kickhaltsforlife Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 The recordings, IMO are extrememly high quality now that they know every year what the acoustic situation is. Last years recordings were great IMO. And they have been pretty good since going into the dome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Well I would argue that if the microphones are placed behind the pit speakers then that isn't accurate to what the audience hears infront of the pit speakers. But they also place microphones directly in front of the speakers, wherever they might be for each corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I watched Cavaliers show without samples and voice overs at MetLife and the show fell so flat it was painful to watch. You can't do that with shows nowadays without severly effecting the overall performance. Show are designed to include those elements, so I doubt they'd want to compete without them. They aren't just "stuff" to those who create the shows. My reactions, if what both of you are saying is true - - That is a design failure. - If these sound clips are really as vital to the show as the music the kids actually perform, then the sound clips should undergo the same rigor as the music arrangements. They should be conceived at the same time the rest of the program is thought up, created at the same time the music is arranged, and rights should be pursued at the same time as permission to arrange and perform the music of the show proper. Times have changed, and designers must change with them. You cannot just take the intellectual property of others on a whim, throw it into your show in late July, and perform it verbatim at DCI contests without the permission of the owner. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 My reactions, if what both of you are saying is true - - That is a design failure. - If these sound clips are really as vital to the show as the music the kids actually perform, then the sound clips should undergo the same rigor as the music arrangements. They should be conceived at the same time the rest of the program is thought up, created at the same time the music is arranged, and rights should be pursued at the same time as permission to arrange and perform the music of the show proper. Times have changed, and designers must change with them. You cannot just take the intellectual property of others on a whim, throw it into your show in late July, and perform it verbatim at DCI contests without the permission of the owner. I think you've got this backwards. Dozens, if not hundreds, of these clips have been used without incident or interruption. At the same time, the music rights have been problematic. Madison's choice of Empire State without full licensing rights is by far the biggest impact on the video recently. Perhaps more important, the issue isn't entirely black and white. It's not that Cadets (or any of us) can't use a Charlie Brown clip on video. The issue is what's Fair Use under the law. DCI's position seems to be that sync licensing is required. That position likely reflects the fact that DCI is responsible for a video that aggregates lots of potential licensiing issues so it therefore takes a conservative approach. Cadets, Cavies, Crown and any other corps that have run into this issue might well see it differently. I'm not part of their discussions, but I wouldn't be surprised if each of them can make a fair Fair Use argument for their own clips. Ironically, I doubt anyone can make such a case for Madison and Empire State where the use of the song more fully surely crossed that invisible Fair Use line. If I recall, there was a similar issue with Phantom a few years back. Someone remind me (or correct me). As I see it, this is a case where drums corps is (interestingly) near the front of the curve in the sense that technology, business and law aren't in proper sync where the arts are concerned. No one should dispute the rights of the copyright holder to receive the commercial benefit of his work. That's not what's at issue here. Drum corps isn't denying the Schultz heirs a single dollar with the clips in dispute. This situation is about process and legalities and nothing more. And this issue will boil up again and again - and not just in drum corps. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) As I see it, this is a case where drums corps is (interestingly) near the front of the curve in the sense that technology, business and law aren't in proper sync where the arts are concerned. The law (aka government) is horribly behind the curve on technological issues due to the Internet age, etc. Work with computer/internet security and the US (and we're not the only ones) are just starting to catch up on what is needed legal wise to protect the country. Great example is the Wiki leaks mess when secrets were released on line and what legally could be done. I could see vid/sound clip usage legal needs falling under the same "Huh.. what.. people can do that" type of umbrella of falling thru the cracks. Difference here is DCI is being careful while others are going to the other extreme. Edited October 9, 2012 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) That's not what's at issue here. Drum corps isn't denying the Schultz heirs a single dollar with the clips in dispute. Is the Schultz family part of this? Many of these clips come from a network TV show which I thought was outside of the family. Doesn't the network own the show where the clips come from? Edited October 9, 2012 by LincolnV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I think you've got this backwards. Dozens, if not hundreds, of these clips have been used without incident or interruption. At the same time, the music rights have been problematic. Thousands of musical selections have been arranged and performed by DCI corps without incident. I may be prone to getting things backwards, but this is not one of those cases. Perhaps more important, the issue isn't entirely black and white. It's not that Cadets (or any of us) can't use a Charlie Brown clip on video. The issue is what's Fair Use under the law. DCI's position seems to be that sync licensing is required. That position likely reflects the fact that DCI is responsible for a video that aggregates lots of potential licensiing issues so it therefore takes a conservative approach. Cadets, Cavies, Crown and any other corps that have run into this issue might well see it differently. I'm not part of their discussions, but I wouldn't be surprised if each of them can make a fair Fair Use argument for their own clips. I do not think it is wise for individual corps to be deviating from DCI licensing policies in that manner. As I see it, this is a case where drums corps is (interestingly) near the front of the curve in the sense that technology, business and law aren't in proper sync where the arts are concerned. No one should dispute the rights of the copyright holder to receive the commercial benefit of his work. That's not what's at issue here. Drum corps isn't denying the Schultz heirs a single dollar with the clips in dispute. This situation is about process and legalities and nothing more. Not exactly. It is also about rights, which are not measured solely in dollars. If they were, the entire world of youth music would have a much easier time of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 But they also place microphones directly in front of the speakers, wherever they might be for each corps. I don't know I've never seen or heard this. But to me listening to the pit some corps are not as loud as others and the pit sounds thin like its being recorded from above the pit and electronics and samples are almost too quiet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Is the Schultz family part of this? Many of these clips come from a network TV show which I thought was outside of the family. Doesn't the network own the show where the clips come from? Good question as CBS has been weird with the broadcast rights on their Christmas specials. Charlie Brown - always shown; Grinch - TBS showed for a while after CBS dropped it: Rudolph - dropped for a few years but no other networks showed it (no idea why). And other Peanuts specials have been hit or miss the past few decades, not to mention if the entire original special (showing parts removed for more commerical time) is to be plugged into a 45 or so minute time slot. As others have said, may not be a dollars issue as much as protecting the music/clips/whatever from being used in a way not wanted by the rights owner. IOW - Peanuts on Dolly Madison cakes and Met Life - yes.... Pigpen as the new Trojan Man - no... Wouldn't be surprised if some rights holders so no to everyone so they won't have to go thru the effort/expense of checking on how their property would be used. Edited October 9, 2012 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Is the Schultz family part of this? Many of these clips come from a network TV show which I thought was outside of the family. Doesn't the network own the show where the clips come from? I don't know. I meant "heirs" in a very broad sense. HH 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.