Bobby L. Collins
-
Posts
255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bobby L. Collins
-
-
Stop over-romanticizing. They poached big-name instructors with dollar signs, end of story. If it makes you feel better to call it strong leadership, knock yourself out. But at the end of the day, it's just spending a disproportionate amount of money to be competitive.
6 minutes ago, Liahona said:That poster seems to be a miserable person..I feel sorry for them...
Just because I don't join in on the CJ here doesn't mean I'm miserable. Higher standards and expectations, certainly. But I'm not going to call a spade a club just to make you feel warm and fuzzy.
-
55 minutes ago, Stu said:
lots of gainsaying for no other reason than to be contrary and argumentative
Eristic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as a way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe."[1]Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.[2]Use in education
Eristic was a type of "question-and-answer"[3] teaching method popularized by the Sophists, such as Euthydemos and Dionysodoros. Students learned eristic arguments to "refute their opponent, no matter whether he [said] yes or no in answer to their initial question".[4]
Plato contrasted this type of argument with dialectic and other more reasonable and logical methods (e.g., at Republic 454a). In the dialogue Euthydemus, Plato satirizes eristic. It is more than persuasion, and it is more than discourse. It is a combination that wins an argument without regard to truth. Plato believed that the eristic style "did not constitute a method of argument" because to argue eristically is to consciously use fallacious arguments, which therefore weakens one's position.[5]
Unlike Plato, Isocrates (often considered a Sophist) did not distinguish eristic from dialectic.[6] He held that both lacked a "'useful application' ... that created responsible citizens",[7] which unscrupulous teachers used for "enriching themselves at the expense of the youth."[8]
Philosophical eristic
Schopenhauer considers that only logic pursues truth. For him, dialectic, sophistry and eristic have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself because it aims at victory. He names these three last methods as "eristic dialectic (contentious argument)."[9]
According to Schopenhauer, Eristic Dialectic is mainly concerned to tabulate and analyze dishonest stratagems,[10] so that they may at once be recognized and defeated, in order to continue with a productive dialectic debate. It is for this very reason that Eristic Dialectic must admittedly take victory, and not objective truth, for its selfish aim and purpose.
-
2 hours ago, Ediker said:
What huge infusion? Paying staff and designers outrageous sums?
I don't know where you are hearing such things. It takes a whole lot more than money to go from 12th to 6th. It also takes more than money to assemble, and retain, a good staff.
In its considerable history (and struggle for survival) Boston has learned some important lessons, slowly, surely... and very much the hard way. Ask some folks who marched there in the 80s what it was like. Ask some folks about how the kids got the drum corps home from Europe when the leadership absconded with the money, leaving them broke and stranded. That group of kids and young alumni held the corps together then -- when it had absolutely nothing (including the corps name) -- and is now the backbone of the organization.
There was no "fairy godmother" who gave a pile of cash that solved Boston's problems. No, it was sound leadership that righted the organization, and came from former MMs.... members who were baptized in drum corps fire; and became stronger, savvier, and successful because of it.
Sound leadership didn't lure half of Crown and Cadets' staff to BAC. That was absolutely the magic of cold hard cash.
-
7 minutes ago, ShortAndFast said:
I'm sure when you reviewed the finals recap, you noted that Mr. Harper had Cadets 8th in brass, 10th in brass content. Do you suppose that's what George Hopkins told him to do?
Without doctoring the scores, that's really all he COULD do. He can't exactly make them put their horns up to their faces so he can score them higher, now can he?
-
I would say he's a man that doesn't want the rock the boat and be sent home by DCI.
I would also say that he's going to do whatever George Hopkins bloody well tells him to do, up to and including ignoring electronic shenanigans.
I will go on to say that probably no brass judge on the field today is oblivious to the wool that's being pulled over their eyes and ears. And if they are, well, then those are most likely the go-to judges in the activity for years to come.
After all, it looks far more impressive on a resume and bio to say "Served as an adjudicator for Drum Corps International" than it does to say "Took a stand against the corruption and subversion of the drum corps activity into summertime color guard with electronic accompaniment".
-
7 minutes ago, ContraFart said:
It should reasonably effect the integrity for everyone, it just effects the integrity less to those who agree with the outcome.
This activity is asking its judging community to do the impossible. Judges have compare different musical styles, different marching techniques, different difficulty and athletic levels to come up with a score that will say that corps A is better than corps B. So far all this thread taught me is that judges will judge to the criteria of the sheet, but its perfectly acceptable that their own bias can effect the score and that consistently is not only not a goal, it almost seems frowned upon.
The goal of any governing body of any competitive circuit should be fairness to its competitors. Is it fair to be within .2 of a championship then know you have no chance because of the judge list?
I understand art is subjective. There are no common techniques required and there are no required elements that will create any objective link, but if you cannot in theory duplicate the results of any given competition, there is a problem with your scoring system.
It's indicative and demonstrative of what happens when you throw all the rules out the window in the manner DCI has.
The point of any game, be it a board game, or a card game, or a video game, or a sports game, is to play within the rules of the game. When you start changing the rules, bending the rules, making up the rules as you go along, and flat-out ignoring the rules to encourage participation....that's when the game ceases to be a game, and becomes subjective, high-concept performance art.
I'm reminded of those Game Genie cartridges kids used to attach to their Nintendo games so they could cheat. That's no longer a game, and you didn't win anything. Such it is in this activity today. People keep saying "Corps today would blow every single corps from the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s out of the water". Well no they wouldn't....corps today would all be instantly disqualified from competition. Why? Because there were rules in place to disallow artificial trickery on the field......artificial trickery which is tantamount to cheating.
-
40 minutes ago, ShortAndFast said:
So, just to be clear: you, Bobby L Collins, are able to watch a GoPro video and accurately determine what DCI hornlines really sound like, including distinguishing between material played by actual brass instruments and that produced by electronics. Yet DCI's brass judging faculty, who stand on the field directly in front of the performers, cannot distinguish between the two and consequently cannot tell what hornlines actually sound like.
Perhaps the solution is some kind of training session, where you can impart your knowledge to the brass adjudicators? John Phillips is DCI's Chief Judge, and Lee Carlson is the Artistic Director. You can reach both through the DCI offices. I am sure both men would welcome your suggestions on how to best conduct this training, so that we can fairly determine the Ott winner in 2018. Please let us know what they have to say.
Of course I can. Just about any trained musician with a background in marching can. To be entirely blunt, it's simply common sense. I'm sorry you can't hear it. Let me rephrase; I'm sorry you refuse to open your ears and listen.
Like I said, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if judges haven't already approached those individuals and said to them "We can't tell what's real and what's electronic anymore", and they were most likely met with the response "Don't worry about it, just treat it like it's all real, and don't rock the boat; otherwise we can find other judges who won't".
There's not a soul in the activity with a shred of sense in his/her brain that can honestly say that hornlines are getting a fair shake at adjudication with all the other extraneous noises bouncing around the stadiums through those speakers...noises designed to sound exactly like the tones that should be emanating from the horns laying on the field while the the brass players are sashaying from one scatterdrill to the next, screaming DUT DUT DUT DUT because they can't find the beat among all the amplified swill.
-
7 minutes ago, wilme861 said:
I must be an idiot then...
If a brass or percussion judge on the field is having the problem you are saying they have, then we have some real issues with judges. Fortunately, they seem to do the impossible and actually judge the brass and percussion even with those mighty speakers going crazy behind them. I wonder how the corps staff manages to clean them at all since they can't tell which is real and fake...
Obviously you disagree with some brass standings, so what did they screw up in your opinion? Was the battle for the Ott between the wrong corps? You're making an argument that judging at field level, there are issues but I just don't see where.
Buddy, I disagree with ALL of the standings, because they are no longer being objectively adjudicated on their own merits. Far as I'm concerned, every single corps on the field should be automatically disqualified from competition the second the horns are drowned out by the front ensemble playing BrassSynth2 on Casio keyboards. It's a disingenuous, egregious trick that you lot are trying to use to define the sound of modern-day hornlines, and you are gravely mistaken if you believe that's what they really sound like.
-
4 minutes ago, ContraFart said:
Now I think you are disagreeing with me just to disagree.
That's what he does.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, wilme861 said:
Again, you're talking about Music Analysis and GE, not the brass caption. I think you are overexaggerating how loud those speakers actually are on the field. I'm going to use the Cavaliers as an example because I personally thought they were the loudest when it came to amplification. Listen to the percussion judge tape or the drum set run through GoPro video and listen for yourself on how "loud" it is from on the field. Yes I know a judges tape isn't the most high quality thing out there but it's relatively good. And the drum set cam should just reinforce it even more with them being indoors and the speakers aimed at a wall 10 ft in front of them. Can you hear "my way" coming from the speakers? Absolutely, you can on both tapes but no where near the volume that it is from the stands where the speakers are actually meant to project the sound. If the Ott was awarded from one of the judges upstairs then you're argument might have some weight. But it isn't so I'm going to have to just disagree with you.
So I'll say it again, find me a brass judge that judges a show by the speakers instead of by the hornline and I'll gladly I am wrong.
You're just not getting it.
The trickery is blurring the lines between what THE LISTENER can discern as coming from either the horns or the speakers. And the "listener" includes the judges.
What judge can make a legitimate assessment of a hornline when he is hearing said hornline both in front of him AND behind him at the same time? A judge simply cannot objectively critique a live hornline when it's being purposefully obfuscated and/or manipulated by the audio engineers and iPads in the stands. That crap does a splendid job of fooling the audience, and by and large it's doing a magnificent job of fooling the judges as well. Or so it seems.
Then again, perhaps the judges have the very same concerns, and have expressed those concerns upon deaf ears (after all, they serve at the pleasure of the corps directors, who are bound and determined to knock themselves right out of business with this pointless arms race). It's the same boat as the marching members; either tolerate it and embrace it, or take a hike and go home, complain about it on the internet, and get slapped around by sunshine pumping trolls on sites like this.
Too many of you can't see the forest for the trees. It's escalated to the point where the hornlines are superfluous and redundant. There's nothing they can do out there anymore that the color guard and an ARIA plugin can't do just as well, at a fraction of the cost. THAT is where this activity is headed. Is that what you want? Because that's what you're going to get if you don't start being a little more objective.
-
1 hour ago, luv4corps said:
Back in 2011/2012-ish, the Oregon Crusaders changed the wordmark on their fleet as well as all their merchandise from 'drum and bugle corps' to 'performance art'.
They still call their DCI unit a drum corps on their website. But I totally get what you're saying here. And I can allow some level of respect levied towards OC for dropping the pretense.
I think by and large the organizations within DCI know calling it 'drum corps' is a sham, but they otherwise don't really know what to call themselves, which is telling.
-
22 minutes ago, Stu said:
If I am engaging with another poster and their responses are in total agreement with my opinions, I tend to let them have the last post. If, however, they call me out for being a troll, then I will keep trolling, and trolling and will, in those situations, try to have the last post.
FTFY
-
2 hours ago, Tim K said:
A few years ago a Carolina Crown snare had a GoPro attached to himself and it caught his drum coming apart. People commented that the battery did not sound like drums. That's a GoPro issue. GoPros do not do a great job st picking up audio and that's not their purpose. They are action "point of view" cameras so the accuracy of capturing field sounds would be questionable. GoPros from the stands would be worthless unless you're measuring audience reaction. Camera phone video is fine for amateur use but have faults. Since reasonably good video cameras would not be allowed in most shows, and certainly not Indy where camera bags are inspected and people are told they would need to come back without their video cameras, a good DSLR videos both on the field and in the stands would be needed to make this point.
Always excuses to refute common sense.
The quality of the camera is irrelevant when there is a full hornline sound coming out of the speakers and 90% of the horns are laying on the ground while their players are staring at their hands.
-
31 minutes ago, wolfgang said:
Stream of conscious thoughts about amplification, electronics, vocal music, and judging from a tired mind at 1 am:
At the heart of any competitive activity is the idea of a level playing field. If we look at two other subjective artistic sports, figure skating and gymnastics, the US and China will tend to have more resources, funds for better coaches, etc. than for example Bulgaria or The People's Republic of Bananarama. However, for the actual things the athletes are judged on, the balance beams, size of ice rink, etc.... those things are the same for everyone. Those are also visual things. It's hard to hide falling off the balance beam or missing a triple jump on the ice. Audio can be more tricky.
In other threads, allegations of electronic augmentation of brass sounds have been made including - tuners strapped to the bells of horns, synths doubling brass, brass playing the root and fifth of a chord with a synth playing the third, only the best players being amped during full ensemble moments, etc. (Btw, if making these allegations, I would hope the accuser would actually name names of which groups he believes are doing this). "Thunderous goo" is sadly a term that needs no explanation since it's become so common. The thoughts below are for Music Analysis and Music GE judges in the press box. On the field, these shouldn't be an issue.
1) Regarding brass specifically-WHAT exactly is being judged from an ensemble standpoint? "That's easy, Wolfgang. The quality of brass playing is being judged." Ok. If some or all of the allegations above are true, than is the quality of the entire brass ensemble really being judged? IF any corps, whether Pioneer or Blue Devils or anyone else, is doing some of the things others have referenced (or perhaps other types of audio enhancements nobody is aware of), how can the true integrity of the judging system be maintained?
In a Music Analysis role if the entire soundscape is open to evaluation- if A & E is utilized, should judges be required to receive training from professional sound engineers (at DCI's expense) in proper use and best practices of amplification and electronics? There are standards of brass pedagogy and percussion pedagogy (and singing.. . see next point).
Is there such a thing as industry-standard "proper" uses for amplification and electronics? If so, whether a corps uses A & E (and to what extent), if we're trying to determine the best in the world, and if these things are used in the audio design of the programs, shouldn't the people deciding these captions be trained in best practices of the technology?
2). Speaking of singing, since this is part of the musical soundscape that a number of corps are utilizing, should DCI Music Analysis and Music GE judges also have training in proper vocal pedagogy and performance? If we're picking between the best apples and best oranges, and the differences are subtle and minute, why shouldn't vocal music be subjected to the same standard scrutiny? I'm not suggesting a separate judge or subcaption for vocals..... not everyone will use them and the thought of a Vocal Analysis judge at a drum corps competition is as absurd as the thought of Brandt Crocker announcing the Best A&E award after the 6th place corps is announced.....
However, as I understand Music Analysis and Music GE, if a corps chooses to use this as part of their music package, and if these 2 captions are to evaluate the entire soundscape per their caption descriptions, then it only seems logical that the people judging this be required to have at least some formal training on proper techniques, vocal pedagogy, etc. so that those groups that choose to incorporate singing will have a trained evaluation of this aspect.... unless we're just going to say anything besides brass and percussion, while legal, will for practical purposes be ignored in the Music Analysis and Music GE captions.
3) Amplification - There are legitimate areas of disagreement among the DCI fandom. Beating the heck out of marimba to be heard over a 70 member hornline seems (to me) to be a good argument for amplification. Creating a jazz club or big band sound with a mic'ed and amped flugelhorn solo, I get it.
The question is- is there a line, and what should it be? I don't have access to music tapes, but are all (or even a few) judges nailing corps for balance issues due to bad amplification or amplification failures. ... For example, if I see 12 - 16 tubas and only hear the bass synth, the musician in me feels that is a balance problem. If I see 12 - 16 tubas and a world class corps is playing a held fortissimo chord, then I expect to hear the tubas.
4) Integrity of the system- To me, this is where the rubber hits the road. IF corps are using some of the tricks outlined above, then it seems to me in a competitive activity where one effect (intentional or not) is to blur the line between the acoustic sounds made by the players, and recorded samples of the corps dubbed over a FFF chord, or mic'ing the top couple players on each part, etc, this gives the judge a distorted picture of what he/she is supposed to be evaluating.
To take this to an absurd extreme- if a hornline puts the horns to the lips and doesn't play a note but a professionally mixed recording of them is pumped through speakers, while they would get killed on the field, what would the Music Analysis judge do if they are supposed to judge what they hear, and if what they hear is the corps on the field…. Just recorded at an earlier time, edited, and professionally mixed and pumped through the highest quality system a corps could afford?
5) Limits? - I don't believe it's realistic to put the cork back in the bottle, but that doesn't necessarily mean the audio portion of a show has to be a free-for-all. Here are things I would like to see made illegal with a large penalty for violations. Even if these things alleged are not yet being done, be proactive and encode them in the rules.
*A ) Any type of tuning device will be illegal during the judged performance. (if a corps wants to use a tuner before the judged performance begins, ok. Once the corps is introduced, then no.)
* B) No doubling of any brass part by an electronic instrument whether by a live player or sampled recording. (Electric instruments like electric guitars, electric violins, vibraphones, etc. are ok. This is specifically dealing with electronic keyboards doubling any brass part. This would allow the judges in the press box to make a better evaluation of the quality of brass playing they hear without any other brass mimic sounds to interfere with the sonority. The use of the vocoder was not doubling. The way it was used would still be a-ok).
*C). No parts of a chord played by the brass shall be performed by an electronic instrument. (This needs to be better worded I admit. If the allegation of horn lines playing root/fifth and synth playing the third are correct, this would make that practice illegal. Note this is not technically doubling if the brass are not playing those notes in a chord, but if this is being done, it distorts the sound being judged in the press box by giving basically an aural illusion.)
*D). <<<< unsure how to word this at 1am but what follows is a description of something that imo should be prohibited >>>> The practice of amplifying only a few of the top players in a tutti section seems to be the opposite of integrity. Stripping away rationalizations, at the end of the day it amounts to trying to fool the judges in the press box by giving an illusion of the entire horn line projecting a certain sound, when in reality it gives an Animal Farm-esque quality (all sounds from the hornline to the press box are equal…. But some are more equal than others). If this is done, it is like the DCI version of a pop singer's recording being autotuned. It's her voice, but not her "true" voice without artificial aids.
My beef is if there are 20 trumpets, 20 baris, etc and all are playing what is obviously a tutti passage, and the top 4-6 players are getting amped a little bit above the rest of the horns, it would give a distorted version in the press box of what the actual brass sound is. This does not include obvious solo notes, as for example when Blue Devils play a FFF chord, and one lead trumpet goes up to double C to cap the chord. Also, this really isn’t what SCV did this year. Their 12 person ensemble was mic’ed but I could clearly hear when they were playing compared to the rest of the hornline.
That’s one person’s thoughts at 1 am in the morning. There are different opinions, and that’s fine. Personally, I have no issue with amplification and electronics per se as long as they are within well-defined boundaries. If DCI was an exhibition-only organization, then have at it. Do whatever you want.
However, since this is a competition, then I feel there should be some boundaries to maintain credibility and integrity with the adjudication, and it’s be up to the corps designers to be as creative as possible within those boundaries. It’s natural for someone with a corps to want to give their kids every competitive advantage….. but as technology progresses, shouldn’t the rules governing that technology also progress to allow the judges to compare apples to apples as much as humanly possible?
Well let's make one thing clear right up front; I never said they were using tuners during performance. But they certainly have access to them during practice.
Otherwise, regarding trickery, all one has to do is watch gopro head cam vidoes and compare them to audience cams. You can clearly hear notes (and I'm not just talking partials, but actual rhythms) out of the speakers that simply are not being played on the field. And no, I don't mean go run and watch one single video and claim it's not true. Listen to all that are available. Use that musical acumen that so many on here claim to possess, and you can hear some staggering discrepancies. Much of what the audience is hearing is not emanating from a single horn on the field. Just watch how very little a horn is even on their faces today. You're so dazzled by their movement and choreography, you're not even noticing it.....and that's precisely why they're doing it; because they can.
And if rules aren't put in place to penalize that crap, rather than reward it....it's simply going to get worse.
-
3 hours ago, BDCorno said:
Everyone runs off generators, not a plug-in connection. Dream on.
That's just more equipment with the potential to fail. Redundancies for tech that makes the kids on the field redundant.
-
22 minutes ago, joe mama said:
As a member of Jim Ott's last hornline, I can tell you with certainty that he would absolutely love what lines like Crown and Blue Devils are doing today. He taught technique and musicality along with power and volume. And while I certainly agree that amplification is largely unnecessary and a huge distraction (IMO), today's lines far exceed anything from the 70's or 80's regardless of electronic enhancement.
Yeah I'm going to disagree with you there until doomsday, and I've already explained why all over the 1st two pages of threads here. Jim Ott's hornlines didn't need amps, nor did they need 9 minutes of dancing in order to perform with technique and musicality for 3.
-
On 8/14/2017 at 6:14 PM, MikeRapp said:
Electronics aren't going away, though. No matter how great it might be for BD to design without any amplification or effects, it's here to stay. Ironically, it's probably here to stay because it's the ONLY option in Winter Guard. And Winter Guard is now driving much of the drum corps design and judging community.
I just don't want music to be secondary in this activity. But crazy enough, I may be in the minority. I just think there are a whole lot of kids who are far more interested in electronics than music. Cavaliers is the least musical show they have ever done as a corps. Ever. And yet it beat the most musical show, and arguably most performance oriented corps, in the acvitity.
I will be happy for the kids regardless, but I will be cheering for the corps that emphasize music performance at its highest level. With or without electronics.
You're definitely not in the minority, it's just that most vets and fans who value music over interpretive dance no longer follow or support the activity. They still value their memories of what it once was, however. And a few of them continue to fight for sanity and reason, whether there's any chance of those things returning or not.
And I do hope you're wrong about electronics not going away. Because one of these days, if the power goes out at a regional, and it's cancelled without refund because no one is confident in performing their show WITHOUT electronics....that'll send a very powerful message to the mms, vets, fans and supporters....far more powerful than speakers and mixing boards.
-
18 minutes ago, BRASSO said:
I don't . You misunderstand what I posted. I said above that in fact I am " ok," if the OP ( and others ) do not want us know the names of the judges that the OP believes some are " too old " to be judging now. I merely added that it seems a rather peculiar request when we have often had the names of both these 2 judges mentioned on here many, many times before and accused of " judge bias ". The sudden concern here on DCP by a couple of posters with not naming names, seems a new phenomenon, thats all. We've had judges on here charged with bias LOTS of times on DCP... with names provided. But I'm certainly ok, if we are changing course now, and deciding not to name judges who poster or two might believe could be biased for reason or another.
They're just trying to stir trouble. That's all they do on here. They don't have a message, or even an ethos. They just want to gainsay and countermand anything posted by people they have decided they don't like. And they always show up in groups of three, it seems.....
-
28 minutes ago, wilme861 said:
I'm just curious which one(s) of the three medalists are you referring to exactly? Having been in the lots during Prelims and watching about half of the finalists brass lines there, I'm willing to bet a good amount of money that Jim Ott would have been extremely proud of every one of those hornlines.
BTW, still getting a good chuckle with you thinking a sound system has any affect whatsoever on the Ott. Find me a brass judge that judges a show by the speakers instead of by the hornline and I'll gladly retract my statement.
How about instead you find me a judge that magically cannot hear the overbearing noise coming out of the speakers (which are dialed up so loud they can hear them in the press boxes with the windows shut) AND the monitors facing the corps (which are loud enough to hear clearly in the stands on the back sideline). They've got them turned up so loud that the judges (as well as the audience) can no longer discern the live from the amplified and/or enhanced. And yes, that includes the judges ON the field. People sitting in the front rows have figured that out already. How many times this year did people post how put off they were hearing horns on the left side of the field when they were all dancing on the right side? The whole thing is deceptive, it's disingenuous, and it's the exact opposite of everything Jim Ott worked to bring to drum corps.
Those audio engineers are there to play both the judges and the audience like a fiddle. And they're doing that pretty darned well, when they're not forgetting to put batteries in their mic packs. Eventually, enough critical failures will occur during performances that the brighter light bulbs in the community will start to figure it out. But when that finally happens, I can guarantee the same ones on here regurgitating "well there's nothing you can do about it" will be saying the exact same thing....
-
18 minutes ago, DasTuba said:
I think you're exaggerating just a little
I wish I were. Some corps do it more (a lot more) than others, but they're the ones winning medals today, prompting everyone else to either sell out and jump on the bandwagon, or go home two days early.
Caption awards are meaningless when they are now based upon who has the best sound system. Jim Ott would have never wanted that.
-
5 hours ago, CrownBariDad said:
This thread is not my favorite either. Not a fan of BITD wishful thinking which will make not one iota of difference.
It already has begun to make a difference. We're talking about it, despite your best efforts to prevent that.
-
3 hours ago, MikeRapp said:
They're not, but are expected to be by the time the new proposed stadium opens.
I genuinely do wish them well....I just hope they don't continue to emulate the medalists. That's not the way forward for ANYONE, much less the home team.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, afd said:
Does anyone take a break from Drum corps? I see people here ALL THE TIME.
Some call it a fever. Others call it a disease.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, snare_guy_83 said:
If the music us so easy, then why don't you learn a book and post a video of you playing it here for all of us to see and hear
I could certainly do that. I could post a video of me dancing like a four year-old for 9 minutes and then playing lip slurs into a vocoder for 3 minutes. That's essentially a drum corps show today.
A point I made in another thread is that the overwhelming amount of talent required to secure a spot in a corps hornline is no longer even addressed during a performance. Any amount of virtuosity or chops is neglected or totally eschewed in favor of laying their horns down on the ground and performing ballet in skintight leotards while synthesizers play pre-recorded samples. That crap doesn't require a music education.
It's like being a first round draft pick for an NFL team, but getting put on the cheerleader squad instead. It makes absolutely no sense to waste horn players' talent by making them color guard members who occasionally play a few notes.
Cadets 2018
in DCI World Class Corps Discussions
Posted
Marching woodwinds. May as well just deliver the coup-de-grace and get it over with. I mean, that's all that's left, innit?