Jump to content

Should DCI add a Front Ensemble judge?


Recommended Posts

Exactly. Why should corps march at all if they can get the same credit for standing still? Just put everyone in the pit and be done with it. The reason that doesn't happen is because it's understood that marching is central to the artistry of drum corps. Ergo, the pit should not count for as much as the battery. The pit is the seasoning, the spice, the garnish that enhances but should not dominate the dish that is drum corps.

I will continue to disagree. the front ensemble does much more than just support the brass with harmonics or doubling the melody.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The essential nature of drum corps has changed.

Or more precisely, "We / they have changed the essential nature of drum corps." I wonder if those who agreed to ground the pit realized they were changing the essential nature of drum corps -- who in 1980 was privately thinking, "I can't wait for the day that drum corps is no longer understood to be about marching brass and percussion?" -- and I suggest changing it back, or more precisely, not changing it further in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I will continue to disagree: the front ensemble does much than just support the brass with harmonics or doubling the melody.

On those grounds, I guess you must not be opposed to adding woodwinds. which once added would surely become as integral as the pit to drum corps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On those grounds, I guess you must not be opposed to adding woodwinds. which once added would surely become as integral as the pit to drum corps.

quite incorrect. I loathe woodwinds, even in marching band :tounge2:

however, in modern scoring, the front ensemble has become a third voice, one that can carry the melody on their own, and lush depth to the brass score with countermelodic material as well as some harmonics. Now, I'm not all gush about how the electronics are used in most cases, but good Lord man....go listen to Phantom 08. tell me that pit just doubled the hornline. they were basically the string section for the music chosen and my God, what giddiness I get listening to that show! truly without the FE's contributions, that show would not have been the musical home run it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On those grounds, I guess you must not be opposed to adding woodwinds. which once added would surely become as integral as the pit to drum corps.

Alright. Two can play the straw man game. Based on your comments, you probably want us to go back to valveless instruments, strap mounted drums, symmetrical drill, high mark time, the tic system, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright. Two can play the straw man game. Based on your comments, you probably want us to go back to valveless instruments, strap-mounted drums, symmetrical drill, high mark time, the tic system, etc.

Not at all, my good sir! Jeff defended non-marching percussionists in a marching ensemble on the grounds that would apply every bit as well to woodwinds. None of your straw men follow from my arguments. If anything, I'm more open to the addition to woodwinds than 90% of the participants on this forum, as I've said many times before--as long as they aren't miked. I have repeatedly stated a consistent position about what I believe drum corps ought to be: excellence in the form of a marching, acoustic, brass and percussion ensemble. (What's your definition?) In my view, every exception to that definition ought to come with a penalty: no reward without risk. Automatic deductions for every person who spends more than 50% of the show not marching, with additional deductions for every microphone (see my signature!) and especially large deductions for electronic instruments. Woodwinds have always seemed to me like one of the least damaging possible changes, at least in isolation from the other changes, because by themselves they are not likely to be much used, and corps who use unamplified woodwinds, because of volume issues,* will probably lose to corps who don't use them.

*Unless corps bring back shawms. Shawms are loud enough for outdoors. And rauschpfeife. That would be cool.

Edited by N.E. Brigand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all, my good sir! Jeff defended non-marching percussionists in a marching ensemble on the grounds that would apply every bit as well to woodwinds. None of your straw men follow from my arguments. If anything, I'm more open to the addition to woodwinds than 90% of the participants on this forum, as I've said many times before--as long as they aren't miked. I have repeatedly stated a consistent position about what I believe drum corps ought to be: excellence in the form of a marching, acoustic, brass and percussion ensemble. (What's your definition?) In my view, every exception to that definition ought to come with a penalty: no reward without risk. Automatic deductions for every person who spends more than 50% of the show not marching, with additional deductions for every microphone (see my signature!) and especially large deductions for electronic instruments. Woodwinds have always seemed to me like one of the least damaging possible changes, at least in isolation from the other changes, because by themselves they are not likely to be much used, and corps who use unamplified woodwinds, because of volume issues,* will probably lose to corps who don't use them.

*Unless corps bring back shawms. Shawms are loud enough for outdoors. And rauschpfeife. That would be cool.

You can dress it up however you want. Your comment was a straw man. He didn't say anything about woodwinds, nor did he suggest any changes to what drum corps is today. He simply stated the fact that front ensembles do a lot more than what you seem to think they do. You extrapolated a ridiculous opinion from that with no basis in the context of what was actually said. By putting words in his mouth, you created a straw man.

As for your definition of what drum corps should be, you're in a pretty clear minority there. Even if you eliminated the front ensembles, drum corps still wouldn't fit your current definition. Marching has evolved into a modified version of dance. Even the way posture and movement technique has more in common with ballet than it does with the marching techniques of the 70's or 80's.

The fact is, drum corps doesn't fit your definition, and hasn't for a while. One way or another, you're going to have to come to terms with that. Its unlikely to go back. If you truly think that there's no risk involved in front ensembles simply because they don't march, then you clearly don't know much about the demands of that part of the ensemble in terms of listening environments, technique, timbers etc. They often have more difficult and complex music than the rest of the ensemble.

I won't even bother getting into the amplification conversation with you. There's no convincing someone who doesn't agree with the concept of a front ensemble that amplification is the right course, so there's not much point even addressing those concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can dress it up however you want. Your comment was a straw man. He didn't say anything about woodwinds, nor did he suggest any changes to what drum corps is today. He simply stated the fact that front ensembles do a lot more than what you seem to think they do. You extrapolated a ridiculous opinion from that with no basis in the context of what was actually said. By putting words in his mouth, you created a straw man.

Jeff's statement was: I support A because reasons X, Y, Z.

My response was: X, Y, Z are also reasons to support B. Therefore Jeff should support B, but he doesn't, so he's being inconsistent.

That's not a straw man argument. It would only be a straw man argument if I seriously claimed that Jeff actually supported B. (I thought that my "I guess you must support" retort to Jeff was clearly sarcastic, but apparently you didn't read it that way.)

I was long inconsistent myself. I never even heard of drum corps until the late 1980s, so I have always known corps to have pits, and I have enjoyed the music that comes from the pits, and really I don't want to see the pits go away. But when amplification and then electronics were introduced, that seemed wrong, and when I tried to figure out why I felt that way, I realized that any argument I might make against those elements, by pointing to what seemed to me to be the essential nature of drum corps (excellence in the form of a marching,* acoustic, brass and percussion ensemble) would be undercut by arguments that I was being inconsistent, because the pit doesn't move. So I had to give up the pit, i.e., allow that they too should be penalized.

*Good point about moving vs. marching. I'll substitute the former term for the latter from now on. There was a marching vs. choreography thread much discussed here in the past few months, to which I meant but forgot to contribute, to the effect that marching is dance--it's just the best kind of dance for musicians to use.

So how would you define drum corps? Earlier this year, one DCP contributor wrote:

However, the "Essence of Drum Corps" is completely unique, and has LITTLE to do with instrumentation, IMO. The Essence of Drum Corps is in the tour, the competition, the consecutive 16-hr days of move-ins, the constant drive to perfection, the long bus rides, the huge crowds, the impressiveness of loud, the excellence achieved by all. The result of all that changes lives. That is the Essence of Drum Corps.

Maybe that works for you, as well. I'd note, however, that the same poster, nominally open to woodwinds and whatever else comes along, has also indicated that, partly because of electronics, he'd rather listen to horn lines in the lot than the shows on field.

And shawms are still awesome.

Edited by N.E. Brigand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff's statement was: I support A because reasons X, Y, Z.

My response was: X, Y, Z are also reasons to support B. Therefore Jeff should support B, but he doesn't, so he's being inconsistent.

That's not a straw man argument. It would only be a straw man argument if I seriously claimed that Jeff actually supported B. (I thought that my "I guess you must support" retort to Jeff was clearly sarcastic, but apparently you didn't read it that way.)

I was long inconsistent myself. I never even heard of drum corps until the late 1980s, so I have always known corps to have pits, and I have enjoyed the music that comes from the pits, and really I don't want to see the pits go away. But when amplification and then electronics were introduced, that seemed wrong, and when I tried to figure out why I felt that way, I realized that any argument I might make against those elements, by pointing to what seemed to me to be the essential nature of drum corps (excellence in the form of a marching,* acoustic, brass and percussion ensemble) would be undercut by arguments that I was being inconsistent, because the pit doesn't move. So I had to give up the pit, i.e., allow that they too should be penalized.

*Good point about moving vs. marching. I'll substitute the former term for the latter from now on. There was a marching vs. choreography thread much discussed here in the past few months, to which I meant but forgot to contribute, to the effect that marching is dance--it's just the best kind of dance for musicians to use.

So how would you define drum corps? Earlier this year, one DCP contributor wrote:

Maybe that works for you, as well. I'd note, however, that the same poster, nominally open to woodwinds and whatever else comes along, has also indicated that, partly because of electronics, he'd rather listen to horn lines in the lot than the shows on field.

And shawms are still awesome.

Even that is a misrepresentation of what he said. He stated his support for front ensembles in a different post. The post you responded to was a statement of fact, not reasons for his support. Front ensembles do, in fact, do more than what you represent them to do.

Suggesting that one person's opinion on one matter has to be consistent with a completely different matter is pretty absurd. Who's to say that one has to be "consistent" with what they want in drum corps. Its not so black and white. Maybe he does't want woodwinds in drum corps for completely different reasons than those he has for supporting front ensembles. Maybe he thinks woodwind players are ugly. Maybe he doesn't like the sound of clarinets. Again, support for one change in drum corps, doesn't indicate support for all changes to drum corps.

As for a definition of what drum corps should be, its clearly fluid. Drum corps is different now from what it was 30 years ago. In 30 years, it will be different in ways that we may or may not be able to predict. One thing that has been consistent (to use your term) in drum corps is that there is no person on the field who is less important than any other. Everyone is accountable to everyone else, and relies on everyone else on that field to make the product work. Everyone is a part of something bigger than the sum of its parts. So in that respect, your idea of what drum corps is or should be is in pretty direct conflict with a concept that has been part of drum corps for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all, my good sir! Jeff defended non-marching percussionists in a marching ensemble on the grounds that would apply every bit as well to woodwinds. None of your straw men follow from my arguments. If anything, I'm more open to the addition to woodwinds than 90% of the participants on this forum, as I've said many times before--as long as they aren't miked. I have repeatedly stated a consistent position about what I believe drum corps ought to be: excellence in the form of a marching, acoustic, brass and percussion ensemble. (What's your definition?) In my view, every exception to that definition ought to come with a penalty: no reward without risk. Automatic deductions for every person who spends more than 50% of the show not marching, with additional deductions for every microphone (see my signature!) and especially large deductions for electronic instruments. Woodwinds have always seemed to me like one of the least damaging possible changes, at least in isolation from the other changes, because by themselves they are not likely to be much used, and corps who use unamplified woodwinds, because of volume issues,* will probably lose to corps who don't use them.

*Unless corps bring back shawms. Shawms are loud enough for outdoors. And rauschpfeife. That would be cool.

you do realize there is more to demand than just physical as well corect/ You also have environmental demands...listening, and that can change from venue to venue. hell we've seen on here not even all of the domes sound the same ( or excuse me, enclosed stadia with a roof thingie overhead).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...