Jeff Ream Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Jeff: Check you music history. Aerophons have "not" always been classified as percussion. Those wind instruments were put in the hands of percussion players by composers "before" they were designated as auxiliary percussion, then the conductors had the percussion players perform on those instruments, then the aerophone instruments became accepted as played by percussionists, then and only then was the definition of "auxiliary percussion" coined for those instruments; at that point the shift in the definition of percussion had to change to accommodate the areophones. ok, then ban em if it makes you so happy. I have yet to find anything currently classifying them as woodwinds, so I am ok with their usage in the drum corps arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I understand where your coming from in that people's perceptions come to the fore. Do you think the term " Marching Band " in most people's mind when they hear that, has a positive or a negative perception ( "connotation " ) ? i think it's negative, and it's the music world's fault for allowing the stereotypes to be perpetuated. hell pop culture like American pie and Glee just piled on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Brasso, Charlie, and MikeD: In the United States we have Football, but the foot only touches the ball around 1 percent of the time during an entire game whereas the hands touch the ball around 95 percent of the time; There is nothing Stock anymore in the National Association of Stock Car Racing (NASCAR); yet these names are still applied in a respect to tradition. So why can't the title Drum Corps follow suit as it morphs over time? because to many, the activity is all about change change change...or in many cases morphing into something already there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) ok, then ban em if it makes you so happy. I have yet to find anything currently classifying them as woodwinds, so I am ok with their usage in the drum corps arena. I did not say aerophone "auxiliary" instruments were woodwinds; I said that they were "wind instruments" being classified as percussion which in turn somewhere down the line of history caused a definition change in the term percussion instrument. Moreover, even you have to admit that there was a time, long ago though it may be, in which areophones were thrust upon percussionists by composers and the definition of percussion was therefore forced to change. And since today you, and the three college professors, two who are also drum corps judges, as well as those above them, all accept instruments which produce sound by wind instead of striking as percussion instruments, to be consistent, you must also accept the ever changing definition of a Drum Corps for the same reasons. Otherwise your acceptance of one musical changing definition but not the other creates for you a sort of belief structure dilemma. Also, I am not for banning anything; what I am for is accepting various rules changes as long as the rules do not change mid-season for a competitive organization. If the rules prior to a season "add" something then it is fine with me; if the rules prior to a season "ban" something that is also fine with me. To me we are talking about a competitive art form which needs to have a set of rules yet is open to change according to consensus of a voting body. (We are not talking about a life/death situation here). Now, it is your turn to have fun showing me the errors of "my" ways!!! Edited January 25, 2011 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I did not say aerophone "auxiliary" instruments were woodwinds; I said that they were "wind instruments" being classified as percussion which in turn somewhere down the line of history caused a definition change in the term percussion instrument. Moreover, even you have to admit that there was a time, long ago though it may be, in which areophones were thrust upon percussionists by composers and the definition of percussion was therefore forced to change. And since today you, and the three college professors, two who are also drum corps judges, as well as those above them, all accept instruments which produce sound by wind instead of striking as percussion instruments, to be consistent, you must also accept the ever changing definition of a Drum Corps for the same reasons. Otherwise your acceptance of one musical changing definition but not the other creates for you a sort of belief structure dilemma. Also, I am not for banning anything; what I am for is accepting various rules changes as long as the rules do not change mid-season for a competitive organization. If the rules prior to a season "add" something then it is fine with me; if the rules prior to a season "ban" something that is also fine with me. To me we are talking about a competitive art form which needs to have a set of rules yet is open to change according to consensus of a voting body. (We are not talking about a life/death situation here). Now, it is your turn to have fun showing me the errors of "my" ways!!! please show me where I said a percussion instrument had to be struck? I said, all along, I have always seen them classified as a percussion instrument, and as such, I consider them one. I never got super technical about percussion having to be struck. I have seen percussive sounds being made by people dropping a glass into a bucket. is that technically struck? I have seen piano strings plucked, not played via the keys, yet I considered that percussion. and, if rules changes DETRACT from the product, why should we have to just bow down and accept them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlassmenBtone Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 any woodwind player that joins a drum corps that is willing to march them is a traitor and disrespects brass players who march everywhere who marched before them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 I cringe at the notion of woodwinds in drum corps, but saying the potential ww marching member is responsible through action to hold DCI to its traditions is absurd. That is the responsibility of DCI, and if they ever vote to allow marching ww you sure as #### can't blame ww players for auditioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 i think it's negative, and it's the music world's fault for allowing the stereotypes to be perpetuated. hell pop culture like American pie and Glee just piled on True, sad but true. But I wonder, do stereotypes change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 any woodwind player that joins a drum corps that is willing to march them is a traitor and disrespects brass players who march everywhere who marched before them. GASP! You instrument-icst! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I cringe at the notion of woodwinds in drum corps, but saying the potential ww marching member is responsible through action to hold DCI to its traditions is absurd. That is the responsibility of DCI, and if they ever vote to allow marching ww you sure as #### can't blame ww players for auditioning. 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.