HornTeacher

I'll say what I said on a few threads ago and elsewhere.. If you have to explain the punch line, then the joke ceases to be funny.

I suppose that my feelings on the matter primarily come down to this: (1) Narration is performed (audibly provided) in order to render a given Corps' performance as more indentifiable in terms of intended "program." (2) The ability to readily identify the given Corp's "program" is (i.e., point accumulation, as well as audience interest) of some crucial concern (3) A modern DCI Drum Corps cannot successfully compete (in the eyes of the general Drum Corps public, generally being among the top, let's say 7 or 8, although that isn't MY personal qualification) unless it has a "program" which is identifiable to both the judging and audience communities. Okay. I'll take my simple internet community posting site rights, and simply say -- Poppycock. (With all due respect intended, mind you.) I have personally witnessed many (and I would be the first to admit that this would not be nearly as many as witnessed by other consistent posters on this, or any, DCP thread) performances over the years which have left the respective audiences clapping, screaming, and the always-popular "throwing their babies" over a given Corps' performance. Big reactions. HUGE reactions. However...none of them was based upon a pre-conceived "program." A story, if you will, concocted merely for the supposed sake of making that performance more "relevant." WHY is a Corps' "program" of major concern? WHY must a Corps' performance be based upon some pre-conceived "program" in order for it to suddenly become "relevant" -- something for us to watch and say "Oh...THAT'S what they're trying to say...OHHHH...well....HOLY CRAP!! HOORAY!!! Have we become so literally or programmatically based that we can't go to a show, hear some Corps playing a selection of "tunes," and not be able to stand and scream (or throw our most cherished first-born) after having our sensory doors blown off -- just because someone is asking "But...but...but...what did it MEAN (usually done in some form of small, whining tone.)? 1988 Madison Scouts. "Malaguena." No "program." No "intended message." Just simple Drum and Bugle Corps. Done well. Done excitedly. And as observed...done in a way which totally blew the doors off the assembled audience. Even IF they didn't have the highly-exalted "program." Just one moron taking his right to speak...

Although I'm not sure that I would, as yet, say that it brings "nothing," I am also not sure what it brings that a well thought out, well designed, and well performed program, simply through the design and execution, cannot. Crap...getting verbose here...should have left it as my intended comment to you: Amen.

Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies. -- Robert Kennedy

Thank you, Guard. That was my very point about 4 pages ago which involved the dichotomy of "Like/Dislike" and subconscious bias. We're humans...we sometimes err (except for you and me, that is). :>)

And if this were the proven and absolute norm then there would be no objections from anyone...or almost anyone. However -- supposed to evaluate and a more simple "evaluates" are two completely different things. To put it a different way: as a poster on DCP, I am supposed to conduct myself in a reasonable manner: however, that doesn't necessarily ensure that I always do. There are two completely different concepts being addressed here -- whether it be my DCP conduct, or DCI adjudication.. Just because one is supposed to act in a certain way does not ensure that such action is, or will be, always followed.

To be honest, I have a bit of a problem with adjudicating simply on a "like/dislike" basis. I certainly agree that as much as we would prefer judges to be totally and completely without bias, they are human beings -- and as such, would suffer from a certain bias creeping into their thoughts, if only subconsciously. To compound this with their responsibility of attaching a number to that which they may subconsciously like/dislike only compounds my frustration in trying to understand the whole deal. In addition to concerns whether an adjudicator is qualified (or not) to judge narration according to tone, inflection, etc., it may also be considered whether it is necessary for the adjudicator to be an accomplished "wordsmith." How extensive or comprehensive must that adjudicator's vocabulary be in order for him/her to be considered "qualified?" The world is full of English teachers (just think back to high school) who are quick to point out "this word" or "that word" would have been a better choice in our written efforts. Sorry...I'm just having a difficult time in wrapping my mind around the whole issue of adjudicating narration -- not to mention doing so fairly, objectively, and with qualification.

Now you've piqued my curiosity. What, pray tell, is a Wawa hoagie?

Thank you, Freaky. Boy, do I feel exceedingly stupid. Oh well...I guess I'll just blame it on a case of Early Onset Dementia...

What is that opener? It's on the tip of the ol' synapses, but I can't place it. Bugging the royal tar out of me...

Thank you, Pete. A lot of "leg-work" on your part for our benefit. I'm sure the others on DCP echo my appreciation.

Они морально вертикальных Монахини Восточной Православной Церкви.

That's assuming you would be one of the three that I would invite. :>) Not sure that I would hold such a soiree, only to be "Ream-ed" out.

May I still?

Why, indeed?

You got me, Guard...sort of. The Bishop Kearney show of which you speak took place, as you cited, in 1996. My days at Bishop Kearny (Asst. Band Director, Brass Line Instructor) took place 1983-1985). WONDERFUL place to work!!! We even lost the NYS Field Band Championship in 1983 by a mere .9 of a point. (Never know who is who on DCP, so I may very well be exposing my identity). Oh, well...

Now THAT'S funny!!!! :>)

Yes, we're in this netherworld of Drum Corps Activity. The point at which our attention shifts from "Who is (was) better than who is (was) better than who in 2014 (Or 1973...or 1985....or 1998...or even 2005, for that matter), and why, and for what reason (or reasons,), was that Corps (or the other) better?" And despite the fact that sentence totally confused you (or me, or them, or those, or whoever...or even Stu or Garfield, who both appear well-informed and versified in the "business arts" and pertinent versification), it is still therefore valid. In that case, event, and any actuality... It is a very well-known and much-enjoyed parlor game which asks the question of its' participants "If you could have dinner with any 3 people from history, who would they be?" For the sake of off-season jocularity (as well as hopefully dousing the fires created through personal opinions and counter-opinions over the past few months), I am proposing the following question: "If you could sit with any 3 DCP posters over a fine dinner of Hungarian Goulash, Beer. and morally-correct Russian Escorts, who would they be (and why)?" (Please note that metal detectors and chemical-sniffing guard dogs would be employed and on the ready at the meeting place of choice -- most probably "Harry's House of Haute Cuisine" in Hackensack, New Jersey).

Memo To: All World-Class and Open-Class DCI affiliated Corps From: Everyone else in the literate World (and yes, that includes some of the current Drum Corps Planet Membership) RE: 2015 Show Programs It is hereby recommended that all Corps, both World-Class and Open-Class, STRONGLY consider the use of "Jackson Pollack: Revisionary or Simple Polack?" as their program for 2015. In the event that you cannot incorporate any Jackson Pollack original art as a suitable inspiration for your respective show(s), we at DCI are most certain that if you were to look closely, you will find a representative finger painting rendered from a youth within your family line. This, of course, will earn you points for a program based upon familial immediacy and relevance. However...please do not make such reference as being TOO much a part of your program. Remember...BALANCE counts (We at DCI, nor those among our constituency, just don't know who is ultimately responsible for such balance.) But it DOES count. Consider yourselves informed and forewarned. With Warmest Regards, DCI

I respectfully disagree...an NFL team might have a totally new offensive "scheme" up their sleeve. They might even work it like Hades during summer camp for the sole reason of springing a gigantic "surprise" come the first game of the regular season. Is it their "responsibility" to announce any changes or schematic philosophies to the public (even their MOST supportive fans) in advance of the season -- purely so that those very fans can now feel "in the know."? Speaking solely for myself, we are fans. Supporters. Nothing more...nothing less. If we were more important than that, then maybe we should be on the staff of our favorite Corps. Personally, I like NOT knowing my Christmas presents ahead of time. And seeing my favorite Corp(s) come out and absolutely shock me in a good way at the end of June. To me, there is absolutely nothing better than that. Yes...I do wonder what the Trooper's "A People's House" is sounding like right now. What are they using as their source material? How are they using (arranging) it? But as maddening as it may be for me to wait...the returns will (hopefully) be much better upon initial performance. If nothing else, there will exist the beauty and wonder of surprise. Heck...if it doesn't work, then we at DCP will have from mid-August until early-June 2015 to debate why it did or didn't.

Not to sound like Warden Norton of "Shawshank Redemption," but... Praise God and Hallelujuah!!! Miley is the answer to ALL of our problems!!! Maybe it will even save Fictitious.

Maybe controversy becomes a selling point to some observers (I hardly think that the number of people tuning in to the "Reality TV show of the week" or those devoted to picking up the latest "National Enquirer" from their neighborhood grocery news kiosks have dwindled much over time). And yes, maybe controversy does drive away the assorted few who find controversy to be something that they didn't pay their good ticket money for in the first place. What bothers me is the thought that some might expect Corps and their Corps staff to shy away from a given subject matter merely because it might ruffle some feathers, and thus, drive away business. Maybe it will -- maybe it won't. But isn't there a point at which the responsibility falls upon a Corps design team to take something which may very well be controversial to many, yet -- through their expertise -- design or depict such a show in a way that the general public might shake their collective head and say "Hmmmm...didn't like the subject matter -- and I'm shocked that they would go there. But y'now -- for some danged reason -- the message made sense." The only thing worse that being censored by an outside source is needlessly censoring from within, purely based on how others might perceive your message. If we are afraid of that, then why do any of us post our opinions in the first place?

I honestly have to say...I LOVE your well-placed sarcasm/cynicism. It's a breath of fresh air.

I don't think it is NASCAR (and its' administration) itself that necessarily "tells" teams "Hey, you don't make the cut right now. Why don't you try the Nationwide or Truck Series." Instead, it is the economic (and competitive) realities which dictate the level at which a team competes. I don't think a team goes into the Sprint Cup Series (the "major leagues," if you will, of the overall NASCAR conglomerate) without knowing exactly what is entailed, both economically and competitively. In other words, it's not a blind entrance. If you do your research -- and I'm talking about the respective team(s), not you specifically -- you have a very good idea regarding the economic onus entailed in racing at the very top level. You simply have the funding -- or you don't. And you make your choices accordingly.