dbc03 Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 What, in your interpretation, is the "bigger picture" to which that particular quote applies? That the majority of the music played in drum corps today is not relevant to the average person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 The hilarious thing is that there have been plenty of people on DCP complaining about the music in DCI becoming too esoteric and now that George agrees the story has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 (edited) No takers on my previous post (EDIT: Link)? Anyone? Matt? Plan9? dbc03? Bueller? It seems the prevailing attitude amongst the supporters (or non-detractors) or the proposal is something along the lines of "well any change is good, and maybe all those measures that clearly benefit ONLY the G7 were put there accidentally or something. So this is a good idea and the G7 directors clearly are doing this to make drum corps better for all corps." Yeah ok. Edited May 24, 2010 by Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 No takers on my previous post (EDIT: Link)? Anyone? Matt? Plan9? dbc03? Bueller?It seems the prevailing attitude amongst the supporters (or non-detractors) or the proposal is something along the lines of "well any change is good, and maybe all those measures that clearly benefit ONLY the G7 were put there accidentally or something. So this is a good idea and the G7 directors clearly are doing this to make drum corps better for all corps." Yeah ok. I have not read the entire proposal so I am not a supporter. Of the things I have heard about the proposal I like some of it and I don't like some of it, but until I can read everything in the proposal and the rationale behind it I am not going to make a decision on my support either way. Instead of a supporter or a non-detractor I would call myself a non-oh-god-the-sky-is-fallinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 They will survive and hopefully thrive, if they pay attention. It's counterintuitive to believe that if the current planned venues/lineups are supported and these "Shows of Champions (or whatever)" are generated, that the non G7 / OC corps will wither. From what I understand of the proposal, these extra shows are designed (apart from DCI competition) to serve as a kind of "movie trailer" pointing toward DCI activities and given the freedom to try new audience participation stuff without hurting the traditional activity. I suggest we wait to see the plan layed out (including a mock up schedule/calendar) before we implode on DCP. You forgot to address the seizure of voting rights, $$$, event management, ticketing, clinics and Fridays/Sundays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 I have not read the entire proposal so I am not a supporter. Of the things I have heard about the proposal I like some of it and I don't like some of it, but until I can read everything in the proposal and the rationale behind it I am not going to make a decision on my support either way.Instead of a supporter or a non-detractor I would call myself a non-oh-god-the-sky-is-fallinger But these controversial measures have been corroborated by the DCW article and multiple DCP users who heard the same story from their personal contacts/sources. Operating under the assumption that the DCW article is correct, Dan Acheson's statement makes a lot of sense (re: "egoism and self-righteousness", "philosophical division", and concern over "such a level of disagreement"). I have yet to see or hear anything from a non G7 source claiming that the DCW article was overblown, or that there isn't a significant rift in the activity. If the intentions of the G7 were so noble and well-meaning, why would they evoke such a reaction from the other drum corps directors that you insist the G7 are trying to help?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan9 Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 No takers on my previous post (EDIT: Link)? Anyone? Matt? Plan9? dbc03? Bueller?It seems the prevailing attitude amongst the supporters (or non-detractors) or the proposal is something along the lines of "well any good change is good." So this is a good idea and the G7 directors clearly are doing this to make drum corps better for all corps." Yeah ok. Edited for correctness! And to determine if change is good, you have several choices: Discuss it in an open forum and attempt to predict the outcome using a model and imagined outcomes or try it! Back to your economics class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 Congratulations, you found a handful of exceptions. Now go through recent corps history and tell me if you think these exceptions refute the rule or prove it. If you insist that Hopkins' comment can't be true if it's not 100% accurate in every case, then we've got nothing left to discuss. It's a "rule" now? Please. Once drum corps evolved to the point where some corps staff began composing their own music for field shows, it was obviously never going to be an activity limited to the music of "dead people". I don't need to waste my time counting precisely how many corps go that route, or whether the members of Kansas are still living, or who wrote "My Immortal", or what percentage of Madison's 2009 music was original Vince Oliver vs. arrangements of pre-existing works. Clearly, drum corps makes use of the music of living composers. There's a general point which Hopkins is trying to make, ....which is what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 But these controversial measures have been corroborated by the DCW article and multiple DCP users who heard the same story from their personal contacts/sources. And they would still have to be passed by the corps. If the changes in the proposal really are so detrimental to 8-24 then I'm not too worried about them passing. I think there is a good chance that out of this we will end up with some pretty good changes passing and some bad changes not passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 (edited) I suggest we wait to see the plan layed out (including a mock up schedule/calendar) before we implode on DCP. Some things I believe we all should be able to agree on. One thing I think we all should be able to agree on here, is that from all reports, many, if not most of the non G-7 Corps did not wait " to implode " when they heard of this blueprint proposal. From the written press release of the DCI Executive Director himself last week, the proposal created a wedge issue ( ie., the biggest wedge issue of the last 38 years according to Dan Acheson, Exec. Dir. of DCI ) and angered a lot of non G-7 Corps Directors and their staffs. Nobody disagrees with this aspect of this so far, correct ? Edited May 24, 2010 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts