MarimbasaurusRex

Raising some interesting points about the interpretation of time. I once had a student who came in late on an attack. Asked why it was late and he said, "I was feeling it later than that." I reminded him that feeling your way around is something you do when you're blind. Players can learn to agree on silent time without audible or visual cues if they try. But, why make the effort when you can just listen to the dut? One of my favorite practice drills is to have players stand at a distance of 10-20 feet between with everyone facing away from everyone else. Start playing and see what happens, no conductor, no duts. When players can do that together, they'll be dangerous. Movement definitely interferes, so if they need a few duts, why not just write them in and have one guy play it? I think drummers are just into the bravado of dutting. And yes, if students are going to have to rehearse with a click, then I think students should learn how to play humanly with it. It's not measuring microseconds. It's learning how to feel the music in relation to consistent time. Making it feel like it's forging ahead (rushing) when it's not, or making it feel like it's laying back when it's actually right on the money. That's just an element of good musicianship. Or they can rush it like Coltrane. Will that sound good? Maybe if it's Coltrane. Aside from odd tempo changes and insane movement, the time of the next note is determined by those that came before it. When everyone fully gets that concept, the rest takes care of itself. It's measuring more than interpreting. When our "interpretation" of that measurement agrees, we are together. People are way better at measuring time than they give themselves credit for. But, it needs to be cultivated.

Duts #### me off. But, just try convincing my high school line that they suck. They imitate what they see at DCI and think they sound/look cool doing it. I try to explain it's just a lame crutch and real musicians don't need duts because they COUNT INTERNALLY, but to no avail. There is not a single situation where duts can replace solid internal counting and timing. If 7 drummers standing right next to each other can't count silently together and need one guy to dut just so they can hit an attack, then they aren't a very cohesive line, or their time just sucks. If the horn player 20 yds away is timing off the same duts, they won't attack together. It also means the musicians are focusing their perception of time externally and neglecting their internal clock. Everyone has a heart beat. If you didn't have great natural time you would be dead. But learning to control that takes effort. You can make the effort or have someone else do it for you. (this is what I tell my students anyway...) As for Dr. Beat... Dr. Beat gave me a lobotomy. Problem is... 90%+ of the music we hear in public today was created with a click track. If you have any hope of working as a professional musician (aside from live orchestra work), you MUST be able to play well with a click. But here's the thing... An experienced musician knows how to play AROUND the click, not only on the beat but slightly before or after it depending on the style of music. The click is not meant to be a slave driver or groove spoiler, but rather a guide or map to where the theoretical beat really is. SOME OF THE GROOVIEST MUSIC YOU'VE EVER HEARD WAS MADE WITH A CLICK TRACK. It's been that way since the late 60's. But, when Dr Beat starts hitting your robotic phrasing button, it's time to learn how to use it instead of it using you.

What he said ^. The stickings for triples are totally different than quads. It's a different skill set, drum to drum slides replacing the crossovers used on trips.

It's almost there. Moms and Dads appear to be a very large part of the audience. Reading a lot of about marketing and advertising here. This is an electronic media age, and drum corps does not translate very well to speakers and screens. There's no replacement for the physical sound of a powerful drum corps. And seeing hugely complex movements on a tv screen doesn't capture the impressiveness of it. So, media advertising is great for letting people know an event is happening, IF they already have some idea what to really expect from a drum corps. The best marketing tool is the corps itself, live, in your face. How many of us first got hooked on it not because of a recording or tv spot, but by sitting in front of one? Drum corps has avoided most parades, mall openings, playing in the park, in favor of putting more time into the competitive show. History has shown that the corps that devotes their time to perfecting the competitive show is more likely to survive and prosper, as an individual organization. But, as the individual organization thrives, the activity crawls deeper into a hole that no one outside the marching world can see. It's easy to say that playing in the park doesn't make money. But, that is a misunderstanding. The general public doesn't know who you are. They have no way to find out. Media doesn't do justice in conveying the impact of a great drum corps. So the only remaining way to properly introduce a new fan is to physically go to them and show them what they are missing. A concert in the park might not make money that day, but it creates new ticket buyers, new buyers of t-shirts, DVDs, etc. It finds the new fan. It might only be 1 in 10 or 20 who takes a real interest, but that 1 brings a friend, who brings a friend, etc. Over time it can grow. Drum corps has cloistered itself in the marching band world. And like marching bands, they don't think of performing in public as a means of survival, not just for the money but for the greater exposure. If no one knows about a marching band, it will continue to exist because the school continues. But if no one knows about drum corps, it can't last.

If that was what I was really saying, then that is what I would have said. But it's not and I didn't. I'm saying that DCI generally serves a very selective/selected group of kids. The demographics of DCI do not come anywhere near matching the demographics of the country as a whole. For the good of DCI and of kids, my suggestion is that some effort be made to reach those who are not currently being served. If you think that's a bad thing, then I respect your right to your opinion. But, please don't put words in my mouth. This is not a discussion about income. While I do believe that reaching out to provide more opportunities for lower income families is a good thing, this discussion is about diversity. It is fair to say that DCI is not in step with the rest of the country regarding diversity. Statistics bear that out quite clearly. Obviously, some here (far more than I would have expected) think that is a good thing, or at least that the status quo is just fine. I'm not sure why, and frankly I'm ashamed at some of the responses to this thread. If we want drum corps to grow (and I think most of us do), then something should be done to allow and encourage more people of all kinds to participate. Greater diversity - economic, racial, and gender based - would be an appropriate and positive step in that direction. Corps directors might even see a few new funding sources open up because of it. But, this possibility doesn't seem to be remotely on the radar of DCI's leadership. Saxophones are apparently of greater importance. That is their answer to the problem of relevance. Go figure. It all just seems very narrow and short sighted to me. Again, I do not suggest any kind of mandate, affirmative action, kind of thing. But, if we want to see drum corps grow beyond it's "niche", then meeting people half way is in the best interest of the activity. There are many ways to do that. Greater diversity is just one of them. But, keeping heads in the sand while the ship slowly sinks isn't going to serve anyone. It hasn't worked for the last 30 years and it won't work tomorrow. I think the mandate for drum corps today is, and this is one of the few times I agree with Mr. Hopkins, change or die. He thinks change to the shows will make a difference. I don't. People don't care what you play or how you play it. They care what you DO and how it benefits them. If you want people to care about drum corps, start benefiting those people and see what happens.

I'm glad to see this issue discussed. As a member. I saw no racism at all. People were very open to any person of any race or gender just because they were into drum corps and we all had that in common. But, the OP brings up a good observation. I don't think that diversity should be mandated in the sense that a certain percentage of corps directors should be female or of a minority. But their absence from those ranks points to a larger problem. DRUM CORPS DOES NOT SERVE AMERICA AS A WHOLE. Directors wonder what they can do to be more relevant. Well here it is folks. If you want to be seen as relevant to the larger community, you have to do something relevant for that community. Drum corps used to do that and they generally don't anymore. In my opinion, for whatever reason, individual drum corps have placed far too much emphasis on winning/making finals rather than how they serve youth. I expect that if the percentage of female and minority membership was greater, then there would be a greater likelihood of those people ascending through the ranks to be directors. Perhaps it's time to fix it, to reach out to people other than white males and find out why more don't join. Then, actually do something about it. You can poo poo that statement all you want and say everything is fine. But as drum corps dies (even the top corps directors see the writing on the wall) this might be a good time to take a look in the mirror and ask - What have we done today for the greater good of all Americans?

An equipment drop such as a rifle, flag, hat or a drum stick was a penalty. Rifle drops were fairly common because of difficult tosses. One famous drop cost Phantom a championship in 78 (obviously there were other tick errors so that's not really true but it appeared that way). On horns up there were sometimes mouthpieces flying out from the force of the snap and if it hit the ground it was a tenth (and a quarter to the horn instructor if it happened in rehearsal). There were also occasional steps over the front sideline. And time in motion was often calculated to the second in show design, so if tempos got a little faster or slower than usual (in concert) time in motion could come up a few seconds short when the gun went off.

Indeed there was a rule against grounded instruments. Corps that did it took a penalty. Grounding during concert was allowed. Kilties did it because they didn't have enough players and felt the penalty would be offset by a better GE score for having tympani versus not having them. (I was the melodic perc instructor for Blue Stars in 80 and 81 and had to learn the rule book.)

In 81 the grounding penalty for a keyboard was only .1, so a few corps went ahead and grounded them. In 82 the penalty was lifted.

4. Up until 1980 grounding of equipment was only allowed during "stop" time (9 minutes of the show had to be in motion). In 1980 only tympani only were allowed to be grounded for the whole show. Other instruments were grounded in 1982. 6. The "ideal" size was 64 but most averaged in the upper 50's. 7. Not all corps "overblew" for volume. Blue Stars brass instructor Don Hill (among others) was emphatic about not overblowing. Drums were larger and tuned lower. This allowed the heads to move more air. More air = more volume. Rarrrrrr.

OK, more elitist nonsense and not seeing the forest through the trees. Mainstream society doesn't care what Madison played this year and they never will.

“Can we figure out how to become what Dave Gibbs [executive director of the Blue Devils] would call ‘relevant?’ Can we figure out how to be relevant again to a large enough community that they’ll be willing to support us?” he said. “Is it enough to go out there and do the shows that we do now or do we have to have a corps be more interesting? Do we have to have something in the pre-show? Do we have to have a post-show or special encores that are fun?" This is precisely where the leadership has lost it's way. Drum corps is entirely irrelevant as an entertainment medium. But, that is all they look for, ways to make people pay attention to their "art," their shows. It's ego driven. Look what *I* can do! ($1 to Stuart) Add all the bells and whistles you want. Mainstream America will not warm to drum corps shows no matter how great they are. But, they WILL warm to helping kids in need. I work and volunteer at a high school in gangland south central Los Angeles. Those kids NEED things like drum corps. They WANT things like drum corps. I even considered starting a corps there, but decided it was impossible to do with any success. There was no place for them to perform that didn't require million dollar budgets to be respectable. (City Sound is still trying and kudos to them!) Those kids have enough self esteem problems without sharing a field with BD. If Dave Gibbs wants to be relevant, he should turn his attention to the hundreds of thousands of kids across the country who really need him, the kids he and others have abandoned for the sake of personal glory. There was a time when drum corps was very relevant to the community, not for the shows they did, but for the service they provided to youth at risk. That sells tickets. That garners donations. That gets you on PBS and CNN. That earns respect in the eyes of the community at large. Come on, Dave... Have you got the nuts to stand up and make the world a better place? Or would that cut too hard into your endorsement deals?

“Ultimately, do we want to start a youth program that by definition excludes roughly half of the members who play wind instruments in a school -- that being woodwind players?” This is a great illustration of the cloistered perspective of DCI leadership. By extension we could make the same argument for violinists or soccer players or ice skaters. Why should they be excluded? Band directors will naturally think like band directors. And this statement shows that they aren't even thinking as broader musicians (not even as orchestra directors), only as band directors, and that's a dreadfully limited perspective. The leaders of my day were youth activity directors and music was simply a vehicle to that end. School has nothing to do with it. Drum corps isn't school and shouldn't be. Sure, you learn things. But, one of the elements that drew me to drum corps was that it WASN'T school. Kids need activities other than school. It's supposed to be FUN at the same time that you hopefully grow as a person, not as a music ed major. Yes, I became a music ed major and followed a career in music as a performer. Drum corps participation surely had a hand in that. But, when I left school in May, I wasn't going to another school for the summer, I was having fun with a drum corps and building some chops. We would work hard at something fun and if we won some shows, great, if not, who cares? If the focus was more on the KID experience, a great summer, rather than preparation for a future in marching band directing (it doesn't even really fall under the broader terms of music education), there might be a few more who might want to be a part of it. The overall quality of players wouldn't be as high, but if the point was anything other than chasing a championship, would that really matter?

Well, let's see, I started as a rudimental drummer in 1972. Is that old skool enough? Unless you are playing at monkey stroke heights (15"+), the arm/elbow is not (or at least shouldn't be) a big factor in the stroke. Although it is somewhat responsive, it is best used at a minimum. And having the wrist and palm at a perfect horizontal is actually an UN-natural position. The forearm/wrist hangs naturally at an angle of about 10-15 degrees, so a tilted drum actually allows the right hand to play at a more physiologically natural angle. So, not sure where you're coming from on all this. Any technique can be performed uniformly or sloppily depending on how clearly it's defined and how well it's executed. No particular technical style is inherently sloppy or clean. Can't speak for other guys on the board, but I think about joints and arm/wrist/finger movement for a living. I notice and correct differences from player to player for a living. I'm a percussion technician and play and teach drums (and many other percussion instruments) for a living, been doing that for about 30 years. And when you start making sense I'll be the first to agree with you. Am I really the one looking silly? LOL

Dude, ??? I just looked back thru this thread 3 times trying to figure out what you are talking about. Or is this a joke and I missed it? To answer your questions... I marched 9+ years, currently teach a high school WGI line. Learned more techniques than I can remember. But the arm position on the right arm? Ya lost me... Hmm, "...usage of different joints depending on the rudiment and combinations of rudiments..." Spoken like a true horn player! LOL I feel for the drum lines you've "taught." Quick! Get the sticks out of this guys hands before someone gets hurt! (I tease... but really, somebody grab his sticks LOL)

White bucks Gut snares Silk blouses with ascots DC10's Swallowtail flags Grounding penalties Prism tape Butter sandwiches on wonder bread (not peanut butter, just butter!) Sleeping in the overhead rack Sleeping in the bus toilet Sleeping standing up Sleeping under the seats I can still sleep anywhere, any time. In fact, just getting on a bus, any bus, makes me sleepy. - good times

Hey, what's wrong with reverse traditional grip? Equal rights! (or is that lefts?) You guys should all have to switch for a year.

Actually I've known a few good snare techs who think that the whipping action of the left hand in trad grip helps compensate for the weaker left hand and produces a more even sound. Have to agree there is a little sense to that. Although I'm left handed so... who knows.

Depends on the height of the drum on the body. Left hand rim shots, for instance, are difficult on a flat drum, giving rise to a "palm up" left hand technique, which really isn't traditional grip in the textbook sense. For traditional grip to have full power, the left palm should be almost vertical when it strikes the drum and it's pretty hard to do a rim shot that way on a flat drum unless it's carried high. Wish I had a nickle for every high school player I've had to re-teach to get a good left hand sound because they think the technique is palm up.

While you have many good points, I have to point a finger at ourselves, the children of DCI. We went out and taught marching bands how to be little drum corps. And then we wonder why the line has blurred so. Drum corps has become marching band because marching band has become drum corps. Seeing that final meeting of 2 distinct idioms is sad, but we did it to ourselves.

Of course there were exceptions. But there was a window in time when a corps with $20 unis could compete head to head with a money corps. But, that was fading already as I was part of it. Unis like Garfield and Belleville were holdovers from the 50's/60's and I'm thinking mostly of the mid 70's when drum corps was coming into it's own. And carrying chimes on a keyboard for the sake of a few tenths in GE was silly and the exception not the rule. But, it all came down to trying to milk a few extra tenths in GE, just as it continues today. I remember a particular corps director saying, essentially... *You have to win. Because, if you win, you can control the game and keep winning. If you lose, you fold.* That was news to me at the time, but he was right (and that philosophy has served his corps well). But, things got less fun after hearing that. I don't hate modern drum corps. The performances are seriously amazing. Even when I don't care for the content or approach, they are always well performed. But, drum corps is big in the head and it has been for a long time (see G7 among other things). I just appreciate an environment where if you had some horns and drums, a truck and some good teachers, you could build a corps and maybe even be competitive. The old days weren't always great, but the philosophy was different and I liked it. It was a gift to be part of that time.

Efficiency... it's one of the things that drew me to drum corps. And it's been totally lost for the sake of pseudo show biz. Some of my favorite uniforms were just a shirt and pants with a few ornaments attached, Madison, Blue Stars, old Crossmen with the capes, even Rochester Phoenix with their JC Penny unis. This was while bands were wearing wool blazers with vinyl overlays and big poofy hats. I was glad those uni companies didn't make MY uniform. Call me crazy, but to me, that was special. It was cool, comfortable, cheap, and made sense. Carrying everything you play, so the corps can play with a full compliment anywhere, any time. Yes there was a trade off in what you could do with it, but that was part of the fun of the game, doing more with less. We weren't out to make a masterpiece, we did it for fun. A marching/movement style that was casual and comfortable, not contrived, and didn't cause injuries every other night. Bands did all kinds of goofy things with their feet and we were proud to be cooler than that. Now I look at certain corps/players who take the whole rolling foot thing to the extreme or move bolt neck style with locked knees and they look as silly as the old marching bands did. Horns that could be played with your thumbs like a monkey, so almost anyone with a pucker could join. In a key that allowed even high school players to sound a little like Maynard. These are things I miss. Tis a gift to be simple. Tis a gift to find out where you ought to be.

In my opinion, that was one of the biggest creative limitations associated with the tick system. Everyone doing something different might be read as a whole bunch of ticks even if it produced a desired effect. But, IMO a redefinition of the tick could fix that. If there is any question, meaning if you have to ask if it's an error, then it's not a tick. Simple as that, it puts the focus on clear mistakes that anyone, not just an expert, could see or hear. Also agreed with the poster who said that for drummers ticks can be a better measure than other systems. I still use ticks as a teaching tool. The kids get into the challenge of "beating the judge" and it can be an effective measure of progress. But, unless you see the same judge every day, it gets into all kinds of inconsistencies. A roll that's clean to one ear might be a little dirty to another. So, I think those kinds of things shouldn't be ticked at all in competition. But, bouncing a stick across the field or totally dumping on a featured lick should count. The old tick system wasn't good. It wasn't consistent or objective. I knew that the day Rod Goodhart sat down on the Bridgemen's drum major podium and played along with his pencil on the back of the clipboard through most of the show. He was obviously enamored with the line, convinced they weren't going to tick and wasn't even looking for dirt. And Rod was a great judge! But, I think they threw the baby out with the bath water and a re-tooling of the system might have been a good alternative. Also want to add that one of my gripes with the current system is that it puts so much emphasis on design, in effect judging the staff almost more than the corps itself. I teach an indoor drum line and the vast majority of commentary from judges is show design related (many of whom also judge DCI). When BD goes on the field, are they judging the corps or are they judging Wayne Downey and company? Obviously, show design is an important aspect of the whole package. But, I'd like to see more of the score in the hands of the performers. Yes, BD would probably still win, but it might give other corps with less bejeweled designers more of a fighting chance.

Yes, a blatant error would have to be clearly defined. But, when you are sitting in the stands and see someone out of step, that's an easy error to mark. There shouldn't be any argument about whether or not that was a tick. If the entire guard makes a catch and one loses the equipment, that's also easy to see. I'm not suggesting getting into the nitty gritty of execution. That's where the tick system falls way short. But, if grandma can see or hear it from the stands, it should be a tick.

The tick system had it's problems, but one advantage was that it put a certain portion of the score directly in the hands of the players. The down side was that one judge's tolerance for error was often different than another, so you could almost predict the execution score by who was judging that night. I would like to see a re-visitation of the tick system, but in a slightly different application. Rather than ticking anything that isn't 100% clean in the eyes of the judge (the old way), I would advocate ticking clear and obvious flaws only. For instance, someone clearly out of step, getting lost in the drill or more than a step out of position, a missed attack or release, or an equipment drop in the guard. One problem in the old days was "gray areas," calling on the judge to make a determination on the severity of an error. But, if ticks were reserved for only the most blatant errors, I think it could work in a positive way to give more control back to the players and balance the opinion captions a little bit.