and yes, Blue Devils left me stunned for several minutes... I was completely blown away. Impressed? Hell yeah - and mighty eager to see this coming season!

I think its a silly notion to add a "fan friendliness" caption in general. The main reason, is who decides the criteria? And what are those criteria? If we look at DCP, then the only thing that will get any point is a standstill arc playing malaguena (again). People say they are angry because "un-fan-friendly" shows are winning from time to time... but hey, IM a fan! do I not count? Just because spectator A and spectator B have different opinions, how do they decide? I cant think of a less reliable method of judging than that. I once judged a "Battle of the Bands" and the head of the organization was a well noted producer and he specifically mentioned that we should eliminate the "Crowd response" caption on the standard judging sheet because it would encourage groups that brought the most spectators or groups doing ridiculous things just to get a response and would take away from the real criteria. I agree wholeheartedly. Some people will say "Applause-o-meter". Again, we will have people doing silly things just to draw a reaction, not to mention that we would have to outlaw "home town" shows for the season. DCI would also have to regulate how many fans each corps members brings in because everyone knows that their son/daughter/friend/nephew/neice/cousin are in the BEST corps. I remember a buddy of mine once brought in 35 spectators to a show in Maryland. Impressive # but under a "Fan friendly" caption, we would not get honest "evaluations". Maybe we hand the whole audience a scoresheet? same exact issue. Nobody can (or should) hide their bias. People should go nuts for whoever they want to and it should NOT affect the score. Until every fan has "Their corps" win, the system will always be "flawed". "I wanted the ______ to win!!! This system sucks! The judges dont know what their talking about!!!!!" says the average fan. If you ask Ma and Pa Smith whos son marched 92 Marauders, they just KNOW for a FACT that they were better than the Cavaliers that year. Same with Momma and Poppa Jones whos daughter was in the 1985 Freelancers KNOW for a FACT that Freelancers were better than Garfield. In other words, fans are fans because of personal connections at least half of the time. So yeah... its a nice thought, but it aint happenin and rightfully so.

MikeD-19,839 Posts Mello Dude-648 Posts Also, your media without restrictions or "uniqueness", is what we in the world call marching band.

Gee, 38 years ago was my LAST marching year, yet each and every year I am amazed at what the members do on the field, and the talent of the designers/instructors who provide such great shows for them to perform.

I did, in fact, post specific examples.

No I mean, if they took out his chord during the impact, what part was he playing instead?

There are still balance issues within various sections of the corps micced or not...and its been decades and decades of time to fix them.

Though I am curious, what did they change the synth player's part to during the impact?

That's a ludicrous statement. I doubt anyone who's ever even listened to a drum corps recording would go near that claim. I wasn't referring to Finals. Huh? That show was probably my third favorite of the season. Wanna know where I was during the impact? Participating in a mid-show standing ovation (a rarity these days), with my arms outstretched. I can point myself out to you in the high cam video if you don't believe me.

I didn't record any quantitative data, no, but I could have. So no, no science here, just what I remember thinking. Recently I remember Phantom's horns losing a lot of clarity thanks to the pit amps during the ballad at the West Chester show, and pretty much whenever the Crossmen played anything fast. Same thing with Blue Stars at finals towards the end of their opener. There's tons more times I remember thinking that during shows; I could go on. Isolated incidents but It's more of a general observation.

No, it wasn't. There was very clearly someone jamming down his fingers on a synthesizer whose volume was turned up to eleven. It was very noticeable and approached the brass sound in volume. Except one was an acoustic brass sound and the other was an electronically produced sound with zero acoustic analog, whose volume was entirely artificial and at the whim of a knob.

Pretty much any time both the pit and the hornline are playing when the hornline is at mezzo-forte or below.

Any you particularly have in mind from this past year?

Thunderous goo sounds just as bad outside as it does inside. But at least outside, you can hear the hornlines clearly. Actually, I take that back. A lot of hornline clarity is noticeably lost even from the pit amps it seems.

The funny part is people actually think that whatever "instrument" the thunderous goo is trying to emulate (nothing, really) could possibly blend into a brass ensemble. Sticks out like a sore thumb.

I honestly think the amps sound a lot worse now than they did back in, say, 2005. Back then I never noticed some of the problems I do now.

Has anyone ever played a fugue while doing the same thing visually? I always thought that would be cool.

How long do they need? A good soundman needs about 2 minutes..drum corps need a decade? There's a reason it's been horrible to date...it just doesn't fit.

Speak for yourself. Nothing more cringe-worthy than three trumpets screaming into a microphone on the front sideline when you're ten feet away from an amp. Most of Bluecoats' show was physically painful to my ears. I remember semifinals ending feeling extremely disappointed; luckily Star of Indiana (worth the price of admission alone) made forget about what I had just heard...

And I don't disagree with you. But I'm just a lowly poster on an internet forum. I don't suggest rule changes or vote on them. In a perfect world, everyone would get the drum corps of their preference. But I still have to pay taxes and the world is not idyllic. Regardless, I think the focus is still on brass and drums and guard. Most corps out there have experimented with the tools that are now available to them, to varying degrees of success and acceptance. But I still see corps out there marching, playing, hitting, and spinning. And for the record, regarding the 2011 Cadets, I've heard a bit of what they're doing brass wise. It's pretty effin' sweet.

An extremely valid point.... ... but only if we assume that the definition of drum corps was set in stone. Obviously, it is not. Rule changes and additions have redefined what corps can do and how they do it. Now, we can (and do) argue the merits of these changes. But is the "unique creativity" really in danger of going extinct? The subjectivity of this art form really doesn't allow for a right or wrong answer, IMO. It's like telling Van Gogh, that instead of using just oils, he can now use oils and acrylics and watercolors. And charcoal if he wants to get freaky with it. Yes, I understand the slippery slope this creates with regards to woodwinds, but as such with everything in life, I will cross that bridge if and when I come to it.

When do I get to hit the green "plus" button again?

Rifuarian summed it up quite nicely. Many don't see the recent changes in drum corps as "progress" in that field at all, while no one would make that claim about technology. That's the crux.

I'm pretty sure electronics and mics were more expensive back then and weren't as readily available as they were today. The personnel needed to use electronics was also probably not readily available to 1980's drum corps. I mean these were corps that could barely afford to travel down the road in their crappy buses! I think corps now (in a general sense some are not so lucky) are "richer" now then they were in the 80's. So that heart beat change I think is not so likely... Also, it would be impossible for 1980's DCI to know if 2010 shows would be appropriate. It's like saying... If people in the middle ages thought that Cubism would have been appropriate art expression they would just start painting faces in cube shapes because the materials that they needed to do that were readily available (paint, brush and canvas). But that doesn't make any sense. No one at that time realized these ideas so they wouldn't just randomly make that switch. Frankly, your point is a little ambiguous... Could you clarify please? Your entire argument?

No comparison of the evolution drum corps to the evolution of technology can ever be valid.

Exactly. My only point is that no comparison of the evolution drum corps to the evolution of technology can ever be valid.

I would say, like Mr. Boo said, That not all technological progress was good like the computer, and some progress was also indifferent too. The indifferent evolutions can be seen in Art for example. Look at the number of evolutions art had gone through from Classical, to Middle Ages, to Renaissance to Pre-Modern to Post-Modern... I mean, that certainly evolved but at the same time one can't prove that one age of art was better than another in an empirical sense. But we of course have our preferences. so evolving doesn't necessarily mean it's to better or worse, it just means its different.

Agreed. Absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Sure. I'm only talking about technology available at the time, not how long the proposals would have taken to pass. Please reread my argument. Bb marching trumpets, amps, and electronics were all readily available in 1980. (I did leave out the change in percussion instrumentation erroneously.) No idea. With so many people averse to statistics in this community, I doubt we could find a legitimate answer any time soon. Of course it's not going to happen. Nothing, again, to do with my argument.

Ah, this. This analogy gets thrown around a lot, but can't escape a serious flaw: the way technology has changed can be seen as nothing but progress in that field. No one complains that operating systems or processors or what-have-you were produced much better twenty years ago than they are today. No one would pine for the days when they could use the hardware and software of the "golden age" of computing instead of today's top-of-the-line multi-core setup or computer that you literally keep in your pocket. It's progress in every sense of the word, in that what was achieved in 1995 could have not physically been achieved five years prior, and technology of 1985 would have seemed like a dream in 1980. (If the travel industry had progressed at the same rate that the computer industry did since its inception, by now we'd be able to travel to the opposite side of the world in a few seconds, no questions asked.) So here's the kicker: if DCI had decided that a format for shows similar to that of today would have been appropriate for 1980, with amps, electronics, spandex guard uniforms, Bb/F scholastic marching band horns, and an emphasis on visual, they could have made the switch in an instant, from one season to the next (aside from today's geometric drill that computers have helped make possible). Tons of people want the only form of drum corps to be like it was in 1985. They liked it better, they thought it sounded better, they were more entertained, they felt they got their money's worth more so than today. People have their reasons. Yet no one wants the only form of technology to be like it was that year. No one wants to plunk down $4000 on a 30-year-old Tandy as their next computer. That's a crucial distinction for any argument about "change" and "progress" in drum corps. Bottom line: in 1980, no one could have fathomed the research and development that would transpire in the next 30 years to arrive at something like the iPhone. That same year, the DCI rule changes that would have had to happen to see shows like we did in 2010 had long since been history in the marching band world.

apparently not, from your comments.

I think it depended on which rules were in play at the show, but you may be right. I remember 11:30, but that may have been from when I started judging and teaching.

This isn't anything new. The science of aesthetics is a very dynamic topic. And obviously there are always scientific reasons why certain people like a certain thing. Why certain faces are more attractive than others for example. No one disagrees with this here. There is always cause and effect. But the Causes aren't usually from just one source (say the drum corps show) but can also come from all of our past experiences and emotions that are "triggered" in our mind by an outside force like the music, and visuals of drum corps show. Again, what your saying here is simply that drum corps can be studied scientifically. Fine. Anything can be studied scientifically. But I think that in general you over simplify the science assuming people who respond "positively" to a single drum corps moment do so in the same way. When in fact the number of variables that can occur in a single drum corps moment combined with all the variables that can occur in a person's mind make studying why performances or moments are "emotional" extremely fruitless. I think that even if you were able to figure out why 800 out of 1000 people "liked" a single drum corps moment the scientific reasons would have such variety that the information would not be able to translate from one moment to another. in the best case scenario in this scientific study is that your able to figure out reoccurring aesthetics that are consistently seen positively and then drum corps designers use this information to create shows. The down side is that relying on this science only pushes towards the use of aesthetic principles that have worked in the past and not those aesthetic principles that have yet to discovered or revealed in drum corps. So, while creating a better show today from "Yesterday" is good, relying on the aesthetic science alone does not allow us to expand what we find aesthetically pleasing since as you know, aesthetics are ALWAYS changing. Yet another variable to contend with.

I'm honestly not used to writing any other way about such topics. I can try, though.

Hrothgar, there's plenty of truth in what you're saying. But, as one academic speaking to another, can I ask that you not be so snotty about it? You'd get a lot further if you weren't, and maybe the members of this forum would take you a little more seriously. It's great to see you have such faith (and that's what you have) in science, but someday you are going to run into its very real and very hard limits (yes, they exist). It will be both painful and revelatory. Until then, try not to underestimate human agency. It's difficult, I know, but try. As for the singing, I say bring it on. I find amplified singing to be the least offensive of the so-called innovations, or at least the one that's easiest to use tastefully. I'm not crazy about Angels in the Architecture, but if the Cadets find a talented singer and use her at the right moments then it is bound to cause a positive emotional reaction in 1,542 out of every 1,550 audience members who do not have a religious objection to amplified singing.

I would suggest never taking a music theory course.

Using scientific calculations that hrothgar is talking about to "calculate" the emotion that music can produce is akin to figuring out the amount of different colored paints and position in proportionate amounts of that paint on a canvas to "calculate" the emotion a painting can produce. Empirical reductionism of this kind is nothing new. Think Data from Star Trek: TNG when trying to "calculate" the aesthetic appeal of all types of art, from music to painting to Shakespeare.

This thread contains an astonishing about of BS about things not related to the Cadets' singing. Most of it is useless debate about things that aren't changing. Some of it is assuming that the nature of science has anything to do with summer drum band. Who else is willing to give The Cadets' design team a second chance?

Corps started in one end zone, but once they got to the middle of the field, the show was aimed at the judges on the 50, right up until the exit. That's where the term 'elevator drill' for the drumlines comes from, as they marched back and forth on the midfield line. When the corps crossed the other goal line and turned for their finale, it too was aimed back at the pressbox. The OTL and exit drills were really aimed at nobody; those were intended to move the corps on and off the field.

MFBK!!!! For all of you BK Fans out there that will not have the opportunity to see the drum corps this season, I offer you this little audio treat! http://epicrance.com/blip/Blue%20Knights%2...0Ogden%20UT.mp3 This was recorded by fellow Blue Knights Alum (97-2000? Utility brass), Mr. Rance Costa at the Odgen, UT show. I do hope you enjoy. As we are all becoming quickly aware, this is turning out to be a very special season for the Blue Knights. Please continue posting your love and appreciation for members of the drum corps! To Mark, Jason, Marc, Andy and the rest of the team. Thank you. You folks are doing one helluva job. Keep it up!!! I GO ON!!!!!

Sounds like you already have your mind made up. Good thing you emailed him.

13:00 was the max...corps could end their show at 11:30 if they wanted to. Most went into the 12's to get across the line and turn for their finale. No, not really, since for much of the remaining 1:30 the corps was pointing away from the crowd until they got to their final hit from the endzone, which was aimed at putting a nice big 'bow' ending to the show. The problem? The corps was at least 50 yards away, plus any distance to the stands, so it lost some of the impact it might have had...and did have..ending on the field. In 71 they finally allowed corps to cross the goal line and then move around so that while not moving on to the field, they could come a little closer to the judges. That was the first baby-step to the eventual elimination of the starting and ending line.

Uh, no, it doesn't. What EVER does the gun going off prove? and BTW, it wasn't the 'GE' gun. The first gun signified the end of execution judging, that's all. That's why it normally happened someplace during the corps exit number.

Yes, it certainly was.

By 'aimed' I meant the direction the corps was moving and pointing at, not that it wasn't judged. Hardly 'revisionist' history. I too judged, taught and marched using those elements.