MikeD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 No, they added them because they weren't going to get a better score because someone THOUGHT it was better putting points on a paper. Just as Bb horn lines were given the nod as well OR if you aren't marching 155 people OR if you aren't using such and such equipment it goes on and on like a business bad dream. Just like someone thought it was better to add the contra, or thought it was better to add the mellophone, or thought it was better to add valves, or thought it was better to allow corps to start their show somewhere other than the endzone, or thought it was better to allow a corps to end their show somewhere other than the other endzone...on and on and on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Just like someone thought it was better to add the contra, or thought it was better to add the mellophone, or thought it was better to add valves, or thought it was better to allow corps to start their show somewhere other than the endzone, or thought it was better to allow a corps to end their show somewhere other than the other endzone...on and on and on. Difference being no one was penalized for not having it or doing it. Really that the best you have as a rebuttal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) As to "wiping out" corps by passing amps...I have never seen one mention of a corps that folded just because they had to add an amp. A corps that could not afford to add them, yet did so anyway, had far larger financial issues than the small cost of amps. Please provide us with a list of a "substantial number" of corps that were "wiped out" only due to amps. You could take any isolated cost and make the same case. For instance: "As to "wiping out" corps by rising fuel costs...I have never seen one mention of a corps that folded just because they had to buy fuel. A corps that could not afford to buy fuel, yet did so anyway, had far larger financial issues than the small increase in fuel price. Please provide us with a list of a "substantial number" of corps that were "wiped out" only due to fuel costs." The larger point is the contention that overall costs are a problem. Hundreds of corps have folded citing inability to meet those overall costs. Each component cost is a contributor to the overall problem. (Edited because strikethrough is currently not working. Mods, any insight on that?) Edited January 7, 2014 by cixelsyd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Difference being no one was penalized for not having it or doing it. Really that the best you have as a rebuttal? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Just like someone thought it was better to add the contra, or thought it was better to add the mellophone, or thought it was better to add valves, or thought it was better to allow corps to start their show somewhere other than the endzone, or thought it was better to allow a corps to end their show somewhere other than the other endzone...on and on and on. And when "someone" = "the judging community", the change is not just an "option". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 You could take any isolated cost and make the same case. For instance: "As to "wiping out" corps by rising fuel costs...I have never seen one mention of a corps that folded just because they had to buy fuel. A corps that could not afford to buy fuel, yet did so anyway, had far larger financial issues than the small increase in fuel price. Please provide us with a list of a "substantial number" of corps that were "wiped out" only due to fuel costs." The larger point is the contention that overall costs are a problem. Hundreds of corps have folded citing inability to meet those overall costs. Each component cost is a contributor to the overall problem. (Edited because strikethrough is currently not working. Mods, any insight on that?) 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. Corps do need to live within their means, absolutely. If one decides to add an electronic setup, maybe they would then have to hold off on replacing the tubas until the next year or so, as one hypothetical example. That sort of decision-making has had to happen in any era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 And when "someone" = "the judging community", the change is not just an "option". 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Miccing the voice did not add anything new that was not already permitted. It just provided the opportunity to better hear what WAS already legal ... vocals. It certainly did not impact the "integrity" of the activity. I think that permitting one human voice to achieve roughly the same volume as the entire un-amplified corps represented a pretty radical change. From an aesthetic viewpoint, it's not been entirely negative (Bluecoats '07, Crown '07, Crown '13 are instances I have enjoyed) but to the degree that there is, or had been, some integral nature of drum corps, this change represented a serious break with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd 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. What I like does not matter. If these changes (or any future ones) are intended to "improve" the judged product, that is fine. Just say so - before, during and after they are proposed and ratified. Do not tell critics that they are "options" or "taste preferences" before passage, and "improvements" after. While you may be technically correct that no one is literally "penalized" for not using certain equipment "improvements", it is clear that not using them reduces your ability to score points the way your peers do - like competing with one arm tied behind your back. The connotation is no different. The more of this bait-and-switch I see, the more I think we should presume that any such change that emerges with approval from the judge/instructor caucus WILL be evaluated as an "improvement" when judges are assigning scores. Lesson learned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand 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. Corps do need to live within their means, absolutely. If one decides to add an electronic setup, maybe they would then have to hold off on replacing the tubas until the next year or so, as one hypothetical example. That sort of decision-making has had to happen in any era. I didn't cite amplification as having specifically caused even one corps to fold, although I don't rule out the possibility. I cited amplification as an example of some corps forcing others to spend money. (And yes, to return briefly to amplification: although it was not described as a requirement in the rules proposal, it obviously quickly became a requirement to have amps or lose points, if the most prominent and successful of amplification's opponents decided they needed to add them during the very first season.) But, hey, that's democracy, and I don't say the process is inherently unfair. All I want is for the well-heeled corps to give a little further thought to the financial concerns of the less fortunate. Maybe a super-majority requirement for rule changes that risk increasing a corps' finances by more than a specific percentage? (Had a two-thirds majority been required for amplification, it wouldn't have passed. On the other hand [some of us are capable at seeing both sides of the arguments, by the way], the cost of amplification perhaps wouldn't have crossed any significant threshold).) Because the corps who manages to break even for years, but just barely, ought not to be punished. They had a plan that worked for drum corps as it then existed, and then found that other corps with more money decided to make drum corps more expensive. It's all well and good to make choices, as you say, but better to make those choices within some stable framework. 1 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.