hboyce
-
Posts
361 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hboyce
-
-
but 11 minutes ISN'T enough time to develop a wind ensemble piece, that it is why most band lit is total trash, the composers are trying to throw in every compositional and orchestration trick in their bag in a single 10 minute piece thus almost all sound forced and frankly, the same, and the few wind band works that are on comparable quality of orchestral works tend to be multi-movement longer pieces. The same could be said about the majority of drum corps shows.
Well I disagree with you, but I pose this question. What makes 12 minutes better? Does the extra minute all of a sudden change this? Based on your argument I would guess you would not agree that the extra minute would change things. Making it pointless to change to it.
Edit: Also what the majority of corps are playing are these wind pieces so there doesn't seem to be a need to extend the time.
-
just a few clarifications..
two problems with your thought here:
first, just because it has been around for a long time does not mean it is the best way to do things.
second, his justification is not just that it is easier to program shows, when you read the entire document you see that he is making the argument that 11 minutes is simply not enough time to develop any sort of significant musical idea...imagine if Beethoven or Mozart were limited to 11 minutes for their symphonies. Now it cant be an hour long show, but giving a more reasonable time constraint (I would even like to see it go up to 15 minutes) would allow more depth an complexity to the show. You also have to realize that that would just be the maximum...corps can still go on fielding 1130 minute shows if they want.
It would be a trade off thing potentially, would the benefits of adding an extra minute outweigh the loss of rehearsal time on some parts of the show? My friend from Cadets '03 said how the 17 sets of the moving warm up they did held them back for a while simply because it was more to clean..
The answer is yes...again you miss the point of the proposal, I suggest you go and actually read through some of the justifications..
11 minutes is plenty of time to develop a musical idea. Maybe not for an entire symphony, but most wind ensemble pieces fall far below the 11 minute mark. An example of a well thought out musical idea under the 11 minute mark would be Blue Devils 1997 (personally). If it went on for another minute it would drag on. It was perfect. It can be done and isn't overly difficult. And yes, it might not be the best way to do thing, but this seems like an excuse for Hopkins to be able to do something with the extra minute or two of music he has EVERY year. And as someone stated earlier. Longer performances mean longer shows. Having to pay to hold the venue longer and to pay the event staff
I fully understand the point of the proposal and I actually read through it the first time. A lot of things he stated as being possible with this new rule are already possible without it. Screaming soloists? Listen to the end of Madison 95 with the trumpet quartet(I think it was a quartet) being perfectly heard over the entire corps. Soloists in the corner of the field? Cavaliers 01 Four Corners. They had a soloist on each corner of the field some not even facing the audience and you could hear them fine. It's an unnecessary addition that "adds" something that is already possible.
-
I would say no to all of them and here are a few words on each in the order they are listed.
1. Judge all the corps the same way for all shows.
2. This only opens to door for it to be pushed back further.
3. What? NO!
4. The time requirement has been there for a long time. Learn to program your show instead of having the same problem every year.
5. Would a wireless mic even work well from the back corner of a field. No need to amplify the loudest thing on the field.
6. While I like the idea of more creative freedom I don't like the idea of hearing techno and then a babbling brook on the field.
7. You want to add judges to balance things out and then take out another to unbalance it?
8. Would you want to pay thousands of dollars and spend your entire summer standing in front of a sound board?
9. It was already voted in and I don't see it being voted out. Plus a 15 point penalty? Ridiculous.
10. Same as above. 25 POINTS?!
-
What's wrong with a healthy debate about some of the judges decisions? Do I always have to believe and ACCEPT the recap, (kinda like the government) or do I trust my own two eyes and ears? Not that I'm always correct, but we're not all a bunch of biased morons, and DCP should be the place to allow for healthy debate and open dialog of opposing views, even it means we.....(gasp).....yes.... question the "judges". IMO, it was a two horse race. BD and Cadets were on another level. 3-7 were all great corps, but none had the total package or sheer intensity of the top two.
Did you just compare DCI judges to the American government and lightly touch on conspiracy theory?
"In the next issue of Drum Corps Conspirator and ex-DCI adjudicator comes forward with facts about every tie in DCI history."
I'll say what I always say in these situations. DCI judge: highly qualified in their field with years of experience, placed in locations to best judge their given caption. Armchair judge: Marched in high school and maybe a couple of years of corps. Years of experience watching DVDs. Lots of opinions with little educational backing to them. Subscribes to Drum Corps Conspirator
-
1
-
-
So based on lack of participation in this thread and comments in another, I am to assume that fans want to be involved in the rule making process, but have no ideas on how to actually improve the activity. Unless you would just leave the activity as it with no change. In that case why would you need to be involved?
Personally I think the rule process should remain as is. Until it proves to be detrimental to the activity. Which it hasn't. (Joe Schmo not supporting drum corps any more because of rule X is NOT detrimental to the activity)
-
Take away the objective* GE and Crown moves up one spot. Barely. Now you want to change the GE caption to something that is entirely subjective and could vary greatly from person to person night to night. THAT seems bass-ackwards to me.Because the scoring system is biased towards the magnification of very minor differences becoming major factors. This is ok, really. The system is also based around a major category of "General Effect", but it's not what most people would assume is GE. There is very little importance put on the audience connectivity or overall creative connection that kids make with the audience. This is by design.I think it's time that a system better rewards shows that are audience-centric, and reformulate GE to the intangibles it should be, and then lower those scores to only be 1/4 of the score.
People assume GE is subjective, but it leans much closer to objective, and is more related to staff and expectation than what many people believe is healthy.
Crown, to me, was "excellent enough" to be the 2007 champion in my view. And until we revamp our system to be more reactive to the emotion and passion of our performances, that passion will erode, and we will lose customers in the process.
*Most people that complain about GE complain that it is too subjective and that it being objective would be a good thing. I found your view on it interesting.
-
I find that statement potentially misleading.
Truth is, some fans leave over objectionable rule changes. So when you see dissent about a rule change fade over time, that is not necessarily dissenters changing their minds, but just plain departing.
I wasn't implying 100% of fans. My statement doesn't sound misleading to me. Over the past 8 years with some of the more controversial rule changes the numbers of fans haven't decreased much (they probably haven't increased much either, but that is besides the point). So I would have to assume that the majority of fans accept the new rules at some point and those that don't are replaced by the new fans the activity receives every year.
-
I doubt it. My finals performance in 2003 at the Citrus Bowl had at most 300 people in stands. Though I remember it being far less.The Open Class audience attendance should see huge growth next year with Finals being at Lucas Oil Stadium. -
Surely your premise isn't that Executive Directors of corps propose rules that are financially viable for all drum corps??
Amplification..................150 members???? Clearly meant to give some corps the advantage over others - simply because they can afford to make the changes much easier than a lot of other corps.
Not a whole lot of altruism in the top tiers, I wouldn't think.
It was inspired by the rules process thread. Which more or less said fans should have a part in that process. It's not based on reality and I thought this was completely obvious. Apparently not.
-
For the love of God, don't tell MikeD any of that!!
I certainly see your point, it's just that I see the changes being envoked as blurring any lines that happen to seperate the two.I agree, but feel that line will always be there. However hard it is to see.
-
Why must this discussion always turn into "well, if you're against one specific change then you must be against all change"? And good luck with those "thousands" of kids you seem to think are out there, wait until they find out that all they'll be getting for their money is the same thing they could get with countless marching bands throughout the country, as opposed to the unique power and excitement that once was Drum Corps. My entire point was that if you could manage to hold on to some of what made Drum Corps unique in the first place then you would not only attract new fans, but maybe, just maybe retain more than a handful of us "old-timers" as well.
It was simply an analogy to illustrate my point. Drum corps is still unique. It's not the same exact thing as it was 20, 10 or even 5 years ago, but it is still unique from marching band.
Your whole point seems to be based on the opinion that drum corps is the exact same thing as marching band. It isn't.
-
"Alienating potential fans"? This is exactly the kind of thinking that is the inherent problem with todays DCI. Can you just imaging the size of the fan base for DCI if they were able to actually keep the majority of fans over the years? Not alienating "potential" fans (not even sure who exactly they would be) is all well and good, but maybe a better idea would be to first try not to alienate those who already supported the activity and build on that.
If you alienate those coming into the activity it can only shrink. So the idea is to make changes that attract new people to the activity. Example: The ESPN2 broadcast. I'm sure that the amount of people that have never heard of drum corps before and watched the broadcast greatly outnumbers the number of current fans that decided to stop supporting drum corps all together because they didn't like the format.
If two valved, grounded pit, symmetrical drill drum corps is the only drum corps for you, then there are thousands of 14 year old kids out there waiting to pay money for their amplified vocal, Bb drum corps.
-
You are now the executive director of a top World Class drum corps! Congratulations!
Your first duty is to propose a rule to the DCI Board of Directors. Your rule must be financially viable for ALL drum corps to change to. That means all current drum corps and any future drum corps. Your personal goals are to bring more fans to the activity, while alienating as few of the current fan base as possible, and to create lucrative opportunities for NEW sponsors to come on board to support the activity.
Rule Proposal Form:
1. Name for your rule (exp: Legalization of amplification)
2. Brief description of your rule (exp: Allows the use of amplification of instruments already present in the front ensemble)
3. How does this rule bring new fans to the activity while keeping the current fan base?
4. How much would it cost to implement?
5. How is the cost offset (assuming there is cost) by the implementation of this rule?
6. How will the rule bring new sponsors to the activity.
7. Other comments (Convince your fellow corps directors[DCP] to get on board and vote for your rule)
(inpsired by the 'Why the rules process is bass-ackwards' topic)
-
Typical problem here on DCP. Don't take the easy way out, my good man. Do your homework first.
Most topics on DCP veer way off course. My post was intended to be just a reply to the original post and nothing else. If it has already been said you can skim over it.
So what? It's still a competitive art form that relies upon fans and advertising to stay alive. Would it trouble you less if we compared DCI to figure skating?And those are all economic arguments, with not a second's thought of what the fans may think of them.
Some fans come to accept them, some don't. Alienating any fans is never a good situation. Always playing defense loses games, and always being reactive to situations means you're not growing. No matter how well you adjust, the odds that you'll slip up and falter always work against you. DCI constantly seems to be choosing between new fans and old fans. Why not implement rules changes that keep the old fans and gain new fans?
That might be an interesting question. Why don't you ask them? Or at least ask DCI to ask them.
Well in the case of pro sports (this is just an assumption correct me if I am wrong) most if not all of the revenue comes from the fans and the advertising. And when you are paying out multi-million dollar paychecks you want every last person out there to want to put money into your sport.
Yes, but without those economic efforts even less corps would be around today. Unless that is what the fans want.
No matter what rule DCI imposed a group of fans will be alienated. And if DCI didn't change at all it could be alienating potential fans. But there are people that became fans in the 70s and remain fans to this day. So they must be doing something right.
-
I only read the original post, so sorry if any of this has already been touched on.
First of all Drum Corps is not a pro sport that draws in millions upon millions of fans and advertisers.
Secondly most of the rule changes in this century (except for amplification), seem to be geared towards keeping the activity alive. The number of fans attending shows have not increased greatly (or decreased) in the past decade. So DCI is getting roughly the same amount of money through ticket, merchandie, and ad sales. But it is becoming more expensive to secure show sites, housing sites and getting the corps to and from each show and housing site. So changes have been made to get more money into the corps. Change to Bb. Cheaper horns that can be resold more easily and for more money. More recently upping the limit to 150 members. More kids in the corps paying fees and filling out the buses they are already using. And apparently there is a rule in the works (and backed by most of the corps directors) to push the age limit back to December 31 from June 1. So more people eligible to come into corps and pay tour fees.
While most rule changes seem to be only for the benefit of the corps and cause a huge uproar from the fans at the implication of them, over time the fans come to accept them and expect them as the norm. Eventually learn to like them. So unless DCI loses a large number of their fan base and sponsors I don't see them looking to them for what changes they should make to the activity.
Fake edit: What rule changes do the fans have that benefit DCI, the fans, and keep it financial viable for sponsors to stay in?
-
but...since when does everybody but me suddenly know how to write drill?
This might be just me being a jackhole, but I laughed when I read this. I would say less than 10% of these would actually work in a real world situation. And far less would actually be effective.
It is a fun game, but the users aren't exactly pumping out world class drill.
-
Horn pops to the box should NEVER be removed for encores. Slamming my bari up to box center on a big hit just fuels the adrenaline for me.
In encores we did the first slam up at the beginning of the show and the last slam down at the end of it. No other horns moves. It doesn't make sense in the context of an arc, and it looks bad when sections bring their horns down and up at different times than other sections.
I feel being front and center and being able to see the audience reaction is plenty for the adrenaline. But after doing the 10th encore that month you really just want to get out of uniform, get some food, and crash on the bus.
-
Sounds pretty straightforward Cadets to me.
I thought the exact same thing as Jayzer about American Elegy; exact transcription. I don't know anything about this Nitro piece I just think of a train when listening to it. In the sense that it doesn't really build. It just goes in a straight line the entire time with very slight inclines and declines.
I predict DCP will love this show "despite the narration".
-
You are a wit machine! [/sarcasm]thanks alot Hboyce, ill take note of that!Your joke doesn't change the fact that you were wrong. It also brings up the fact that you are a douchenozzle.
Also, you don't really know much about a straight leg technique or a glide step technique. At least you haven't proven so through your postings.
Edit: I still would like an answer to the questions I posed. If you could oblige.
-
The length of each set appears to be dependent on how far the person with the furthest distance to travel goes.
-
Anyone going to attempt curvilinear forms? It's all straight lines and boxes.
-
oh yeah thats right, humans are only designed to walk forward. sorry but i think if that were true we would have died out before we invented the wheel if we needed to turn around to head another direction.
Seriously?
Humans CAN walk backwards. Did I say they couldn't? Did I imply they couldn't? I would seriously like you to come back to this thread and answer those questions. Preferably after you have successfully comprehended the next paragraph.
[readingcomprehension]
Humans can more efficiently walk forwards than they can backwards. It's just the way our bodies and legs are designed. Also the eyes are in the front of the head to see where it is that you are going, not in the back to see behind you. So YES it IS unnatural to walk backwards. BUT, that does not mean it is impossible. Unnatural is not synonymous with impossible.
[/readingcomprehension].
-
an interesting stat would be how many straight leg related injuries VS how many bent knee related injuries.
I was wondering... what's the point of using a marching style instead of just walking?
- Uniformity of movement from member to member (just like uniforms for the purely visual aspect);
- (just for horn players) Give enough stability to the upper body to sound good.
Then, if those are right, I guess hard straight leg cadets style is not the answer.
There is more to marching injuries than the technique used. Such as field conditions, how strong/weak a person's body is, and how well/poor a person marches the technique.
There is no correct technique. Just different ones.
-
Straight leg is not on the TOES it is on the PLATFORM. If you are marching on your toes you are working far too hard and moving ineffectively.
Rule Proposals
in DCI World Class Corps Discussions
Posted
Because then the jump to 13 is 'only a minute' from 12. And so on and so forth. It's only going to make renting a stadium that much more expensive while adding relatively little to the quality of drum corps shows.