Synthesizers in drum corps

[audiodb]

The new rules in general are what keep DCI relevant to the young audience,

Seriously? As if DCI without electronics would be "irrelevant"?

so yes, taken over time the totality of the new rules is what pulls in the younger audience...

So yes, taken over time the totality of the new rules is what has caused attendance to drop?

[pearlsnaredrummer77]

Mike the audience of 1975 is his classic dig at anyone opposed to the changes he pushes.

because if you arent with his ideas, you're "old school"

and here you have classic examples of 80s and 90s folks not liking what he wants to become

Hopkins didn't actually cite any 'evidence' to prove any of his contentions. He was just expressing his opinions. He sort of reified the audience of 1975. The "Legacy" crowd is not made up of people who marched only 1975 and before. He automatically assumes that those of us who marched later will support his radical changes to the activity.

George also played a key role in developing the national touring model that killed off so many local corps. If you look at DCI audiences, the bulk are alumni and family members. If there are less alumni supporting the DCI these days it's because there are less newer alumni since DCI policies killed off so many corps. Less active corps means less future alumni. Then when you consider that many of the post 1975-Legacy folks have been disgusted with the direction of the activity for years and have either walked away or become DCA fans.... Well, you get the idea. If there's a shortage of people attending DCI events, their policies have created the shortage.

I also like the way George wants to allow all of the synthesized sounds, but place an artifical ban on woodwinds. It seems to me if you want to hear the 'crash of waves' then you should also be open to the squeak of a few clairnets produced acoustically.

Edited June 13, 2009 by pearlsnaredrummer77

[pearlsnaredrummer77]

Seriously? As if DCI without electronics would be "irrelevant"?

That's so true. I mainly go to DCA shows these days. With no mics, synths or cellos, the stands have been packed and the audiences enthusiastic.]

[audiodb]

I did...and I have no idea how you come up with your view on what he said, as what he said supports my opinion about legacy fans and the target audience of newer fans.

Where does he say he wants them to leave? He is saying, as I have said many times, that DCI cannot use the audience of '1975' as the ONLY opinion makers in deciding what rules should and should not be passed...that DCI has to focus on younger scholastic music participants...not that he wants legacy fans to leave.

I think it is pretty clear that Hopkins portrayed the issue as either-or. Again, his words:

"We need to move on in the face of vocal disagreement."

[audiodb]

Oh, and Mike, since you're the one who continually proclaims attendance is rising, even when the data proves otherwise....I have a question for you.

I see that the Hopkins proposal made a statement regarding attendance trends. He said, "Our audience is declining. We have the facts." Do you agree or disagree?

[Matt_S]

Not only do I disagree....so does George Hopkins. Apparently, the strategy behind changes like we're discussing in this thread is to target new fans, even at the expense of legacy fans.

(But don't take my word for it - go read the Hopkins proposal above, the part about "the classic audience of 1975" and "we need to move on in the face of vocal disagreement".)

Ugh. I suppose that's one way to look at it. That's not what I read, though. I started posting last night but didn't have the time to really say everything I wanted to say on it. My post started out by remarking what a good read that proposal was. I thought Hopkins summarized many of the arguments in favor of electronics, predicted many of the complaints, and in fact came across as somewhat prophetic considering that this was authored in 2002. And in fact I thought Hopkins' proposal stated exactly what I had been trying to say in my several posts prior.

Let me snip out the part in question. If you feel some other sections are relevant too, feel free to point them out. First, I'm going to discuss the section where Hopkins discusses the "audience of yesterday", or "at the expense of the legacy fans" as you put it:

The Audience – What will they think !!!!!!!

When looking at this question, we have to determine the audience of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Yesterday --- The Classic Audience of 1975 that continues to dominate some of today’s conversation will not like this. These people want drum corps the way they remember it and I am very appreciative of this thought process. I too like drum corps as it was and is, but I am also aware that something needs to change.

This addition would change that product. The problem in catering to these people --- they are a diminishing group in terms of numbers. Personally, I love them, I want to make them leap from their seats, but for the sake of tomorrow, and we cannot use this class of people only as the opinion makers for our performing groups.

RAMD will not care for this idea.

Some Alumni will not care for this idea.

Some fans will threaten their support and curse any action.

We need to move on in the face of vocal disagreement. It is our responsibility to create a tomorrow for the kids who want to be a part of this activity. We need to do what we believe to be right, we need to hold to the values of creativity that made drum corps what it is today. Equal shares of tradition and innovation, this is the key.

Has Hopkins said anything truly remarkable here? He has acknowledged that there would be strong disagreement, something which should have been a surprise to no one. A more remarkable proposal would have been one in which he claimed that everything would be peaches and cream. Of course he states the need to move in on the face of vocal disagreement; if he listened to the opposition then he would never had submitted the proposal, nor felt the need to do so.

I think that might be key to some of the discussion here. The point of this proposal is to add amplification and electronics to drum corps. The point of this proposal is not to tweak the legacy fans. Some of you seem to have been giving more attention and credence to the latter, rather than the former. I'll agree, implying that all his opposition belongs to "The Classic Audience of 1975" does come across as condescending, and I'll grant that first line could be considered a tweak. However, the rest of what's said above is truly incidental to the push for amplification. There is nothing said above to justify why amps are needed. All Hopkins has done has acknowledge that there will be opposition, just as there always has been for any change in drum corps.

Keep in mind, this was in 2002. There was no amplification yet, the any-key rule was just a few years old. And yet there was skill a vocal group of fans who were not happy with drum corps at the time. I've heard all about the vocal group of fans back when Star was performing, especially in 90's. I've also heard all about the vocal group of fans as far back as 1971, before drum corps was even formed, thinking themed shows were the death of drum corps. There's nothing remarkable about Hopkins say that "we need to move on in the face of vocal disagreement"; it's what drum corps has had to do throughout its history.

[Hrothgar15]

The new rules in general are what keep DCI relevant to the young audience

DCI in the late '80s/early '90s was relevant to the young audience, old audience...the entire audience, and that form of drum corps, if we still had the luxury to see it, would still be just as relevant to today's young and old audiences.

That's the kicker. The shows that hearken back to that style, those are the ones that are successful with the audience.

[Matt_S]

Now, that addresses the "at the expense of legacy fans" complaint. As I said, it's a consequence of the proposed change, not the primary reason for it. An important distinction. Now for what could be considered a reason for the change, the "bringing in new fans" argument:

Today --- When we go to Texas we see the possibility. The 11,000 people in the stands are predominantly students. 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.

They love the excellence of drum corps. These kids love to see the THROW DOWN; they want us to go fast and play loud, and to let them have FUN.

None of this will change. The introverted pondering production will be the same, and the jovial, fun; fast paced, crowd-pleasing extravaganza will be that again ---- just more so.

In my opinion, we need to recognize that kids are in the stands. They grow up plugged in. We can show them it is not a bad thing. Not a bad thing at all.

Tomorrow – Our audience is declining. We have the facts.

This in mind, a reasonable evaluation would be that the young people are not coming into the stands to replace those who depart for reasons of their doing, and simply because they are called from this world.

There are 20,000 marching bands; there are 2 million young people in marching bands; DCI needs to go after these young people as our primary audience.

There is no question. Marching music is not going to be a mainstream activity indeed we are moving more towards being a relic of a bygone age.

As we reposition ourselves we need to be COOL. The more we can show that MUSIC IS COOL, the better are our chances of being around, the better is the opportunity to affect the ages, the greater is the possibility for a revitalization of what we all hold as good within the current activity --- excellence and excitement ( sometimes )

As I stated before, there are two ways on interpreting this commentary. The short term approach is to think that adding electronics will be like the flicking of a switch. I get the feeling from many of you that think Hopkins (and the rest of us who support electronics) are expecting an instant and significant increase in attendance next season. That's simply not going to happen. I would include even the audience of 2009 in Hopkins' "audience of today". That audience is pretty set. What electronics is most likely to affect is the audience of tomorrow. How many kids seeing drum corps for the first time are going to stick around for next season? How many kids are going to last long enough to eventually be considered legacy fans? How many in the audience of today are going to continue and be a part of the audience of tomorrow?

I don't presume to speak for Hopkins, but when I read the proposal I don't see anything about kids who passed on drum corps only because electronics weren't there, or kids who are waiting on DCI to add electronics before they'll start attending shows. What I read is a desire for drum corps to remain relevant. I see a recognition that electronic music is present every where else in the lives of today's youth. I hear a plea for drum corps to reach out and grab a piece of that pie. Yes, we have our tradition; so do brass bands and mummer and pipers and many others. Drum & bugle corps can continue along that path and remain an anachronism, or drum corps can aspire for something more.

The change to allow electronics isn't meant as a short term fix. It's not going to solve attendance issues overnight. In fact, I'll concede that adding electronics will likely hurt drum corps in the short term, as many people will undoubtedly be turned off by the change. But this change is being made with a focus on the long term. In just a few years we've already seen the reaction to amplification die down significantly. Even some shows with amplified voice have been voted as fan favorites. I expect that trend will continue, and we'll see less resistance with each passing year. By the same reasoning, I expect we'll see amplification and electronics eventually taken for granted, just as we take for granted every previous change to the activity.

Now how many new fans would stick around if drum corps were still as it was in the 1970's? The change to assymetrical drill didn't bring in new fans overnight. The change to a third valve or a grounded pit didn't bring in new fans overnight. But those changes to modernize drum corps kept the activity relevant. Can you imagine if drum corps stuck to its guns and never made those changes? Can you imagine what audience and member participation would be like today? I used to go to shows with my ex, who had marched guard and went only to see them perform. Would she have ever been a fan of the marching arts if guard were still marching in the same uniform as the corps proper, and only spinning rifles? No, she wouldn't have been interested. When Hopkins talks about bringing in new fans, I believe he is speaking with an eye to the future. Maybe electronics aren't necessary now. But ten years from now? Twenty? If the writing is on the wall, let's be ahead of the trend, not behind it. Staying relevant is how we bring in new fans, and if electronics are necessary to staying relevant, then they are necessary to bringing in new fans, exactly as Hopkins claimed.

[audiodb]

Let me snip out the part in question. If you feel some other sections are relevant too, feel free to point them out. First, I'm going to discuss the section where Hopkins discusses the "audience of yesterday", or "at the expense of the legacy fans" as you put it:

The Audience – What will they think !!!!!!!

When looking at this question, we have to determine the audience of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Yesterday --- The Classic Audience of 1975 that continues to dominate some of today’s conversation will not like this. These people want drum corps the way they remember it and I am very appreciative of this thought process. I too like drum corps as it was and is, but I am also aware that something needs to change.

This addition would change that product. The problem in catering to these people --- they are a diminishing group in terms of numbers. Personally, I love them, I want to make them leap from their seats, but for the sake of tomorrow, and we cannot use this class of people only as the opinion makers for our performing groups.

RAMD will not care for this idea.

Some Alumni will not care for this idea.

Some fans will threaten their support and curse any action.

We need to move on in the face of vocal disagreement. It is our responsibility to create a tomorrow for the kids who want to be a part of this activity. We need to do what we believe to be right, we need to hold to the values of creativity that made drum corps what it is today. Equal shares of tradition and innovation, this is the key.

Has Hopkins said anything truly remarkable here?

Yes. This is where the fallacious argument about "renewable" fans originated.

Hopkins characterized legacy fans as "the classic audience of 1975". That is not a demographic - that's just a snapshot in time, a generation (or in marketing terms, a generational cohort). He categorized these people as a generation purposely so that he could dismiss them as "a diminishing group in terms of numbers". Later references to the target audience do not speak of the audience of 2002 - they characterize the target audience as "young people", "kids", "predominantly students" - all demographic terms. That's comparing apples to oranges.

You still hear some people on this thread that fall for this flawed logic.

[audiodb]

I don't presume to speak for Hopkins, but when I read the proposal I don't see anything about kids who passed on drum corps only because electronics weren't there, or kids who are waiting on DCI to add electronics before they'll start attending shows. What I read is a desire for drum corps to remain relevant.

Egads. Do you believe this yourself?

I see a recognition that electronic music is present every where else in the lives of today's youth. I hear a plea for drum corps to reach out and grab a piece of that pie. Yes, we have our tradition; so do brass bands and mummer and pipers and many others. Drum & bugle corps can continue along that path and remain an anachronism, or drum corps can aspire for something more.

I guess drum corps was always an anachronism, then....because by the time the AL/VFW established the post-World War I drum corps activity, electronics (particularly radio) had already supplanted bugles and drums as military signaling devices. That's right - drums and bugles were already "irrelevant", yet drum & bugle corps mushroomed in popularity by using these devices.

Drum corps became even more popular in the 1950s, right when electronics were sweeping into the music world. And still, drum corps refused to plug in and become "relevant". I guess the activity had no hope of surviving into the 1960s....oh, wait.

The change to allow electronics isn't meant as a short term fix. It's not going to solve attendance issues overnight. In fact, I'll concede that adding electronics will likely hurt drum corps in the short term, as many people will undoubtedly be turned off by the change. But this change is being made with a focus on the long term. In just a few years we've already seen the reaction to amplification die down significantly.

Yes - that's because many of those people left.

Even some shows with amplified voice have been voted as fan favorites. I expect that trend will continue, and we'll see less resistance

....and less attendance....

with each passing year. By the same reasoning, I expect we'll see amplification and electronics eventually taken for granted, just as we take for granted every previous change to the activity.

There are an awful lot of comments about previous changes in this 100+ page thread. Doesn't seem like they're being taken for granted.

I used to go to shows with my ex, who had marched guard and went only to see them perform. Would she have ever been a fan of the marching arts if guard were still marching in the same uniform as the corps proper, and only spinning rifles? No, she wouldn't have been interested.

Nice story. When you have an ex who only goes to see synths, or only amps, or only Bb/F, let me know.

When Hopkins talks about bringing in new fans, I believe he is speaking with an eye to the future. Maybe electronics aren't necessary now. But ten years from now? Twenty? If the writing is on the wall, let's be ahead of the trend, not behind it.

Well, we missed that boat by about 90 years.

Staying relevant is how we bring in new fans, and if electronics are necessary to staying relevant, then they are necessary to bringing in new fans, exactly as Hopkins claimed.

No - we bring in new fans by marketing what we do. Drum corps is different from the trend of the day, and the people that choose to do it (or watch it) do so because they want something different.

Relevance is irrelevant.