cixelsyd

That is why I specified "stationary front ensemble instruments"...

Of course. The same timing benefit can be exploited just by having key personnel using IEMs to solve key timing challenges. It does not have to be every musician, full show. Then why is anyone doing it on any scale? As for the following, you seem to be reading things into my posts that are not there... ... no. ... no. Budget suck - yes. $2 million just for electronics for one corps - no. Your question is too narrow. I have a more general response which may help. It is not controversial to point out that the instrument/equipment suppliers have had an outsized influence on the format of the drum corps activity for the past 100 years. Fact is, before any of that happened, they were already making a bigger score marketing another one of their formats (band) to schools. Suppliers are not all bad when you realize they played a key role in creating these things we enjoy. They do not, however, make the best decisions for the long-term interest of all these activities. Their mission is to sell more of their product. And we can all see how much more of their product they are selling to scholastic bands. Fair play to them - there is a lot of tax-subsidized funding behind scholastic band budgets. The problem is that drum corps do not have that kind of funding, and therefore cannot make the same choices as scholastic bands and still operate sustainably. (Again, that should not be controversial to point out either... but if you want to debate that, be my guest. That is what the forum is for.)

165 is not necessary. Only about 112 performers in the prototypical "full corps" contribute sounds. And of those, the stationary front ensemble instruments would not require adjustments for varying field position during the show.

Seriously, there are a number of ways to look at this issue. Here are two important ones. 1. As I am learning more and more, the equipment suppliers seem to determine everything about this activity from conception to extinction. This device is another example. 2. Throughout much of time, marching ensembles dealt with timing most effectively by maintaining close-order drill. When corps grew larger and drills spread out more, timing lags became an ongoing problem. Significant skills were developed to compensate. Rehearsal techniques were developed to focus on the issue. Listening forward was weeded out; listening back was encouraged. If everyone had in-ear monitors, it would be possible to program them to compensate for positional time lags. That would make it much easier for the performers to line up the ensemble. But if you believe this activity should be a skills competition for the performers, this takes the game further away from that.

You mean I never have to hear "DUT DUT DUT DUT" from the center snare anymore? Sign me up!

Or how about just not having an elite in the first place?

But that is what the halftime show was... so you cannot spend the following 420 words of your post describing it in detail without venturing into that zone. I have one observation that actually abides by DCP guidelines, though. This presentation was entirely for broadcast. The level of visual detail was lost on the live audience, and significant portions of performance were obstructed from view by props (i.e. tall plants). I doubt we need to worry about DCI going in that direction, though, as judges need to be able to see things live or they will not get credit.

Sure there is - use AI to stop it. AI can do anything, right? Yes, but the people making it that way are not going to stop. Some of them do not even think there is a problem. They refuse to accept advice or help from human sources, so they certainly are not going to turn control over to AI. This is like the frog-in-boiling-water metaphor, where in our case the "frog" is each of the 21 corps - oh sorry, 20 - who vote to keep nudging the heat up.

Quality of product does not matter. What matters is how it rates with the judging community (many of whom are also designers). That community will not allow the perception that AI can design (or judge) just as well as they can. Besides, AI cannot attend critique. That could have unintended consequences. If designers have as much say as it appears, they might drive DCI to ban all Internet-accessible videos of drum corps to deprive AI of its source material.

Maybe AI can help expedite the copyright clearance process. On the other hand, maybe a coming wave of AI-generated copyright infringements will have the opposite effect.

Evidently it is hard, judging from how many rights holders take six months, a year, or longer to respond to requests.

Correct. More specifically, DCI may disagree and they spell out the consequences in their code of conduct guideline. It is not always that simple, though. As I understand this case, the offending person did not post any opinions of their own. It may be that their views are being inferred/extrapolated from indirect social media functions such as "likes"... unless DCI has additional information to which I am not privy.

Two questions arise from this article: 1. Does that mean this skater performed all season using music that was not cleared? 2. Are figure skaters having derivative works created from copyrighted music, legally comparable to when a drum corps designer arranges music for different instrumentation than the original work?

If one woodwind is "progress" (your word), then it follows that additional woodwinds would be more "progress".

Since 2016, the two corps who make that impression on me every year are Carolina Crown and Boston Crusaders. Naturally, there are other standouts (Bluecoats 2023 and Blue Stars 2024 are two that come to mind at the moment), but Crown and Cru have made it an annual practice.