j.morgus

This would probably have a severe negative effect on audience retention. One comment heard from some casual fans at two different shows this season: "I wish they'd play more music that I recognize". These folks were guys that go to whatever local show are in their area, and have for years, but don't have any particular allegience to any corps. They just like the shows. If more corps started playing original "art music", then their enjoyment level would probably drop to the point where they would no longer be fans of any kind. What is wrong with drum corps as drum corps? Isn't marching and music good enough? Would giant drive-in movies behind the corps really enhance the experience? More likely it would be an extremely expensive distraction, adding some fun things for a few "creators" at the expense of some drum corps that could ill afford the huge production expense of what ever this "art" would be. Music videos are available now. I don't think that making them larger and toting them around the country to put on football fields would be an improvement to drum corps in the least.

That was them! Now that you mention it, IIRC, they had a girls corps too, the Queensmaids.

Do they get any PR from DCI at all? I only see DCI touting the "Best of the Best".

Lots of Immaculate Conception parish corps from other towns, too. I.C. Woburn (I forget their corps name) and I.C. Stoughton Golden Rays

In addition to the Sancian (and their feeder corps, The Mariners), St. Fransis also concurrently sponsored girls drill teams, The Sancianettes (and their feeder, the Marinettes).

At Echoes of New Orleans, we have had a mix of G horns (mostly 2 valve) with a couple of Bb's (A bari, one frenchie and a Euph) in the low section. We own plenty of G bugles, but do not discourage members from playing their own horns if they have them. We haven't tried mixing trumpets and sops, and have no plan to do so, but for the baris and euphs they blend just fine. The only time consuming part was entering our old scores into Finale for the ease of transposition, but once done it is a simple matter to provide a part however the player needs it (G, Bb treble, bass clef).

Looking at recaps, it propbably isn't due to the brand of brass that they are using, as much as it is other factors. Now, using your parlance, what would be the correct term of those corps that don't make finals? "Sub-bottom?", "Lower-than-low?", "Not worth having been there?". There has been a trend in drum corps circle to redefine words, and also to de-value the efforts of any but the winner. Not good.

No, that would be the "second 6". There are still (at least for now) more that 12 corps, and they deserve notice even though they aren't the "elite" or "top". You may call 6th through 12th place whatever you wish, but the word "bottom" has a meaning.

Lower than 16th? Wow, that's one precipitous drop!

1973 Stockton Commodores As an 11 year-old getting my first look at nationally competitive corps, this show really captured my imagination as far as what a corps performance could be. These guys rocked, and looked like they were having an amazingly good time.

This pretty much sums up the feeling that I had for this one as well. An extremely talented and well rehearsed drum corps that was mostly relegated to a supporting role for a new-agey performance piece. I remember thinking that much of the ensemble's efforts were wasted.

Can anyone say "Bottle Dance '79"? It didn't win it for them, but WOW, what an impact that had with the crowd.

This brings up a question: The cost of the sound tech. I don't know many current touring staff personally, and I was wondering about the folks on the sound boards. It seems that this isn't just an added task for an existing staff member, but a full time job, and thus added cost in the form of salary for this position. I don't worry much about the financial health of the "elite" corps, they seem to have deep enough pockets and enough experience handling themselves to cope with added expenses. I am more interested in the burden this places on less affluent groups that are trying to sustain a growth phase. I know that there is a contention that "all of this is optional", but even if a corps was to opt not to use any synths or guitars, it still seems pretty much a necessity now to amplify your pit. So to the added cost of the equipment to do so and the added logistical cost, doesn't the practice of a professional sound tech also add a significant cost to the tour? Can anyone enlighten me on this?

Some are actually quite interesting, others - not so much. I was mostly expressing frustration with the oft-repeated slur that anyone that doesn't like electronic corps wants all rules rolled back 10 years (or 30 years, or to 1927) or whatever hyperbolic date the basher chooses.

???

Thought I'd save a couple more I think Mr. Hopkins' words were "somewhat of a hybrid in the world of performance art". Just as bad, IMO.

Please see this post, and the resultant discussion. The relevent passage is the last paragraphs in the section entitled "audience impact".

Well, with that many corps, if the whole world marched each person would have to be in quite a few corps simultaneously for each one to have at least on member. But, corps with 50 members, on the other hand, have and still do put on very impressive performances. I love'm.

I was responding specifically to your claim that I had misrepresented the "Audience Impact" portion of the electronics proposal. I don't feel that I have. If George was referring to other proposals that he or others introduced concurrent to the electronics one, I missed that reference in this document. However, if that is indeed what he meant, then I still disagree with his intent. Whether it is the inclusion of electronic instruments, or older members, or huge frames with colored water, or whatever "MORE" the "creative community" feels it needs to be "COOL", I see no evidence that it is having the desired effect. Can you cite some?

Please. Also, if you would, compare the magnitude of imbalance to what is heard when amplified sections enter with the volume way too high. Do the imbalances you haven't listed equal the entrance of an amplified section that completely drowns out the solo/ensemble that is playing on the field and makes the audience wince because it is so obnoxiously loud?

I don't know if Teal's frontmen fit the genre of "grunge", but there is no doubt that they were "grungy" when I saw them. They presented a sharp contrast to the proud and refined look of Teal's on-field ensemble. Main Entry: grun·gy Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): grun·gi·er; grun·gi·est 1 : shabby or dirty in character or condition

It seems quite possible for two posters to agree on an opinion without being in full agreement on what the appropriate reaction to that opinion is. For one, the dislike of electronics could be very strong, so strong that they are turned off to the entire product of corps that use electronics. For another, perhaps the electronics are the only aspect of some corps' performance that that poster doesn't like. Some see this issue as being indicative of a trend in the activity, and maybe they have difficulty with the general direction that electronics represent. Others may like electronics, but feel that other changes are outside of the scope of their enjoyment. All of these view points are possible, as well as endless variety and degree. When Poster A agrees with a point made in a specific post, is doesn't necessarily mean that poster A agrees with every opinion expressed in Poster B's other posts. Or even every point made in that post. That is why it is necessary to read and consider each poster's statements in their entirety. This thread has continued for almost 2500 posts because this issue isn't all black and white. It isn't as simple as "I love synthesizers" vs. "I hate synthesizers". (Or maybe it is, and we all just love to argue. And yes, I realize that there have been many digressions and rehashes along the way.) Just as it is possible to agree with someone's opinion about a given corps' hornline but not share their opinion on that corps' colorguard, it is possible to agree on their dislike of electronics in drum corps, but still differ on what it is they find displeasing about them. Or more to your point, what to do about that dislike. Just as the "anti" crowd has much diversity in their feelings on this subject, the "pro synth/electronics" posters aren't all in agreement about what it is they like about these items and why. So, when someone paints all those that dislike electronics as being in one "anti-change" group as has been done so many times in this thread, it is no more accurate than painting everyone who like them as being "pro-woodwind". That description might be true of some posters, and still not apply to others, even though they agree on this one point.

Finally got to see INT live the other night in Ocean Springs. WOW! I've never seen a performance quite like it! The visual product was by far the cleanest thing I've seen in a long, long time. Unfortunately, the rude crowd in our section had no respect for this innovative unit's show. They were talking and milling about so much you couldn't even hear the corps at all.

The section of the proposal that I referred to states that: 1) "young people are not coming into the stands" 2) "DCI needs to go after these young people as our primary audience." and 3) "as we reposition ourselves we need to be COOL." It seems clear from the context (this is a proposal to use electronic instruments, after all) that the use of electronic instruments will make us "COOL", and bring young people into the stands. The implied negative is that if we don't use electronic instruments, DCI will be "unCOOL" and the young people won't come.