charlie1223 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Are there no limits to what drum corps is? If I go to see a string quartet perform and find an eight-piece rock band onstage, but they still call themselves a string quartet, are they? Or if you say that's just ridiculous, suppose that it's just four players: two on violin and two on synthesizer, because they really really wanted to play the 1812 Overture and be "true" to the original by patching the orchestra and cannons through some amps. I'm not gonna say your opinion is wrong. But I will say my opinion of what drum corps is just as valid as yours. So, the drum corps medium will just accommodate your "version" and my "version". Everyone is happy to some degree. Wouldn't you like to see G bugles and no synths and amps? I'm not AGAINST those things coming back but I am AGAINST those things being the only things. Just have a little bit for everyone to accommodate the changing views that people have about drum corps. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 oops. um, but your brass arranger even came on here and other places and admitted it was there and it was an issue. If you say so. I never saw anything from Key, and maybe I was just in a wrong spot in the drill, and can't hear what anyone is talking about on the recordings. I'm not going to argue with anyone about this anymore. I know what I could and still can hear, but apparently other people hear other things. That's just the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerriTroop Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I've always imagined that if we let corps do what they want then corps will do things that please audience members. Maybe not all of them at the same time but each audience member will all be happy and upset equally. So what if Cadets decide to use singing, string quartet and 100 props on the field? Because that would then be counteracted by say... Madison getting rid of the synth and microphones and doing a show without a theme. People DO like either of these things so they should both be available. Frankly, whatever is stopping that kind of variety in drum corps is what we should really be trying to fix. And if you ask me, its ALL in the judging... What we should stop assuming is that one version of drum corps should exist. Instead, figure out how to get all the different "versions" of drum corps to work with each not against each other. If a baseball team wanted to add a fourth outfielder because it was more "effective" should baseball rules-makers allow it? Drum corps is a unique performing medium because competition-level corps (i.e. not parade corps, etc.) are all competing for placement, and good placement brings more money and recognition. We have to keep some instrumentation and membership boundaries in place in order to attempt integrity in judging. But that brings me to what I agree with in your post: it's all in the judging. Since judges have been rewarding A&E oriented programs (or at least not slamming them for obvious balance or distortion issues), we've seen a nearly 100% adoption of the technology in the world of drum corps. There are reasons that artistic competitions have rules and boundaries. My school's art students compete every year. There are plenty of rules and boundaries. They can't enter a painting in a sculpture event, and there are boundaries placed upon what materials constitute sculpture. But the huge difference between these art competitions and drum corps: the STUDENTS are the ones entering the artistic contest, not an adult designer. Drum corps has been rewarding design for years now, and doing so has far, far reaching effects on the entire activity - some good, some bad. The recent body move craze, in my opinion, is bad. On the other hand, not having to comply with a list of compulsory drill moves or tempos is good. I'm very curious to see what Cesario's judging review will bring to the table. Has there been any official word on that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFZFAN Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) Never Mind Edited January 2, 2011 by SFZFAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I'm not gonna say your opinion is wrong. But I will say my opinion of what drum corps is just as valid as yours. So, the drum corps medium will just accommodate your "version" and my "version". Everyone is happy to some degree. Wouldn't you like to see G bugles and no synths and amps? I'm not AGAINST those things coming back but I am AGAINST those things being the only things. Just have a little bit for everyone to accommodate the changing views that people have about drum corps. I'm all for respecting opinions, but something feels a bit off about what something "is" or "isn't, being defined by individual opinion. N.E. Brigand's comment was spot on really. You're kind of wanting to say that there is NO definition to what drum corps is, and I find that to be way off base. If drum corps loses it's unique defining qualities, then it isn't drum corps anymore, regardless of what you call it. What if we remove every brass and percussion instrument from the field, dress the 150 up in uniforms and have them sing the parts while marching the drill. Still drum corps? I guess based on your "opinion" it IS, as long as at least 1 person is of the opinion that it is. Really all you've done is create a clever little bullet point you can pull out to throw in the face of every "this isn't drum corps" argument that is presented. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 *smited* If you've reformed and are no longer a menace to society, I'll let it pass in the spirit of new year/new start. But only this once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I've always imagined that if we let corps do what they want then corps will do things that please audience members. Maybe not all of them at the same time but each audience member will all be happy and upset equally. So what if Cadets decide to use singing, string quartet and 100 props on the field? Because that would then be counteracted by say... Madison getting rid of the synth and microphones and doing a show without a theme. People DO like either of these things so they should both be available. Frankly, whatever is stopping that kind of variety in drum corps is what we should really be trying to fix. And if you ask me, its ALL in the judging... You do have your moments of keen insight. Of course, it's easier said than done. But there are three things I'd suggest right away that could help: 1. Make an effort to judge effect and balance from where the fans are, not just from the press box. 2. Remove sheet verbage that mandates equipment choices. As an example, the criterion on the ensemble music sheet that requires a corps to "demonstrate musical appropriateness of amplification" makes it clear that to earn full credit in that caption, one must use amps. 3. End the practice of rewarding all positive effects of new equipment while overlooking technical problems and malfunctions (i.e. the "free pass"). Judge the result on all the pluses and minuses. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 "As if even a momentary tacit from any of their ten 4-mallet-wielding keyboardists would risk disqualification." - It just seems apparent to me that you're simply not a fan of the pit. Sorry if that is a gross misunderstanding I am not a fan of overamplified pit drowning out an entire hornline every time the horns play less than mezzo-forte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 And as additional context to this discussion.... Another frustration regarding the amplification issue is the "bait-and-switch" manner in which it has been implemented. During the final push to passage, and when it was first introduced, the consensus talking point from proponents of the change was that it was all about timbre....especially allowing softer mallets to be used. Concerns about volume were dismissed by proponents who insisted that the balance was not the problem, and would not change....only the mallet selection would change. Then after a couple of years had passed, and observers pointed out that no one was using softer mallets, it became about technique instead. Different people took up the pro-amp side of the discussion, and we began to hear contentions like this: This also applies to next comment you had about the cop-out. I assume that the staff's of each corps found that it was more advantageous to have a slightly distorted sound (so slightly distorted that I wager that no more than five or ten people at any given show - other than volume from sitting too close - would complain that the sound was distorted) than have their members "bang their instruments senselessly" I would also wager that amplification can greatly reduce the risk of injury. Just as marching shoes have improved, and drum carriers have improved, the use of amplification allows for an alteration in technique that allows the player to play with a more concert-esque, injury-friendly technique. All the while, though, concerns about the pit being made louder were dismissed with the insistence that amps were never intended for that purpose, and still weren't. Then in 2007, amplified pits made a quantum leap upward in volume, and again in 2008. Once again, a different cast of characters answered the critics with a different argument, sounding not unlike this: We had those instruments before yes, but the projection of these qualities of sounds was lacking. Do you know the kind of timbre a marimba has like when you roll a chord at mp? Now you would thanks to amplification. (And yes, corps do play mp in the pit. DO not argue this point because I KNOW this true) I don't bring this up to single either of you out....you both seem sincere in your beliefs, and reasonable in explaining them and acknowledging their limitations in the real world. But it occurs to me that we still don't have consensus today on how amplification should be implemented, even among it's proponents. Given that, what are the chances of getting blissful acceptance from all the opponents of amps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I'm all for respecting opinions, but something feels a bit off about what something "is" or "isn't, being defined by individual opinion. N.E. Brigand's comment was spot on really. You're kind of wanting to say that there is NO definition to what drum corps is, and I find that to be way off base. If drum corps loses it's unique defining qualities, then it isn't drum corps anymore, regardless of what you call it. What if we remove every brass and percussion instrument from the field, dress the 150 up in uniforms and have them sing the parts while marching the drill. Still drum corps? I guess based on your "opinion" it IS, as long as at least 1 person is of the opinion that it is. Really all you've done is create a clever little bullet point you can pull out to throw in the face of every "this isn't drum corps" argument that is presented. No, you misunderstand my position and my "opinion". My opinion is to change judging rules so that corps can decide what the definition of drum corp is. If corps feel the definition of drum corps is no-synths, g bugles, and no mics, then let them do that! Whatever is stopping corps from expressing their true expression of what drum corps is should be killed. Cadets have a different definition of what drum corps than say Madison. So, let those corps do what they want. Why are you so worried that drum corps will lose its defining qualities? Frankly, I have confidence that corps will give fans a good variety of "old school" drum corps and modern drum corps if only the rules of judging were changed. What so wrong about that opinion?! And I say there is "no definition" of what drum corps is very lightly. I don't mean it to sound as radical as it does. It just means that corps want to be drum corps. IT is inherent in the activity to stand out among other musical performing groups. NOTHING will change that aspect of drum corps. People love drum corps for whatever reason and those reasons are similar at some common level and frankly I don't think any amount of G bugles, synth, themes, body movement, voice, woodwinds or anything else added to the mix will erode that. I'm just saying that if a corps values of what drum corps is changes that corps should be able to do what it wants. IF you say that drum corps should only be a certain way then I'm sure there are corps out there that share your opinion and will be willing to perform a show that fits your view of what drum corps should be. And each corps will have a right to perform in a way that best fits with what their definition of drum corps is. Again, I'm confident that no matter what a corps does it will not erode the activity in any way. It will not erode what distinguishes drum corps and it will not cause the downfall of drum corps as others may believe. This is why I'm confident that if corps didn't feel obligated to put on a show in a certain way that everyone will get more of what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.