ApathyJones Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 Just like all of these types of threads it has turned into a few people talking about if they LIKE amped vocals or not and not the real question. I have tried to present my question in multiple ways, and it is a question not of opinion, but of logic, and still people tip toe around it because they have no answer. Someone should man up and actually try to comment on the point of my post, NOT whether or not someone likes amped vocals or not. The fact that I do not like them has no bearing on the validity of my question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RsD Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 We see this sentiment all time. Allow me to associate it with that other fervently held anti-electronics opinion to the effect that true creativity is achieved without implementing new tools or toys. They are axioms of the acoustic faction of DCP.So tell me (any of you anti-electronics folks, not just this poster) if acoustic really is superior, if genuine creativity is possible even in an acoustic environment, why can’t Phantom or Madison or Cavies any other corps who’s never used voice figure out a way to make acoustic competitive even while other corps use electronics? Huh? HH That was an interesting way to misquote me; By just flat out ignoring my post that you quoted. What I said was that electronics WILL enable sounds that CAN NOT be produced by acoustics. And that a corps that makes the decision to NOT use electronics will be at a creative loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Bari Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 They've allowed the use of some of the same tools that BOA uses. Which, ergo, will cause some corps to create shows that look and sound more like what you'd see at Bands of America. When DCI didn't allow Bb horns and amplification (which inherently included narration), there was no way that DCI could possibly sound like BOA. Now, they can start to. Next year, the possibility increases. All that's left is to allow ww, and the gateway to transformation is complete. Not that EVERY corps would try it, but some is still more than none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RsD Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 (edited) Just like all of these types of threads it has turned into a few people talking about if they LIKE amped vocals or not and not the real question. I have tried to present my question in multiple ways, and it is a question not of opinion, but of logic, and still people tip toe around it because they have no answer. Someone should man up and actually try to comment on the point of my post, NOT whether or not someone likes amped vocals or not. The fact that I do not like them has no bearing on the validity of my question. Your question is completely and totally valid. The reason, in my opinion, that you keep hearing that is because the people who have been suggesting the more radical changes to the activity want to steer the product on the field toward the BOA PRODUCT. It has nothing (again, in my opinion) to do with getting the fans into the activity. ...it has to do with a complex against Star '93/Blast!... ...Even though he beat that corps... Edited for readability. Edited July 3, 2008 by RsD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 That was an interesting way to misquote me; By just flat out ignoring my post that you quoted.What I said was that electronics WILL enable sounds that CAN NOT be produced by acoustics. And that a corps that makes the decision to NOT use electronics will be at a creative loss. Yeah, you're saying the same thing that every anti-amp homer here is: It's not fair because acoustic corps can't compete with corps using electroncis. What I'm saying is if there really is untapped creativity in the acoustic arsenal, why not pull it out now? Why not show the superiority of the acoustic art and leave these amped corps in the dust? Now if you just want to say there's more opporunity to shine with electronics, then we'll just end the discussion there. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kusankusho Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Yeah, you're saying the same thing that every anti-amp homer here is: It's not fair because acoustic corps can't compete with corps using electroncis.What I'm saying is if there really is untapped creativity in the acoustic arsenal, why not pull it out now? Why not show the superiority of the acoustic art and leave these amped corps in the dust? Now if you just want to say there's more opporunity to shine with electronics, then we'll just end the discussion there. HH Shine? No - not in my opinion anyway. Get credit from judges - yep... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortAndFast Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Someone should man up and actually try to comment on the point of my post, NOT whether or not someone likes amped vocals or not. I don't think you're going to get a more authoritative answer than the one Hopkins made in the linked rules proposal. He observes that there are 2M band members and he believes that he can make them drum corps fans by presenting shows that are a superior version of the ones they perform. They watch MTV, they listen to Rock and Rap, they do not attend the opera, they read Seventeen, and they look at drum corps, when we are at out best, as " Rock Stars for Bands". We give credence to what THEY DO. We are indeed, a personification of what is possible. You may not agree, and you may have other theories about how to get new fans. But the linked article is a clear statement of the reasons why, from one of the major proponents of amps, voice, electronics, etc. What other answer are you looking for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Bari Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 So tell me (any of you anti-electronics folks, not just this poster) if acoustic really is superior, if genuine creativity is possible even in an acoustic environment, why can’t Phantom or Madison or Cavies any other corps who’s never used voice figure out a way to make acoustic competitive even while other corps use electronics? Huh? Cavies NOT competitive? Huh? (And let's leave Madison alone, because they have had difficulties absolutely unrelated to having amped voice.) Let's see: Amps first legal in 2004. In that time, Cavies have never been out of the Top 3, winning twice. No other corps can match that. Head-to-head, the Cavies and Cadets are tied, 2-2. Cavies and PR BOTH beat up on BD's "Yowza" show. In 2006, BOTH beat Cadets handily (finishing 1-2). Besides Cadets, the next biggest user of amped voice is Bluecoats, if I am not mistaken. Phantom and Cavies have both beaten them every time at Finals (and in every regular season show except 2 in 4+ years, IIRC). So, I think that dismisses the idea that these 2 "acoustic" (ignoring their amping of pits) corps are not competitive. DCI has created a conundrum by allowing amped voice, but not recognizing it on the judging instruments. So, officially speaking, it has zero impact on scores. And practically speaking, no one can account for how it is actually being scored. That fact alone diminishes the validity of your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Just like all of these types of threads it has turned into a few people talking about if they LIKE amped vocals or not and not the real question. I have tried to present my question in multiple ways, and it is a question not of opinion, but of logic, and still people tip toe around it because they have no answer. Someone should man up and actually try to comment on the point of my post, NOT whether or not someone likes amped vocals or not. The fact that I do not like them has no bearing on the validity of my question. Man up. The point of your post is ludicrous and illogical. DCI is no more trying to emulate BOA than it is trying to alienate legacy fans. While either might be a relevant characteristic of the activity at this particular moment, neither is the result of a concerted effort to arrive at this predicament. Drum corps and marching band continually evolve. Sometimes they are more alike and sometimes less. At this point, they have some, but not all, things in common. More important, any coincidence between drum corps and BOA isn't relevant. People here talk about drum corps and band as if they never should share any common characteristics. Why not? Were you complaining in the 70s and 80s when high school bands were evolving toward the drum corps model? So time should have stood still then? High school bands and drums corps should repeat the same styles in perpetuity? Band geeks indeed. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Cavies NOT competitive? Huh? (And let's leave Madison alone, because they have had difficulties absolutely unrelated to having amped voice.)Let's see: Amps first legal in 2004. In that time, Cavies have never been out of the Top 3, winning twice... Yes. My point too. To pick just one example, the Cavies "Machine" show demonstrates creative application in the acoustic idiom superior to any electronic offerings. You can win without amplified voice. So let's take this notion that electronics must be employed off the table. HH 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.