George Hopkins vs. Scott Stewart

[HoltonH178]

They should stop a run-through just for the woodwinds to protect their instruments? Based on my own experience, there had to be a clear and present danger to your life for a run-through to be stopped. If they don't stop it, those woodwind players will get killed or at least bring about some injuries by making mad dashes for instrument cases (besides, I cannot remember ever having cases near the practice field at any site we were at all summer). It would definitely change the way drum corps works.

Boy, it won't be long before we traditionalize ourselves right out of existence if we can't even change where we put the cases in drum corps...what's more, woodwind cases are a lot less of a burden to move than brass cases. I don't see how this would really significantly affect things.

Edited November 24, 2007 by HoltonH178

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Of course they didn't need new instruments. They already were fans.

I think this is where Stewart's vision fundamentally divides with Hopkins'. Stewart perceived the future in the terms of the past. Retreat (my term) to a more comfortable stage of drum corps evolution and await the rebirth of a new golden age. Those who believed in the golden age and its potential to return of course had no use for new instruments and other changes.

The problem was by the time Stewart articulated this vision, drum corps already was changing fundamentally. It's often forgotten here, but some of the activity's worst declines in membership occurred in the golden days of the 80s and early 90s. In the G-bugle, acoustic era, corps were folding left, right and center. Stewart's vision to return to a former status quo sounded a lot like helicoptering out to the Titanic to many by 1997.

Enter Hopkins and those of his ilk with a more realist, less romantic vision. They said let drum corps acknowledge the changes that already have afflicted the activity. Their agenda was to retain drum corps' fundamental appeal while updating certain conventions in accord with the new market. The implementation of Bb instrumentation and electronic amplification coincided with increases in attendance, improvement in the financial health of the organization and a slowing in the rate of decline in the number of corps (saying "coincided," I'm not arguing cause and effect, merely concurrence).

The point I'm leading up to is Stewart's vision seems intended to satisfy the existing fan and – I'm surmising – to assume new fans would emerge if the old base could be energized. Hopkins assumed – again I'm surmising – any alienation of the old base would be more than offset by the emergence of new fans energized by the renewed relevance of a more modern drum corps activity.

That's what I think is the central issue in the question of which vision is preferred. Stewart's vision, in my view, was a failure in as much as it was rejected by the drum corps communities of Madison and in general. They rejected it because they'd already seen the carnage of consistency and opted instead for change and the Hopkins vision, at least in part.

Ten years after Stewart's comments in 1997, it's hard to imagine why anyone would contemplate the Stewart plan still. Trying to take drum corps back not one decade but two is asking today's young people to find relevance in time almost a full generation ago. That's a big leap. All Hopkins is advocating is recognition that yesterday's conventions need not be today's priorities. In doing that, he's in the same league as Royer, Warren, Bonfiglio and the rest of the crew who likewise advocated the creation of a new drum corps superleague with its own evolving traditions when they founded DCI three decades ago.

HH

I am not saying that drum corps go back twenty years. I believe, however, we could take Scott's view of performing for the audience as the most important part of the adjudication. That doesn't mean leaving out technical prowess or the education of the members. The two are not mutually exclusive. If the fan is considered higher in the equation, they will bring more fans with them. Word of mouth is the best referral system.

[Russellrks]

David:

Parts of Scott's vision are what caused the Scouts to miss finals. He didn't really care all that much for the developments and emphasis on the color guard. And he lost touch with the successful visual elements of the late 90s shows. His traditional approach was even challenged by corps members who asked him point blank whether missing finals in Madison was part of his plan.

One more thing...Scott's vision also had little respect for the adjudictors. He didn't believe that most were qualified enough to judge drum corps. I heard his say as much in respect to DCM judges. He used to send international members (who struggled with English) to critique instead of staff members. Happen twice I know of during the 1998 season.

He tried to work within the system to make change, but it was his rebellion against the systems in both DCM and DCI that led to the ultimate mutiny...with the BoD at Madison...then the ouster of that Board...Scott's brief return....then the final swift flush.

I know...it's history and my version of that history. So, take your shots...but, the real test will come for Scott's vision over the next couple of years with the current Madison corps. I know lots of those guys and they cut their teeth in drum corps under Scott's leadership. It could very well be the "phoenix" of Scott's vision and in time, it may turn out to be a fitting tribute to his vision.

We shall see.

I would'nt say that having little respect for the adjudicators was part of his vision, but more of a complaint. One that I would have agreed with by the way, not for all the judges, but during my time in the activity there were more than a few underqualified if not unqualified marching judges.

I mean, if you never marched drum corps, or never taught marching at a drum corps, or never wrote a drill for a drum corps, or never tried to clean a drill for a drum corps, just what is it that makes you qualified to critique people who are at the forefront of the activity, pushing the envelope beyond what even we know how to do and trying to figure it out as we go?

Seems to me that Scott's vision would be to hire better qualified judges.

Edited November 24, 2007 by Russellrks

[DrumCorpsFan27]

You were mocking people that think drum corps is defined by the experience and not the instrumentation when you no nothing of the experience.

Drum corps is defined by both, IMO.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Also, I never even claim to know anything about the experience. I don't. I only give my opinions on how I feel drum corps, which since I haven't marched yet equate with "drum corps shows," should be and what I would like to see on the field.

Let us not forget that Hrothgar is a fan. If we ignore the opinions of the fans, we shoot the activity in the foot.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

In some things the opinions of the doers is more valid than the opinions of the watchers.

The true nature of drum corps is one of those things.

In this activity, if there are no watchers, there will be no doers. The watchers pay for the doers to do the activity. I think it is unwise to slap them in the face.

[Tekneek]

Boy, it won't be long before we traditionalize ourselves right out of existence if we can't even change where we put the cases in drum corps...what's more, woodwind cases are a lot less of a burden to move than brass cases. I don't see how this would really significantly affect things.

I'm just questioning how it won't change anything. It's ok, though. I'm tired of talking about the bandification of drum corps. I have no doubt that you people will get your way.

I can only hope that the marketplace demonstrates the error of your ways and ticket/merchandise sales plummet as it becomes BOA-Summer. Years later, when DCI is struggling for survival, it will be too late to turn back the clock. Hopkins may get his "Supercorps" concept by default, but it won't be selling out a national tour like he imagines it will. Good luck with it.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

You are completely missing my points here...

No, a DCI audience is not the same thing as a BOA audience. I am aware. I don't know how many times I have to tell this to different people, but whatever.

And why do you think they are different? Because drum corps and marching band are different. You advocate removing that difference

The PRODUCT is NOT about the INSTRUMENTATION. Let me say IT AGAIN. THE PRODUCT IS NOT THE INSTRUMENTATION. The product is a summer tour experience, and that's why I pay thousands into this activity and you pay $20 for a show.

That's your opinion. Many disagree. I believe that the experience and the qualities (brass + percussion) are all part of the experience. These qualities make the activity unique from the other activity. Again, you want to remove that uniqueness.

The secondary product, after that, is the performances, which still IS NOT THE INSTRUMENTATION. I do not want to take away tubas and add in flutes, I don't know where you're getting that from. I'd much rather add to the corps, because as you just stated, to do otherwise would be pointless. We do not have the talent, exposure, or interest to expand hornlines successfully with brass the way we could with woodwinds. I'm not saying take away any of the horns, and I never have.

No, you are just talking about removing the uniqueness of the activity.

DCI attracts audiences because it sets the standard in the marching world, not because of brass-only hornlines.

It does because of both.

That is, frankly, a ridiculous assumption. Adding clarinet and flute players is not going to make it stop being "something cool," especially for those who are on a first viewing. In fact, I hope one day people are confused as to why DCI used to be brass-only when getting into the activity.

What about the thousands who have viewed it before and bring in newbies? To hell with them? Elitist attitudes will not help DCI grow.

If we'd lose people because of woodwinds, then I say "good riddance." We need people who are dedicated to benefiting our youth--not people who pay $20 for one ticket and then go all over the internet and complain. We've got more than enough of those, thank you very much.

Drum corps fans do a lot more than spend $20 for a ticket. The drum corps fan spends thousand planning vacations around drum corps shows. Your comments show that you are quite ignorant of that fact. So much so, that you are willing to cut each one of them out of the financial equation of DCI, which is shakey.

Good job.

I would hardly call Bb horns, amplification, or vocals as significant a change as adding woodwinds and a significant number of marching members to a corps.

On this I agree. Adding woodwinds would be more significant...detrimental IMO.

Because of the operational differences between a drum corps and a marching band, and the difference in the level of quality between a marching band and a drum corps.

Individual organizations can choose to remain all-brass if they so desire. I'm not in favor of passing a law requiring woodwind usage; just legalizing it.

The use and non use of "optional" equipment as it pertains to competitive wellness has been well documented.

[dbc03]

In this activity, if there are no watchers, there will be no doers. The watchers pay for the doers to do the activity. I think it is unwise to slap them in the face.

And if there are no doers there will be no watchers. Your point?

[drumcat]

And if there are no doers there will be no watchers. Your point?

His point was quite clear. Without monetary support, there's no opportunity for those that want to be a part. Reread his statement.