year1buick

I think the impact on ticket sales/attendance would be relatively minor. I doubt many people would consider this as the deciding factor when making plans to attend. According to the numbers listed in this thread, Finals attendance didn't get much of a boost when the live broadcasts dropped out. Just from my own perspective, if I had the means go (money, time, etc.) then I would regardless of whether it was being simulcast or not. I'd much rather see it in person. edit: also forgot to mention that, in 1994, there was a live theater simulcast of Finals, similar to what they've done in the past few years with quarters. Attendance that year was higher than every following year but this one. I still think that people who can, and will, travel to Finals will do so regardless of when the live theater broadcast is held. (Quarters vs Finals) If the TV show can't be live (that prospect is fairly unrealistic at this point), then why not hold the theater simulcast on Finals night? I think both would bring in money for DCI.

"Fewer, bigger" seems to work okay for the NFL. (As compared to, say, MLB.)

I thought about them too. I imagine that the VK of my marching era would have had a field day with this--not in a mean way, just funny. (I also wondered if some miscreant out there might figure out the frequency of their wireless mics and add their own narration. Not good.)

I should clarify--individual stations still produce many of the shows but funding is (per my understanding) largely underwritten by outside sources. (Like companies, etc., which typically have an advertisement prior to the show.) The stations themselves rely on donations to operate and PBS itself is funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which gets funding from the government.

Those shows are still funded by outside sources, not PBS. Hasn't changed. PBS didn't produce or pay for the older DCI broadcasts either. (Neither does ESPN)

I'd blocked it out, till now. Thanks, Tom. :P

I've got a SACD player/5.1 system and would love to hear this on it.

Wouldn't think so. I've also wondered about the addition of members. In such dire economic times, where dues only cover a portion of per-member costs and directors frequently lament the cost of gas, etc., why more bus seats and mouths to feed are being added.

One other thing about life, and the "real" world: things seldom fall neatly into black and white categories. Most things fall somewhere within a continuum. So, just as change does not always = good, neither does static position. ("...you could say the same thing about Segregation...") Though, I suppose it's a bit of a moot point, because there's no such thing as absolute position anyway. (Those darn unequal lines of force will always get ya...)

higher electric bills for show sites > increased demand on electrical grids > rolling blackouts > more pollution > increased disease rates > economic recession > bankrupcy of DCI > socioeconimic collapse > decline of human species > albino squirrels rule the earth

You forgot DCA_________ really _________!

My guide just lists the title and time slot, 9:00pm-11:00pm CST. I did notice that the DCI FAQ says it's a "two-hour program."

I set my DVR to record long, just in case. If it runs on time, then I'll just stop it when the show is over.

I agree with the overall sentiment, but also have to reiterate (which, in this quote, he does) that the artist must also accept that no one else may be into what they've written. You can't always have your cake and eat it too. (Had to switch away from the fetus analogy for that one...) I actually thought about this subject last summer (06), after seeing M. Night Shyamalan's Lady in the Water, specifically how its critical reception mirrored (in some ways) what was going on in our own little niche with The Cadets. Both had many detractors (much more in Shyamalan's case) and sometimes came across (to some) as overly defensive about their artistic choices. I think Shyamalan learned, the hard way, that while it's perfectly okay to make a very personal film about a fairy tale you told your little girl when she was growing up, you may not get the same sort of appreciation from the general audience. The film was widely panned (with good reason, I think) and it seemed that the more people criticized it, the more defensive he became. In fact, he took the unusual step of dealing with the subject (criticism, creative process, etc.) within the film, even going so far as to have the hapless antagonist be a film critic and requiring the characters to come together and tell the story of the film. (Huh?) To many, including myself, the result was a self-absorbed mess of a movie. Was he wrong to make it the way he did? No. Should he have had such strong expectations that other people would like it as much as he and his little girl? Nope. (When Disney passed on the script, he left the studio and proceeded to publicly bad-mouth them for it.) I saw a parallel between what was going on with his film and how The Cadets' sequel show was playing out that summer. While they certainly weren't as poorly received, they certainly had their detractors (covered here ad nauseum) and, at times, their director seemed to come across (to some) as being a bit defensive over the critical reception, at large (read: not just within the confines of DCP). Was their show made for the corps members, the audience, the judges? All three? Or something else? (Their director?) Beats me, but many were pretty concerned about the answer to that question. Did the answer(s) matter? IMO, no. They could make it for whomever or for whatever reasons they wanted. BUT, they also had to realize that some people may not like it at all. (Not an excuse for booing, but--for the love of all things good and holy-- please, let's not go there again). Sometimes, knowing this intellectually and dealing with it emotionally is quite a different matter, however.

Yeah, but at least we (later) got to watch the sopranos eat fajitas that Albert Lo brought them, while the rest of us ate off the truck. ^0^

I remember a show in 92 where they decided to have a meet-n-greet immediately after retreat, on the field. Neither corps (Cadets or Regiment) seemed too sure about it at first--old habits die hard and members on both sides seemed reluctant to chat it up in uniform. (Post-Finals retreat is a little different...) As for not talking--I remember running laps in 100 degree Dallas heat for the baritone/euphonium line moving to much while trying to shake off the blood-sucking mosquitoes we fought through at a previous show. (Sheesh, Tim!)

I would try to rely less on the intellectual balance sheets (visual/championships vs, brass sound, travel time, etc.) and try to go more with your gut feeling--it's like trying to decide who you want to marry based on a resume'. You should march with whichever corps makes you the most excited to be a part of (or, as my little girl might say, "twitterpated."). If you need to "date" a little and try out a couple of camps, then do so. It should be fun, you'll learn a thing or two and you'll get a much better idea of what it's like to be in and around the corps' respective families. Then, pour your heart and soul into making it into the one corps whose uniform you'd be most proud to wear. I have a feeing that once you've gone, the decision will all but make itself. Good luck! (Also, like others have said, once you've made up your mind--stick with it! Don't bow out at the first sign of a bump in the road. Don't look for hints or signs that they might want to cut you or don't want you back. Just march and play like it's the plan for you to be there thru August, until someone flat out tells you otherwise.)

petaQ! :P

Yep, bet there'll be some pretty exciting layups.

LSD can supposedly cause this as well.

I did a quick search thru the online UNT catalogue, found an article on the subject (from the journal Nature Neuroscience). Unfortunately, the only free way to view it is to go thru a school library website. Absolute pitch: a model for understanding the influence of genes and development on neural and cognitive function, Zatorre, Robert J. Nature Neuroscience, Jul2003, Vol. 6 Issue 7, p692, 4p; (AN 10121796) No time to read it rignt now, but it sounds interesting...

I was just kidding. Actually, a lot of that "wiring" isn't in place at the time of birth. There's quite a bit of plasticity to physioligy/synapse building at this point. If someone is denied the opportunity to learn a language at this early age (rare, but it has happened), it's virtually impossible for them to fully learn one later in life. Here are a couple of quotes from a old (well, last year) textbook: (Neuroscience, 3rd ed., Sunderland, MA) "A critical period is defined as the time during which a given behavior is especially susceptible to, and indeed requires, specific environmental influences to develop normally. Once this period ends, the behavior is largely unaffected by subsequent experience (or even by the complete absence of the relevant experience). Conversely, failure to be exposed to appropriate stimuli during the critical period is difficult or in some cases impossible to remedy subsequently." ... "Importantly, this linguistic experience, to be effective, must occur in early life. The requirement for perceiving and practicing language during a critical period is apparent in studies of language acquisition in congenitally deaf children. Whereas most babies begin producing speechlike sounds at about 7 months (babbling), congenitally deaf infants show obvious deficits in their early vocalizations, and such individuals fail to develop language if not provided with an alternative form of symbolic expression (such as sign language; see Chapter 26). If, however, these deaf children are exposed to sign language at an early age (from approximately six months onward), they begin to “babble” with their hands just as a hearing infant babbles audibly. This suggests that, regardless of the modality, early experience shapes language behavior." ... "On a more subtle level, the phonetic structure of the language an individual hears during early life shapes both the perception and production of speech. Many of the thousands of human languages and dialects use appreciably different speech elements (called phonemes) to produce spoken words. Very young human infants can perceive and discriminate between differences in all human speech sounds, and are not innately biased towards phonemes characteristic of any particular language. However, this universal perceptual capacity does not persist...The ability to perceive these phonemic contrasts, when attended to, evidently persists for several more years, as evidenced by the fact that children can learn to speak a second language without accent and with fluent grammar until about age 7 or 8. The long and short of this is, I can see how early pitch training could play a role in having "perfect pitch." (It would be interesting to see a longitudinal study of this, following someone from very early age to late adulthood.)

Well spotted. You've been paying attention. Personally, I'm in the "or something" camp. [/sarcasm] Saying that you have a preference in how it's shown hardly equates to thinking it was "made for" you. (I think it's "funny" that, in the world of DCP, dissenting opinion can only be the result of narcissism.) It's okay to have an opinion about this-- I, for one, have never said that I don't appreciate the show, don't enjoy it, etc. Just that I had more fun watching it live. If you don't, that's cool too.

I think it's also interesting to note (rimshot) that they list early training as being important. There is a critical period during early development where the brain is more or less hard-wired for language. Since effective use of language is dependent on discerning differences in pitch, this would seem to make sense.

I'm really hoping the Journal article has the fart quote in it.