If DCI were to allow woodwinds, would you continue to support the acti

[WOOHOO]

I think you're missing the context: Lance was responding to Jeff Ream's apparent suggestion, that changes made in the 2000s had put DCI in a precarious and untenable financial position, by pointing out that "sky-is-falling" arguments are often made and need to be taken with a grain of salt. My point is that "sky-is-falling" arguments should be considered equally valid or invalid whether the proposed solution is for the addition of electronics, or the removal of electronics.

Why is that argument valid? Explain.

[N.E. Brigand]

But if the issue is the future, then there's no doubt that the solutions put in place up until now have not been the correct ones, or sufficiently powerful ones, to overcome the exogenous forces pushing drum corps down, or more importantly, to be the ones to cause the activity to grow.

I want it to grow.

You have no way of knowing that the changes have not been correct, beyond your opinion. IMO they have been the correct changes. We still have pretty much the same corps that existed in 2000, despite the terrible economy of the past few years, which some seem to dismiss. There are still large crowds attending shows, both legacy and new fans, and band members attend by the busloads. Again... all this in a terrible economy.

So you think that attendance would be worse, and there would be fewer corps, if DCI hadn't added amplification and electronics? Or is the Bb-bugles that made the difference? Or the larger corps size?

[WOOHOO]

You have no way of knowing that the changes have not been correct, beyond your opinion. IMO they have been the correct changes. We still have pretty much the same corps that existed in 2000, despite the terrible economy of the past few years, which some seem to dismiss. There are still large crowds attending shows, both legacy and new fans, and band members attend by the busloads. Again... all this in a terrible economy.

So you think that attendance would be worse, and there would be fewer corps, if DCI hadn't added amplification and electronics? Or is the Bb-bugles that made the difference? Or the larger corps size?

Like he said, that is completely unprovable. How can you attribute that solely to amplifications and electronics?

[N.E. Brigand]

I think you're missing the context: Lance was responding to Jeff Ream's apparent suggestion, that changes made in the 2000s had put DCI in a precarious and untenable financial position, by pointing out that "sky-is-falling" arguments are often made and need to be taken with a grain of salt. My point is that "sky-is-falling" arguments should be considered equally valid or invalid whether the proposed solution is for the addition of electronics, or the removal of electronics.

Why is that argument valid? Explain.

What's not to get?

Phaedo: "Drum corps is dying because it's not attracting a younger audience! We need to increase audience size by adding electronics!"

Cleitophon: "Drum corps is dying because because it's driving away an older audience! We need to increase audience size by adding electronics!"

Simmias: "Drum corps is not dying, therefore Cleitophon is wrong."

Socrates: "Um, Simmias, doesn't that mean Phaedo is wrong too?"

[WOOHOO]

Why is that argument valid? Explain.

What's not to get?

Phaedo: "Drum corps is dying because it's not attracting a younger audience! We need to increase audience size by adding electronics!"

Cleitophon: "Drum corps is dying because because it's driving away an older audience! We need to increase audience size by adding electronics!"

Simmias: "Drum corps is not dying, therefore Cleitophon is wrong."

Socrates: "Um, Simmias, doesn't that mean Phaedo is wrong too?"

That's an explanation of existence, not an explanation of validity. Just because it's said by a human doesn't make it valid.

Edited September 17, 2010 by WOOHOO

[N.E. Brigand]

You have no way of knowing that the changes have not been correct, beyond your opinion. IMO they have been the correct changes. We still have pretty much the same corps that existed in 2000, despite the terrible economy of the past few years, which some seem to dismiss. There are still large crowds attending shows, both legacy and new fans, and band members attend by the busloads. Again... all this in a terrible economy.

So you think that attendance would be worse, and there would be fewer corps, if DCI hadn't added amplification and electronics? Or is the Bb-bugles that made the difference? Or the larger corps size?

Like he said, that is completely unprovable. How can you attribute that solely to amplifications and electronics?

"Have you in fact got any cheese here at all?"

If you'll read my response again, you'll see that I listed three changes, and asked which of them MikeD feels were the "correct changes" that resulted in DCI in 2010 having "pretty much the same corps that existed in 2000, despite the terrible economy of the past few years". I would be deliberately wasting your time if I suggested that MikeD's post could be read as implying anything other than that if the "correct changes" had not been made, that things would be worse for DCI. And I don't want you to have to shoot me.

[N.E. Brigand]

Why is that argument valid? Explain.

What's not to get?

Phaedo: "Drum corps is dying because it's not attracting a younger audience! We need to increase audience size by adding electronics!"

Cleitophon: "Drum corps is dying because because it's driving away an older audience! We need to increase audience size by adding electronics!"

Simmias: "Drum corps is not dying, therefore Cleitophon is wrong."

Socrates: "Um, Simmias, doesn't that mean Phaedo is wrong too?"

That's an explanation of existence, not an explanation of validity. Just because it's said by a human doesn't make it valid.

The argument is this: if drum corps is not dying and has not been in danger of dying, then the claim that "drum corps is dying" can be used neither to justify the addition of electronics, nor to justify their removal. (In the mock dialogue above, Lance is Simmias and I am Socrates.) I don't think you can refute that.

[WOOHOO]

What's not to get?

Phaedo: "Drum corps is dying because it's not attracting a younger audience! We need to increase audience size by adding electronics!"

Cleitophon: "Drum corps is dying because because it's driving away an older audience! We need to increase audience size by adding electronics!"

Simmias: "Drum corps is not dying, therefore Cleitophon is wrong."

Socrates: "Um, Simmias, doesn't that mean Phaedo is wrong too?"

That's an explanation of existence, not an explanation of validity. Just because it's said by a human doesn't make it valid.

The argument is this: if drum corps is not dying and has not been in danger of dying, then the claim that "drum corps is dying" can be used neither to justify the addition of electronics, nor to justify their removal. (In the mock dialogue above, Lance is Simmias and I am Socrates.) I don't think you can refute that.

I can't refute that that is an argument, I can refute that it isn't valid.

[audiodb]

That would imply that he is fine with those changes in the first place, which he isn't.

I am fine with those changes, and I can say that not all changes are made to "fix" the activity, maybe simply to improve it, or try something new.

....or try something old.

Speaking of which, this manner of circular argument, nullification and feigned indifference is getting old.

[N.E. Brigand]

I can't refute that that is an argument, I can refute that it isn't valid.

OK. Do so. Prove to me that there is no such thing as logic. Because that's what you claim to be able to do. Look: either "drum corps is dying" is a valid premise for both arguments (for electronics and against electronics) or it is not. Explain to me why only the electronics advocates should be allowed to cite "drum corps is dying" as a justification.