funkjazzaxe

I agree with this. I highly doubt corps will come out of the gate looking like Ohio State Marching Band with sousaphones and trombones waving. There will probably be features and mic'd solos and stuff where they will get worked in. Maybe a quick gliss effect here and there. Maybe a couple nice solos. Proponents will say "see- that sounded great, no big deal, not really a huge change". Which leads to my stance of why the need to have band instruments at all, then. If they are just most likely to be used for "color", and there is already an instrument (save for the gliss effects) that already is a really close shade of that color- baritone- why the need to push this stuff? Just so a designer can make a tiny tweak in tone and timbre, huge changes that basically redefine what a drum & bugle corps is are instituted. It is very bizarre to me- I've never seen an activity implode on itself for the sake of things that most in the activity don't want and that don't really have much impact on the actual product. Just tossing out everything that makes it unique and special in the music ensemble world so someone can have access to a "tonal color". Bollocks I say! It has been said in this thread that someone took an informal poll of kids and none of them seemed to care. Funny, because everyone I know- kids to old timers- connected to DCI don't like the changes and absolutely don't want to simply be summer BOA. Wander up to any hornline or drumline warming up in the lot this summer and say "hey, what's the name of your marching band" and see how fast you get corrected "this is a drum corps"...

Sweet- so Nile Rogers could be on that theorretical DCI gig playing his Hitmaker with Daft Punk, I guess as long as they keep their set to around 11.5 minutes then they'd be good to compete per DCI's definition of a drum corps! Would open drum corps up to a whole new audience- bust out those glow sticks!

Maybe I just speak for myself, but I love drum & bugle corps for the unique sound and identity it has. I find it much more interesting and entertaining when left to the basic device of drums and bugles. I don't care if they are playing Tchaikovsky, Glenn Miller, or Ke$ha, I like the sound and the vibe of actual drum & bugle corps. I don't feel like something is "missing" if corps do a tune that traditionally has a trombone feature and it is instead played by baritones. Doing more with less... being inventive and creative (like the old SCV Saigon helicopter effect) is what I find entertaining and inspiring about drum & bugle corps. It truly is a bizarro world that a judge would likely give more "creative merit" to simply hitting a sound effect patch on a synthesizer than recreating sounds live acoustically. These guys mentioned in the round table seem hell bent on destroying something really great and unique (and it seems the vast majority really love) in the world of music to create something that already exists (marching band/orchestra/rock concert/whatever)... I just don't get it. In the spirit of "anything goes- blank cavas for artistic expression" I'd love to see Daft Punk hit a few DCI shows this summer. They don't use woodwinds or strings (they'd have to give Nile Rogers the night off on guitar duty), and they'd need to hire a few more robot guys to play everything "live", but I guess they could technically be a "drum corps", right? I am sure their brass score would be pretty dismal, but they would kill in general effect. Go drum corps!!

Well stated. To the OP, my point of view is that drum corps would continue to evolve without the revolution.

Good points, good discussion. It's such a complex thing- the evolution of drum corps- when you really get into it. Like so many things, the very definition of what it is can be very different to different people. I like that it evolves, I wouldn't want to see a mandate that corps couldn't think outside the box and push the boundaries of what is possible (any more than baseball fans would want a rule that a pitcher could only pitch the ball up to a certain speed, or basketball players could only shoot "granny" style, etc). At the same time, the unique sound and elements that place maximal emphasis on human effort (all acoustic, unique instumentation, etc) was one of the things that made drum corps special, to me anyway. I think the activity could and would evolve without the need have a revolution of stripping away all the things that made it unique. The current influx of anything goes instrumentation, electronics, etc seem to stem from the notion that it leads to more creativity, and without the changes drum corps wouldn't evolve and would slowly die and be irrelevant. I disagree, but I guess good argument can be made otherwise depending on the viewpoint.

As far as defining as "sport" vs "art"... can make good case for either. I see it as both. I think my position and point is that it can be both, it can be different things to different people, and can evolve while still being "drum & bugle corps" and no need to strip all the unique elements from it. The point is that it will evolve regardless. The kids are better trained now than ever, the design teams are more diverse and creative than ever, the product would continue to refine itself without the need to recreate it into something by definition it is not. Other sports/arts do not feel the need to do this, why must drum corps destroy what made it unique in the name of progress and evolution? Feel free to argue that it has always been "marching band", well then why even have rules or anything? Why aren't all "ball sports" just simply called "sports" instead of baseball/softball/football/etc. They all run around on a field and play with a ball, hence I guess they are all the same. Why seperate music into genres- its all just sound- no need for Bluegrass, Metal, R&B, etc. For that matter, the Bruno Mars Superbowl halftime gig was really entertaining. He was on a football field playing music... it had choreography, it was probably about 11.5 mintues long... I guess that is drum corps, too? I am assuming all the folks who are pushing for DCI to be BOA and saying "its all band anyway" and stuff are former drum corps members? Funny thing is, as someone who marched recently and served on a BOD recently, where were you guys? Everyone I knew/still know currently involved in drum corps was always very proud of the differences and traditions that set drum corps apart. Nobody had the vibe that its all just "marching band" and that people proud of what made Drum & Bugle Corps special were in some way "dinosaurs" or wanting to halt progress. I'd bet a million bucks that for every one person pushing the "its all just marching band" agenda there are MANY more strongly opposed, yet the activity continues to get hijacked. Why?

Good discussion- as far as live Foley sound (i.e.; Miss Saigon SCV, etc) then, yes, I strongly prefer it "done live". To me, it is much more entertaining and exciting. Organic live sound done in front of my eyes will always trump a machine made sound triggered by a button push. Always. In the drum corps context, it was a defining element of the activity. It was all human powered. Add in amps to add volume or interesting sounds and I immediately loose interest. I can go to Guitar Center and get a rack of power amps and an ipad with lots of plugins and blow the audience out their seats. Big deal- anyone can do that. But is it progress? Why did it have to resort to this? Do most people prefer this? Do most current members like the fact that drum corps is heading in this direction? I was on the executive board of a world class corps until recently- I don't know any of those kids who wanted it to become simply a really good version of their school marching band. I'm not that old and marched drum corps fairly recently, just prior to the "big" changes of amps and stuff. I don't know one person who would have wanted any of this "evolution"... drum corps was already evolving and every year corps were pushing the envelope in new and innovative ways. No need for electronics/trombones/etc, the activity was already evolving. As already mentioned, other sports and arts continue to evolve in their defined form. The performers/players themselves evolve and thus the activity remains fresh and interesting while still remaining true "what it is" thus continuing to connect with their past. Drum & Bugle Corps differed from marching band in look and sound, much of this stemmed from the unique instrumentation. It's in the very name of what it is! Unfortunately that sound and all-human powered amazement is done now. I can still go hear a chamber orchestra same as hundreds of years ago, can still go get my face peeled off by a killer big band, and still go hear a rock band playing classic stuff through a dimed old Marshall JCM800, but I can't go get that "sound" of a 70+ member horn line on G's pinned WFO (Wide Friggin' Open) anymore, sadly. The "sound" is what I, and I feel lots of others, miss. I am all for corps evolving and doing whatever they felt... march 100 snare drums, march a whole hornline of contras (tubas- meh) and play a whole show searching for the elusive "brown note", do a whole show on the music of Frank Zappa- whatever! But bring back that SOUND and put the power back in the lungs/hands of the kids and not in the machines. Evolution doesn't have to mean throwing everything away that made it unique.

I believe it is in the eye of the beholder whether drum and bugle corps is a "sport" or "art"... it can be seen as both. The comparison to figure skating is a really interesting comparison, because they are both very similar in many ways. Both have a lot of artistic merit, but the movement is highly rehearsed and requires a great degree of athletic execution. Getting back to the topic of "members changing/activity changing" my argument is that, like sports, drum corps would and will continue to evolve if left to the basic rules and tools that originally defined it. It is human nature to push the limits, refine training methods, become faster/stronger/etc. Look at figure skating. It is MUCH different now than 50 years ago- look at the amazing technical stuff they do now. They have gotten more athletic- can jump much higher, move faster, etc. Costumes have become refined to be more conducive to the techincal requirements and increased athleticsm the sport requires now. BUT... at the same time the basic game hasn't changed. It is still people on the ice with skates, same as it was 50 years ago. There is no need to throw in a bunch of stuff in the name of "evolution" for it to evolve- if they did it would be something entirely different and loose what makes it "it". If figure skating adopted the philosophy of current DCI, they would allow special springs in skates so they could jump higher, allow other sport elements to be included (rings/soccer balls/hockey fights) as part of the show, etc. Its been said numerous times (in argument for making drum corps into anything goes marching band-type thing) that what is important is the players, not the instruments they play. I agree- so why the need to pollute something as pure and unique as what drum & bugle used to be with band instruments/synths/amps/etc? The performers would continue to push the activity into new realms if they remained real drum & bugle corps. Current members are evolving- they are better than ever! I argue that if left with the basic elements of the game (no synths/amps/band instruments) the shows would be more unique and creative now. Remember the SCV show "Miss Saigon" with all the cool pit effects for helicopter sounds, etc? Now they'd just hit a button on a synth. How has that made it more better and more entertaining? Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication, right?

I totally agree- drum corps has always required a lot of athleticism, past and present. Although I know when I marched in the 90's we were not as well conditioned as a whole. We kind of marched ourselves into shape, now corps are adopting off season strength and conditioning programs that are way beyond what we had. Much as in other sports, modern training systems and know how lead to greater capacity for physical performance. My point being that the activity doesn't need to change the entire nature of the game in order to evolve. It's interesting to look at drum corps in the athletic lens. The demands placed on performers is really unique. Requires fast lateral motion, rapid changes in direction, and lots of muscular endurance in the core/postural muscles. Plus ability to track multiple moving objects. Very unique and demanding.

I agree- when the one guy was arguing with me about it a few pages back, he was refferencing numerous subtle changes in baseball (bigger diamond, changes in keeping stats, etc), changes in stadium, slight change in uniforms (which still look like they always have for the most part), etc. I see those types of changes as refinements and improvements to keep the nature of the game consistent. In sports, once modern technology and training start to outdo the tools of the game, the game is slightly modified to bring it back to "normal". For example, the slightly larger ball diamond and field size in baseball- keeps every game from being a home run derby now that players can hit farther. The lengthing of many holes on PGA golf courses to keep pros from driving the green on every par 4, etc. Sometimes sports try out a new rule to see if it helps the flow of the game (the 2 line pass in NHL hockey) and then remove the rule if it changes the game too much (the 2 line pass). I think current corps members have evolved in that they are much more athletic now, and much better trained now than a couple decades ago. The speed and flow of the show is more challenging and requires more athleticsm, more aerobic capacity, and more strength. That in itself leads to evolution in what is possible for them to do on the field. It's odd to me to think that the only way for DCI to evolve is to eliminate the structure and defining elements- I'd argue it would evolve anyway, in probably more creative ways, if left to evolve with the basic elements that have defined it. Corps members would continue to push the envelope without the the need for synths/band horns/woodwinds/fire dancing/whatever.

Oh- it took me a minute to realize you were insulting me at the end of your post. Actually I have a degree in Bio-Mechanics, work as a fitness director for the YMCA, spent 5 years as a domestic professional cyclist here in the the states, played/coach AAA ice hockey... I think I understand a little.

I hear you, but the essence of those activities (sports) remains the same. Allowing amps to supplement corps sound and add volume is akin to adding motors to bikes in the Tour de France, thus totally changing the game. Or, perhaps we will allow laser sights on golf putters, or springs on basketball shoes to allow the guys to dunk from half court. Those types of things change the actual nature of the activity and make it into something different. Getting back to members today vs. yesterday, as someone who has seen the activity from every angle, I don't see kids wanting or mandating these changes that frankly take away the unique identity of the brand and/or water down the human element.

I know kids who recently marched/still march, heck I am not that old- marched just prior to Bb coming on board. I also recently served on the board for a world class corps. None of the kids I know/knew want drum corps to be just like marching band. Debate me all you want, but I don't know anyone in the activity that won't quickly correct someone who calls their corps a "band"- that aspect hasn't changed. The recent drastic changes to drum corps haven't been pushed by the kids, or the audience for that matter. As far as current vs former members, one thing that has changed is the integration of electronics/computers/processing into popular music. Its hard to find any popular music now that isnt highly processed. Kids now have grown up hearing auto-tuned robotic voices, heavily pitch/time corrected tracks, the use of machines to replace live musicians in the studio. I can understand their easier acceptance of synths and electronics, they don't see them as being "fake" as much as people do who came up when it was all accoustic. That said, most kids I know don't like the use of electronics as a crutch- especially using power amps/synths to add impact and volume. Its like using a Dr. Beat to supplement the drum line, and I feel most kids see it this way and just play along with what the design team mandates. That's what frustrates me with all of it- the changes don't seem to stem from member or fan demand.

The sports analogy is actually kind of a weak one... MLB still uses wooden bats for goodness sake! The way athletes train for sports has certainly changed, the skill and speed of most sports has certainly increased, but what makes it amazing is that sports still have the basic elements they have always had. The current DCI mentality is to strip away everything that defined the game and just make it a big free for all. Most sports rules are basically the same as they have been since that sports formation, and most sports rules changes are inacted to keep the sport true to the pure athletic element that defines it. Soon as technology starts to give an advantage or redefine it, rules are inacted to keep it pure (too many examples to list... limits on golf clubs/balls, limits on basic bicycle design in pro cycling, wood bats in MLB, etc etc etc)

Drum corps and marching band will basically be the same thing- already pretty much is. Drum corps will still put on a much higher level of product, but the coolness and exotic appeal of it will continue to diminish as it turns into simply "really good band". I know there are some that contest the new rules changes are good, and making DCI and BOA basically the same product are good, but I strongly object. What drum corps used to have over bands was swagger, balls, and a high degree of cool because of the unique instrumentation. Marching band isn't cool- trombones/sousaphones/chessy keys gimicks/etc... these are exactly what drove me to join a drum corps- it was pure and it was really cool because of the ABSENCE of that stuff! Seeing the pit (prior to keys/amps) actually doing live Foley sound effects accoustically in front of me was awesome, the sound of G horns pinned wide open was awesome, it was awesome because it wasn't band. I am a professional saxophone and guitarist, and love those instruments to the bone (they are my liveilhood), but they are not DRUM & BUGLE CORPS! It seems simple to me... drum and bugle corps is DRUMS and BUGLES, hence the name. So, that is where I think DCI is heading in 2020... bands/un-cool/loss of brand identity- it seems likely they won't call it drum and bugle corps anymore. My question is why? Are kids and fans clamoring for this? I didn't march that long ago and can't think of one person in my corps that wouldn't want to punch someone in the face for even calling it a "band", let alone having trombones/keyboards/etc as a part of it. None of the folks I know (many) who follow drum corps like any of the changes, and we are certainly not "dinosaurs"- some of us had to march with the new changes and philosophy and play along, but certainly didn't like it.

Well, I agree that it was a slippery slope that paved the very quick path to mic'd brass, synths, etc. Now amps are being used not just to support the more subtle instruments like mallets and handdrums, but synths are actually becoming part of the brass ensemble and they are using racks of poweramps to add volume and impact to what used to be an all human powered, acoustic experience. We're not far from mic'd woodwinds, guitars, etc in the pit. Really, since we can sequence and use those "voices" as synth patches, what's the difference anymore. Mic'ing the pit brought in amplification and using machines to generate musical power rather than just hands and lungs. This was an enormous fundamental shift in the activity, brought about by amplifying the pit.

To my knowledge, there is merit in the comment that the pit isn't hearing the FOH as it sounds to the fans- they aren't. I haven't noticed stage monitors or in-ear cans being used, save for the synth players. The FOH output through the PA is being controlled by someone on a board, probably in the stands on an ipad if they are remotely with the times. I guess you could counter argue that nobody is actually hearing what the fans are hearing since the staging is all over the place, not just the amp'd pit. True, this is how its done in most live music settings (amps/mics), but there are certain things that are hard to get right when only a small % of the ensemble is piped through the PA, and the rest are acoustic. Add the fact that most corps are wetting the amp'd performers down (compression, reverb, delay in many cases) coupled with the dry field percussion/brass and it can make for a disconnected sounding final result. Unless everyone is coming through the PA and stage sound, or in this case field sound, is isolated and the audience is only getting FOH mix, it leads to inconsistency and an unnatural final mix hitting the audience's ears. Mics/amps lead to a "synthetic" drum corps sound, my opinion of course. And my opinion comes from working full time as a performing/touring musician (guitar)- I live/eat/sleep amps and electronic tech- but feel it absolutley ruins the sound and purity of drum and bugle corp! My opinion, of course!

You make a very good point- I agree to some extent. I guess my main point of contention with amplification of the pit is that is took a quick turn into amp'd brass, synths, etc. I prefer the simplicity and purity of an all acoustic drum corps, but I understand others see it differently for equally good reason.

My .02 is that I totally understand the rational behind mic'ing the pit. Allows for better technique, and allows the pit to have more licks that can actually be speak clearly more than when the brass is just playing pianissimo or playing backfield. That said, I feel that mic'ing anything in drum corps is a step backward in the art. The totally acoustic nature of drum corps gave it an honesty and authenticity that just doesn't feel the same through a PA system. There is a strange imbalance when certain instruments are placed FOH through the PA and others (field brass/drums) are dry/un-amplified. It is like going to see a garage band where the instruments are playing straight through the amps and the singers are the only thing in the PA. It sounds imbalanced and amateurish, no matter how careful you are to balance the dry instruments with the PA. Couple the fact that now corps are starting to employ digital effects to buff out the instruments (reverb, delay, compression, etc- listen to the solo brass through the mic, sounds like a synth) and it leads to an even more disconnected sound between the unamplified instruments and what is coming through FOH. Mic'ing also opened the Pandora's box of supporting brass with synths. There is nothing impressive about blowing someone down with a wall of sound coming out of a keyboard though a rack of power amps. Anyone can do that. Now that corps are starting to "fake" it, the big impacts are kind of diminished. Even though strict acoustic leads to limitations in volume and certain techniques, to me it lead to being more creative in staging and the use of dynamics. In a way, allowing PA systems in drum corps is like allowing aluminum bats in the major leagues- sure, you can hit the ball farther and "better", but the art and authenticity of the achievement is watered down and in the end, diminished.

I am sure that Hopkins has nothing but the best in mind for his corps, and for drum corps in general. He has a very difficult job- all corps directors do. It is a tough gig, and you have to have a deep desire to serve youth and a real passion for the activity in order to do it. That said, I am not a fan of many of the rapid and drastic changes that have swept through DCI based on Hopkins' proposals. Amplification/mic'd brass/narration/synthesizers/etc... these are all changes he has aggressively pushed, and ones that have changed the activity and put a nail in the drum & bugle corps that existed until fairly recently (decade ago). My problem is, if you read his proposals, they are pretty haphazardly written- kind of a "what if we did this" approach and I am not sure they were based on any market research. He feels that with the aforementioned changes drum corps will adapt to the modern age and attract more kids and fans. But, who did he ask? Did he do market research? Did he facilitate focus groups? Were fans and potential members really loosing interest in the activity because there weren't synthesizers, amplified brass, and sampled soundbites? I haven't personally found that to be the case, at least with the many drum corps folks I know. In fact, I believe many people have walked away from the activity as it becomes more and more of a summer BOA/WGI stage show and looses the core elements/strengths that make it unique. Again, I have nothing but respect for Hopkins for his obvious passion for the activity and, most importantly, the kids. But- I believe most of his proposals and changes have been based more on personal hunches and pipe dreams, rather than solid market research and actually asking/polling to see what the kids and fans really want.

I hope the next "thing" is the realization drum corps don't need to resort to cheesy gimmicks and technology in the name of being creative. Its synthetic enough already with all the mic's, amps, digital effects, and especially the synths/corny soundbites everyone uses now. I miss the days of acoustic/non-electronic drum corps. It seemed so much more elegant, artistic, and professional. I hope they don't start doing LED stuff, but I guess it goes along with what the trend is- puts a cheesy electronic look to the cheesy electronic sounds. Makes sense.

One big problem with the current model is that unless a corps can establish revenue streams outside of normal corps' operations (auditions/dues/performance fees) they can't survive. They drown in debt, the costs are simply too great given the current way DCI corps do business. A startup or newer corps has a hard enough time just getting kids in the door, putting a competitive product on the field to further interest, etc that to try to also come up with additional revenue streams on top of that is nearly impossible. Successful corps that run bingo, ticket sales, sell merch at fall band shows, etc have to have a strong business plan and almost a whole other "revenue generating" operations plan and team seperate from the basic corps operation. Again- VERY difficult to do, almost impossible. My advice to DCI as the governing body is figure out what an average member is willing and able to pay for a summer of touring and the "experience" as we know it. Then figure out what a 150 member corps can look to generate based on average audition and tour fees. Then create a structure for touring, event production, and framework for fielding a corps that would allow corps to break even through operations alone- not needing added revenue streams to get the corps through the summer without going bankrupt. Then put policies in place to structure the game so that corps can do it soley on operations. Budgeting grants/dontated money/etc is always risky because you can't count on it. Relying on the extra revenue from outside business ventures is also dangerous because if you loose that revenue (see Glassmen/bingo) you instantly go in the hole and drown. I believe corps must be able to break even based on their operations alone. Its DCI's job to structure things that allow them an even playing field to do this, from a business perspective. Not sure what that would entail... spending caps? Limit staffing? Make the tour more efficient and cap weekly mileage? Somehow we need to get back to a simpler and more cost efficient way of doing business while still providing the high quality product. Difficult, but not impossible.

DCI drum corps draw (both for kids to participate, and fans to show up) is that it is the ultimate experience and highest level of the activity. Large professional staffs and top level gear are important to attract potential kids to the corps. Without the large staff, and all the other things that go along with the production of modern shows, a corps has little pull to attract kids. Drum corps must remain the pinnacle exerience in the activity, if not I can't see kids being very interested in participating, or fans willing to pay top dollar for a product that is not an elite level product. Going back to a small-time tour and recruiting the local youth with local volunteer staff would certainly lower costs, but would anyone turn up to be a part of it? And would anyone want to watch it? Lower placing corps have big staffs, but often times the majority of them are recent age-outs that are getting paid hardly anything for their time. Its almost a volunteer position at the "tech" level. Uniforms are usually purchased at cost from deals with Stanbury, etc, (and reused for a few seasons) and nowdays instruments are usually bought at cost with industry/sponsorship deals then sold for a wash off the truck at the end of the season to pay the bill. This allows corps to get fresh horns every year, but also means they don't really own them as an asset. And they need to buy new stuff every season and gamble that they will sell it to break even at the end of the season. Not sure in the long tun if this is better or not than outright ownership and using the same stuff for years at a time.

This is a very good observation, and I do see your point. The huge costs associated with running a corps go way beyond what appearance fees can handle, though. Appearance fees help offset costs for sure- but even for the G7 it covers only a chunk of their expense.