QUESTION about Hopkins, Blame

[KingJoeVII]

Since you have no idea of what I am talking about, or what I was saying in my posts, let me connect the dots for you, correctly...

A simple question. I never said that the narrators wanted to do this. I was just pointing out that their choices are quite limited. Do it or don't. I ask, hypothetically, what would happen if anyone refused to to the parts they were told to perform. You, quite mistakenly, have taken that to mean that I believe the narrators did not want to perform the written words. NO WHERE have I ever said that. That is your mistaken assumption.Here I am correcting another false assumption that you have made, and stick to no matter how many times I correct you. You said that I assumed they were duped. I said I did not. Then, I reiterate the question that no one seems to want to answer, what happens if they refuse to do wha they are told to do? You stated that George was a reasonable guy. I pointed out that if he was not going to listen to his staff on this, he certainly wasn't going to listen to a member about it. However, that is still in the hypothetical. NO WHERE did I say this actually happened, but merely ask, "what if...?"Here, you are so far off base it is incredible. You have used a quote where I explicitly say that I had never said they were uncomfortable but responding to a different post. I again repeated that the narrators, like any other position, are given their parts, they don't choose them. And finally, I continue to ask the question that no one answers. NO WHERE do I say these things actually occurred.All this post asks is the same hypotheitical question again. NO WHERE do I even mention them actually not liking their parts. You say I do that.So, I have said those exact words you quoted. NO WHERE does it say that they actually say they had a problem with it. The only thing I have said about that is that we don't know whether they had a problem with that. In fact, I have gone on to say, many times which you choose to ignore, that I accept that they know they are actors and were quite willing to say the parts whether they agreed with them or not. Did you miss that dot??? Your trying to take an hypothetical question and say that I am saying that the narrators did not like what they are saying. My response to that, for the umpteenth time is no, no, no, no and no. You are wrong.Get it?

now there is no need to get snippy...

I understand your question fine..."what would happen if someone refused to say a speaking part"?

I then said to myself, "Self - That is an illogical, unrealistic scenario. what are the conditions to which someone would accept a speaking part an then weeks later, decide to refuse it?"

is is under that last statement to which I answered. I was taking your question to the next logical step and pointing out the reasons why it would be extremely unlikely anyone would have a problem with a speaking part, and thus refuse to perform it.

Your response coming concurrently with X DM's posts about not believing in what they are saying probably had a lot to do with the confusion here as well. Sorry if I projected my responses to him onto you, but I am answering your arguments in a way.

to summarize:

YOU: "What would happen if someone would refuse to narrate a part?"

ME: "It is not realistic to believe that someone would spontaneously refuse to narrate something without a good reason. Here are the reasons someone might refuse to narrate and why each reason was not a problem this year."

it would be like asking "what would happen if the President decided to fire his cabinet and replace them with Transformer action figures?"...it is much more effective to debate why that would not be such a likely scenario than to try and figure out exactly what would happen after he did that.

Hope this clears things up a bit...

my head hurts...

I'll try and bring this up again, because it may have gotten lost in the shuffle...

Was George Hopkins (if he did indeed write the words) the best option for writing in this show? Is he the Marc Sylvester of the written word? If not, why would they not get someone who is as talented as the rest of their staff (Tom Aungst, etc.)?

Here's another question. If you had a show, would you want Marc Sylvester writing drill? Would you want Tom Aungst arranging the percussion book? Would you want George Hopkins writing the narration (if it had narration)?

hmmm, interesting idea...maybe corps could start hiring famous writers to compose narration for the show? It would definitely make things a little more interesting...

"Narration by John Grisham"

The Bluecoats show theme was not about the Value of Choices, and the Director did not instruct the narrators to say " I beleive in Choices..... it's MY life..... and I get to choose ". Had the Bluecoats had this type of show theme and The Cadets did a show theme on Criminals and portrayed it the way they did,, my comments would have applied similarly, but to the Bluecoats staff, and not The Cadets staff and Director.

there he is, welcome back to the mess that has become this thread :P

Edited August 17, 2007 by KingJoeVII

[Liam]

The Bluecoats show theme was not about the Value of Choices, and the Director did not instruct the narrators to say " I beleive in Choices..... it's MY life..... and I get to choose ". Had the Bluecoats had this type of show theme and The Cadets did a show theme on Criminals and portrayed it the way they did,, my comments would have applied similarly, but to the Bluecoats staff, and not The Cadets staff and Director.

Can't ..... resist .... urge ..... to respond .......

I'm trying very hard to be respectful in my responses to you, which is why I have opted for analogies and humor so far in my responses.

I will try again, albeit a little more straightforward. Earlier I quoted excerpts from a Hamlet speech -- the "to be or not to be" speech. This, too, is about choices in life, about finding the courage to stand up to adversity, about creating your own path. Are you seriously going to tell me that every actor who has portrayed Hamlet over the cenuturies is disingenous because they are talking about life choices when they didn't choose the words to say?

I think where the disconnect is coming is that you are thinking of these members as speaking for themselves. I think that is incorrect. They are performers acting the part of a drum corps member in a production about drum corps and reading their lines about the experience accordingly. Like the actors in the show Entourage are playing actors. Doesn't mean that their experiences on the show are all personal -- they are "acting" the role of an "actor" written for them by someone else. Here, these are drum corps members performing the role of drum corps members, also written by someone else. I don't know if that one guy in the Cadets really does or doesn't like basic blocks -- what I do know is that he was representing the portrayal of a member who did not.

If you're still unable (or unwilling) to see what I am saying, than I don't think I can help you to see this perspective any better.... :)

Edited August 17, 2007 by Liam

[corpsreps]

I understand your question fine..."what would happen if someone refused to say a speaking part"?

I then said to myself, "Self - That is an illogical, unrealistic scenario. what are the conditions to which someone would accept a speaking part an then weeks later, decide to refuse it?"

This question intrigued me. From a practical basis, I think you're right. It is unlikely someone would change their mind about a part but I think there are scenarios where that might occur.

What if the content of the speaking part changed from something the narrator liked to something she found offensive or demeaning? Would it be reasonable for the narrator to raise objections and even refuse to say the new lines? What if once the show was on the road and performed before audiences, the response of the crowd night after night was unexpectedly hostile? Would it be reasonable for the narrator to then decide he didn't like the part and refuse to perform it?

[Liam]

This question intrigued me. From a practical basis, I think you're right. It is unlikely someone would change their mind about a part but I think there are scenarios where that might occur.

What if the content of the speaking part changed from something the narrator liked to something she found offensive or demeaning? Would it be reasonable for the narrator to raise objections and even refuse to say the new lines? What if once the show was on the road and performed before audiences, the response of the crowd night after night was unexpectedly hostile? Would it be reasonable for the narrator to then decide he didn't like the part and refuse to perform it?

No, I don't think that is unreasonable. Take the Bluecoats example I raised earlier. What if originally, a guard girl was chosen to dance seductively around the horn player and she was okay with that. But then midway thru the year they decided to add the mini-stripping to it and that guard girl was uncomforatble with that. What would they do? Either:

1) not change the part even if they think it is better

2) try to accommodate by switching the role to another guard girl -- but what if it was wasn't feasbile to change the drill to accommadate late in the year? Well now it gets trickier

Maybe 3) An alternate steps in and the original guard girl has to step out completey

These can be tough choices. Ultimately I think the corps would do their best to accommodate, but in the end, they have ALL the members to think about and "the show must go on" :)

Edited August 17, 2007 by Liam

[KingJoeVII]

This question intrigued me. From a practical basis, I think you're right. It is unlikely someone would change their mind about a part but I think there are scenarios where that might occur.

What if the content of the speaking part changed from something the narrator liked to something she found offensive or demeaning? Would it be reasonable for the narrator to raise objections and even refuse to say the new lines? What if once the show was on the road and performed before audiences, the response of the crowd night after night was unexpectedly hostile? Would it be reasonable for the narrator to then decide he didn't like the part and refuse to perform it?

good points...I'm not sure it reasonable to surmise that parts would change that dramatically over the course of the year...what someone agrees to say in May, cant be that far off (just from a strictly design standpoint) from what it ends up being in August. In other words, if someone agrees to say "I believe in my country" in May, it is not likely to change into something like "America! $%-YEAH!" in the middle. If it does change that much, then the show design is in real trouble and they have bigger problems than narrator mutiny..

I kind of answered the "stage freight" issue before...though what you present is a little different I concede. I imagine if this were to happen at all, it would be in the beginning of the season when people do not know what to expect. The narrator could then maybe work through the problem the remainder of the season, learning to accept the response it gets, or if it is strong enough, be asked to be moved off the part. I would imagine though, staff and corps members would try and help the person through whatever problem they have in performance the way a struggling soloist may frak in the beginning of the season.

[George82]

Well, I do have to concede that it is possible that the narrators did believe in what was written. I don't know. My point is they did not have a choice on what was written, regardless of whether they agreed with it or not. The poster I was responding to had asked if it was their actual beliefs. As I said before, the answer is we don't know. So, how can you "guarantee" that it did reflect their attitude?

I can guarantee this b/c I have a relationship with the corps. I know and have talked with marching members of the corps. I've talked with staff. As an alum I keep a finger on what's going on there.

The situation of what went on in Pasadena has been clarified. George did not throw a "hissyfit" and threatned to pull the corps off the field if the hashes weren't repainted. Was he wrong for bowing to the crowd during the booing (which I loved b/c he doesn't often show that he's human), absolutely. He's acknowledged his mistake and has issued an apology. Bottom line...DCI screwed up. Even to further clarify....the CONTEST DIRECTOR screwed up for not being on top of the situation. The field was clearly in poor shape. This was not just any contest. This was the Drum Corps International World Championships. The culmination of many many months of hard work. Each member of each corps deserved to perform under optimum conditions as weather permits. I don't think there is a person out there who has marched or taught any drum corps who would want any less.

So much has been written by the so-called "detractors" that is solely based on conjecture and without an ounce of fact. If you don't like voice-overs as part of a drum corps program, fine. If you didn't like the manner in which it was instituted into the Cadets 2007 program, fine. The attacks on George Hopkins, the booing of the members on the field really needs to come to an end. Nothing is being accomplished by all the arguing and name-calling. I strongly feel that the actions of many present at Quaterfinals as well as in the theaters last thursday was fostered greatly by what has taken place here on DCP all summer long.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

The discussion over who created the written text, how the performers were chosen, did they or did they not have any input into the material is really none of your business nor is it any of mine. It simply doesn't matter. Alot of you folks are just reaching for things to keep the negativity going. Give it a rest. If you wish to dictate how a show is programmed then step up to the plate and start a corps of your own. Run it the way you want to.

All of you "armchair program directors" really need to act more adult and find a more constructive way to voice your displeasure with the direction drum corps in DCI are headed. Write to Dan Acheson and tell him how you feel. If a petition regarding pending rules changes don't work then take it a step further and organize a form of protest at the actual rules congress if you're that passionate. If you have an issue with Hop, send him an email, call him at the office, walk up to him at a show hold out your hand and introduce yourself, ask him if he has a moment to talk with you. When a corps comes onto the field and you don't like their show go get a hot dog...visit the souvie area and support the drum corps you really like. Booing is not the answer b/c when all is said and done it's the performer who suffers in the end. I've said this before, hiding behind a screen name in total or even partial anonnymity is too easy and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

The Cadets have been pushing the envelope for 25 years now. That's not going to change anytime soon. As an alum I would be disappointed if it did.

[atlvalet]

The discussion over who created the written text, how the performers were chosen, did they or did they not have any input into the material is really none of your business nor is it any of mine. It simply doesn't matter. Alot of you folks are just reaching for things to keep the negativity going. Give it a rest. If you wish to dictate how a show is programmed then step up to the plate and start a corps of your own. Run it the way you want to.

Since drum corps is created for public consumption, and because the 2007 show created such a stir with the (quality of) the narration, I think the creation of the narration is entirely germane to this discussion. If you hire the best talent for creating the show/horn book/drum book/colorguard, why wouldn't you do the same for the narration? For me, and I think many people, that is a legitimate question/critique.

If you feel that's "Keeping the negativity going" that is your prerogative. But I don't agree.

[Officer_Jenny]

While all these hypothetical questions are fun to ponder, we must keep in mind that this is not high school band. The corps members want to be there and would probably be willing to do narration or solos or anything else for the betterment of the show. A young performer so adamantly opposed to narration would probably not audition for The Cadets. But regardless, I think you'll find that the number of young people who are extremely opposed to narration is less than corps veterans opposed to narration. Even if they think narration isn't the best thing they would probably not mind doing it.

[George82]

While all these hypothetical questions are fun to ponder, we must keep in mind that this is not high school band. The corps members want to be there and would probably be willing to do narration or solos or anything else for the betterment of the show. A young performer so adamantly opposed to narration would probably not audition for The Cadets. But regardless, I think you'll find that the number of young people who are extremely opposed to narration is less than corps veterans opposed to narration. Even if they think narration isn't the best thing they would probably not mind doing it.

HERE, HERE!!!

[silvertrombone]

dagnabbit

that darn hoppy

i tell you what

darnit narration

amps

not what it used to be

i heard about it first hand from a staff member. i tell you what. he said he don't like no narration either.

hopkins ruined dci.

shoot.

Rosie??