The electronics rule proposal

[Jeff Ream]

From the most recent HopBlog:

http://www.yea.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hopblog

Hell, even he has no idea.

Behold, our future!

just like the Fiedler and Orwoll quotes after amps were passed.

no clue how it works, but they vote anyways.

[Jeff Ream]

Why would you expect him to understand every nitty gritty nuance of the technical implementation of these things? That is not part of his scope of work at all as the Cadets executive director. The Yamaha folks ARE the experts at that, so it's to be expected they will show people new and exciting ways to accomplish things.

so then Yamaha lobbied for the vote to get passed?

[Jeff Ream]

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.

maybe he should have gone to these the last few years.

[Jeff Ream]

I expect him to because he wrote the new rule. So in this role he is a legislator, not an executor, if you'll indulge the governmental metaphor.

This meeting with Yamaha is the kind of thing I would have expected he (and other advocates of electronics in the BOD ranks) do BEFORE passing a rule allowing the use of said instruments.

accountability demanded. how novel

[Jeff Ream]

Well, The Cadets have made some excellent use of amps and mics the past few years, between the micced pit, the drumcpeak of 05, the ballad sing in 06 and much of the 07 This I believe narration, so IMO he does know about those things at a high level, anyway. Not sure how detailed his knowledge is, but then again, it doesn't have to be.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh you're serious.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[CasualFan]

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 the explanation. It does make things a bit clearer for me. I also agree that the spirit of the rule was to allow any sound created in live, real time but not to use a synth as a "tape recorder". Unfortunately the rules proposal appears to have been written without a good understanding of the technology.

I have a process question -- does anybody know how this works:

The proposals are written up by whoever and voted on by the instructors and Board (corps directors et al). We all know that part. But what happens then? Who writes up the actual rule as it is to be written in the official rulebook? And is that rule then voted on or otherwise approved by the Board to make sure that it complies with the general proposal voted on previously?

In other words, what process is in place to ensure that the rulebook reflects the proposals as passed by the instructors and directors?

No agenda here -- just curious as to the process ...

I, too, would like an clear explanation of the rules process.

[Aaron Guidry]

A Roland TR808, for example, does not use samples.

old school...love it!

mahalo, too.

[doyle079]

uh so is this just a way for synthesizer companies to make a quick buck?

[bawker]

uh so is this just a way for synthesizer companies to make a quick buck?

More or less.

It's a continuation of the move by the equipment companies (first by going to Bb, then to amplification) that get to sponsor the Blue Cavadetsaliers and become the equipment that the "big boys" use, increasing not only its resale value, but the brand name recognition.

Anyhoo, it's business as usual for music ed. . .much like there's a preferred shop or dealer for band directors in a region, so, too, is there now a chance for the Yamahas of the world to put their little footprints all over not only the brass and percussion, but also the electronics and amplifiers.

Nice job if you can get it, I guess. . . I hope Yamaha has deep pockets though; they may have to start paying for gas soon.

[Perry S]

I have tried to keep my mind open... but just hearing all this debate... I can't hold this in anymore. Combined with a recent point that a friend brought up to me in my real life where I can use my REAL name...

I love progress, if it is truly for the better. I don't see how the benefits outweigh the costs here. There are definitely good things to be said for expanding options, but there is definitely a point where the essence of what makes drum corps drum corps goes away. If we want to start a professional level BOA league, that is great. I would be interested, but don't create one by destroying Drum Corps.

Drum Corps, at the point that there are no differences from something like BOA except in terms of schedule, dedication, and performance level, is drum corps only in name. I think that the definining characteristic of drum corps can be found in the title: Drum and Bugle Corps. granted, you can't take that literally, but once the group is not just brass and percussion (and guard, but this is all musically speaking, making guard irrelevant since they make no music) it is no longer drum and bugle corps.

There are definitely still ways(even with the new synth/electronic instrument rule) that drum corps can remain drum corps- but really, do we need another 'color'? Has anyone ever said "Man, I love drum corps, but what we really need to do is get a new sound... I'm tired of all this brass and percussion... Let's get some frickin' SYNTHESIZERS!"

I know that comes off as angry, and honestly, it was, but do you get my point? It seems that everyone is 'interested' in the new directions only AFTER a select few have decided it is the proper one.

a recent quote from Heroes comes to mind:

"In every journey the traveller must ask: What's the right path taken? Many roads are long and winding. Filled with those who have lost their way. Some, forge their own course guided by faith...Seeking not a location, but a kindred soul. Others, step together finding safety in the arms of another. A few, remove themselves from the trail to avoid the path of temptation. But those who watch trail too closely, fail to see where it led them. They are often all too surprised of their destination."

along with a line from the movie "Stand and Deliver":

"All you see is the turn. You don't see the road ahead"

I feel like the higher-ups of DCI fall into the last category of the first quote, and the second applies directly. I think they look at a rule change, and for the most part say "will this open up more options" and not "will this irreversably change the activity? In thirty years, will the activity still be identifiable and thriving?"

And, finally, I can't see that adding new features draws in enough "new fans" to make up for the ones that are lost in making these rule changes.

On the one hand, I am pretty sure that this year will not be the appocalypse that it is being made out to be. On the other, I am also sure that if this trend continues, we will look up one day and find ourselves not in truly a 'drum corps' activity, but something completely new and different.

Edit: and I think we need to make sure this "new" place we will be is one we are interested in living in.

Fianlly! Someone who speaks some sense!