Stu

Had to read it all, but the last line, the one I put in bold, actually answers my question.

A song which is now protested as being, um, insensitive.

I am a member of ASCAP. And ASCAP realizes it would be way too cumbersome for venues to research every song performed. So ASCAP does not grant licenses to perform individual songs. Rather, ASCAP offers blanket licenses that authorize the public performance of the entire ASCAP library. It is the framed or posted license you see on the wall at bars, clubs, etc. That blanket license is all that the host of a band competition needs. Which should have already been secured by the host school anyway because of the Copyrighted music being played at ticket-purchased sports events where bands play at halftime and recorded music is played over the loud speaker systems. Here is a link: https://www.ascap.com/help/ascap-licensing

Note: I have no idea about 30 or 40 years ago. And again I am not advocating retroactive fines/fees; but that might be where there may be possible whacking for non-compliance.

Do you own a theater copy? International (non USA) formatted Video? Because that is all I have ever seen for sale.

I am not advocating collecting retroactively; I am advocating that the required fees are paid going forward. And yes, it is realistic to have expected venue operators and show coordinators in the past to have researched what was the legal protocol and follow it in order to promote live performances where monetary transactions were taking place. In fact, many many many years ago I brought this up with a band booster and their response was ASCAP will not care due to it being a small marching band event. So many knew, they just let it slide.

So.... if all but one established Music GE judges are commenting in the same manner ("This music conveys the show design GE very well, is wonderfully dark, balanced, controlled dynamics, not overbearingly FFF") ; all but one scoring the corps in the same manner (say 0.2 of each other as scores increase during the season), and all but one is ranking the corps in the same manner (placing the corps 1st in Music GE) It is actually ok, fine, acceptable, encouraged, and supported for that other Music GE judge to have a vastly different take as long as the comments are backed up such as ("The GE here is supposed to be Hot Jazz, it should be bright, sort of raspy, 8va tpts, improv solos, occasional FFF moments"); along with scoring the corps well below the other judges all season and ranking the corps 5th in Music GE. With that in mind, every judging coordinator will back that judge's call as long as that judge can back up the comments, score, and ranking. Correct? Or.... would the sanctioning body seek to train all judges to view excellent Music GE as wonderfully dark, balanced, controlled dynamics, not overbearingly FFF (ie clones in GE interp); and if the rogue judge did not conform to that interp that judge would be told bye-bye?

Good. They were supposed to be securing performance licenses already anyway.

That is why when two are adjudicating the same caption with the same sheets adding together and dividing by two yields a more fair score. But the ultimate "goal" of the training and experience is to get the exact same rating and exact same ranking from both judges.

I am not advocating going backwards with G bugles, so a17 please don't think that is what I mean. But there was a time where each corps had their own very unique distinct sound. Within seconds of listening to a recording anyone could pinpoint "that is Madison" or "that is Regiment" or "that is SCV". One was Dark, another was Bright, one was Raspy, another was Loud, and yet another was Controlled... All were distict identies to each corps. However, the current sound from corps to corps is very homogenized; likely due to the staff jumping from corps to corps combined with like minded interp of sheet criteria.

Here is a bit of irony. The movie which features that song is no longer distributed nor available in the United States.

While I make no legal claims, I am someone who has done this professionally for many years. Not only in marching arts, but in clubs with rock, country, and jazz groups. If there is a custom arrangement produced and distributed, the person in charge of the performing ensemble is responsible to seek permission to arrange from the Copyright Holder and pay any permission fees. However, if published sheet music is purchased and used without alteration, or a rock band does a cover from ear, no extra fee applies. But what about perfomamce? Public performances of Copyrighted music at live music venues, with limited exceptions, do require performance payment. However, it is the responsibility of the venue owner or show promoter, not the performing ensemble, to obtain a public performance license and pay any required licensing fees. Typically, venue owners of bars, clubs, stadiums, etc. obtain blanket licenses from the performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, etc) so as to have the permission to produce musical performances of covers like rock, country, jazz, etc. at their venues. So, I tell my music clients to make sure that either the venue owner or show promoter has secured the performing license and paid the applicable fee or to not perform at that venue. Most bars, clubs, etc. will have it framed on the wall. And of course DCI, BOA, and WGI do secure the performance rights for their sanctioned events. However... Many times local high schools who put on local contests promoted by their band boosters do not secure the proper performance liscensing; even though they are supposed to secure that performance permission. My gut tells me they are so insignificant to the liscinsing entities it would be futile for the Copyright investigators to research, but again I am not an attorney. Nevertheless... I have worked with school marching bands engaging with BOA and WGI who have secured their own performance permission just for the set number of local contests they will attend.

Here are a couple of questions for all, but especially for Gar. 1) If a band or a group of bands (rock, punk, country, marching bands, no matter the genera) perform at scholastic stadiums; and each concert venue is secured, as well as promoted, by local people, and money is exchanged at the venues which benifit both the bands and the local promotors; who should pay the fee to hold a performance at each venue? 2) Since scholastic stadiums do hold public paying events in which Copyrighted music is played, shouldn't they fall under the same venue performance fees as bars, clubs, etc which are also venues holding live music events?

Making sure corps are connecting with the audience is vital; we certainly want them on their feet, shouting and clapping with overwhelming joy, and packing the stands at the oil can stadium.. And giving the fans a sense of ownership is intriguing. While I do find the notion intetesting, here are two points I would like to see you address. 1) While the parent of a child in corps ABC, or an alum of that corps, might hoop and hollar for many other corps, wouldn't they most likely still vote for their own corps irrespective of being more engaged with another corps? 2) Judges are partly held accountable against bias because we can see their names and what scores they give. The audience would have anonymity. Wouldn't that anonymity support voting out of personal bias instead of actual corps engagement?

For example: the members of a rock band playing covers at a bar are not responsible to pay a performance fee, it is the owner of the bar who is responsable to pay that performance fee.

What you state here is true; but that is not the fluctuation I am referring to. If for some reason two or more music judges are at the exact same show, 'and judging the exact same music sheet' at the exact same time, the ultimate goal is for both of them to come to the exact same conclusion, with the exact same caption score, and the exact same caption ranking for that specific show. They should both exhibit the exact same opinion on the exact same caption being adjudicated. That is part of what training and trial judging is designed to do in order to help newbies conform (also true). So, the fluctuation I am referring to comes from human perception differences. That type of fluctuation from judge to judge within DCI is not by design; and any judge who exhibits too much variation from the rest of the pack (even if the variation is justified) will be told bye-bye.

Again, stop with the false representation of throwing out chaotic numbers by some name. That is nowhere near what I am proposing. I appreciate honest debate on what is presented, but again please stop misconstruing what I am proposing.

Oh to the contrary. That fluctuation is not by design but due to human perception not being perfect. The goal is to keep that fluctuation as small as humanly posible.

But the current drum corps adjudicating system does not leave much room for diversity of sound, either corps to corps or genera to genera. There are subtle differences, that is true, but not major diversity like in other generas. For example... In the professional world of Jazz, the Smoking Section sounds vastly different than the Harry Conick Jr. Band. In the professional world of Symphony, the Chicago Symphony sounds different than the London Symphony. Even when these Jazz or Symphonic ensembles are playing the exact same compositions with the exact same instrumentation. Same applies to the professional worlds of Rock, Country, Funk, etc. However, in Drum Corps, the criteria for qualitative Music GE is so strictly defined by the corps design staff that every corps now attempts to produce the exact same musical presentation of sound; no matter the genera; no matter the corps idenity. Again there are some subtle differences, but everyone strives for that Crown, BD, SCV winning sound. Blowing out the current system; having a diverse number of non drum corps professionals write the sheets, define the criteria, be in charge of judge's training, and then judging the ensembles would more than likely bring forth way more diversity of musical production and corps sound idenity. All the while they are using the same instrumentation. Just like it is in the professional world.

Judges are trained to interpret the sheets in the exact same manner, to define criteria in the exact same manner, to view each corps in the exact same manner, with the desired result being no matter who the judge is at any particular show the caption score should be exactly the same. Trial judging attempts to place that training into a real show situation. And if there is a judge who has a different interp than others on say the Music GE produced by a particular corps, even if that judge can justify the interp, that judge has to conform and score like all other judges in that caption or be weeded out. I get why; it is for competitive consistency. But what I would like to see is outside professionals working in the real world of professional music write the sheets, define the criteria, and train as judges.

Personally I am for these three things: 1) For a time set by congress, ownership of a creatve work, including performance rights, shall be exclusive (Copyright). Other than item 3, this is the only place Government should have a role in the situation. 2) Free Market Commerce. By the way, those barking about Monopoly take note. The creative artists are not forced into handing over their print and arranging rights to various Publishers, nor thier performance rights over to ASCAP/BMI. 3) With the exception of arbitrating disputes, the Govenment should stay completely out of Free Market Commerce decisions.

I do not blame you. It was a single comment, and making sure it is not American Idolish is a legit concern. What riled me, without making this personal, was the GD comment and other falsehoods, mainly by the same poster, who went way off the rails in that direction. And after I pointed out the falsehoods as BS a snarky response was all that was returned. I apparently was tumping over the established judging apple cart and inaccurate gut reactions spewed forth.

There is already a Hall of Fame filled with rock-stars. But... It is just filled with self-serving adults not the deserving youth performers.

Letting loose with improve, to me, is a great idea. Let the musicinship shine!!! But I think it would only work well with music that is designed for that type of exploration (jazz, funk, prog-rock, etc). Strict Symphonic and Concert Band music, unless creativly arranged as jazz, might not translate well with improv.

We were asked for brain-storming ideas that have not been done before. Sounded sort of fun and innocuous. So, in my posts I advocated for experienced professionals outside of drum corps, not iconic 'names' nor no-talent rich spoiled popstars, to be secured as adjudicators. I even clarified that with multiple posts. I also advocated that they all use specific judging sheet criteria; albeit with a revamped judging system and sheet criteria which is set forth by the professional judges who have vast experience in the professional world. However, instead of honest evaluation of the idea, or other new ideas being presented, which would have been great, the cluster### flames began. What was thrown back by those who disagreed were posts like: OMG Stu is wanting American Idol, just 'names', GD non talented folks who know nothing about drum corps, and other falsehoods about the proposed idea. And when I called BS on the falsehoods the response was that it was my proposal which was BS. Anyway, so goes DCP.