drumcat

Members
  • Content Count

    3,967
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

drumcat last won the day on January 11 2014

drumcat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

282 Excellent

About drumcat

  • Rank
    DCP Fanatic

Recent Profile Visitors

656 profile views
  1. I want you to imagine a scenario... I'm a marketing guru for a feature film that will hit cinemas in July, and I have a 9 month window to start the marketing process. In my genius mind, I think that I can get great value for money if I have a drum corps play my movie's music, along with helping out at nationwide promos. The day after every regional, I do a small local event, etc. I get the movie music played, I get endless promotion through repetition and show design, and I can even budget a little for killer props, and some signage for the corps. Essentially, a corps "sells its soul" for a summer for a payday of mass advertising. Now, stop acting like this is impossible. It's far from impossible. In fact, let's say that it were going to happen next season. Someone is negotiating right now for a "dramatic WW2 movie" or an "action comedy". It's going to happen. And it's going to happen with a World Finalist corps that won't win, but will figure to, on a good season, crack the medals. How much do you charge the studio?
  2. It all brings me back the rule I'd love to see... can't play it if you didn't get full rights to it. Rescinded rights aside, I don't know how this is bad for the industry.
  3. But you know, let's pass a rule allowing sampling. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  4. I should also make perfectly clear that my dislike for the Stanford Band isn't because of them directly. It really has to do with the negative light they shine on the activity. Since "The Game" in 1982, Stanford's band has been unfortunately made forever a character in the college football landscape. Had it happened recently, I'm sure the trombone that got smashed would have had a GoFundMe page, and all the other stuff that goes with it. Unfortunately, the media has paid attention to the Band since that game. Journalists love to show off their long memories, and any chance they get, they write about that band. As such, it is a hope that their clean up would do well for the region's programs, and college bands in general. The 99% deserve a better lens to be seen through. That's all.
  5. I think you're looking for sourcing that discusses a rumor (and I did qualify it as such) and you're completely missing the point. The "urban legend" of the plane tilt stunt doesn't matter. Is it feasible that a few kids jumped up on a charter plane for the band, and caused an annoyance which became urban legend? Sure. Is it the truth? Maybe, but it's not relevant. Here's the LA Times all the way back in 1990: http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-07/news/vw-3779_1_spotted-owl-show So let's say that the "airline ban" is really some travel agent's refusal to charter, or some other nonsense that was, again - by all admission - spun into an urban legend. I don't have the sourcing you're looking for. The entire point, again, with no inside knowledge, is that the IMAGE that the band has, and wants, is the problem. And if you're not sure they want this image, I would direct you to their front page - http://lsjumb.stanford.edu - which proudly proclaims that they have "sexions" [sic]. Your part about dadaism, I honestly have no idea about. What is apparent though, immediately, is that they WANT the reputation, EARN the reputation, and again, if the band could be easily shut down by the school, I think they would have by now. It isn't lost on me that the team with the most DCI titles has its "home show" at a stadium where the band could not be any more galacticly opposite. One last thing, Brasso. I expect Chicago Manual of Style 16th Edition citations on all your posts from now on.
  6. No problem. Maybe this isn't correct factually, but they have received numerous travel bans. This year, they were banned from road games... http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/05/15/stanford-cardinal-band-road-game-ban-travel They are also barred from Disneyland, and they proudly list lots of other stomach-turning things proudly on their own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Band#Controversial_actions_by_the_band These are the antics they're willing to talk about / got caught doing. The long-standing rumor was that the band decided on a flight in the early 80's to all run to one side of a plane, causing some obvious panic. It might have just been a rumor, but USC believed it enough that they tried it in 1984. So, Stickler 1, Simplicity 0.
  7. So about the Stanford band... I will be the first to say I have no "internal" knowledge, but I do know a few things: First, the band is written into the school charter. They can't be eliminated without rewriting the thing, so the administration funds them like a "club sport". Second, I think the actual marching band shows aren't the offensive part. Sure, they make a marijuana leaf in drill occasionally, but so what. The real problem they face is the perception of being actually terrible. That's not unfounded. If you want cutesy outfits but decent players, look at Cal. It's goofy, old school, but respectable players. The main issue is student behavior. From what I've heard second hand, and from news stories, is that the ongoing behavior during time in the stands, trips, basically in public not on the field is where they fail. It's just a rowdy student section with clarinets. They've been banned by several airlines, and they have a history of misbehavior that is, well, legendary. But the real problem is their local perception. Having talked to lots of their facility folks in advance of the DCI show held there, they LOVE seeing DCI. Everyone that talked about it said the same thing - we wish our band would have something respectable. Most of the Pac12 bands are pretty good. Some are tops in the country (AZ, ASU, UCLA), and others have a specific role (USC, Cal). But in either case, everyone but Stanford has the respect of their school. I'm not suggesting that the humor needs to be modified. Heck, the musicians can continue to be below average. What the Stanford Band needs is to regain the trust and respect of its own community. Instead of being the "Drunk Uncle" of campus, they should just be the musicians that are trying, and behaving in uniform. Hell, they could start by all being in uniform! However I really think the problem is no one wants to do the hard work to unwind the behavior from the humor, and the douchy from the spirited. I hope someone could change it, but it didn't get this bad for decades without severe neglect. It'll be a lot of work... massive, groundbreaking work. But Stanford and the Band would all be better for it.
  8. Perc, two things I am sure of... First, DA has cared about music licensing for a very long time. It might appear new outwardly, but licensing things properly has been a thing since before the Legacy discs. Second, licensing has been a moving target since Interwebs. Based on the confederation setup, corps have always been in agreement that they should do a good job, but that the creative integrity came first. I think it's fair to say that as of 2015, we are in a new era. The calculus has changed for everyone, and the way things have been are a bygone era. Unfortunately, compliance today isn't compliance tomorrow, and that is a scary fact.
  9. Brace yourselves... The Jannnnnual is coming. So, while I proposed earlier some rules related to rights acquisition, I thought I'd just say this out loud and see if this would be tolerated by the DCP pitchfork mob... (Cue John Lennon) Imagine... 2016 - No copyrights at all. Imagine a rule or two Imagine a whole year of Fair Use And no sync rights too Imagine all the people, streaming through the world oooo... OK OK, sorry. I got carried away, and The Beatles are probably the worst/most ironic example. Here's the thought, be it 2016 or even 2017 if it's too late... Pass a one-season only rule where all music played has to be rights-free. Why? Here's why: #1 - It gives a clean break, and a year to work on things without adding to the pile. #2 - It will provide a level of restraint that the music industry may note with a slight interest. #3 - It will show everyone that DCI is very serious about the problems. #4 - It would allow shows to be archived and made available on-demand. #5 - It will allow an internal discussion as to whether DCI can live without rights, or how they impact the bottom line. Again, I'm not saying anything permanent. I'm not even suggesting that it become permanent, because there's a lot of reason to use copyrighted material. But reason #1 is the biggest one... by selecting a year where there are zero rights issues, it allows the administration of rights to get "caught up", and allows DCI to quickly evaluate what's worthwhile, and what's the kind of pieces to avoid altogether. Unless anyone knows of a compelling reason to not do this one year, I'd love to hear it. Also, you could piggy-back this with another idea a "comrade" had... in the year following, ask the corps to stick to a "classics" year (or a corps' "best of"), where they play tunes they've already played in their history -- specifically, ones that DCI is sure they have the rights for, and have a history of success with. This would ease everyone back into playing properly with copyright with less hassle, and then allowing for two solid years of policy-sharpening and offering the fans a unique opportunity to look forward to what corps can do with these temporary concepts. If nothing else comes out of the Janual, I would imagine this would reset the dialogue and help the organization get back in a good position. Now, anyone know who can propose this?? :)
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enforcement_Act_of_2006 I could imagine a small carveout where anything 15 years or older played back instrumentally-only would be exempt.
  11. A long time ago, drum corps and a quote came together for me. It perfectly illustrated why I loved the art form. "Art is in the resistance of the materials." It's true, and not just for drum corps. But as a pit kid, I loved Foley. I lament samples, but don't mind amplification for those pit instruments. The marching machine in Miss Saigon, or seeing Crown use a thundersheet, or when I had an early season part with an ocean drum. Drum corps is defined by its limitations, and while us dinosaurs talk about the olden days of this and that, we can still see the magic of the experience for the kids. That never changes. What has changed is the art, and the creativity once necessary to achieve a sound. The nostalgia here is only to illustrate why this is such a difficult issue. Once you knock down the creative barriers that exist, artists find the next wall to push. That's good. The most painful thing you can do is to put up more walls, but in this case, the health of the activity's business model is in question. Think of all the wonderful actors that have worked and toiled with excellence on Broadway for 100 years, and then realize that it's the ones in Hollywood that are immortal. We don't like barriers intrinsically, but drum corps is an art defined by limitations. That's ok to me, because it offers an identity. That identity can be embraced even with a more limited library. In fact, it is a challenge I know that drum corps would handle well - because they have to! It is within that constraint that the activity flourishes. We may not need to step back in other areas, but just because the literature is restrained does not mean the creativity will decrease. I submit it must increase, and it will, and everyone will be better for it.
  12. And in this case, if that's how it went down, it would have been a no-no. The problem with this is that the artist's camp has all the leverage once the performance is "in the can". However, I don't know for sure that this is what happened. If it was cleared in advance, fine, revocations happen. If it was play-and-hope, that scenario should be eliminated up front.
  13. Like Phantom 2008 as well? Ya, I think it would be reasonable to suggest that if the rights were "fully acquired" but later pulled, this is not a predictable situation. The corps wouldn't be penalized as long as they acquired all of the rights necessary to publish on disc and online in advance. These types of exceptions would happen, and if it's no fault of the corps, you just have to chalk it up to a crap deal. Again, IANAL, but the concept is essentially that corps have to clear those hurdles prior to competition. From my understanding, many of the rights acquisitions take longer than a year, and that several instances of copyright problems have been when corps ###/u/me they will get those rights - especially those with midseason changes where recorded dialog is introduced. I'd thought about it, but for discussion purposes, I didn't want to get too cloudy with the proposal. There are some other tweaks as well if I were submitting these as rules, but for the interests of jabber, ya...
  14. I've been extremely fortunate that my ears have stayed in good shape. Pit was a fantastic decision. Outdoor high school is generally not going to be that damaging; especially smaller groups. The problem isn't outside; the ear actually isn't that damaged by single shots (I wish I had a link to that research), but sustained decibels. As soon as you go inside, the damage goes WAY up. Most band rooms have some acoustic deflectors, but absorption is rarely enough to make any meaningful change. As such, you're really at risk where the pressure doesn't dissipate. So to me it's not the end of the world if a drumline is outside for an hour, and no one is screwing around hitting snare shots for fun. Drumlines that are outside playing 8-10 hours, that's not good. ANY outdoor instrument inside is BAD. Hearing loss is all about accumulation, and while I will be the first to say I'm not an audiologist, I am darn certain that the increased air pressures of indoor rehearsals and performances are the largest culprits.