Mello Dude Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 For accuracy I have spent time looking up definitions of the word Sport on Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary, The Free Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, etc.. And every entry, every permutation, contradicts your contention. Sport, according to all of these definitions, can range from being a scored athletic event, either subjectively scored or objectively scored, which is regulated by rules (such as Figure Skating, Football, Cheerleading, Baseball) to being a leisure activity (such as a Sports-Fisherman who catches and releases fish); just sayin’. But art sometimes delves into the realm of competition. And if that art competition, whether subjectively scored or not, contains a form of athleticism, especially with the high form of competitive athleticism found within DCI, it by all definitions, again by all definitions thus becomes, wait for it…., a ‘Sport’!!! Or are you going to argue with Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford, et al? They already do when it comes to the definition of what a band is and how instrumentation affects that name. But, what are words right? They only mean what we think they mean to us..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frachel Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I don't understand your perspective. It certainly would be impressive if someone was learning trumpet at the cadets and then ended up performing at the cadets final performance. However, this does not happen. To me it seems like your creating a fantasy scenario that would pail in comparison to anything that could actually happen in reality. Sure if I saw a toddler march 6/5 in a blue devils show it would be more impressive than a college drum corps athlete doing the same thing... but are those kind of fantasy comparison really necessary? A person who had no experience who was learning trumpet fingerings for the first time at a Cadets camp would not be able to achieve what the Cadets achieve in a single year from scratch. The cadets achieve what they achieve because they are college-age music majors and what they achieve is impressive and its impressiveness cannot be diminished by fantasy scenarios of someone less talented/fortunate achieving the same thing... because that is a fantasy. Saying that the cadets would be more impressive if they were all young kids all learning instruments for the first time is like saying trees would be more impressive if they grew money. I did say "back when I marched". There most certainly was more than one soprano in '87 that was learning the instrument during the camp months and writing in fingerings and practicing a heck of a lot to learn the instument. Knowing that, the '87 show is more impressive to me than recent shows full of soon-to-be-professional musicians. Don't mistake that for not liking or appreciating what's going on out there on the field though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 and I marched before you but have continually taught and many who I marched with love and admire whats being done today and cant believe what these kids do compared to what we did. So I by no means are saying that what you observe is wrong BUT we all tend to gravitate to those of the same opinions....I like to think I dont but maybe I do also maybe. But back on topic NO I dont think we may ever see the die hards like we did in the past and that's the scary thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) and that's the scary thing. it wasnt hard to figure out or understand . It was easy to see way back in the 90s that as the type of member joing corps was going to change things forever. Things and reasons kids join now are very different so what wouldnt outcomes and longevity be different.....................its like some say you take the same paths and expect a different out come doesnt work , same goes for taking different paths and expecting things to be the same...just doesnt work different doesnt have to mean bad either..it just means different Edited February 28, 2014 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 They already do when it comes to the definition of what a band is and how instrumentation affects that name. But, what are words right? They only mean what we think they mean to us..... Welcome to the brave new world where 'Perception is Reality based on Narcissism'. So, in the world of today I am supposed to define words based on what ‘I’ want them to mean? Well then, Dictionaries… throw them in the fire!!! Teaching syntax and language skills to the youth only limits their creativity!!! With that in mind here is a tribute to those who maintain words do not need to have common meaning and common definition: “Me mama dogface banana patch! Yellow four touch fluffy be bookcase! Television!!!!” 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 it wasnt hard to figure out or understand . It was easy to see way back in the 90s that as the type of member joing corps was going to change things forever. Things and reasons kids join now are very different so what wouldnt outcomes and longevity be different.....................its like some say you take the same paths and expect a different out come doesnt work , same goes for taking different paths and expecting things to be the same...just doesnt work different doesnt have to mean bad either..it just means different You misunderstood; it’s that you have continually taught which was the ‘scary thing’! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) I did say "back when I marched". There most certainly was more than one soprano in '87 that was learning the instrument during the camp months and writing in fingerings and practicing a heck of a lot to learn the instument. Knowing that, the '87 show is more impressive to me than recent shows full of soon-to-be-professional musicians. Don't mistake that for not liking or appreciating what's going on out there on the field though. I'm not. I just think that you are really overestimating the talent that is coming into these corps and underestimating how much they are actually learning. Maybe they aren't learning how to play their instrument but they are learning FAR MORE ADVANCED approaches than simply what valves to hold down. Why do you not find that equally if not more impressive? Why is it only more impressive for you if someone begins a new instrument than if someone continues to learn even more advanced approaches? Don't you think you are overestimating how challenging it is learn a new instrument? And maybe underestimating how challenging it is to actually perfect and master an instrument? Which is what modern drum corps attempt to do now. I'm just wondering if you find your local school's musical to be more impressive than anything put on Broadway. I mean just in terms of appreciating the full scope of human potential I don't see how the naivety of the performers should factor in to how impressive something is. Especially since the neivety of a performer puts a cap on how impressive they actually can be. Is it impressive when a baby can learn a relatively simple piano tune? In that we are surprised that they actually learned how to play piano. But then, doesn't that "impressiveness" really just come from our underestimation of the potential of children? "Wow, you did more than spit up and poop, you are impressive." But a musician who has practiced for YEARS perfecting the most extravagant piano solo is "less impressive" because "he's a professional musician". That doesn't make any sense. Actually I think that's incredibly backwards. I mean, even if DCI was full of payed performers of any age with a rigorous international audition process their product should be seen as objectively more impressive than a group of novice highschool musicians who manage to learn a drum corps show at a relatively high-level. Those two examples simply can't be at the same level because there is cap for how much on average someone can master in just a single year of drum corps. It takes time be at truly impressive level. However, we should appreciate and certainly be impressed by the work a teacher may do in teaching young kids how to play an instrument. But to say that that process and eventually product of that process is "more impressive" than the work of more experienced musicians who aren't learning their instruments for the first time just boggles my mind. Edited February 28, 2014 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 it wasnt hard to figure out or understand . It was easy to see way back in the 90s that as the type of member joing corps was going to change things forever. Things and reasons kids join now are very different so what wouldnt outcomes and longevity be different.....................its like some say you take the same paths and expect a different out come doesnt work , same goes for taking different paths and expecting things to be the same...just doesnt work different doesnt have to mean bad either..it just means different different isn't bad. I just don't think DCI fully understands what diffewrent will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seen-it-all Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 But art sometimes delves into the realm of competition. And if that art competition, whether subjectively scored or not, contains a form of athleticism, especially with the high form of competitive athleticism found within DCI, it by all definitions, again by all definitions thus becomes, wait for it…., a ‘Sport’!!! I would be more willing to buy that argument if there were any sports out there which delved into the realm of live music performance as one of the essential foundations of its reason for existence. That element alone, to me, separates the hybrid nature of what we're talking about and places it a lot more firmly into the "not a sport" area. And there's nothing wrong with that. I think it's the thing that makes it BETTER than just a sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Welcome to the brave new world where 'Perception is Reality based on Narcissism'. So, in the world of today I am supposed to define words based on what ‘I’ want them to mean? Well then, Dictionaries… throw them in the fire!!! Teaching syntax and language skills to the youth only limits their creativity!!! With that in mind here is a tribute to those who maintain words do not need to have common meaning and common definition: “Me mama dogface banana patch! Yellow four touch fluffy be bookcase! Television!!!!” I absolutely agree with you on this, Stu. Maddening! 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.