What was the reason for not allowing amplification prior to 2004?

[Hrothgar15]

From a previous version of the DCI rules:

All acoustic percussion membrane and keyboard instruments (those not needing electricity to generate sound) are legal. Percussion keyboard instruments may use resonators. A self-contained motor that is battery-powered is permitted to be used on vibraphones only. This motor is not to be used for amplification, but rather to produce a vibrato effect by turning the resonator propellers. Electric amplification is not allowed.

However, these rules don't list the reasoning behind this decision. Clearly there was a distinct reason for this limitation, which has since been abandoned. What, exactly, was that reason?

Edited August 23, 2009 by Hrothgar15

[perc2100]

From a previous version of the DCI rules:

However, these rules don't list the reasoning behind this decision. Clearly there was a distinct reason for this limitation, which has since been abandoned. What, exactly, was that reason?

I don't think there was ever any kind of specified reason, it just wasn't allowed. Just like prior to 2000 (or was it 1999) all brass instruments had to be bell front and in the key of G (i.e. trombones could've been used if an 'extension' was used to put the key of the instrument in G). The rules then changed to bell front valved brass instruments of any key (I believe sousaphones and trombones are now explicitly prohibited).

Amplification was obviously voted as legal for 2005 season, partially for the reasons specified in whomever submitted the proposal to legalize it.

It's possible directors prior to the 2005 season were against amplification partially due to logistics (stadiums possibly not having access to an outlet, and/or worries of equipment being fried in the rain), but to the best of my knowledge reasons for amplification's prohibition were never stated.

[SF2K4]

(I believe sousaphones and trombones are now explicitly prohibited).

Personally I think sousaphones should be prohibited in general, be it marching band or drum corps or anything. I guess you could put 'em in a museum or something but I don't see one redeeming quality that would make me think a sousaphone should ever be used instead of a contra or tuba.

[Michael Boo]

From a previous version of the DCI rules:

However, these rules don't list the reasoning behind this decision. Clearly there was a distinct reason for this limitation, which has since been abandoned. What, exactly, was that reason?

There was no groundswell of support for amplificaition until there was a groundswell of support. Like anything else that changes or evolves to something else, certain things make sense for the times and new times bring new logic and new sensibilities.

To get to amplification, we had to go through other things that were deemed more important to tackle at the time...B-flat horns, grounded percussion, and earlier three-valve bugles, mallet keyboards, timpani, etc.

Every era sees innovations that cause those who vote on such things to consider new possibilities.

We perhaps can't even imagine what changes are coming in the future because we're not yet at the time where such things are on our minds.

What innovations do you imagine that others haven't, yet?

[argonaut]

There was no groundswell of support for amplificaition until there was a groundswell of support.

When was there ever a groundswell of support for amplification?

[Michael Boo]

When was there ever a groundswell of support for amplification?

I felt the ground swell during the DCI Annual Meeting in Orlando a few years ago.

[3rd_Star_Brigade]

It's possible directors prior to the 2005 season were against amplification partially due to logistics (stadiums possibly not having access to an outlet, and/or worries of equipment being fried in the rain), but to the best of my knowledge reasons for amplification's prohibition were never stated.

That right there is probably the reason why DCI is in Lucas Oil.

[Matt_S]

From a previous version of the DCI rules:

However, these rules don't list the reasoning behind this decision. Clearly there was a distinct reason for this limitation, which has since been abandoned. What, exactly, was that reason?

I know I shouldn't answer this, because you're not really looking for an honest answer. But here goes:

About a week ago someone started a thread titled "Second chance..." The idea of the thread was to share those you didn't like at first, but which you came to enjoy after repeated listens. You're surely familiar with this thread, as you posted in it, naming the Blue Devils 2009 show. This time around the thread got to six pages in length; it's not the first time the topic has come up, nor is it likely to be last.

The responses are somewhat mixed. Some members posted that they didn't like a show at the start of tour, but it grew on them and they ended up liking the show by the time Championships came around. Others told of shows that they didn't like during that entire season, but came to enjoy a year later or more after listening to the recordings. If you're looking for an answer to your question, then I'd consider that latter group. Ask them what changed to make them enjoy the show well after the fact. Surely it wasn't the show itself; those recordings won't ever be different than they are. The answer has to be that their attitude toward the show changed over time.

[HockeyDad]

I felt the ground swell during the DCI Annual Meeting in Orlando a few years ago.

Or maybe it was more of a.....being worn down after being asked a dozen years in a row and being told no. As a parent, I have a lot of experience in this area. If your two year old asks for something and you say no, does he/she stop? Of course not. They ask again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Until you can't take it anymore and must decide what's worse - giving in or dealing with the non-stop whining. The amps and electronics came up for vote how many years in a row?? It was ridiculous. But someone refused to take no for an answer. Some call that visionary. Others call it something else.

[MikeD]

From a previous version of the DCI rules:

However, these rules don't list the reasoning behind this decision. Clearly there was a distinct reason for this limitation, which has since been abandoned. What, exactly, was that reason?

Seems to me they were just reiterating the current rule to make sure it was stated and clear...since it was the existing rule, why would they state a reason? They weren't changing anything beyond what it already was.