kusankusho Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 This That. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stimmung Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Using dictionaries to support opinions about something as abstract as what is "forced" or "natural" change wrt a marching band?Just no. He cherry picked *specific* definitions too :-( Baaaaad argument Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.morgus Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 He cherry picked *specific* definitions too :-(Baaaaad argument Would a definition of a hippopotamus be germane to the discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penn State Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 Using dictionaries to support opinions about something as abstract as what is "forced" or "natural" change wrt a marching band?Just no. Gasp, HORROR, Dread!!! he used a dictionary to define a few words used in an argument. Run for the hills the world is going to end!!!! In all seriousness and sincerity, I am disappointed by this response. I took the time to article my thoughts and ideas and your response in a nut shell was: you used a dictionary so there for any of your arguments are null and void. I’ll keep your words in mind when I research and write my Master’s Thesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 In all seriousness and sincerity, I am disappointed by this response. I took the time to article my thoughts and ideas and your response in a nut shell was: you used a dictionary so there for any of your arguments are null and void. I don't blame you for being disappointed. I guess dictionaries are a good starting point for the discussion you're trying to have. But if you're going to do that, then first we need to agree on what the actual definition of "drum corps" is. I've been on here for awhile, and I've seen people use dictionaries for that, too, and it's always been pretty useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.morgus Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I don't blame you for being disappointed. I guess dictionaries are a good starting point for the discussion you're trying to have. But if you're going to do that, then first we need to agree on what the actual definition of "drum corps" is. I've been on here for awhile, and I've seen people use dictionaries for that, too, and it's always been pretty useless. I don't know. I think the OP gave a pretty good look at drum corps over time. If one basis an argument on the claim that "that ain't drum corps", then yes, they would need to define what is drum corps. The OP contrasts aspects of certain changes the have occurred to drum corps, and as such, the definitions he cited are what was required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 A poster I respect very much just talked about grounded pit instruments drawing the reaction "that ain't drum corps" from a lot of people. It would be too easy to use a dictionary as "evidence" to show that change was "unnatural"...and believe me, it wouldn't take much to make that argument. Talk about an easy button. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Fieldpaint Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Nicely put.Before the storm starts, I am not advocating a return to 1970, or 1980, (or 1920) or eliminating the pit, or anything like that. When the activity began, all of the instruments in use were designed to be military signaling devices, and thus used out doors. This is true even of color guard equipment. Perhaps, in retrospect, the ill advised turn came when instruments that were never originally intended for such use were incorporated, and ways were sought to make them fit, much as driving a square peg into a round hole. Just a thought that was prompted by the quote above. I will understand if you disagree. Interesting. So synths came about because DCI allowed amplification. Amplification came about because of the grounded pit. The grounded pit came about because of the rule allowing timpani to be grounded during the concert number. Grounded timpani --> Grounded pit --> Amps --> Synths --> ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penn State Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 Interesting post and your argument is well stated but I personally have to disagree with the idea of "Natural v.s. Forced". Drum and Bugle Corps is not a natural sentient being which arose from the Earth and walks among us, and now we have somehow disturbed it by adding amplification or B-flat horns or whatever. Drum corps was created by us and it can be changed by us, which makes this whole argument moot. I mean, you're essentially comparing drum corps to, say, a polar bear, and the polar bear was just chilling out in the North Pole minding its own business until we came in and built an oil derrick on its home. This notion is just completely absurd, and while I do respect what you're trying to say completely, I really think you're just kind of grasping for straws in order to defend the reverence you hold for your own very conservative views.I digress a bit though, I'm just going to say that in the case of so called "natural progression" and "forced change" that they are both the same, there is no difference. Should Teddy Roosevelt have waited for the human race to evolve to the point where we could respect certain natural landmarks? No of course not, he had to conserve things like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon, otherwise we'd have bloody malls and Walmarts at those places right now, and jeez that's still an example of Nature v.s. Human! Drum corps? That's Humans v.s. Human construction, so certainly we have a say into how it does or does not progress. A well written and thought provoking post! I do agree with you, partially. Philosophically speaking, I am treating the formation of the drum and bugle corps as a ‘birth’ of a new ‘species’. As the activity progresses, I feel it should be in line, relatively speaking, with the origins of the activity. I have the feeling you already saw where I was coming and didn’t agree with the origins of my argument. I’m throwing this thought out there and it is not directed at anyone in particular… If the ‘sanctity’ of baseball is worth protecting than why not protect the ‘sanctity’ of the drum and bugle corps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.morgus Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 A poster I respect very much just talked about grounded pit instruments drawing the reaction "that ain't drum corps" from a lot of people. It would be too easy to use a dictionary as "evidence" to show that change was "unnatural"...and believe me, it wouldn't take much to make that argument. Talk about an easy button. Well, melodic percussion did start to appear under the premise that if you struck it and could carry it, it was legal. It wasn't long before it became OK to not carry it. Whether or not this progression is "natural" or not, I am not sure. Now, is it "drum corps"? Not that anyone will ever ask me, but I would be happy to with a limit that allowed for any percussion that could be carried, even if you grounded it to play it. But that still doesn't define whether or not it is "drum corps". 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.