jmdigmon

OP, in case you're viewing without logging in, please get in touch with me if you still need any of these years. I see that 04 is in demand (I cannot find disc 2 of the three for that year at the moment, though).

Sent you a PM yesterday. Let me know if you still need any of these.

I don't think that the explanation regarding where the synth fits in the performance caption is clear. Yes, it is a percussion instrument. If brass performance can consider it, however, where does that leave the synth? I understand that judges are human and considerations other than their captions may sneak in here and there, but I don't think that should be the accepted method. It really seems like the further development of A&E necessitates permanently adding the second percussion judge in the box. Make sure percussion performance evaluates all percussion. GE and music ensemble may get it, although I haven't been satisfied with electronic balance since it began, but if the performance captions bleed, what is the point of separate percussion and brass sheets? I don't think it is acceptable to allow both performance captions to consider the synth merely because most of the judges have some piano keyboard training.

The corps I am most excited about is Phantom because I want to see how Shane will fit in there. I have high hopes, and I have never disliked any percussion section with his name on it that I have seen. I loved what he accomplished at Spirit. His work at MCM is awesome. Next, I want to see Vanguard. For the most part, I liked Rennick's work with Phantom ('04 and '05 less than the rest; '07 is my favorite). The sound will likely be different from the Vanguard I know, but that's cool. Vanguard had different sounds under Johnson, Hardimon, Casella, Sanford, Mason, and the rest. Clean beats are clean beats. I also hope that I will like their drill design. I haven't been the biggest fan of Vanguard's visual design the last couple years, despite the quality of people who have created the design. Finally, I want to see Bluecoats. I have been quite impressed with the corps's improvement, especially since 2006. The last two years have really kicked up a notch for me, even though I know many didn't like Imagine (which I think is a fine show). Here's hoping they can push even farther in 2011!

Jeff, I agree. Terminology will bleed from circuit to circuit and sheet to sheet. Some terms and considerations are universally present on all score sheets I have seen. However, most of those (other than BOA and WGI sheets) are devoid of explanation. All I wanted to know were DCI's definitions of their terms. I think that would be helpful. Necessary? No, but helpful nonetheless. I know Lance commented on his feelings about rubrics earlier, but I like rubrics. In an adjudication that is subjective, rubrics and clear definitions can provide, as Lance said, the illusion of objectivity. It has been said on this forum numerous times over the last several years (sorry, I've been merely a lurker) that even under the objective criteria of the past that subjectivity crept in. I believe that. I also believe that adherence to rubrics and consistency in judging tolerances as related to the terms and definitions that guide evaluation are as close as it will get to providing an accurate framework for evaluation under a subjective system. I want to understand the system. I also wouldn't say that I'm not on DCI's side. I like DCI. I understand its position. I have the utmost respect for intellectual property rights. I also happen to be a fan of transparency.

Sounds good! I hope this is a sign of good things to come for all corps this summer

Well, it's really just my speculation. I didn't ask and don't know exactly why DCI doesn't make the rules available beyond what I was just told--DCI considers it proprietary and doesn't want the information out there for all to access, as the sheets have been copied in the past. I was simply trying to rationalize by making a comparison to the indoor scene. I never said that bands would use the sheets. From my own judging experiences, wide-open scoring sheets with just a few terms to guide the judges, and no definitions to promote uniformity of application of those terms, give the judges at high school band contests wide latitude in scoring. Every contest I have judged has operated mainly as a fund-raiser, not as a contest for the sake of a contest or as an educational experience. Judges make comments for the furtherance of education on the tapes, but, ultimately, that was not the point of the contest. So, those sheets, IMO, reflect that. While DCI has partnered with scholastic endeavors, that is not nearly the same as scholastic relationships with WGI. Scholastic groups in local circuits benefit from knowing WGI's sheets and at least have some rudimentary knowledge of the scoring system before making the trek to WGI regionals or Dayon (or wherever WGI championships are held in a given year). The same cannot be said for high school bands. A high school band director's knowledge of DCI scoring will not help him compete at a local band contest (unless the contest has ripped off DCI's sheets). His band will not compete under those sheets (unless, of course, the band is also a drum corps that tours, in some degree, in the summer or the contest ripped off the sheets). There is no scholastic classification in DCI as there is in WGI. So, while I was just speculating, I don't think I've shot myself in the foot.

It looks that way. I talked with DCI service rep this morning, and the adjudication manual/sheets are NOT available for purchase. DCI considers this proprietary information, so access is only distributed to those who need to know: drum corps and judges. As with any proprietary information, I am sure corps and judges are restricted from disclosing the information. I understand that DCI wants to protect its intellectual property. I imagine podunk high school marching band contest could rip off DCI's sheets and judging criteria. WGI makes its adjudication manual available, but WGI is a different animal in that local circuits sometimes use WGI sheets, those local circuits foster the growth of the activity, and, consequently, groups may make the trip to WGI. In that situation, knowledge and dissemination of WGI's sheets makes sense. But, in the outdoor marching activity, there is no incentive to make the sheets public in the same manner as WGI--there are no smaller, local drum corps circuits that, in a way, operate as a training ground for groups who go to the big show. I wish the video explaining judging that DCI posted a couple years ago actually explained judging considerations in depth.

I ordered the rules. Again, the rules I got were the standard contest rules, not adjudication rules. I am not sure about others, but I am interested in seeing the rules that pertain to judging. For example, I would love to see how DCI actually defines general effect. I don't want speculation. I don't think most people have a problem with not knowing the official definition of a bugle. Maybe they do. If you're interested in that, order the $35 2010 Contest Rules. It will come to you in a neat package containing a color laser jet printed copy. From what I have gathered after years of reading this forum, many people want to see the man behind the curtain--the criteria and terminology used in judging the corps on the field. Many people may not care. That's cool. I just want to know to satisfy my own curiosity. FYI, the rules one can purchase for $35 are the equivalent of the five page WGI percussion contest rules that are available for free, in case anyone is wondering. Granted, WGI's free rules are about a fifth the length of DCI's. I am still waiting on DCI to respond to my request to fix my purchase. Maybe the "goods" aren't available for purchase.

Thanks! I thought I made it clear to the sales rep what I was looking for.

FYI, the rule book that I ordered for $35 is nothing more than the 2010 Contest Rules. I don't need to know that performers can cross the sidelines or that World Class caption awards are averaged across all three nights. I knew that. I want the sheets. I want the rubrics. Hopefully, DCI will respond to rectify the situation, either through sending me something actually worth $35 or giving my money back.

I tried several times over the last couple years to submit the online question form and never got an answer. The customer service representative told me the rule book is only available for order over the phone. I'm cool with that. Soon, I'll have all the answers! To order: call DCI at (317) 275-1212, wait for the menu and press 1 for a representative, tell the representative you'd like to order the rule book, the representative will tell you that the rule book costs $35.00, and order the book. UPS ground shpping to my neck of the woods was $9.07, for a total of $44.07.

A couple months ago, I took a couple of the CDs to a CD/DVD restoration service (professional), and they were unable to copy the disk onto a new disk as the old disks had deteriorated too much. At that point I thought I would have to download every show one-by-one at $2.99 each. I was certainly surprised to see that I could download the bundles.

All my Collector's Series from 1972 to 1986 are completely unreadable. Several made my computer lock up when I tried to load them. Some still play in my car's CD player, and some make the CD player freeze, so I haven't listened to them in a while. I don't think keeping them all in a CD case in my car over the last decade has helped their longevity.

Thanks! I didn't know bundles were available for download. Just got 1974-1976! Even when the price goes up, I'll get more because my old CDs are worn out to the point that my computer wouldn't recognize them.

Before 2003, Crown never finished higher than 7th in drums. Does anyone remember Rennick's short time at BD in the early 90s? I do, and it wasn't good. Was it Rennick's fault? Nope. Just the way things worked out in 1991 at BD, which ended the year pretty clean but without many notes at all. Then what happened? Rennick did other things and made his way back up and produced some killer lines at Phantom. (While continuing UNT's dominance.) Shane has proven himself at multiple levels over the last decade, and I think he can do great things at Phantom. What he brought to Spirit was quite incredible. If that corps had been a legitimate finalist contender, he could have done greater things there. I hope some vets come back to PR and give him a chance and that others make the trip. It will be a great experience.

Drums: 76, 77, 83-86, 94, 96, 97, 07, 09 Total: 11

You missed this one. MENC Copyright Guide for Music Educators Additionally, this article is a good overview, Copyright Monster, by Ted Piechocinski Also, if anyone actually wants the statutes, search for Title 17 of the United States Code. Title 17 covers copyrights, not just music.

90 Crossmen or Star 91 Crossmen or Star 92 Crossmen or Vanguard 1993 Star 1994 Blue Devils 1995 Blue Devils 1996 Crossmen 1997 Vanguard 1998 Crossmen 1999 Vanguard

Yeah, I know. It's tough all over, though, and the economy may turn around enough to make a difference in two years before I'm out of here. I never had goals of being at a huge firm anyway. I had a job during 1L summer, which most in my class didn't have, so at least I have some work experience. I may have to end up renewing my teaching certificate. With a bachelor's in ed and 6 years teaching experience, plus a master's in history and a law degree, I think I could get a gig teaching again, especially if I move back to Nashville, where I taught for several years and still know some principals. Would MUCH rather have a law gig, though. Hopefully good grades, law review, experience during school, and a willingness to work in TN, where I go to school, will make a difference. It's not like I'm trying to work at a nationwide firm.

Regarding Cage's 4'33", Cage owns it. Does he own all silence? No - just that appropriated by his piece, and "performed" during the allotted time when one performs that silence, regardless of whether anyone think it is ridiculous or not (the performing or the owning of silence). Regarding the tree, if it is on the gardener's property, yes he owns it. If he sells the land, then he no longer owns the tree. I own the trees on my land, even if I didn't plant them. When I move and sell my house, I will no longer own them. A composer owns the rights to his/her piece of music until s/he assigns or sells those rights to someone else. Some composers may create for the sake of creation, but I think it could be argued that most create for the paycheck no matter how principled they are because everyone has to eat. Yes those that are gifted are remembered, and their music lives on. But, if it weren't for commissions, what music would we have today? Does the copyright process aid or hinder the creation process?

2L - on Law Review and writing my note on music arranging, education, and fair use. What I've researched thus far fit somewhat timely into this thread. Also, trying to find a gig for the summer. The economy sucks for everyone. I guess I knew that before I left my former career to do this.

The holder of copyright generally has full control of what licenses are issued based on their agreement with the artist to issue copyrights. If you want to arrange, you first get permission to arrange (your contract with the copyright holder), create what is known as a "derivative work" based on the original (subject to court derived rules of standards of originality if you face litigation for copying), and generally abide by your agreement with the copyright holder who acts in the interests of the artist/composer. Regarding originality, if you do to a piece of music what a lazy ninth grader may do for a history report - simply cut and paste off the internet - you'll lose. No royalties for arrangements under this - you pay the amount negotiated in the contract. One exception to this is a compulsory license (a mechanical license - a recording of sound onto something which you then sell) which applies essentially to cover songs. In this situation, the performer sends notice (a letter or other communication) to the publisher that he is going to record XYZ Song by ABC Artist and will then pay royalties at the statutory rate based on the recording's sales on a monthly basis (or any other basis negotiated by the parties). Under a compulsory license, the standard of originality that exists in the contractual permission to arrange is much lower - you cannot alter the "melody or fundamental character" of the original. This arrangement, however, is generally considered part of the recording made under the compulsory license. For an example of what counts as a proper, legal arrangement under a compulsory license, compare Madonna's version of Don McLean's "American Pie" to the original - Madonna's version did not alter the melody OR fundamental character of the original (key word here is "or" - one or the other must generally remain). Also, be sure you arrangers check the copyright date of the score from which you are working. Just because the piece was written in 1823 doesn't mean it's in public domain. The score you have in your hands may have been published in 1995, in which case you're gonna need to file some more papers. Regarding amount used, there is NO magical formula regarding number of measures used or a sequence of notes or anything like that. Courts look to whether or not a new piece is sufficiently original to grant derivative work status - worthy of its own copyright (the new material from the arranger is copyrightable; the arranger cannot copyright what has already been copyrighted). Derivative work status is unavailable under a compulsory license. I think this is all correct. As before, if someone else has more/correct information, I apologize. Please correct me and don't hold me to these words. If you honestly have legal questions, consult an attorney.

First, I am not a lawyer. Second, The Copyright Act of 1976 is in Title 17 of the United States Code (17 U.S.C. § 101, et. seq.). The provisions relating to music arrangement are not terribly explicit. In most all cases related to marching band, DCI, WGI percussion units, and similar groups, permission to arrange comes from the copyright holder, which is usually not the artist/composer/composer's estate. The copyright holder is usually a publishing house of some sort (e.g. Hal Leonard). From grants of permission to arrange (usually based on a one-time fee for a set use and period of time), the publisher may disperse a negotiated amount to the composer, et al. The "permission to arrange" license is a contract between the copyright holder and the arranger/performing ensemble. Licenses for making audio recordings and video recordings are separate and negotiable (and required if you plan to do so). If anyone else is more in the know, feel free to add. This is for anyone's education alone.

Maybe not the best in all cases, but my favorites 1. tie - 1982 and 1986 3. 1988 4. 1985 5. 1984 6. 2007 7. 1976 8. 1991 9. 1993 10. 2008 Honorable mention - 1987 Edit - meant 07 and 08, not 08 and 09; I did like 09 too, though