Rule Proposal 2008-10

[audiodb]

When in the early 70's was singing/speaking permitted? I don't recall that at all. Not saying you are wrong..I just don't recall it being legal ever until later on.

You are right..changing a rule is not always moving backwards...removing legal elements is, IMO.

Oh, I see. So when corps were allowed to spill water on the field and create slipping hazards for the next corps on, passing a rule against that was moving backward?

[drumcat]

It's opinion, not fact.

It's opinion, and not fact, that drum corps is different from marching band?

Step away from the bong...

[DrumCorpsFan27]

I really hope that this proposal's role as a sacrificial lamb will be allowed to play through, bring some end to this debate, and allow us to move forward. Removal of amplification will have been given the respect of being reconsidered from the most serious angle possible, arguments heard out, etc. Hopefully those who have taken its cause up in divisive ways will come moreso back into the fold, and join the rest of us in helping to ensure that DCI continues to exist for decades through our patronage.

I'm personally a little bothered by the fact that DCI's amplification detractors lambaste the corps both for lacking creativity with this aspect and for using it to begin with. It's a little representative of the "###### if you do..." complex. Part of me does wonder if DCI wouldn't lose a portion of its following if it demonstrated itself to be so resistant to creative growth and liberalization that it took a step directly three years backwards.

I don't support this, and I don't see it passing. Amplification has so many more creative possibilities that just haven't been used by corps yet, and I do believe it has a positive role to play in improving the entertainment potential of the activity, especially as it approaches a more professional status of implementation and design. This passing would do so much more damage to the activity's creative relevance than any other course of action on the subject.

We do certainly hope you will still be with us once DCI repeals amps. DCI will appreciate your continued support. Can we count on you?

[audiodb]

I only mentioned the Blue Stars because they submitted the proposal. Funny how Cadets bashers always feel it's OK to constantly bring up The Cadets when referring to poor use of narration but then jump on anyone who brings up some other corps' poor use (except BD's Yowza year, of course). And you talk about the pot and kettle!! Your pot needs a mirror.

So now I'm a "Cadet basher"?

My reference to the Cadets in this context was that a great many people have found their uses of amplified voice objectionable. My opinion is immaterial, and I have not expressed it in this thread. In fact, I have not ever expressed my full opinion on the 2007 Cadets narration on DCP. I've even spoken out against the detractors at times (like in that "pro-choice" debate). But don't take my word for it - search DCP's archives. I'll be waiting for your apology....

[audiodb]

No. If the penalty proposed was reasonable, the discussion could be focused on the issue and not the amount of the penalty. Proposing such a large penalty gets the focus off the issue of amplification and dilutes it with emotional reaction over the penalty. Ask anyone who does negotiation for a living. You don't go to the table with something that is so extreme that the "other side" doesn't even want to listen to your points.

I thought this was a rules congress, not a negotiation. Negotiation is something you do when trying to close a deal that nets you significant financial gain. That's not what a Rules Congress is about - is it?

It doesn't matter that a corps parent wrote the proposal. If the Blue Stars' director put his name and the name of the corps on it, there is an implicit endorsement.

I don't think that's a valid assumption. I've heard of people submitting proposals with no intention of passing them, just to stimulate valuable discussion (it's been done in DCA, per Tom Peashey). The same could just as easily occur in DCI.

It's funny how many people who fly the flag against amplification and narration liked Bluecoats' use this past year. I recall MANY comments by some of the most vocal amp opponents defending Bluecoats any time a negative comment was made about them this past year.

I defended them recently - not because I like, dislike or even know what their 2008 program is going to be like, but because the criticism I saw was so outrageous. Someone had the audacity to suggest (in advance) that their 2008 program was going to glorify violence. Oh, wait - that was you!

So, while only an independent survey could tell the complete true story, it does seem like there is a minority of people who are truly against amps in all forms and uses.

Oh, I see now. So if I defend a corps against a ridiculous criticism, then I must agree with everything they do. So I really like amps after all. (/illogic)

Actually, that is incorrect. Proper technique is correct technique in any performance venue. They might alter the composition of the orchestra to suit a unique environment, but they will certain NOT tell the musicians to perform with incorrect or “different” technique. How exactly does the embouchure for a sax player change for an indoor or outside concert? Do trumpet players change how they finger the valves when playing inside or outside? What actual examples can you give of “different” but still “proper” technique for other instruments when played outdoors versus indoors?

Ever see a symphony do horn pops? Turn backfield? Play way ahead of the conductor's visual cues to correct for time lag from front to back of a football field? And I'm sure percussionists will have plenty to say here too (snare stick selection, drum angles, use of projectors, etc.).

The fact that the larger percentage of corps have performed shows without amplified voice is correct, but not so when you look at corps who have used amplification (which is what this proposal is supposed to be about).

Every active world-class corps has used amplification. That doesn't change the percentage at all.

So, maybe a smart proposal would be to outline how amplification and voice should be scored. This is just a “throw the baby out with the bathwater” proposal. Trying to justify a personal opinion of how much affect amplification issues should have had on the score for past shows is like arguing how much benefit the corps whose show you personally felt was well-designed should have received. So these personal opinions have no place in this proposal. Now, if they came up with official statements from judges supporting this contention, THEN we would have had something supportive of the point.

You do realize that judges participate in the caucuses, right? That seems like a good time to collect input from numerous judges all at once.

No, what I clearly said is that this proposal was written so poorly that it takes a lot of effort to get past the personal opinions that are presented as if they were facts, etc. to get to the actual point of discussion. Pertinent facts, like the added expenses to corps for both the equipment and transportation of the equipment, are lost in the quagmire.

If people really want to have thoughtful discussion, the proposal needed to be more thoughtful, factual and brief while being less emotional, subjective and preachy.

Honestly? Amplification was repeatedly proposed in exactly that manner.

[ZealJ03]

Oh, I see. So when corps were allowed to spill water on the field and create slipping hazards for the next corps on, passing a rule against that was moving backward?

Yeah but that's a safety - design - safety related issue. In any competitive activity, Safety and Health are on a COMPLETELY different discussion.

How does amplification pose the obvious risk of harming someones health? When was there a crisis that amps would blowup or cause heart attacks towards the traditionalist aged drum corps fan?

I don't think a rule proposal for gasoline will really be in effect because of the obvious risks.

[ZealJ03]

I don't think that's a valid assumption. I've heard of people submitting proposals with no intention of passing them, just to stimulate valuable discussion (it's been done in DCA, per Tom Peashey). The same could just as easily occur in DCI.

No it's not a valid assumption, but he is right. It is an implicit endorsement in the world of contract, politics, and business.

Your name's on it, it goes back to you!

[HoltonH178]

We do certainly hope you will still be with us once DCI repeals amps. DCI will appreciate your continued support. Can we count on you?

Of course! If I don't stick around, I'll never get to tell the kids about the dark ages when I started following the activity, when amps were still argued over, electronics were a pipe dream, and woodwinds seemed further away than most could imagine ...hopefully among a host of other changes and innovations.

Edited December 13, 2007 by HoltonH178

[Kyle B]

Petitions are usually not a means of supporting something already in place, but I am guessing you already knew that.

Not so much. I have seen and heard of numerous petitions from people who want to keep things the same and not have it be changed.

[bawker]

Of course! If I don't stick around, I'll never get to tell the kids about the dark ages when I started following the activity, when amps were still argued over, electronics were a pipe dream, and woodwinds seemed further away than most could imagine ...hopefully among a host of other changes and innovations.

...then you'll get to the part about all the summer marching band circuits that failed, and how DCI became one of them, except for a few superbands who only play in domes.

DCI: In Pursuit Of Hoppiness.