cixelsyd Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The statement I replied to was this: "The more important point is this: the majority of corps (by a vote of 12-8 in 2003), has at times exercised the power to require the minority of corps to spend more money or face a significant risk of earning lower scores. (And through this means a slender majority of wealthy corps could wipe out a substantial number, albeit minority, of less-wealthy corps.)" It was a specific mention of the passing of amplification leading to the failure of a 'substantial number' of corps. I think you missed the word I bolded above - that might explain how you and I are reading that statement so differently. Meanwhile, what do you consider a "substantial number"? Since 2003, we have lost 45 corps that I know of. DCI only had 40 left in 2013, so 45 seems substantial to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I think you missed the word I bolded above - that might explain how you and I are reading that statement so differently. Meanwhile, what do you consider a "substantial number"? Since 2003, we have lost 45 corps that I know of. DCI only had 40 left in 2013, so 45 seems substantial to me. You attribute that to passing of multi-key and A&E. I do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Do you want judges to assign scores based on things that are not part of their sheet and evaluation criteria? Now that is a radical idea. Please explain it further, please. I prefer that judges assign scores based only on the elements of their sheet, but maybe you have a new and potentially better idea. Where do you get that question from? You described how amplification, and the variety of mallet selection it facilitates, result in improved sound. Music judges then evaluate this improved sound, and therefore award it higher scores. Anything there that you disagree with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 You attribute that to passing of multi-key and A&E. I do not. I did not attribute it to anything. Of course, one of our most knowledgeable corps leaders is voicing concern about the high cost of operating a corps, even at a startup level. Should I disregard his concern? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I did not attribute it to anything. Of course, one of our most knowledgeable corps leaders is voicing concern about the high cost of operating a corps, even at a startup level. Should I disregard his concern? I have no doubt that running a corps, be it Open or World Class, is expensive. I don't think I have claimed otherwise. Corps absolutely have to live within their means. if output > input, that corps is not going to be around for very long. Does that mean that A&E and multi-key were bad ideas? Not IMO. Does it mean that corps have to prioritize their expenditures in ALL areas to fit what they can afford to do? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Where do you get that question from? You described how amplification, and the variety of mallet selection it facilitates, result in improved sound. Music judges then evaluate this improved sound, and therefore award it higher scores. Anything there that you disagree with? Well, you did say the...how else would they judge a performance if not on teh above? And when "someone" = "the judging community", the change is not just an "option". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 When it comes to adding new gizmos in drum corps, in practice "optional" = "required". 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Nobody is "penalized" for deciding not to use amps or electronics. It is indeed the answer. Those elements I noted, among many others, improved the drum corps activity, just like A&E. You don't like it? Fine. There was a letter to the editor of drum corps news complaining about how adding the contra turned drum corps into a band. My dad always missed the old off-the-lines and exits. well...really? if you sound better per the judges with amps, and you don't have them...then yes, in a sense you are penalized. so if you want that better score and sound...you have to buy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 When it comes to adding new gizmos in drum corps, in practice "optional" = "required". The new "No Drum Corps Left Behind" standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 well...really? if you sound better per the judges with amps, and you don't have them...then yes, in a sense you are penalized. so if you want that better score and sound...you have to buy them. Corps make choices all the time on what they buy or don't buy, be it horns, snares, tenors, amps, unis, flags, props, etc., based on their own finances. I guess you consider a corps to be penalized if they do not buy new snares when their old ones are no longer top notch? 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.