asifindnoarta

I'm not willing to discuss anything in PM's but I am here and I think its appropriate. A MOD will shut us down if I am wrong. ok good and evil good... no one gets hurt, actually people get pleasure. Drum corps doesn't hurt anybody. evil... pain and suffering are a direct cause. The military kills people, hurts people.

Drum corps and the Military share an interesting relationship. Drum corps employs severly strict disciplinary values and teaches uniformity for the sole purpose of making art. The military employs severly strict disciplinary values and teaches uniformity for the sole purpose of killing people. Both share the same values but for different reasons. Making art is good. Killing people is evil. So while Drum Corps should distance itself from killing people, it requires the intense, mental and physical discipline and uniformity (military-like) to achieve its goals.

Good question! 1) Right now shows are designed and tweaked I'd say primarily for the judges. 2) The audience is the intended audience but I think what you mean is who is the show written for and I'd say right now shows are written for points rather than applause. 3) Yes. Judges shouldn't exist. You can't objectively evaluate drum corps. Drum corps isn't a spectator sport its an artform. Bach, Monet, and Joyce weren't making their stuff for judges. Judging defines the activity as competitive. The Competitivenes of the activity actually inhibits artistic expression. 4) It can be fixed. Get rid of judging. Get rid of rules. Let drum corps do whatever they see fit to do with their shows. No judges = no competition = no rules. No rules = whatever you want = better drum corps.

The University of Massachusetts Amherst application asks whether or not an applicant has any drum corps experience under the ACTIVITIES, INTERESTS AND WORK EXPERIENCE section. https://webapp.spire.umass.edu/admissions/c...gapp_display.pl

I'm with you on this

This is an easy one Overrated - oh sweet jesus the bluecoats... there were a significant amount of people who posted on this forum that bluecoats would break into the top three and some people even thought they actually had a chance at winning. Then when they topped cavies and BD midseason this place went nuts. and blooo winning horns at quarterfinals!? I don't think so.

Why not?

hahaha I like your sense of humor

its also more beneficial to the activity if everyone praises everything there is no improvement

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I don't think music can happen by accident. I don't think a baseball hit through a glass window is "music" just because it vibrates the air in wave patters no more than I think bird crap on a car is a painting. Music has to be intentional, like narration. I'll go so far to say that you can respond to this argument by saying that the narration is intentional therefore its music. Well I'm going to counter that by saying that not all intentional sound is music. Alarms are not music. Alarms are sounds used for a different reason then music. Same thing applies with narration.

In that case, I congratulate... ME! I marched with a D1 corps and since your thread is all about goodness, I'm going to celebrate mine here. I was amazing when I marched and my marching has been so beneficial to me that its crazy. What I did was so good that I can't even stand myself.

well ok i was rude with my dismissive "no" I'll say more first of all... all sound occurs "within a given time" - no sound happens outside of time. I'd be impressed if you showed me sound that occured not within a given time that means that all sound occurs within a given time and if music is "sound within' a given time" and if all sound is sound within a given time, then all sound is music no, all sound is not music. example: narration

no

I hope so

I do think you're underplaying the importance of narration that is going on in drum corps shows right now. One particular drum corps this year had a huge amount of narration proportionally speaking. It was obviously a big part of the program for which there is no clear way of evaluating how that part of the program was performed.

Fair enough, but what about the technical execcution of spoken lines? It is not the place of the G.E. Music, or Ensemble Music judge to evaluate (and reflect with a number) the technical proficiency of the musicians. That is the job of the music performance judge. So would the G.E. Music judge also evaluate the quality of narration in addition to its contribution to the overall effect. What I want to know is, where do corps get/loose points for good/bad acting?

I like where you're going with this. I think conditionals would work well in this case, however may jeapordize the integrity and consistancy of the rest of the rubric. Imagine, if there is marching in the program. But I do think conditionals may have to be used in order to make this work so I agree with you there. I also really like where you're going with renaming G.E. Music to G.E. Sound. I think this term would be more appropriate if evaluations of narration are to be included in this caption. Now here's one other thing. You show me a green-shirt who knows anything about acting or oration. Personally I think its a little irresponsible to say "yes, we will allow you to speak during a drum corps show, and we'll judge it too, but our ajudicators don't have any experience" that's just not fair.

I submit to you that narration is not music. Therefore, it should not be judged under G.E. music. Singing Lyrical poetry that employs the use of strictly timed meter a.k.a. rap Drumspeak these are forms of music caused by the human voice that should be judged as "music" talking is not music

Yes. This is why I think we've got a tricky situation on our hands. Neglect to include a narration caption and you've got narration going unjudged. Include a narration caption and corps who don't use it don't get points. The problems narration is creating has not yet been outweighed by the benefits being brought to drum corps presentations by narration. Fix it DCI. You allowed it. What now?

The following is the question I submitted to DCI: The following is a question to which I would very much appreciate as thorough a response as convenience will allow. Drum Corps International has allowed for the use of narration through electronic amplification in DCI sanctioned performances. Narration is now an element of the drum corps show, yet there is no caption or subcaption, whatsoever, pertaining to the effect, design, or performance of this new artistic element which you have allowed. My question: In what caption or subcaption should its respective adjudicator reflect his or her evaluation of narrative performance in all relevant cases? Thank You

Thank you all for forwarding contact information. I will send this concern to DCI. I will post there response, if any, on this forum.

How do I do this?

How do I do this?

Do you think that I should? Do you think that I have a valid point that should be considered?

With the advent of narration we face a new challenge in the evaluation process. Narration is now a part of the drum corps show, whether we like it or not we can't ignore it. No one can deny that narration has been a part of several drum corps shows over the past few years. I believe that since narration is now a part of some drum corps shows, it should be evaluated as part of the presentation and therefore, should effect the overall score. But there is a problem with this. Everything that is done during a drum corps performance can be evaluated within the restrictions of the ajudication rubric. Drill is evaluated on its effectiveness, and its design and complexity, but drill is also evaluated on how well each of the members can march on an individual to individual basis. As of now narration can only be feasibly evaluated on how it adds or detracts from the overall effect of the show. No judge can assign a number to how well the narration is performed. Simply put, there is no performance caption for narration. In other words. If a narrator is a poor actor, there is no accountability except for the general effect caption. But even the G.E. caption only allows for evaluation with respect to two elements of drum corps. Visual and Music. Any judge who has done anything BUT ignored narration with respect to his or her evaluation of a drum corps performance including narration is kidding themselves. Right now there is NO space for the evaluation of narration from a performance or effect standpoint within the rubric. If DCI is to allow narration in the presentations of groups they need to allow for a space for it on the rubric. If its a part of the show it needs to be judged and right now it can't be. Of course this brings up many problems for groups who do not use narration. Because if you have a "narration" caption... what happens to groups who don't have any? You could consider narration, being a element of auditory stimulation, like music, under the music category. But narration isn't a part of the musical texture, it is something else. DCI has allowed a radical element of drum corps to be added without accounting for how the evaluation of such an element is to be dealt with. Personally I find this a little irresponsible considering no one seems to have thought of this. Or at least people have thought of it that I don't know about and nothing has been done to address this. Bottom line: If people are going to be performing narrative lines in drum corps shows, their individual performance technique needs to be recognized by DCI. If you're going to act poorly, it should hurt your score in some justifiable sense. So with that I ask DCI, if there is poor narration in a drum corps show, in what sub-caption should a judge reflect this through a score? please answer me DCI. and for that matter, DCP. I want to know what everyone think about this.