Changes in DCI?

[BRASSO]

Jeff, I suggest you ignore Brasso's request and leave your post exactly as it is. I read it all over one cup of coffee. It's not so long as to require "Cliff Notes" version.

I might even suggest that the desire for a glossed-over, summarized (aka someone else does the work), precis version is one of the core problems with finding solutions to the problems of the activity. Quick, easy solutions without the depth of study and understanding are emblematic of the history of problems facing the activity.

Brasso: This ain't War and Peace. Without the commitment to reading the dirty detail of the paper it's hard to imagine a sincere effort in developing its solutions. You've spent countless more hours reading and replying to posts on DCP than it will take you to read, absorb, and comment on the meat of this paper. Buck up, dig in, and pour some coffee. Your responses to issues presented in this paper will carry more weight with me (and, presumably, others here) if they're accompanied by an admission that you absorbed all of the issues in depth - not just the Cliff Notes version. IMO.

Preach on Brother Garfield.... preach on !

My guess, you and maybe at most 5 others will read this tome word for word in it's entirety and then comment on each of it's salient and relevent points as to what Hop thought then.... what Stewart said by contrast back then....and then it's relevency ( and differences ) to today.

Hey, if I'm wrong, I 'm wrong and will freely admit it. But the notion that a a sizable number DCP's are going to read the entire ( as you said) " the dirty details" in this article above is asking for an angel to dance on the head a pin, imo. If we find a sizeable number of DCP'ers that will read this in it's entirety, and then will come back for a discussion of it's many points, then I 'll promise to reconsider in taking a pass right now of filling up, then emptying out, the coffee pot to read something from 1997. Hey, that's just my opinion here, and people are certainly free to read the entire friggin' thing and get back to us if so inclined.

Edited May 16, 2010 by BRASSO

[ContraFart]

Preach on Brother Garfield.... preach on !

My guess, you and maybe at most 5 others will read this tome word for word in it's entirety and then comment on each of it's salient and relevent points as to what Hop thought then.... what Stewart said by contrast back then....and then it's relevency ( and differences ) to today.

Hey, if I'm wrong, I 'm wrong and will freely admit it. But the notion that a a sizable number DCP's are going to read the entire ( as you said) " the dirty details" in this article above is asking for an angel to dance on the head a pin, imo. If we find a sizeable number of DCP'ers that will read this in it's entirety, and then will come back for a discussion of it's many points, then I 'll promise to reconsider in taking a pass right now of filling up, then emptying out, the coffee pot to read something from 1997. Hey, that's just my opinion here, and people are certainly free to read the entire friggin' thing and get back to us if so inclined.

BRASSO....you are a very amusing grump :-)

[Dave]

Jeff, thank you very much for posting that. That's exactly the article that came to mind for me while reading about this, and I think it sums up very well the gist of all the arguments that go on here. There are certain issues over which the majority of us wouldn't disagree, such as the challenges that face the activity and its survival, but it's the way we believe they should be faced that brings great disagreement. It's also very nice to see that disagreement summed up in an unbiased way, without a "Your opinion is wrong and evil" sneer you find so often in other such efforts. I miss Vince's contributions like this, and I hope people do take the time to read it and comprehend what's going on, because it's right on the money in a lot of ways even though it doesn't have a "This is the right answer" conclusion. The article itself is a summation, so I'm not sure how much tighter you can make it without discarding the point entirely.

[corpsband]

Here's to drum corps and the rest of the marching arts contributing to a better America!

Revised conclusion ends here.

So, how well did the view through my crystal ball from 2003 fare during the intervening six years? I think I got the outlines of what happened in the greater society correct, even if drum corps didn't really follow what I suggested they do in response. Ah, well, their loss and an example of why I got fed up with the activity and its fandom shortly after I submitted the revised version.

Uggh. Somebody wanna reformat this to modern standards? It's hard to identify the speaker in most of this (Stewart / Hop / Lamb). I'll host the HTML if somebody wants to do the formatting!

[BRASSO]

BRASSO....you are a very amusing grump :-)

Thanks ( I think ) 'dig your poster name, by the way. ( better choice than " OldFart "..."NewFart ", etc., imo )

[Jeff Ream]

Jeff, I know you mean well, and thanks for taking the time to go and find an article from around 1997, but asking me to read this reminds me of the time the college prof. gave me " War and Peace ", by Leo Tolstoy to read. I read it. All of it. But then I found out others used Cliff Notes, and pretty much got as much out of it as I did.... in 1 tenth the time.

Can you sumarize this with the Cliff Notes version and what you believe is the relevancy here in 2010 to what was said back then ? Thanks, Jeff.

well.....no, and for two reasons. There's a lot that pertains to many topics going on today, and also, the authorvga e me permission as long as I didn't hack it up or try to "cliff's notes" it.

[garfield]

Preach on Brother Garfield.... preach on !

My guess, you and maybe at most 5 others will read this tome word for word in it's entirety and then comment on each of it's salient and relevent points as to what Hop thought then.... what Stewart said by contrast back then....and then it's relevency ( and differences ) to today.

Hey, if I'm wrong, I 'm wrong and will freely admit it. But the notion that a a sizable number DCP's are going to read the entire ( as you said) " the dirty details" in this article above is asking for an angel to dance on the head a pin, imo. If we find a sizeable number of DCP'ers that will read this in it's entirety, and then will come back for a discussion of it's many points, then I 'll promise to reconsider in taking a pass right now of filling up, then emptying out, the coffee pot to read something from 1997. Hey, that's just my opinion here, and people are certainly free to read the entire friggin' thing and get back to us if so inclined.

Yeah, a happy grump.

Remember Brasso, once a zebra, always a zebra. What you may consider "old news" and not worth rehashing just maybe be insight into the future of the activity if those who spoke are still in power. And they mostly are, aren't they?

Eh, your choice. But me? I was never any good with Cliff Notes. I needed to whole context to grasp the real meaning. You're probably not that way, which is fine.

[Galen]

Here's the scoop:

Among the six new rules passed by the Drum Corps International voting membership at its annual business meeting at the Indianapolis Westin on Saturday, January 23, one may have a profound influence on the future of the junior drum and bugle corps activity.

Passage of a pre-show proposal, authored by The Cadets’ director, George Hopkins, will now permit corps to use any device -- including recorded music and illegal instruments -- prior to the start of their formal judged program.

That means a woodwind instrument can now be used legally within an activity that has exclusively used brass wind instruments for nearly 90 years -- as long as that instrument is used within the “pre-show” parameters.

Hopkins claims his intent with the new rule was simply to clarify the pre-show timing, creative options and whether it should be considered in the judging. He reports that under existing rules, some of the most memorable and entertaining pre-show moments of the last two years -- including Phantom Regiment’s famous Roman Legionnaire entry to the field in its championship “Spartacus” production and Carolina’s Crown’s wildly popular Promise of Living pre-show choreography last year -- were technically “illegal.”

http://www.drumcorpsworld.com/articles.cfm?id=810

[84BDsop]

Hopkins claims his intent with the new rule was simply to clarify the pre-show timing, creative options and whether it should be considered in the judging. He reports that under existing rules, some of the most memorable and entertaining pre-show moments of the last two years -- including Phantom Regiment’s famous Roman Legionnaire entry to the field in its championship “Spartacus” production and Carolina’s Crown’s wildly popular Promise of Living pre-show choreography last year -- were technically “illegal.”

HOW????

[Galen]

HOW????

The article doesn't make it clear. But we can all count on one hand the combined number of timing penalties that those corps received those seasons.