DCI BOD Drama....more to come?

[GUARDLING]

oh come on, you want to attack me LOL

ok...lol ........Happy Holidays Jeff

Edited December 23, 2013 by GUARDLING

[N.E. Brigand]

And soon thereafter, when informed that a corps w/G-bugles would not win DCI, they rapidly switched to B-flat.

Oh, and not competing without amps, which amounted to competing with an arm tied behind his back.

waiting for the apologists to come in in 3...2....1....

For those who, like me, weren't on these forums or RAMD when all this happened, here's what (I believe) is being obscurely discussed based on reading some previous similar exchanges; corrections welcome:

Jeff Fiedler, representing the Cavaliers, voted against the use of amplification at the time it was passed (as well as, I think, on previous occasions). When asked about the proposal, he specifically said that pit instruments did not need to be amplified -- and the Cavaliers were then (early 2000s) arguably a corps with one of the musical front ensembles -- and that they taught their members the appropriate technique for outdoor mallet instruments, which was different from the appropriate mallet technique for indoor mallet instruments. After the rule change was approved, he indicated that the Cavaliers still would not be using amplification. However, by mid-season (this was 2004) the Cavs' pit was amped and Fielder remarked that not doing so was to compete with "one arm tied behind [the Cavaliers'] back". This remark, whose most reasonable interpretation was that the judges were scoring amped pits higher than unamped pits, caused a minor furor online. Fiedler soon proffered a clarification of his remark that in the eyes of some readers undercut that interpretation.

Anytime Jeff Ream mentions the "arm behind the back" quote, someone (usually MikeD, I think) complains that Jeff is ignoring Fielder's subsequent explanation. I feel like I've seen this exchange about a half dozen times on DCP in the past three years. No one ever quotes Fielder's explanation, or links to the actual text (which I've not been able to find using DCP's search function), or offers an alternative explanation for "arm behind the back" beyond the obvious one. (This is the only serious attempt I've seen to do so, and it fails, since "to help the corps competitively" means "to improve their scores" which means that they weren't getting the scores they wanted with an unamped pit.) Given that lack of explanation, since no one disputes that Fielder made the original remark, Jeff Ream's interpretation should clearly stand as the correct one.

Again, I welcome clarification or correction.

[Daave]

it's more than Hop. The key is the others are smart enough not to be so public about everything, so it makes Hop an easy target.

However, from the letter thats been making the rounds, it seems like the rest of the BOD put a halt to going forward on more of Hops visions, and maybe shared by the other 6, maybe not, that he felt he had to resign from the board.

and I'll ask yet again....do they ever look back to see what maybe they changed but shouldn't have that may make it better?

No, they do not.

sometimes, looking backwards can show you the way forward.

With regard to looking back, letters making the rounds, and such... Was it not about a year ago this time that "the7" letter was put out there that prompted the response from the Troopers Board prior to the Jannuals?

And here we are a year later. Hard to say if anything really changed.

[MikeD]

Could you clarify what you mean by this post? Does it describe the intentions of drum corps directors circa 1963? Are you saying that people in drum corps at that time decided to slowly move the activity toward a stationary front ensemble, use of any key instruments, amplification, and electronics? Or is it just an ex post facto description of what has happened? Has drum corps reached the target yet? Or will people 50 years from now look back at today's drum corps and see it as an early step towards a target then in place? Are woodwinds part of the target you describe?

I certainly can't describe the intentions of directors in 1963, the year before I first joined a drum corps. so yes, a lot of it is looking back at what has transpired since the first valve was added to a horn and the percussion section was enhanced to be more than snares, single tenors, flat bass drums, cymbals and rudi basses. Just run through the changes...they have primarily been to move both brass and percussion closer and closer to the 'legit' band world instrumentation.

As to WW...while that is a step along the way, there is, as far as I know, no drive inside DCI to even consider them. Don't forget, the instructors had wanted A&E for a long time...there is no similar groundswell of support for WW.

[Jeff Ream]

ok...lol ........Happy Holidays Jeff

Ha I knew I'd get a reaction! Happy Holidays to you too!

[Jeff Ream]

For those who, like me, weren't on these forums or RAMD when all this happened, here's what (I believe) is being obscurely discussed based on reading some previous similar exchanges; corrections welcome:

Jeff Fiedler, representing the Cavaliers, voted against the use of amplification at the time it was passed (as well as, I think, on previous occasions). When asked about the proposal, he specifically said that pit instruments did not need to be amplified -- and the Cavaliers were then (early 2000s) arguably a corps with one of the musical front ensembles -- and that they taught their members the appropriate technique for outdoor mallet instruments, which was different from the appropriate mallet technique for indoor mallet instruments. After the rule change was approved, he indicated that the Cavaliers still would not be using amplification. However, by mid-season (this was 2004) the Cavs' pit was amped and Fielder remarked that not doing so was to compete with "one arm tied behind [the Cavaliers'] back". This remark, whose most reasonable interpretation was that the judges were scoring amped pits higher than unamped pits, caused a minor furor online. Fiedler soon proffered a clarification of his remark that in the eyes of some readers undercut that interpretation.

Anytime Jeff Ream mentions the "arm behind the back" quote, someone (usually MikeD, I think) complains that Jeff is ignoring Fielder's subsequent explanation. I feel like I've seen this exchange about a half dozen times on DCP in the past three years. No one ever quotes Fielder's explanation, or links to the actual text (which I've not been able to find using DCP's search function), or offers an alternative explanation for "arm behind the back" beyond the obvious one. (This is the only serious attempt I've seen to do so, and it fails, since "to help the corps competitively" means "to improve their scores" which means that they weren't getting the scores they wanted with an unamped pit.) Given that lack of explanation, since no one disputes that Fielder made the original remark, Jeff Ream's interpretation should clearly stand as the correct one.

Again, I welcome clarification or correction.

he came here AFTER the furor with an "explanation", just as Dan Acheson suddenly came out with a "clarification" after he made remarks that were perceived by many as being negative towards all age/DCA corps.

it was called PR control

[Jeff Ream]

With regard to looking back, letters making the rounds, and such... Was it not about a year ago this time that "the7" letter was put out there that prompted the response from the Troopers Board prior to the Jannuals?

And here we are a year later. Hard to say if anything really changed.

I think some has changed. Then it was supposedly 7 against 15 ( ok 6 against 14 as the Cavies are well known to playing both sides).

However, with 4 of the 7 on the BOD, if Hop is resigning from the BOD, it means that probably..ok...some of of those 4 aren't toally buying his vision

[cixelsyd]

Yeah, for those of us who haven't seen that letter before, it's quite the eye-opener!

Although, presuming all the voting directors read it, they weighed those costs and decided their corps stood to gain more than they'd lose.

Bear in mind that this letter was written in January of 2002. The 2002 proposal was voted down by the corps directors.

[cixelsyd]

For those who, like me, weren't on these forums or RAMD when all this happened, here's what (I believe) is being obscurely discussed based on reading some previous similar exchanges; corrections welcome:

Jeff Fiedler, representing the Cavaliers, voted against the use of amplification at the time it was passed (as well as, I think, on previous occasions). When asked about the proposal, he specifically said that pit instruments did not need to be amplified -- and the Cavaliers were then (early 2000s) arguably a corps with one of the musical front ensembles -- and that they taught their members the appropriate technique for outdoor mallet instruments, which was different from the appropriate mallet technique for indoor mallet instruments. After the rule change was approved, he indicated that the Cavaliers still would not be using amplification. However, by mid-season (this was 2004) the Cavs' pit was amped and Fielder remarked that not doing so was to compete with "one arm tied behind [the Cavaliers'] back". This remark, whose most reasonable interpretation was that the judges were scoring amped pits higher than unamped pits, caused a minor furor online. Fiedler soon proffered a clarification of his remark that in the eyes of some readers undercut that interpretation.

Anytime Jeff Ream mentions the "arm behind the back" quote, someone (usually MikeD, I think) complains that Jeff is ignoring Fielder's subsequent explanation. I feel like I've seen this exchange about a half dozen times on DCP in the past three years. No one ever quotes Fielder's explanation, or links to the actual text (which I've not been able to find using DCP's search function), or offers an alternative explanation for "arm behind the back" beyond the obvious one. (This is the only serious attempt I've seen to do so, and it fails, since "to help the corps competitively" means "to improve their scores" which means that they weren't getting the scores they wanted with an unamped pit.) Given that lack of explanation, since no one disputes that Fielder made the original remark, Jeff Ream's interpretation should clearly stand as the correct one.

Again, I welcome clarification or correction.

Besides just the account you give here concerning amplification, the any-key brass transition made by the Cavaliers was quite odd. The corps had a frustrating 2000 season (IMO) in which their spectacular brass section, using G bugles, was dumped (IMO) into third place in brass performance behind the two Bb/F hornlines at DCI finals. Nevertheless, there were no plans to change as they began preparations for 2001. Then, after several months, they sent a forum message out to their members to bring their band brass instruments to the next camp. Following that came an announcement that the Cavaliers would be using Yamaha Bb/F brass instruments in 2001.

I do not know of any other highly competitive corps making a fundamental change like this in late February or March. The corps had a comparatively weak (IMO) hornline in 2001, and it is entirely possible that rearranging music and adapting to new horns 4 months later than their peers had something to do with that. This made no sense to me... until I heard the rumor that during the annual DCI meetings, in informal communication between judges and staff, Cavalier staffers were told in so many words that there would be no more G hornlines winning DCI.

[camel lips]

For those who, like me, weren't on these forums or RAMD when all this happened, here's what (I believe) is being obscurely discussed based on reading some previous similar exchanges; corrections welcome:

Jeff Fiedler, representing the Cavaliers, voted against the use of amplification at the time it was passed (as well as, I think, on previous occasions). When asked about the proposal, he specifically said that pit instruments did not need to be amplified -- and the Cavaliers were then (early 2000s) arguably a corps with one of the musical front ensembles -- and that they taught their members the appropriate technique for outdoor mallet instruments, which was different from the appropriate mallet technique for indoor mallet instruments. After the rule change was approved, he indicated that the Cavaliers still would not be using amplification. However, by mid-season (this was 2004) the Cavs' pit was amped and Fielder remarked that not doing so was to compete with "one arm tied behind [the Cavaliers'] back". This remark, whose most reasonable interpretation was that the judges were scoring amped pits higher than unamped pits, caused a minor furor online. Fiedler soon proffered a clarification of his remark that in the eyes of some readers undercut that interpretation.

Anytime Jeff Ream mentions the "arm behind the back" quote, someone (usually MikeD, I think) complains that Jeff is ignoring Fielder's subsequent explanation. I feel like I've seen this exchange about a half dozen times on DCP in the past three years. No one ever quotes Fielder's explanation, or links to the actual text (which I've not been able to find using DCP's search function), or offers an alternative explanation for "arm behind the back" beyond the obvious one. (This is the only serious attempt I've seen to do so, and it fails, since "to help the corps competitively" means "to improve their scores" which means that they weren't getting the scores they wanted with an unamped pit.) Given that lack of explanation, since no one disputes that Fielder made the original remark, Jeff Ream's interpretation should clearly stand as the correct one.

Again, I welcome clarification or correction.

Im sure the Arm behind the back thing NEVER came up with Bb horns. NEVER!