MarimbasaurusRex

Yet another tympanist's (yes with a Y, if it was good enough for saul goodman) perspective... harder mallets do not make the tone envelope of the drum louder, they only change the articulation and increase the percussive attack. So, mallet choice is normally one of articulation, not volume. Remembering a few vanguard lines from the 70's with sounds from soft mallets that filled stadiums, and those drums were pretty crappy. Now with full on concert tymps, they need to be mic'd? Tympani were designed to project outdoors across miles of battlefield. Seemed to work pretty well for Hannibal! LOL One tympanist can balance an entire orchestra, acoustically. But if a judge says he can't hear the tymps, what are they gonna do but mic them, cuz they can.

The fallacy is that it's somehow innovative. That has nothing to do with opinion. It's either truly ground breaking or it isn't. I have nothing against what people chose to do, it's a free country. Just don't shroud it in the flag of something it's not.

Well here is one reason so many of the jurassic set don't like it... It's NOT NEW, and it's NOT INNOVATIVE. If it were, we might actually like it. (I love electronic music as much as any, but what does it have to do with drum corps?) Amplification has been mainstream for 50 yrs. Electronic instruments almost as long. It was innovative when Dylan plugged in, in what... 1967?, but sorry DCI it's been done a bazillion times. One could say, well it's new and innovative "on the field." To which I would say, no, again, it's not. Marching bands have been using electric bass, guitars, and synths since the late 70's early 80's. Drum corps is just using the same crutches marching bands have used for decades. Where, then, is the innovation? I really don't have any problem with any drum corps doing anything they want. Sometimes it works out great, and when it's cheez I just won't pay attention. But, don't stand proudly on the idea of progressive innovation, because that's a fallacy and an ego stroke that isn't warranted.

I just want to thank whoever is leaking this stuff and hope they are reading. You take a huge risk in putting this material out there and you have bigger nuts than all the G7 directors put together. Hoo-Rah!

What is the finish on the chimes? If it's chrome, there are several good chrome cleaners available at automotive stores. Mother's is a good one, but there are many others.

Making popcorn

LOL He PM'd me to say that he's a secret agent consulting with CdS and the G7 corps. This should be interesting. I'm guessing he works for GM too!

Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. But, certainly "audience engagement" could be measurable, rating how a show "connects" with an audience. Box 1 = fidgety and looking elsewhere Box 2 = aware but indifferent Box 3 = paying attention Box 4 = riveted Box 5 = throwing babies Rate it at various intervals during a show and average the numbers. Seems simple enough. The problem is... those in power cannot control the feelings of an audience. They do however have control over the judges that they choose and train to see things their way. There's no way the top corps would ever let that control out of their grasp by adding an unpredictable audience to the scoring equation.

I've been skimming your posts here and there (who reads it all?) and first of all, I'm compelled to say... you've got way too much free time. Secondly, as someone who has actually worked with Cirque du Soleil, I have to say that many of your assertions regarding CdS are just factually incorrect. I don't have time to go through it all, but you are talking out the wrong hole with incomplete or incorrect information. For example... "In fact they have at times gone to Asia and bought an entire circus, renamed it, re-costumed it, re-lit it; added new music, new make-up and slapped it on a stage in Las Vegas where it plays today..." Not quite. The show you are thinking of was never in Vegas. They didn't "buy" a circus, it was a collaboration with the People's Republic of China which has since expired, half the personnel was from China and half from Cirque. And CdS trains many of their performers quite extensively, ask the hundreds of people working out in CdS gyms every day hoping for a spot in a show. Apparently, thinking outside the box means making up your own pseudo facts. A little information is a dangerous thing. You fill the gaps between the bits of information you actually know with whatever you WANT it to be. It's called projection. You have done the same thing with your interpretation of the G7 proposal. The G7 plan bears no resemblance to your imaginative picture of what you THINK they are proposing. They're not talking about re-inventing drum corps. Hanging a few bells and whistles pre and post show is hardly visionary. It's called filling time because we don't want other corps to share the money from the show.

The spirit of those statements is obvious, and not just to me. Perhaps they are trying to gain leverage with idle threats. But, if DCI doesn't go along with it, they will have to exit DCI or eat their words. I think the former is more likely, but that's just my opinion. From the DCW article... I thought it interesting he chose to use the word "threat" several times in that article. Steve Vickers has never been a sensationalist, so I tend to accept his measure of the situation. He also says... "Notable: at the time of the formation of the “Combine,” ... There was, however, no underlying, sustaining organization that they were threatening to overtake by this action back in 1971." The VFW, AL, CYO and others were indeed sustaining organizations, but they were not united. Perhaps more accurate, there was no ONE sustaining organization.

Peripherally, meaning the G7 would have their exclusive shows and the rest of DCI could play along on "off" nights. I don't have time at the moment to track down the exact wording, but it was said that they will pursue this plan whether DCI is on board with it or not. If you can think of another interpretation... Again, my only point is that this has all been done before, and not with the "best interest of the activity" as a result.

Dunno if it's been changed since the old days, but the rule used to be that if you taught a corps, you couldn't judge for one year. So if that's still correct, if someone worked with a corps in 2010, they could not judge in 2010 or 2011 but would be eligible again in 2012. This rule was used to great effect in the 70's and 80's to get certain judges off the field. If a judge was bagging a particular corps year after year, that corps would hire the judge to teach for a year or two just so they couldn't judge for a while.

I was speaking specifically of the judging situation... "a judging system that would allow a few competitors to select the judges" That's exactly what DCI did in 1972. It's always been "a rigged judging system right from the getgo." That's what put it where it is today, with the same corps dominating for decades. Also, the G7 is not forcing the hand of DCI. They are suggesting to bring DCI along peripherally with this scheme. But, if DCI doesn't want it, the G7 have said, in no uncertain terms, that they will indeed take their ball and go play their own way (although I doubt they actually would, no balls, but it's in the proposal). I have to imagine vaguely similar proposals were quietly floated to the AL/VFW/CYO and rejected in the days leading up to the Combine split. If the G7 do take their ball, it will mirror the original foundation of DCI quite closely. Personally, I'm ambivalent regarding the G7. I do agree with them that something's got to change, but I don't feel their proposal is in the best interest of the activity as a whole. Then again, neither was DCI. History has illustrated that quite clearly.

You mean like the top 12 did to the other 400 corps at the inception of DCI? There is nothing new under the sun. Perhaps they should rename the G7, DCI2.

That's the best I've ever heard it said. Dead on.

Obviously a drum corps staff needs to have some grounding in the activity. But, it isn't rocket science. Music is music and any high school freshman can read a drill sheet. This fallacious idea that drum corps people have some magically special knowledge that others don't is a big part of what's holding it back.

Very well written post and it surely speaks to the feelings of many. I would like to explain my view of WHY this is happening. Those who teach, direct, and judge drum corps live in a cloistered world of high school and college marching bands. They seem to have lost any sense of what is enjoyable, or considered cool, to the general public. It is a very inwardly directed activity, inbred in so many ways that I expect to see corps with crossed eyes and buck teeth. I believe this trend will continue, as it has for decades, until there is some serious infusion of teaching talent from a world other than drum corps. Their idea of innovation is incorporating elements which were, in the larger scheme of things, innovative 50 years ago (see amplification among others). The corps still in existence are here solely because they have been willing to play the game by the rules of the perennial winners. This in itself is stifling and will not change any time soon, until they allow others to determine how the game will be played.

Obviously, Sam. I was trying to explain what Gary may have intended before the zealots jumped on him, which wasn't a cut on today's members who are clearly quite solid and disciplined, just a statement on the change in times. Amazing how little it takes to get the rah-rah's panties in a knot. To the easily offended - Your kids are perfect and wonderful and the best thing since cheese. Happy now? But frankly on what you said, I would rather have shows that were perhaps a little less complex or less technically perfect while serving a greater social purpose. There was once an altruistic vision for this activity which has been sadly and entirely lost. Guys like Jim Jones are probably rolling in their graves. Just one of many reasons I would not march again today.

Not to put words in Gary's mouth, but I think what he was trying to say is that in younger days the kids coming in weren't 4.0 students. Corps would literally pull kids off the streets and stick a drum, horn, or flag in their hands. Many of them were kids falling through the cracks, C students or worse, drop outs, delinquents, misfits, and they were TRANSFORMED into solid young adults and sometimes champions. It was a different activity entirely, with a different focus. Today's purpose is still to build character and all those great attributes and it still works well. But, when was the last time a finalist corps grabbed a kid hanging out in a park with no music experience and turned them into a top notch performer? It was common then... today?... not so much.

No. When I marched, the activity was wide spread, community based, and supported by the general population. You basically had a choice of doing something constructive like drum corps or hanging out at the am-pm. Today there are many other options for growth, travel and education which I would choose over drum corps. I often wonder how so many hard working and successful people in the world ever managed to get that way without drum corps. Could it be that there are other, possibly more relevant and rewarding ways to learn discipline, camaraderie, citizenship, etc? I'd say the answer is yes. Not that I think drum corps today is a waste of time, especially if you want to be a band director in the future, but there are many other ways to go. Very few other activities can replace the thrill of having 10,000+ people cheering (or even politely clapping) for you night after night. But, if that's really what drives your bus, get real, get a guitar and be a rock star, you'll get more chicks. I thoroughly enjoyed 9 years of drum corps, but if I had it to do over again I would have listened to my father and spent the last 2 years doing something else.

G7??? Bb7 seems much more appropriate.

Back toward the topic, I recall reading drum corps news in 75 or so with article after article about those annoying "bells" on the field. I remember doing a school essay about it, obviously on the pro-bell side of the issue. It was all percussion to me, but there were clearly many old timers who called it blasphemy. That perspective has kept me from complaining too too much about changes in drum corps. I remember how ridiculous those anti-bell people seemed to me cuz I thought keyboards were cool. But, I definitely know people who have turned their backs and walked away because of one change or another. And I did it in 82 with the grounding of the pit. It's easy to fall in love with a certain aspect of the activity and when that changes the rush just isn't there for you anymore. I really haven't enjoyed watching drum corps since 78, and I kept marching til 81. Personally, my main issue with so many changes, from 2 valves to synths, is that they are always done with the idea that it will make drum corps more appealing to more people, and that's a fallacy. Every "innovation" drives a certain number of people away. Not one change that has happened in my lifetime has made someone say, hey I hated drum corps before but I love it now because they added ______(insert change here). The one aspect of drum corps that has attracted, and will always attract, audience is that there are people out there doing something that others can't. That's what drives ALL performance, from baseball to ballet. It's not the uniform or the mezzo piano control of a horn line that excites people. It's the super-human-ness of it that people find attractive. If the powers that be in drum corps ever take the blinders off and start recognizing and really selling that aspect, they might see some real growth. People will always walk away. The question is, are more people coming in than going out? If the answer to that is no, then something really fundamental needs to change. If I had my way, there would be no more judging. That, from my perspective, is the root the problem. Drum corps is driven ENTIRELY by a subjective competition criteria that it arbitrarily creates for itself. And so, it eats itself alive and will continue to do so until one alone is left standing and crowned king of nothing.

If I remember correctly, in senior corps 76 was the first year we were allowed to start from the back side line instead of the end zone, but everyone had to start off the field. Then in 77 only the color guard was allowed to start on the field. In 78 the whole corps started on the field. DCI may have made those changes a year earlier, not sure.

Totally. There were a few years when one week to the next was a field with and then without yard lines. Always made it a bit confusing to see lines where there shouldn't have been and it was more than once that somebody mistook the 45 for the 50 and threw the whole drill out of whack. LOL The asymmetrical thing lagged a few years behind the introduction of yard lines. Guess it took a while to figure out that the yard lines would allow for more specific placement on the field instead of guiding by the form. But, I still miss the clean look of an unlined field. It was one of those things that separated drum corps from bands. Back then, dot books were only for band nerds who couldn't read a form and we wouldn't be caught dead using them. Not that they are bad, they obviously allow for more detailed placement. But, it was a different time when reading a form was a required skill and there was a certain pride in not needing yard lines to do a show.

There wasn't a rule, but maybe some people forget why drills went symmetrical in the first place. It wasn't because designers in the 70's were cave men unable to imagine asymmetrical forms. In the days before yard lines, symmetrical drill meant greater exposure to error and a higher score. It was easy to see if one side was off from the other, and making the 2 sides exactly the same was a challenge that registered points with the GE judges.