The electronics rule proposal

[bawker]

In all seriousness, on what grounds could you possibly argue against adding more instruments now.

None, really.

All it takes is one foot in the door. . .get ready for some fun off-season rules proposals this year.

[JimF-LowBari]

"YAMAHA presented the chance for all of the corps to send reps to learn more about the instruments, the costs, and the possibility."

Gee, ya think Yamaha would ever say "Nah, don't think you could use this in corps. No sense you buying it"?

Reminds me of the article regarding how a lot of doctors (GPs) learn about new medications.

The knowledge comes from the reps from the pharmicutical(sp) companies (aka pill salesmen).

IOW - The people who will make the money are supplying the info.

In Congrees they're called lobbyists.

Edited October 23, 2008 by JimF-3rdBari

[bawker]

. . .follow the money.

[CUDAKITE]

All it takes is one foot in the door

Ok this is silly. I admit it, but I can't help but think of Phantom's all female colorguard. Then there was 2005's 'foot in the door'. Traditions fade quickly my friends.

[MikeD]

You're right.

Why would I expect someone who proposes and helps pass a rule change to understand anything about its use or implementation?

Understanding it's use and the technical nitty-gritty are two different things. To say George understands NOTHING about the use and benefits of electronics just because he doesn't know about how the patches work is slamming him just because you don't like electronics in drum corps, IMO. That is not his job at all. It's good that he is attendnig a session like the one at Yamaha to further his knowledge...it's always good to learn more, even if it is not something that will really make all that much difference to him on a day-to-day basis.

[MikeD]

"YAMAHA presented the chance for all of the corps to send reps to learn more about the instruments, the costs, and the possibility."

Gee, ya think Yamaha would ever say "Nah, don't think you could use this in corps. No sense you buying it"?

Well, if he is attending a session geared towards showing the things Yamaha has that corps CAN use, why would you expect that to happen?

[JimF-LowBari]

Well, if he is attending a session geared towards showing the things Yamaha has that corps CAN use, why would you expect that to happen?

I don't expect it (being told don't bother to buy our stuff) to happen at all.

But would love for someone to say "We think using this equipment is a great idea because the people selling it to us say it's a great idea.

[bawker]

Understanding it's use and the technical nitty-gritty are two different things. To say George understands NOTHING about the use and benefits of electronics just because he doesn't know about how the patches work is slamming him just because you don't like electronics in drum corps, IMO. That is not his job at all. It's good that he is attendnig a session like the one at Yamaha to further his knowledge...it's always good to learn more, even if it is not something that will really make all that much difference to him on a day-to-day basis.

How do you know he knows anything about it?

His proposal was pretty scattershot in its composition, and is vague enough to pretty much prevent DCI from ever penalizing a unit (not that they ever would, anyway).

His job is to educate himself and make the best decisions for his organization, financially and otherwise. . .so it's funny to read his lamentations about YEA's finances in one post, and then in another to read about all the fun new things he can add to his repertoire that will cost money to do.

I'll slam his point-of-view (not him personally, as you insinuate) up one side and down the other if he's going to take that kind of hypocritical slant, and, furthermore . . .most people who propose or vote on something at least understand the nuances of it. You don't pass something just because it's "cool" and then go learn about it after the fact.

He's had twenty odd years to look at bands do it and take away lessons there, no? Has that much really changed since recent BOA Regionals in the past week or two that he needs a refresher?

[Liam]

What we generically refer to as "synthesizers" produce their sounds in different ways depending on what kind of instrument they are. Most modern instruments that have lots of sounds (strings, brass, woodwinds, percussion, various keyboards, all in one device) achieve this by sampling. If you want a clarinet sound, you have someone play a note on a real clarinet. This sound is recorded, and then mapped across the keys, so that if you play a higher note, the sample is sped up to produce the higher sound. If you play a lower note, the sound is slowed down to produce the lower note. It is a little more complicated than this, but that is the basic idea.

Other instruments literally synthesize the sounds through their electronic components. A Roland TR808, for example, does not use samples. It produces the "drum" sounds it has by manipulating sound waves through its circuitry. Other instruments do the same thing to produce strings, brass, etc. There are no string or brass instruments sampled, but the raw sound wave (sine wave, square wave, etc.) is manipulated to produce a sound that resembles these instruments. From my reading of this rule, I don't think these instruments would be banned, as they do not sample anything. So you could, in fact, use these instruments for a muted trumpet, a flute, a drum sound, etc.

As far as whether or not a judge or director could tell the difference, it would depend on how savvy they are in this realm. I have a feeling that there are probably lots of people in DCI that know a lot about this, because they work with these instruments to write and record their music. There are probably just as many that know nothing or next to nothing.

Having gone back to read this rule, I don't believe their intention is to ban any instrument that can produce woodwind sounds. If you wanted to use any keyboard to make a clarinet sound, I think you could. The way I interpret this rule (going by the spirit and not the letter of the law) is that they want to ban using a sampler like a "tape recorder". Have a kid play a clarinet solo into a sampler, hit a button to play it when you want it to start. It also bans using sequencing, meaning they want the kids to actually play the instrument, not hit a button and have the instrument play itself like a player piano. I don't think they want to ban instruments that use sampling to produce their woodwind, brass, or percussion sounds--but the rule is a bit unclear in this way. It is a very technical subject, and I don't think whoever wrote this rule did a good job of making it clear what is allowed and what isn't.

Thanks for this -- helps explain all the terminology and options better (for me anyway )

I'm left with the impression that the "rule" allows certain things, but the equipment that will likely be used is capable of so much more. Without audits and oversight and random checks and such, there will be no limits, there will be no penalties, there will be no boundaries. Maybe that's what some folks want, and that's fine. But then let's not pretend that we have rules and restrictions, just admit that we're allowing corps to do whatever they want and move on.

And before I get jumped on for not waiting to see what happens before commenting -- this is just a prediction on my part, but based on DCI's history with amps and mixing boards and some of the things that have been done so far under the existing rules. Racecars have certain rules of car dimensions -- and they are checked -- before and after every race to ensure compliance -- and penalties are spelled out and enforced consistently and openly. That's why the rules work. That's why the (paying) fans are satisfied that competitive fairness exists. I don't see that here (nor in DCI's history) and it sounds to me that this stuff is way too complicated in scope, yet easy to manipulate, that I am skeptical of proper compliance -- particularly since no compliance methods were spelled out in the rules. The whole rules making and enforcement process reeks (to me) of cronyism, influence and secrecy -- DCI is a private organization and they can do whatever they want, but IMO any organization that relies on the ticket-buying publics' perception of fair competition should be much, much, much more open and honest about their process and expectations of changes.

Just one guy's opinion, of course

[Bob J]

Yes, but since there is not a clock, or a checkered flag to judge the winner, just the subjective opinion of a group of judges, it shouldn't really matter if the rules are enforced or not. We should just skip all the pain and jump to the following conclusion:

1. Competitors must be of the following ages________

2. The show must be between _______ and _______ in duration.

3. A maximum of ________ performers.

Everything else is allowable.

Yes there may be water and fire and distruction of property issues, so maybe a few rules for that as well, but with loose interpretation of the current rules, and in a subjectively judged activity, we are practically there now.

Oh, and we should stop calling it drum corps. People might confuse it with DCA or alumni corps.