Michael Boo Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Can you do that in the public schools now? Times sure have changed. The issue isn't in doing it. The issue is in getting caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 What astonishes me to no end, and is something I will never understand, is why individuals like Mike D who clearly prefer to have no distinguishable difference between drum corps and marching band, are incapable of simply enjoying marching band in its numerous available venues. But no. You would rather spend your time immersing yourself in an activity that you clearly don't care for given that it is evidently "missing" something. Oh well, when it comes down to it I'm really not of the camp the believes woodwinds will ever be allowed. There continues to be almost no support for it, and the overwhelming opinion of those who matter, ie. the voters, is that drum corps should continue to exist without woodwinds. Hope you're able to squeeze some bit of enjoyment out of the sub par activity that is drum corps Mike, but don't put TOO much effort into it. BOA is waiting. With all do respect, I believe your line of thinking is backwards. To be honest, I felt EXACTLY the same as you did a decade ago (if you do a search around here you'll likely find posts from me from years ago that were along the same lines of reason as above). But I've come to the conclusion that the above line of reasoning ("if you like marching band why don't you stop trying to mess with drum corps") is wrong. I think that for the most part Mike D. (and myself, and others) are more interested in what the individual corps want to do. I marched when brass was G, pits were acoustic, and there was no narration and rarely voice heard. But corps have decided that they want to incorporate any key brass, pit amplification, synthesized electronics, and who-knows-what-else in the future. If I were to make the argument (similar to what you voice above) that "drum corps = g-keyed 'bugles,' no synths or voice, and acoustic pit: what can't they leave it alone" then I am wrong since drum corps DO use those things. I think that Mike D (and I might be wrong) wants corps to be free to do whatever they want. There is a reason why some people direct, design, and teach drum corps (let alone the few upper echelon who steer the activity via execution and design trends) while the rest of us on here sit in the stands and watch. Those folks on the other side of the activity who design know what they feel is best for the activity, and there have been numerous standard-bearing show designs throughout the history/evolution of the activity: with G, Bb, acoustic, electronic, etc. They do great things given the 'boundaries' they have to work around, and I'm of the mindset that no matter what rules there are we will continue to see great shows. The corps dictate the rules: we just live in their world. While I used to find fault and criticism in things I hated regarding change (going to any key REALLY bugged me for awhile, and mic'ing pits annoyed me at first as well). But I realized that was what drum corps is now and came to the resolve that it will continue to change. Drum corps and band have been a VERY grey/blurred line for a long time now, and there are marching bands out there that better uphold the original 'mold' of a drum/bugle corps than any corps since the early 70's. What I think of as drum corps is different than what you might think of as drum corps, which is RADICALLY different from what generations previous to yours thinks of drum corps. You pigeonholing the activity in a finite definition of instrumentation is a slippery slope (and fairly illogical given the radical progression of instrumentation over the years), especially when the activity changes at the hands of corps directors, designers, and staff members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I thought that word died a long time ago!! We can only hope. Besides, this is the internet: home to hyperbole of epic and life-altering proportions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I wonder: which use of amplification and electronics in drum corps would Hopkins point to as being aimed at this younger "MTV" audience? Anything by the Cadets? Maybe the "drum speak" in 2005, but certainly not Bjork, who appeals to a very small niche of the pop music audience. Not Jefferson Airplance, for sure. The narration in 2007 was like a lame after-school special, and that of 2008 like the worst NPR talk show ever. West Side Story is a high-school staple, to be sure, but I'd call it timeless, not juvenile. And everyone over the age of five agreed that Little Geoffrey was embarrassing -- even the Cadets' own post-season promotional video never showed him in close-up on the field. (But on high camera and CD the 2010 show is quite nice -- just not aimed at a youth market.) Cavaliers 2010 was definitely geared toward the younger audience in my opinion. Especially with all the electronics that were in it. So other corps are probably doing a better job of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Who turned my drum corps into "art"? Art is boring. Drum Corps has always been art... the performing arts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 With all do respect, I believe your line of thinking is backwards. To be honest, I felt EXACTLY the same as you did a decade ago (if you do a search around here you'll likely find posts from me from years ago that were along the same lines of reason as above). But I've come to the conclusion that the above line of reasoning ("if you like marching band why don't you stop trying to mess with drum corps") is wrong. I think that for the most part Mike D. (and myself, and others) are more interested in what the individual corps want to do. I marched when brass was G, pits were acoustic, and there was no narration and rarely voice heard. But corps have decided that they want to incorporate any key brass, pit amplification, synthesized electronics, and who-knows-what-else in the future. If I were to make the argument (similar to what you voice above) that "drum corps = g-keyed 'bugles,' no synths or voice, and acoustic pit: what can't they leave it alone" then I am wrong since drum corps DO use those things. I think that Mike D (and I might be wrong) wants corps to be free to do whatever they want. There is a reason why some people direct, design, and teach drum corps (let alone the few upper echelon who steer the activity via execution and design trends) while the rest of us on here sit in the stands and watch. Those folks on the other side of the activity who design know what they feel is best for the activity, and there have been numerous standard-bearing show designs throughout the history/evolution of the activity: with G, Bb, acoustic, electronic, etc. They do great things given the 'boundaries' they have to work around, and I'm of the mindset that no matter what rules there are we will continue to see great shows. The corps dictate the rules: we just live in their world. While I used to find fault and criticism in things I hated regarding change (going to any key REALLY bugged me for awhile, and mic'ing pits annoyed me at first as well). But I realized that was what drum corps is now and came to the resolve that it will continue to change. Drum corps and band have been a VERY grey/blurred line for a long time now, and there are marching bands out there that better uphold the original 'mold' of a drum/bugle corps than any corps since the early 70's. What I think of as drum corps is different than what you might think of as drum corps, which is RADICALLY different from what generations previous to yours thinks of drum corps. You pigeonholing the activity in a finite definition of instrumentation is a slippery slope (and fairly illogical given the radical progression of instrumentation over the years), especially when the activity changes at the hands of corps directors, designers, and staff members. You missed my point by such a huge margin that it didn't even register on your radar. Let's try again. My point is NOT "how should drum corps be defined." It is much more simple than that ever raging debate. My point IS, why change something so that it turns into another thing that already exists. DCP seems to love analogies, so here you go. It's like taking a fruit basket with apples and oranges in it, removing the oranges and replacing them with apples. Why? Well because you prefer apples, and more of what you like is better, right? Even though there were already plenty of apples to enjoy. Guess what, that's fine right up until you talk to the folks who really like the oranges and don't want to see them eliminated because YOU prefer apples. I don't know how else to put it. I have never ever ever ever ever heard a competent argument in support of eliminating one art form to create more of another art form that already exists. It always boils down to some skewed argument about who makes the decisions and who defines drum corps etc... So, answer the question on it's face if you will. Why should one art form be eliminated in favor of expanding another art form already in existence. Here's another one. If you love marching band so much, why not simply watch marching band. It would be like my going on to MBP and lobbying that all marching bands should eliminate woodwinds because I prefer the sound of them without. What the pro woodwind crowd refuses to admit is that they are changing one activity into another if they get their way. It's as if they already see no difference between marching band and drum corps, and thus are unaffected by the idea of two separate entities and one being changed into the other. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skewerz Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Drum Corps has always been art... the performing arts. it quit being art the moment it started being judged and places were awarded. No one has the skill to judge art. Those thinking certain aspects of an art are less impressive than others are really being shallow minded, or they just aren't intelligent enough to grasp it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 it quit being art the moment it started being judged and places were awarded. No one has the skill to judge art. Those thinking certain aspects of an art are less impressive than others are really being shallow minded, or they just aren't intelligent enough to grasp it... ...or failed an art class, lost an auction bid, had an article to an art magazine rejected, wasn't able to sell a painting, or who's art generally just kinda sucks. Art is easily judged and critiqued every single day, and has been since the dawn of man. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 ...or failed an art class, lost an auction bid, had an article to an art magazine rejected, wasn't able to sell a painting, or whose art generally just kinda sucks. Art is easily judged and critiqued every single day, and has been since the dawn of man. Like that hack, Vincent Van Gogh. (I do agree with your general point, except for the "easily".) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 ...or failed an art class, lost an auction bid, had an article to an art magazine rejected, wasn't able to sell a painting, or who's art generally just kinda sucks. Art is easily judged and critiqued every single day, and has been since the dawn of man. Sure people go to art exhibits and see variety of art, usually from one person if it's a "show" or a bunch of people if it's a museum setting or larger gallery or what have you. However, when was the last time you heard of a number of experts getting together to critique numerous artworks and then assign scores and placements. Conversely,in drum corps, when was the last time the design team marched on to the field to get their score. Painters don't have 150 assistants ready to apply paint to canvas in their best attempt to convey the "artists" conception. Art is not a competitive activity, and in general is a terible way in which to discuss drum corps. "Art" is the ultimate in subjective. I can #### on a goat and call it art, according to how art is "defined". Art exists in the eye of the beholder, and quite frankly if everything is art, then nothing is art. 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.