bluecoats88 Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Because whistling isn't voice. It in no way involves the voice box. It is the equivalent of snapping your fingers, ie using body parts to make a sound. boy, now there's someone who really wants to stretch the definitions to meet his needs. the sound comes out of a humans mouth so it would be considered voice. I'd like to see someone whistle without using their mouth sometime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 boy, now there's someone who really wants to stretch the definitions to meet his needs.the sound comes out of a humans mouth so it would be considered voice. I'd like to see someone whistle without using their mouth sometime. Seems to me you're the one wanting to stretch the definition of voice to meet your own agenda. You state the bolded line as though it were fact, but I would venture to guess most people would disagree that whistling = voice. Voice, as I see it and in the context of the discussion over the past few years relating to narration and singing, requires words, either spoken or sung. Any other use of the human mouth is really non arguable given that corps have been humming or vocalizing en mass portions of their shows for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecoats88 Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Seems to me you're the one wanting to stretch the definition of voice to meet your own agenda. You state the bolded line as though it were fact, but I would venture to guess most people would disagree that whistling = voice. Voice, as I see it and in the context of the discussion over the past few years relating to narration and singing, requires words, either spoken or sung. Any other use of the human mouth is really non arguable given that corps have been humming or vocalizing en mass portions of their shows for years. true they have and that was legal when they did it. but they weren't recording a person whistling and then replaying it with one push of a button. The rules specifically state anything musical must be one stroke-one note and that only sound effects and prerecorded historical speaches or the like are exempt from the one stroke-one note rule. Whistling does not fall into either of those two catagories (sound effect/historical speech) and does fall into the musical/melodic catagory and should have to fall under the one stroke-one note rule. I don't like the electronics rule, but if they are going to have it then everyone should have to abide by it, and if not then they should be penalized. on the record I enjoyed the Cadets show this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rut-roh Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Wouldn't the use of voice require the use of the vocal chords?? I can make a popping sound with my lips, or click my tongue against the roof of my mouth to produce a noise. I can even alter the "pitch" of those sounds by changing the shape of my lips as I make them. All with no participation of the vocal chords whatsoever. Does that count as voice? I wouldn't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 One thing is for sure, there is definitely a lot of grey area to be addressed, but for me I'll stick to the notion that voice = spoken or sung words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Here's my problem with all this: I don't care whether whistling is considered "voice" or "not voice". What concerns me is that there is never any official ruling or clarification of rules from DCI. In no other "Major League" is there such secrecy and silence about rules issues. Every other "Major League" is meticulously open about the ruels interpretation process -- when there is an incident "on the field" that is resolved questionably be the referees/umps/judges, the League is quick to provide a clarification or interpretation so that the fans understand going forward what is to be expected of the competitors and the referees. The Pine Tar incident, The Tuck Rule, the Yankess fan that "created" a home run by reaching oer the fence ... I could go on and on with big incidents and small. Look, DCI has the right to make whatever rules they want. I really don't care, ultimately. What I do care about though is that they follow they're own rules and make sure those rules are clearly stated to both the competitors and the fans. I've still never heard any resolution about the pitch bending (was that last year or the year before?). Again, I DON'T CARE whether that is interpreted as legel or not, just that it is part of the rules one way or the other, stated as such, and followed appropriately. Already, there are a number of things that are questionable this year. When you have new rules in any arena, there are going to be questions about how to apply said new rules and so the rule-making body needs to be aware of this and prepared to make very public and very decisive interpretations. I'll say it again -- I DON'T CARE how these rules are interpreted, just so that they are. If you expect fans to pay money for your competitive activity and to accept your champion as the champion, then it is your duty, imo, to make the competitive environment as open and consistent and fair as possible. (Have to run, so I haven'd has a chance to proof this to make sure I made my point as I wanted, so go easy on me here until I have a chance to edit -- Thanks ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rut-roh Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 (edited) One thing is for sure, there is definitely a lot of grey area to be addressed, but for me I'll stick to the notion that voice = spoken or sung words. I concur. Do you concur, doctor? Dangit, I should have concurred! Edited June 25, 2009 by rut-roh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecoats88 Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 One thing is for sure, there is definitely a lot of grey area to be addressed, but for me I'll stick to the notion that voice = spoken or sung words. I'll give that to you regarding voice, and will agree that whistling is not voice. But whistling is musical or melodic and thus should still be covered by the one stroke- one note rule. Prerecorded whistling that is started by the push of one button sounds to me like a rule infringement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Fair enough! And I agree with Liam as well, there shouldn't be any rule that is above clarification for any reason, and DCI should really stop passing rules that are written as ambiguously as this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rut-roh Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 I'll give that to you regarding voice, and will agree that whistling is not voice.But whistling is musical or melodic and thus should still be covered by the one stroke- one note rule. Prerecorded whistling that is started by the push of one button sounds to me like a rule infringement. Not sure if this has been made clear yet or not, but the Cadets ARE performing that whole opening sequence using the one stroke/one note guideline, as it was a pre-recorded human whistle which was altered electronically. 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.