Unconvinced and Waiting

[BRASSO]

Brasso, the only differences we're talking about in DCI are changes in equipment and technology. The rest is the same. People march around on a field. Those same types of changes are what I laid out with regard to tennis. It's still just a couple of guys running back and forth chasing after a little green ball, but the changes in equipment and technology have been significant enough to get tennis purists as irate (and probably more) than people on here regarding drum corps. People have been talking about aluminum bats in baseball being a pretty significant change in equipment. It pales in comparison to the changes in racket and string technology.

Your response is wildly illogical with regard to the convesration at hand.

If you believe that the changes in sports equipment used in sports the last 50 years mirrors the same degree of equipment changes we've had in Drum Corps and can't quite see that the changes in equipment used in Drum Corps has constituted massive changes ( and not cosmetic changes ), then we are definately looking at tennis ( and other changes in sports )and Drum Corps changes in much, much different light. And as for " aluminum bats " in major league baseball ? That equipment change was brought up, and was voted down. There was, and remains, no appetite on the part of the overwhelimg majority baseball fans nationwide, nor the Commisssioners office to add aluminum bats as optional equipment that could be used. MLB went one step further. They have banned their use. So it looks like those old wooden Louisville Sluggers they've used for over 100 years appear to be what will be used for many more years to come. And the human outcry sound you hear from baseball fans nationwide screaming out for the use of aluminum bats mirrors the ear shattering sound you hear from the tiny crickets at midnight.

Edited June 22, 2009 by BRASSO

[Matt_S]

This argumentation is effectively a stone wall for the debate/discussion. The reason being is that we all acknowledge there have been changes in drum corps. The line of what is good and bad can be fuzzy. But to say that since people have a complaint (and I think a legitimate one) against electronics that they want to return to the very first day drum corps started is simply not true.

Ah, but "Granny" you missed the main point of that post, I think. I don't believe the author was trying to imply that those who are against the change to electronics should be against all changes. I agree that would be a non-starter. However, I believe it's still worthwhile to point out all the changes that have occurred in the past, and recognize that what we consider to be drum corps has been different in every era. It's important because it provides perspective. While electronics might be the line in the sand for some, the fact is that many, many lines have been drawn in the sand over the years. Each time, the fans that stayed have erased that line, while some of those that stayed through previous changes have drawn a new line later on. As legitimate as you believe your complaint to be, the fact is that any fan of drum corps in the 21st century has already stuck around despite many complaints that others before them felt were just as legitimate.

So here it's happening again. And the arguments both for and against electronics really come down to whether you like it or not. We can get huffy and claim "that's not drum corps!" but as you pointed out, without an agreed-upon definition of what exactly drum corps is those cries can't carry much weight. In the end, these changes will be successful if enough people continue to enjoy what they see on the field. For all the pages and pages that have been written on DCP about both amplification and electronics (and Bb horns, and 150 members, and anything else you could possibly thing of) there's really not much more to say about it. If you like what you see, keep going to shows, keep buying merchandise, keep cheering for something you enjoy. If you don't like it, then I would encourage you and anyone else to spend your time and money on something you do enjoy.

Can I still enjoy drum corps?

That's the only question any of us need to ask ourselves. If enough people say yes, then the changes will work. If enough people say no, then the changes won't work. Same as it always was.

[Lance]

Most definitely, Brasso. The fact that you're implying that anything I said about tennis is "cosmetic change" shows me that this isn't something worth arguing about with you. If you want to see how different tennis truly is now, give today's players the same equipment from 25 years ago, and you'll see something quite on par with the differences between drum corps today and 25 years ago. Other than it being a couple of guys swatting little green balls over a net, it would be like a completely different game to them.

Talking about the sound of a synth in comparison truly is cosmetic in comparison.

I'll just agree to disagree with anything else you might have to say about this.

[bluecoats88]

Brasso, the only differences we're talking about in DCI are changes in equipment and technology. The rest is the same. People march around on a field. Those same types of changes are what I laid out with regard to tennis. It's still just a couple of guys running back and forth chasing after a little green ball, but the changes in equipment and technology have been significant enough to get tennis purists as irate (and probably more) than people on here regarding drum corps. People have been talking about aluminum bats in baseball being a pretty significant change in equipment. It pales in comparison to the changes in racket and string technology.

Your response is wildly illogical with regard to the convesration at hand.

no your racquet and string analogy equates to improving the horns and drums by making them better, more able to stay in tune, more capable of withstanding more tension on the heads. and all of these things have occurred.

the addition of equipment such as guitars or woodwinds would be equivalent to allowing the player to hit the ball with something pther than a racquet. this would be adding new equipment not just making the existing equipment better.

[Lance]

no your racquet and string analogy equates to improving the horns and drums by making them better, more able to stay in tune, more capable of withstanding more tension on the heads. and all of these things have occurred.

the addition of equipment such as guitars or woodwinds would be equivalent to allowing the player to hit the ball with something pther than a racquet. this would be adding new equipment not just making the existing equipment better.

A lot of tennis purists don't consider what players use today to be true rackets or strings. It has fundamentally changed everything about the game of tennis other than it being a couple of guys swatting a ball back and forth over a net. The same is true of woodwinds, snyths, or any other changes we're talking about with drum corps. It' just a bunch of people running/standing around on a football field playing and twirling stuff.

Any sports analogy is going to be imperfect, and I'll just leave it at that. I just wanted to contribute to the 100% insanity of the thread.

[OMH]

Seems like most of the "trouble" really did start with the introduction of amps.

It just doesn't fit in with the drum corps model (in my opinion), which I think is based on the acoustic nature of the instruments.

It's why there is such a huff about woodwinds; they cannot project enough to be considered a "drum corps" instrument.

I remember the excuse for amps was that it would allow "proper technique" to be used for mallets.

But, as mentioned in another thread, what is "proper technique"?

The proper technique for DRUM CORPS was to play differently than in a concert hall setting, just as the brass plays differently, to project more sound.

The introduction of amps is the cat that ate the mouse, and electronics is the dog that ate the cat.

What's next is something so "tweeked by special interests" it stops being unique.

Leave the amps and the rest for marching bands; its fits that environment well.

I think what most drum corps folks want is to go back to the pure acoustic nature; let the kids push the sound that rips our faces off.

[perc2100]

But we are not talking about cosmetic changes here that are being contemplated. We are looking at the change in the projection of musical sound to an audience and to judges that encompasses wholly radical transformation of the activity not seen in the last 50 years. We are not contemplating here about a change in a valve or even what key a brass instrument is played in. We are talking about the possible adoption of instrumentation into the Drum Corps activity that is fundametally and most assuredly not in the BRASS nor PERCUSSION realm. We are talking KIND of change here, not DEGREE of change. It might be helpful to the dialogue to at least recognize as a beginning point of agreement by all sides that the possible adoption of ( say ) woodwinds into the Drum Corps activity would constitute a radical transformation of the activity, the likes of which the activity has not seen since the end of WW2.

1) the arguments I typically see are of the variety of "SOME change is great, however the change I don't like is not good for the activity." I'm not necessarily saying you're making that argument (I quoted your statement above for another reason), but that is the, IMO, typical argument. If change is what a fan likes/can tolerate, it's fine. If it's a change they don't like/can't tolerate, it's bad

2) I would argue that adding woodwinds would be a pretty fundamental change in sound. However, I would also argue that the change in color guard "fundamentals" (for lack of a better term, I mean going from literally guarding to the colors to spinning flags, and then rifles/sabers and dancing), the addition of front ensemble instruments, the marching from symetrical to asymetrical drill, and to a less extent the timbre change of adding valves and then changing brass keys have all been HUGE changes to the activity. Not to mention the judging changes from tick-buildup, the improvements of percussion equipment (old snares vs. high tension snares, tonal bass drums, multi-toms) that have also greatly affected/radically changed the activity. Yes, woodwinds would be a HUGE transformation of the fundamental sound/look of drum corps, but it's arguable that it would be more/less of a change than the above I mentioned.

Drum corps has always been a rapidally changing activity, quick to jump on the band wagon of visual and musical innovation (often starting said trends). Woodwinds would make a HUGE change in the sound of groups, but arguably the activity, just in the short life-span of DCI, has seen radical transformations that happen constantly. I think this discussion (again) comes back to: change I like = OK for activity, change I don't like = bad for activity.

[Spartans87]

I would agree with bluecoats88 - The change to b-flat compares more to the advancement in racquet technology. Now, if you want to compare the addition of electronics and synths, it would be like maybe a double headed racquet in tennis, or a shoe that lets people get to a ball faster. Not sure I am making a great comparison, but I think you get the picture...

I for one, completely accept the advancement of Drum Corps, but to me it is not Drum and Bugle Corps anymore. I enjoy going to a band competition becuase of the sound and freedom they are allowed to bring to the field. I enjoyed in part (past tense to some degree) a Drum Corps show because of the incredible sound created, and the creativity (speaking only musically here) of the arrangers in adapting the original musical score with the limited instrumentation to produce nearly all of the voices in the original. Getting the entire ensemble to produce not only the brass parts, but the woodsinds and strings as well. Fascinating to me, and frankly, what has set Drum Corps apart from band, which Drum Corps is now becoming in my opinion.

I do support all of the participants regardless of my dislike for some of the changes.

[Granny Smith]

If you like what you see, keep going to shows, keep buying merchandise, keep cheering for something you enjoy. If you don't like it, then I would encourage you and anyone else to spend your time and money on something you do enjoy.

Partial quote above for brevity.

Here's what chafes my dry wrinkly butt skin: When you say what you say (along with others), you're basically telling me I have to sit back and "take it." It doesn't matter what I think because unless the masses do some kind of large-scale economic boycott, then this train is just gonna keep-on-a-rollin'.

I partially agree with you. I know that even a handful of protesters pushing on the bow of a big ocean tanker isn't going to result in any significant change. I realize that there is a tide of "change" that is apparently unstoppable and it's likely that I could have finished one of my quilts by now with all the time I've spent engaging this topic.

So...why waste the time to post here? I suppose it's because I still believe that individuals can influence*. You can apply this to every part of life. I write what I write because I actually to believe what I'm writing and I'm too old to just "put up with it." Perhaps I need to be more creative in how I go about influencing.

*I happen to believe (with absolutely NO proof) that DCP helped push on the judges last year to recognize Phantom's achievements. There are people who read this forum, who sit in the stands and talk to those around them and before long there is some momentum. How much? Who knows, but I like to think that we had an influence.

[eddylyons]

. . .won't be long before they'll have an electronic puck out there, and change the type of sticks they use to hit it around, and . . .

Oh . . .

Wait.

You jest, but so far, you're the closest to the real point. Congrats.

The point is not about technologic advancement, but specifically electronic enhancement. Your analogy of an electronic puck, or a bat, football, etc, for that matter, is an apt one. Those sports would not be what they are with electronic enhancement and any suggestion to that end goes no where. Case in point: the aluminum bat issue that MLB fortunately felt would change the sport such too fundamentally. (Racing is not an appropriate analogy because it has ALWAYS been about using technology to go faster).

I fail to see the "progress" in allowing any other means than talent and skill to produce a sound from a horn, or from many horns. Electronic enhancement fundamentally changes the nature of the activity. Something other than direct involvement from the player is influencing his/her ability to perform.

And yes, I think miking the pit was a bad idea from the get go. Just as much as narration on the field.