glory Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) ...Dare to be acoustic..dare to be different. Dare to be powerful without cranking the amp to 11..what a concept. Fine. Dare. Do an accoustic show. Win with it. It's allowed. HH PS: Don't give us the Fielder canard for not trying an acoustic show. Jeff Fielder explained in these very forums his "one hand behind the back" comment had been misinterpreted by the anti-amp crowd. He said he wasn't referring to any judging bias as they claimed. Rather, that comment was a reference to rejecting the creative and educational opportunity afforded by amplification, something he didn't want to do. Edited January 31, 2011 by glory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skewerz Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 You're saying an increasingly anachronistic drum corps will be more popular than before? There is no reason to expect that. HH what's your definition of increasingly anachronistic? Before when? Electric hasn't and isn't going to bring in fans...we know that. Electric has driven away fans...we know that. It's pretty much that easy. One person's anachronism is another man's tradition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Pretty much. working so well isn't it? especially when the guys pushing for the changes have admitted, um something isn't working. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Fine. Dare. Do an accoustic show. Win with it. It's allowed. HH PS: Don't give us the Fielder canard for not trying an acoustic show. Jeff Fielder explained in these very forums his "one hand behind the back" comment had been misinterpreted by the anti-amp crowd. He said he wasn't referring to any judging bias as they claimed. Rather, that comment was a reference to rejecting the creative and educational opportunity afforded by amplification, something he didn't want to do. right. from the guy who voted no when it came to amps being allowed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 right. from the guy who voted no when it came to amps being allowed. So? Lots of directors didn't vote yes initially. Some of those voted yes subsequently. The change wasn't coerced. The change reflects a new attitude about the value of electronics. That's what Fielder said on DCP. I know y'all would rather it weren't that way. You'd rather misinterpret "one hand behind the back" as evidence of coercion. But Fielder was explicit on DCP that it wasn't that. He said Cavies switched because they recognized the new possibilities. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 what's your definition of increasingly anachronistic? Before when? Electric hasn't and isn't going to bring in fans...we know that. Electric has driven away fans...we know that. It's pretty much that easy. One person's anachronism is another man's tradition. One person's anachronism is another man's tradition. Absolutely. The problem is the other man. He's the one we're talking about. The guy we want to join drum corps tomorrow - him and his parents and friends we want in the stands. If drum corps can't match the contemporary trend in music and society where electronics are increasingly integrated, it will leave that other man and all his associates behind. It will be an anachronism to them even if it is a tradition to you. We can't afford that. That ultimately will cost more than electronics. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 And let's not forget the unfair and unfavorable drumbeat of legacy fans, many of whom seem to prefer the disappearance of drum corps to seeing it change. That's quite an aspersion you cast there. Frankly, your ludicrous supposition that legacy fans prefer the disappearance of drum corps is moot. Legacy fans have had no choice in the matter. Compared to 1972, 90% of the junior corps activity has disappeared. I can understand if that's not the kind of "change" legacy fans wanted to see. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I didn't say (and dont' believe) that drum corps needs to play contemporary music. What I said is it can't freeze itself in time by not incorporating electronics into the repetoire. Why not? Drum corps has been refusing to incorporate some portion of contemporary musical equipment in their equipment set since the day the words "drum" and "corps" were paired together. We didn't add violins in the '20s....we didn't add saxes in the '30s and '40s....we didn't add amplified vocalists in the '50s....we didn't add guitars in the '60s....we didn't add synths in the '70s....and yet, drum corps had greater interest back then vs. now. Drum corps' biggest problem attraction is the growing gap between its obviously uncontemporary style and the modern music environment. Fixed. Where we saw synthesizers as mysterious new gadgets (expensize ones at that), today's young people grow up with tone-bending power at their PCs, if not their smartphones. Electronics in music, including marching band, are convenient. It's also part of the musical language. Using your hands is convenient, too. Should all soccer players adopt that convenience? We can't take that retrograde step. It would be the ultimate geek move. No matter what insults you hurl, you can't change the fact that the limited instrument set of drum corps is the activity's identifying trait. We would mark ourselves as more irrelevant than ever. Drum corps must be relevant to the thousands of people who each pay thousands of dollars just to be part of it. Interestingly, it seemed just as relevant to them when it didn't have electronics....or more so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 PS: Don't give us the Fielder canard for not trying an acoustic show. Jeff Fielder explained in these very forums his "one hand behind the back" comment had been misinterpreted by the anti-amp crowd. He said he wasn't referring to any judging bias as they claimed. Rather, that comment was a reference to rejecting the creative and educational opportunity afforded by amplification, something he didn't want to do. Citation, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 So? Lots of directors didn't vote yes initially. Some of those voted yes subsequently. The change wasn't coerced. The change reflects a new attitude about the value of electronics. That's what Fielder said on DCP. I know y'all would rather it weren't that way. You'd rather misinterpret "one hand behind the back" as evidence of coercion. But Fielder was explicit on DCP that it wasn't that. He said Cavies switched because they recognized the new possibilities. I don't recall Fiedler posting this either. Citation, link or quote, please. 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.