MikeD Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 ....and those same people are even more likely to use the term "hamburger" for a food item that contains no ham at all. But what was your point again? Where does that point try and come from? Hamburger: WORD HISTORY Because the world has eaten countless hamburgers, the origins of the name may be of interest to many. By the middle of the 19th century people in the port city of Hamburg, Germany, enjoyed a form of pounded beef called Hamburg steak. The large numbers of Germans who migrated to North America during this time probably brought the dish and its name along with them. The entrée may have appeared on an American menu as early as 1836, although the first recorded use of Hamburg steak is not found until 1884. The variant form hamburger steak, using the German adjective Hamburger meaning “from Hamburg,” first appears in a Walla Walla, Washington, newspaper in 1889. By 1902 we find the first description of a Hamburg steak close to our conception of the hamburger, namely a recipe calling for ground beef mixed with onion and pepper. By then the hamburger was on its way, to be followed—much later—by the shortened form burger, used in forming cheeseburger and the names of other variations on the basic burger, as well as on its own. Burger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I'll bet the local McD's isn't getting their hamburger from Hamburg, either. So the name still isn't accurate. But you already know how inaccurate names work.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSnareline Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Hoppy is single-handedly ruining drum corps.He should take his corps and start his own circuit, and let DCI do what they did for years - Entertain Your post makes more sense that any I've read here for months!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I'm sorry but I can't jump on this particular bashing of Mike Davis. At the end of the day, this really is a potato-potahto, or "a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square" kind of thing. For me, there are so many other things worth debating instead of this semantic issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 I called them bands on purpose in this thread. How may times have I called them corps? It wasn't a slip, but I call them corps all the time. BTW...where did I ever say corps had to do anything other than what they want?To just about anyone outside of drum corps (99+% of the population) who happened to see a show they would be 'marching bands'. It is a lesser, purer form of marching band. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtubadude Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I am not sure if anyone would. I may get slammed for this, but I think other directors, many of whom would be the first to use some of this stuff if it passes, are too afraid of what people think of them or their corps. Think about this. Who used narration/singing the first year amps were in use? Not Cadets.... but Boston and Crown! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAMystreaux Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Think about this. Who used narration/singing the first year amps were in use?Not Cadets.... but Boston and Crown! Yes, many examples of corps directors not speaking up or voting against something and then instantly implementing it into their show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillmanSop06 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Corps directors decide whether or not to take advantage of the rules in place. Why are we complaining about the man behind the proposals and not the corps who could very well choose to keep doing what they were doing despite the allowance of atrocity-X? I'm not trying be rhetorical; I'm genuinely wondering why we don't necessarily go after each corps that does use amplification, for instance? If/when the electronics rule change passes, are we going to go after the one who turned in the document instead of, say, Phantom Regiment using a sampled sound? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn craig Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) Corps directors decide whether or not to take advantage of the rules in place. Why are we complaining about the man behind the proposals and not the corps who could very well choose to keep doing what they were doing despite the allowance of atrocity-X? I'm not trying be rhetorical; I'm genuinely wondering why we don't necessarily go after each corps that does use amplification, for instance? If/when the electronics rule change passes, are we going to go after the one who turned in the document instead of, say, Phantom Regiment using a sampled sound? Some of us have. I've written to some of the directors. Many of us also posted plenty of criticism about Crown and Boston in 04. BD took a huge beating in 05 and you still get a "yawser" joke from time to time etc. The Cadets have used these things the most, vocals every show the last three years. Most of the other corps have either not used amped vocals after the backlash from their first time or at least very sparingly. Even though other directors support these rule changes, they are not so public with their attitudes and oppinions. Hop has a blog and is very vocal about his vision for drum corps. So right or wrong, in some ways he sets himself up for the criticism. Edited January 18, 2008 by shawn craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.