MoonHill

Just some notes/concerns that occur to me, Sam: 1) Except by linking with a HS, you're in the exact same recruiting pool as the Jr Corps... and no matter where your membership comes from, you're still in the same pond when it comes to equipment, transpo, show scheduling, etc. 2) Except for that trip to Rochester(or rather, Annapolis in 2012)... which if you're not planning on doing anyway, makes this reason even less important, since it's pretty much standard practice for several jr. corps (in So Cal, no less), to not bother with touring nationally. 3)Except, again, for that trip to Annapolis... which, again, if you're not planning on doing at any point, makes not being a regional DCI corps rather silly. And if you do plan on eventually doing DCA nationals, then the "short season" idea goes right out the window, because DCA is already so much later than DCI nationals to begin with. And, 4) Because SoCal Dream has such a huge surplus of age-out-plus people clamoring to get in the door. [/sarcasm] Seriously, though, between Dream and Freelancers Alumni South and the various incarnations of Blue Phoenix, just how many vets/nevermarched old guys do you think there are in Southern California? The recruiting pool has never been huge, especially compared to NorCal. As for DCA west and you marching, I'm on-board with both of those ideas, and I wish you great luck in this program. Although I think you're over-estimating just how much marching you're going to be able to do while also being the lead-man on organizing the program. It can be tough for Directors to get on the field, even in small-time senior corps. Just watch out for the adult/minors complications inherent in bringing older people into a group linked so closely to a high-school; the liability issues will have to be watched *very* closely, or you're going to wind up with a minor making googely-eyes at a 30-year-old, and a parental lawsuit, nevermind the potential for minors to get beer, etc. Even going to NorCal for the Renegades shows will be a chaperoning nightmare if you wind up with any sort of age mixture. Being attached to a school adds all sorts of concerns that way, too (have fun with the helicopter parents, for instance, nevermind helicoptering school administrators and board members). And remember, general liability insurance only goes so far.

In a wide variety of ways, this thread delivers on the laughs.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent poster?!"

You could always join in on the joke, show some humor, and jovially make fun of their alma mater. But I guess being uptight about it works, too.

I'll go along with that, though I warn you, I might not check back on this thread for a few days. Rules about creative endeavors coming in under the deadline that I've got to follow. ;)

There's no point in changing it, though, as it can have no effect on the things it proposes to effect, under the logic of your philosophy. No, I'm sorry, that's not possible. There was a vote at the last bi-annual scotch-drinker's club association, and it was decided that one is not allowed to call it that if one is also going to say things like "there's no such thing as advocating a philosophy". Bloody rules committees.

I was a physics major. The weirder parts of QM are my bread and butter. And no, when we've brought in a concept such as infinity (a term you first used), then memory is not very specific. Because for every possible memory, there will be an infinite number of musical pieces, and an infinite number of librettos and choreographies and stories (all artistic, and thus "always-existent") that will result in that particular memory. If there aren't, then the number of possible things is definitionally limited, and thus not infinite. At which point, you'll need to consult a new dictionary.

Religion tends to lend itself to effecting the lives of the people involved. That's actually most of the point of the vast, overwhelming majority of religions through out history. Whereas your stance seems to have no such aspirations at all, which is fine. I'm a big fan of intellectual masturbation. And as for who cares, well, at the beginning of this thread, you sure as heck seemed to. It was just one page back that you were asserting that heirs had no right to make decisions on an ancestor's copyrights...

Logically, you could write a completely different piece of music and have it set on stage to a completely different show, and it could have the same effect and meaning and even memory. That's what's fun about concepts like "infinite"

So, as I mentioned, why bother to be bothered, at all, by anything that anyone ever does regarding any aspect of copyright law application?

In other words, you do nothing but make yourself feel good. Got it. Your words have no actual bearing on the world or the people in it. There's not a jot of legal or even particularly sensible application to any of them. They're merely intellectual masturbation, carried out in public. That I can respect.

Sure it does. The music is forever, which means every arrangement of it is forever, and every interpretation of it is forever. And since Forever is infinite and Infinity is Infinite(by definition), then there are an infinite number of musical pieces in Forever-existence that would have the exact same meaning and effect to anyone listening as any Bernstein piece has or could. So just grab one of the infinite number of pieces floating out in the aether that aren't one of the ones Bernstein wrote down, and you're golden.

And for that matter, if music is itself a more than physical construction, then logically My Right To Have My Choice is also a more than physical construction and transcends both my death and the rules you might want to put on it, such as "it ends at death"

And yet, you seem to be saying at the same time, it is. Note the rules you keep trying to impose upon it. They're your rules, sure, and different than the rules of, oh, let's say, U.S. copyright law, but they're rules nontheless. Rules come up with by you, and which you find very logical and right, but which, according to your own philosophical stance, the music itself cares not a single blind whit about.

Then there's absolutely no point in grousing, at all, about what the heirs of Bernstein choose to do or not do with the music created by Bernstein and to which they hold the copyright.