Why is Change a so bad?

[GMichael1230]

Please don't take what I'm about to say as me supporting adding woodwinds to DCI competitive shows. I don't. However...

If woodwinds are someday made legal, it's highly unlikely you're going to see a line of 20 flutes or clarinets marching out on the field. What you'll see and hear is amplified woodwind instruments based in the pit, or on wireless mics used more like field props. Woodwind instruments simply do not have the projection capabilities to keep up with a full brass line. You'll see them used in far different ways that you would by your typical marching band.

Having said that, I'll again attest to the fact that there simply isn't as much support for woodwinds amongst the corps instructional staffs as some here would lead you to believe.

...totally and completely true. Its been said all along by many people..here on DCP, the worst case scenario somehow becomes the inevitable reality, and the folks just run with it..

G

[Jeff Ream]

...totally and completely true. Its been said all along by many people..here on DCP, the worst case scenario somehow becomes the inevitable reality, and the folks just run with it..

G

or even one is too many

[Rifuarian]

I think you can similarly argue that designers exist for "the kids." It's very easy to read/hear some of these directors' and designers rants and think you actually know where they're coming from. But it's another thing altogether to actually KNOW where the designers/directors are coming from. They have pasts and roots in the activity similar to you: they marched their guts out for a corps that they loved and would've killed for. They came up through the ranks from volunteer techs, maybe, to designing small chunks of a show here or there, to changing the game and leading the trends in design. And when they talk to "their kids," they want to instill the same love and devotion and pride that they had as members.

Don't get me wrong, I often disagree with design choices, roll my eyes when one designer or director is explaining some convoluted or contrived idea. But don't read a press release and assume you know the intents of the top designers. They do what they do because they love their kids, want to see their kids perform the crap out of their show and reach their goals. They do it because they love to see their kids max out a show at Finals (or Semi's, or whenever). They do it because they love to see the look on their kids' faces when they're proud of their show/season.

Do they make money designing for corps? Of course. Do they get other jobs thanks to their work with top corps? Of course. Why begrudge them their good fortunes? Just because someone wants to add an oboe solo to a show because it's a cool color (in their mind) that they want to explore, doesn't mean that their some evil, selfish person.

Certainly they love the kids . . . there's no question about that. The contention being discussed (or the one I'm discussing, at least) here is that designers have pushed through these changes because the kids want them, and the adults are responding to these wants, which IMO is fallacious. I only know a handful of DCI's top designers, and admittedly I don't know them very well, but I am acquainted with many, many brilliantly talented educators. These educators love the kids, but they also have conceptions of education -- how a course should be conducted, its content, what students should get out of it -- that is often drastically different from what students want or expect from their courses. They come to these ideas because that is what they feel will best serve the purposes education, and thus help the students. And usually the students, at the end of the course, recognize and appreciate this.

Same with drum corps -- these designers love the kids, but at the same time they have very clear conceptions of what they want drum corps to be and what they want drum corps to be about. Most of them would not pursue these ideas if they did not feel it was in the best interests of the kids, but at the same time they have very little to do with what incoming members want or expect from drum corps. Now as these men and women work with the kids over the course of a season, they will most likely win them over to their POV. As you said, "talking to their kids".

I think we're in agreement on several things. These changes have been supported by designers because of a sincere devotion to the activity. And I think we both agree that designer's should have whatever reasonable (that is, available in other circuits) tools they wish to have at their disposable. At the same time, it needs to be emphasized that these changes came from the top down . . . there was never any groundswell of support for these kinds of changes from the membership. The rules changes were first and foremost for the designers, who asked for them because they felt they would best serve "the kids", among other reasons. But at the same time it needs to be emphasized that this all started with the adults, not the kids.

[Scoutnout]

Certainly they love the kids . . . there's no question about that. The contention being discussed (or the one I'm discussing, at least) here is that designers have pushed through these changes because the kids want them, and the adults are responding to these wants, which IMO is fallacious. I only know a handful of DCI's top designers, and admittedly I don't know them very well, but I am acquainted with many, many brilliantly talented educators. These educators love the kids, but they also have conceptions of education -- how a course should be conducted, its content, what students should get out of it -- that is often drastically different from what students want or expect from their courses. They come to these ideas because that is what they feel will best serve the purposes education, and thus help the students. And usually the students, at the end of the course, recognize and appreciate this.

Same with drum corps -- these designers love the kids, but at the same time they have very clear conceptions of what they want drum corps to be and what they want drum corps to be about. Most of them would not pursue these ideas if they did not feel it was in the best interests of the kids, but at the same time they have very little to do with what incoming members want or expect from drum corps. Now as these men and women work with the kids over the course of a season, they will most likely win them over to their POV. As you said, "talking to their kids".

I think we're in agreement on several things. These changes have been supported by designers because of a sincere devotion to the activity. And I think we both agree that designer's should have whatever reasonable (that is, available in other circuits) tools they wish to have at their disposable. At the same time, it needs to be emphasized that these changes came from the top down . . . there was never any groundswell of support for these kinds of changes from the membership. The rules changes were first and foremost for the designers, who asked for them because they felt they would best serve "the kids", among other reasons. But at the same time it needs to be emphasized that this all started with the adults, not the kids.

ok i think i can buy this and I also dont think its wrong at all

[CrownStarr]

The changes taking place are meant to serve today's designers. They want the same tools they have available in band, indoor guard, whatever available to them in drum corps. Which is fine, IMO. But it's not about "the kids".

No kid ever said "Well, drum corps is awesome, but I'm not joining one until they have amps, synths, and voiceovers." By the same token, no kid has since said, "WHOA!!! Amps and synths! Sign me up!". Excepting the synth players, of course. Today's kids are drawn to drum corps for the same reasons kids have always been drawn to drum corps. The rule changes have neither helped nor hurt this . . . it's simply irrelevant to most of today's marchers, which is why they're so mystified (and sometimes angered) when old-timers kick up such a fuss about these things.

I will readily admit that you've got a point when it comes to the synth. Sure, I only ever did drum corps because of the legality of synths, but I wasn't desperately wanting to for years beforehand or anything, and I doubt many kids were.

However, this argument falls apart when it comes to woodwinds. Many people, including some good friends of mine, have said "oh, I would have totally loved to do drum corps, but I play saxophone/flute/clarinet/etc". They're big fans of the activity and would have jumped at the chance, but it's not allowed. In that respect, allowing woodwinds absolutely would be a step in favor of the kids. On the other hand, would it drive away current members who wouldn't to be a part of a group with woodwinds? Maybe. It's hard to tell. As others have pointed out, the current membership is much more open to these sort of changes than, say, the general population on DCP. However, I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be any backlash among the membership if woodwinds were allowed.

Another aspect of this whole debate that I just thought of: if/when the first woodwind players are allowed in DCI, they had better be pretty tough-skinned. I sure hope that whoever recruits and/or teaches them prepares them for the inevitable backlash they're going to experience, directly or indirectly.

Edited May 17, 2010 by CrownStarr

[Rifuarian]

I will readily admit that you've got a point when it comes to the synth. Sure, I only ever did drum corps because of the legality of synths, but I wasn't desperately wanting to for years beforehand or anything, and I doubt many kids were.

However, this argument falls apart when it comes to woodwinds. Many people, including some good friends of mine, have said "oh, I would have totally loved to do drum corps, but I play saxophone/flute/clarinet/etc". They're big fans of the activity and would have jumped at the chance, but it's not allowed. In that respect, allowing woodwinds absolutely would be a step in favor of the kids. On the other hand, would it drive away current members who wouldn't to be a part of a group with woodwinds? Maybe. It's hard to tell. As others have pointed out, the current membership is much more open to these sort of changes than, say, the general population on DCP. However, I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be any backlash among the membership if woodwinds were allowed.

Another aspect of this whole debate that I just thought of: if/when the first woodwind players are allowed in DCI, they had better be pretty tough-skinned. I sure hope that whoever recruits and/or teaches them prepares them for the inevitable backlash they're going to experience, directly or indirectly.

You're certainly right about woodwinds . . . it would open an entirely new world of possibility to that group of kids. That's by far the most convincing argument for allowing them. On the other hand, for every woodwind I've met that would like to see drum corps changed, I've met several others who'd like for it stay the same, strange at that may seem at first. They recognize it as a unique idiom, and would like to see it remain that way. Many, many woodwinds (there are some of these on this board, and I know a few myself) have even learned a brass instrument just march corps, rather than just wishing it would change.

I don't think we'll ever seen full-blown woodwind sections, for reasons that have already been discussed. It's simply not practical. But we'll certainly be seeing woodwind soloists in the pit, maybe even this year. Whichever corps does this first had better find the most bad-### woodwind possible, because they'll draw not only the ire of morons in the crowds but possibly -- but hopefully not -- the ire of members of other corps, as this seems to be the one potential change that upsets current members as well as legacy veterans.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Rifuarian

[audiodb]

Pre amps? Valve/rotor to 2-valve, 3-valve, any-key, grounding of pit, shorter shows, seemingly unending realignment of lower divisions, restrictions on divisions, alterations of the judging system (some major, some minor), amplification. I bet I missed a few as well.

Post amps? One major change, electronic instruments.

I don't think too many people would argue that 2009 wasn't a really good year for drum corps. Drum corps hasn't fundamentally changed. It's still brass and percussion (and guard, for that matter, which seems to be overlooked in these conversations). It just has some cool extra stuff that corps can use or not use.

Correction - stuff that corps must use to remain competitive.

[Jeff Ream]

I will readily admit that you've got a point when it comes to the synth. Sure, I only ever did drum corps because of the legality of synths, but I wasn't desperately wanting to for years beforehand or anything, and I doubt many kids were.

However, this argument falls apart when it comes to woodwinds. Many people, including some good friends of mine, have said "oh, I would have totally loved to do drum corps, but I play saxophone/flute/clarinet/etc". They're big fans of the activity and would have jumped at the chance, but it's not allowed. In that respect, allowing woodwinds absolutely would be a step in favor of the kids. On the other hand, would it drive away current members who wouldn't to be a part of a group with woodwinds? Maybe. It's hard to tell. As others have pointed out, the current membership is much more open to these sort of changes than, say, the general population on DCP. However, I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be any backlash among the membership if woodwinds were allowed.

Another aspect of this whole debate that I just thought of: if/when the first woodwind players are allowed in DCI, they had better be pretty tough-skinned. I sure hope that whoever recruits and/or teaches them prepares them for the inevitable backlash they're going to experience, directly or indirectly.

are you kidding me? as it is now any complaints about current show design or the toys making it gets tagged with "you're hurting the kids". I can see it only multiplying if it's added.

but really, aside from maybe some woodwind players...and i know many who converted to brass and became better musicians for it...it all comes from the top.

[Kamarag]

Correction - stuff that corps must use to remain competitive.

You can say it over and over and it still won't be true. A corps can choose to use electronics or not. That alone doesn't make you competitive, as some would imply.

[Jeff Ream]

You can say it over and over and it still won't be true. A corps can choose to use electronics or not. That alone doesn't make you competitive, as some would imply.

sorry John, on this we will disagree a lot. Fiedler said it, and yes, many on here ( cue MikeD) have tried to cover his tracks for him, but if you look at the history of drum corps, this bears out going back to the beginning of time.