marshamello

I only mentioned the Blue Stars because they submitted the proposal. Funny how Cadets bashers always feel it's OK to constantly bring up The Cadets when referring to poor use of narration but then jump on anyone who brings up some other corps' poor use (except BD's Yowza year, of course). And you talk about the pot and kettle!! Your pot needs a mirror. No. If the penalty proposed was reasonable, the discussion could be focused on the issue and not the amount of the penalty. Proposing such a large penalty gets the focus off the issue of amplification and dilutes it with emotional reaction over the penalty. Ask anyone who does negotiation for a living. You don't go to the table with something that is so extreme that the "other side" doesn't even want to listen to your points. It doesn't matter that a corps parent wrote the proposal. If the Blue Stars' director put his name and the name of the corps on it, there is an implicit endorsement. It would have been more appropriate for the director to have worked with the parent to edit the proposal to be briefer, more professional, and more collaborative before associating it with the corps. It's funny how many people who fly the flag against amplification and narration liked Bluecoats' use this past year. I recall MANY comments by some of the most vocal amp opponents defending Bluecoats any time a negative comment was made about them this past year. So, while only an independent survey could tell the complete true story, it does seem like there is a minority of people who are truly against amps in all forms and uses. Most seem to be OK with limited usage; with a good number of these only having problems with too much or any narration. Then there is the small minority who are for it no matter what. So, just because many of you 100% anti-amp, anti-narration people shout the loudest and most often, doesn't mean you are the majority. Actually, that is incorrect. Proper technique is correct technique in any performance venue. They might alter the composition of the orchestra to suit a unique environment, but they will certain NOT tell the musicians to perform with incorrect or “different” technique. How exactly does the embouchure for a sax player change for an indoor or outside concert? Do trumpet players change how they finger the valves when playing inside or outside? What actual examples can you give of “different” but still “proper” technique for other instruments when played outdoors versus indoors? The fact that the larger percentage of corps have performed shows without amplified voice is correct, but not so when you look at corps who have used amplification (which is what this proposal is supposed to be about). And the main point I was making (until you misinterpreted it) is that the use of amplified voice does not specifically denote a poorly designed show nor does the lack of amplified voice denote a well-designed show. My further point was that the determination of a show as being well or poorly designed is subjective and not supportive of either the argument to retain amps or to rule them out. These were purely emotional statements that should have been edited out of the proposal to make it something that could stimulate rational discussion rather than emotional arguments. So, maybe a smart proposal would be to outline how amplification and voice should be scored. This is just a “throw the baby out with the bathwater” proposal. Trying to justify a personal opinion of how much affect amplification issues should have had on the score for past shows is like arguing how much benefit the corps whose show you personally felt was well-designed should have received. So these personal opinions have no place in this proposal. Now, if they came up with official statements from judges supporting this contention, THEN we would have had something supportive of the point. No, what I clearly said is that this proposal was written so poorly that it takes a lot of effort to get past the personal opinions that are presented as if they were facts, etc. to get to the actual point of discussion. Pertinent facts, like the added expenses to corps for both the equipment and transportation of the equipment, are lost in the quagmire. If people really want to have thoughtful discussion, the proposal needed to be more thoughtful, factual and brief while being less emotional, subjective and preachy.

With that fact that nobody's opinion better than anyone else's kept in mind, here's MY opinion (for what it's worth).... Personally, I find this proposal too riddled with personal opinion, childish statements, whining and extremes to be taken seriously. Reading the short description alone and seeing a recommended 25 point penalty for violation makes this proposal a joke and reveals this as an immature, divisive attempt to get attention rather than a serious desire to open thoughtful conversation. I find it funny that a corps that has used amplification, including VERY tasteless use of narration in 2006, is behind many of the comments in this proposal. I guess in 2006 they were “not able to design [a] competitive show absent amplified voice and narration” as per Tim’s statement under “Creative Impact”. I seem to recall something about “freedom of speech” in that show!! LOL!!! So, what bugs me past the ridiculous 25 point penalty proposed? First, the many comments about the addition of amplification having “minimal creative impacts on instrumentation and show design” are totally personal opinion. Trying to justify this by referring to the vocal minority on DCP or some vocal, passionate fans in the stands is subjective, inaccurate and one-sided. Are we to become an organization ruled by a gang/mob with personal opinion rather than one guided by thoughtful discussion? The proposal continues by speaking about how the slamming of mallets on keyboards is not “improper” technique but is “different” technique. Most informed instructors will be turned off by this gross misrepresentation. The further argument that brass and field percussion use “different” technique for outdoor versus indoor playing is laughable as well. It’s called FIELD percussion for a reason. And just because they play the instruments softer inside doesn’t mean they play with different technique. Conversely, banging on front ensemble equipment (most of which were designed to be indoor instruments) IS “improper” NOT “different” technique. Making statements like “the overwhelming majority of corps seem to be able to design competitive shows absent amplified voice and narration” is just flat out rude and accusatory. These are not the words of someone who is looking to have intelligent conversation on a topic and do much toward being divisive rather than collaborative. Comments in the “Judging Impact” section about failed equipment and sound imbalance not having an apparent impact on the scores are nothing more than whining. A proposal is not a place to bring this up – there are proper channels to argue that point and they can only be discussed on an individual show basis with input from the judges themselves. Nobody but the judges at the shows in question can answer how much affect these issues had on the score for a given corps on a given night. It’s immature to bring this point up in a rule proposal since scores are “built up” numbers based on how much you do and how well you do it. Why should there be a “noticeable” affect on the score for a corps that has a short amplification issue but minimal or no effect on score when a trumpet soloist has problems, a member falls in a diamond cutter drill, or a guard member drops a rifle? You can’t choose to revert back to a tic system just for the amplification piece (or whatever you disagree with) and not for any other aspect of a show. In closing, I find that this proposal along with the ridiculous request for a 15 point penalty for voice amplification and the proposal about the sound board adds up to a lot of sour grapes and whining. If you really want a thoughtful discussion of the topics of amplification and narration, there are MANY better ways to get that underway without sounding like a child complaining about something you don’t like.

Based on these two posts, I think it is YOU who need to consider the concept of "stay classy"! And, if you want to look at "whining and inflammatory posts", just read your quotes that I supplied above. YOU jumped to a conclusion about my questioning the amount of increased ticket prices that has gone directly back to the corps versus to other things (salaries being only ONE of the things I listed). So, in your CLASSY style, you tried to do a major smear campaign against my even questioning where these additional funds went and blindly defended DCI based solely on a comparison of the salary of its CEO. My point, if you had been CLASSY enough to ask rather than ASSume, is that I don't see DCI (the folks in the office) doing the smartest things in many cases. I find their customer service to be very poor and have often experienced a lack of concern even when their poor customer service has been brought to their attention (even in emails to and personal conversations with said CEO). I don't think they listen to the fans and, when they make an attempt to do so, they tend to ask questions to support their desired direction rather than giving open-ended opportunities to voice opinions. As I stated (had you bothered to read more than the one part of the one sentence in my post that seems to have instigated your childish tirate) a well-run origanization would not have allowed people who paid $75 per seat to have to wait in those extremely long lines (in the hot sun) in Pasedena. A well-run organization would not have put a corps in a difficult situation and would have repainted the marks on the field between corps as DCI committed to do in planning meetings before the show. A well-run organization would test the warm up locations beforehand to be certain the sound doesn't overly affect the paying audience (especially those paying the most) and, therefore, avoid the problems we had at semis and quarters in Denver. A well-run organization would have immediately attended to the issue in Foxboro where the ringing bell from the service elevator distrubed many a corps finals performance for much of the audience. A well-run organization would better communicate information to its fans and the stadium personnel so that, year in year out, the members of Friends of DCI (I having been one for some 15 years) know about the finals get-together before they leave home for the Thursday show and can get direction from stadium personnel upon arriving rather than having to wander around for 45 minutes until you "happen upon it" like we did in Pasedena (with nobody wearing an official DCI shirt/lanyard having any clue where to direct me). And virtually every year there are significant issues like this that a well-run organization would have addressed or, at the very least, acknowledged and done better at in the future. So, yes, I think there are MANY ways in which DCI could better spend the money they receive and I have EVERY right to question why the cost of finals tickets is going up and the service provided continues to be what I would rate a "D+"!

If DCI was a well-run organization, it would anticipate that people would have some skepticism about buying tickets blindly. They seem to have gone to the total opposite extreme of when they allowed you to purchase exact seats (was that back in Orlando?) to where the section you select is so wide that you have better odds of winning the lottery than you have of guessing where your seat might be. My biggest complaint is that DCI (the organization, not the individual corps) keeps increasing the price but has done nothing to improve the product. Each year they offer less for your money and give worse service. There was no excuse for the waiting lines to get into the Rose Bowl at finals this past year. This is just one of many problems DCI seems to have when running these major events. One would think the increased prices would offer a balance of more for your money, as well as more of your money going to support the corps. And, in that regard, I’d be interested to know how much of the increased cost of finals tickets over the years has gone to the corps versus increased overhead, DCI salaries, etc. There’s certainly a point at which less people attending a higher priced show is going to result in fewer dollars to support member corps than more people attending a cheaper show. So, rather than blind flag waving in favor of DCI, is it possible that the average fan (not the fanatics) have a point to consider here? If DCI really wanted Finals to be a product that exposes more people to the activity while increasing revenues for the member corps, wouldn’t it be better to find a way to bring down the costs? Would using lower cost stadiums (like Madison or University of Maryland) result in lower ticket costs, greater attendance, and more profit to share? Will attendance numbers drop over time because of the stupid idea of staying in the same place for ten years in a row? DCI seems to think the answer is to simply continue to increase the cost but hasn't figured (or even asked) what the fans want or are willing to accept.

Like or dislike what Hopkins brings to the table, if you kow anything of the devotion, long hours, etc. he brings to The Cadets and YEA!, then you know that he could be making many tens of thousands of dollars more in the private sector in one of many different positions.

Now, now. Don't go stealing my topic without giving me credit!!

No I don't. But is there really much of a difference between rehashing music from an old show and rehashing the concept of an old show? The point remains that most every corps has rehashed an old band show, an old drum corps show (whether their own or some other corps'), an old winter guard show (for example, it sounds like Bluecoats 2008 could be said to be a rehash of James Logan High School's 2002 WGI championship boxing show, at least conceptually), etc. It's not the fact that you rehash a show/music/concept, its what you do with it.

Hot off the press, the Bluecoats will be "breaking the rules" this year by marching a "sax, drums and violins" corps.

So don't bother checking out Phantom's 2008 show. It'll be the second time they're rehashing that show!!

From a website on youth boxing: "While the sport of amateur boxing is tremendously rewarding from just the “sport” aspect, it is also profoundly influential in the development of the proper abilities and traits necessary to be successful in today’s world. The positive impact that boxing has on youth is amazing. Unlike some other sports, boxing has a kind of “tough guy” image. A youth friends might make fun of him or her playing soccer or tennis, but nobody harasses a boxer." Nobody gonna harass da Bluecoats in 2008!! If you do, meet them behind the gym after school.

How can someone who is involved in a youth activity glamorize irony?

Incorrect - an idiot is someone who takes this so seriously that even after seeing where this thread was intended to go and have it explained to them is STILL taking it seriously.

So, that must be why the iamge on their announcement is of a dumpster filled with empty boxes rather than a boxer with taped hands. Unfortunately Star did a poor job at pulling off the violent intent of this music. That's why they ended up in second place.

We're up to 3 now - my original hope was for 5!! Keep it going. ME, going for a reaction? Couldn't be. I'm honored that my topic was worthy of a Cop investigative report. NO! Thank you. My plan succeeded!

The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or a removal of the head from the permitted target areas. A body of medical evidence is building up to suggest that even if a boxer survives individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative effect of a career in boxing can lead to a greater susceptibility to diseases such as Parkinson’s. Although the incidence of injury is much higher in sports such as basketball, rugby or riding, the risk of serious injury in boxing is far greater. In fact, that risk is so great that boxing should be banned. A ban, quite simply, would mean fewer people dead, injured or permanently brain damaged. Feeding the insanity.