All animals are equal (but some are more equal than others)

[N.E. Brigand]

Good analysis, N.E. It's important to understand that most of these guys are more than satisfied to do WHATEVER it takes to keep the paycheck coming.

Okay, I've got to jump in on that because I find it offensive... DCI judges, though paid, do NOT judge for the money. If they did, they've be the worst businesspeople in North America. Factor in the travel time it takes them to get to shows, they don't make squat for their efforts. Many of them are available because they are educators on summer break, but they would make more money (with less drag on their time) helping out in landscaping, or as tour guides, or any other number of summer jobs, than they make judging drum corps. Being a drum corps judge takes up WAY more time than just being at the show, requiring travel before and after.

The judges don't judge for the money they make that doesn't cover all the time they put into doing what they do; the judges judge because they enjoy contributing to the drum corps activity and it's the best way they know how.

Just to be clear: I brought up money only because Joe Allison did, when he said that one reason he could not argue against drum corps adding woodwinds was that he earns his living, in part, from various things he does with woodwinds. My response is that there is no absolute reason the one should have to do with the other. As was recently noted in another thread, the primary job of one of DCI's top visual judges is real estate, but we don't see anyone arguing that this means that corps should regularly incorporate, say, surveying motifs into their drill.

[Stu]

If Joe Allison wants to contend that the Madison '88 baritone solo would have been "more idiomatic" with a trombone, and that a high school wind ensemble which played one of the Holst suites with nine bell-front euphoniums and no trombones is "sacrilege", that is of course his right to hold those opinions. But we need to ask him to please be consistent: Unless he desires to be hypocritical, if a drum corps does the Rite of Spring solo on anything other than a bassoon it thus, by his standards, would not be idiomatic; moreover, by his standards, any drum corps which played Barber’s Adagio for Strings on Brass instruments would also be a sacrilege; and that also means that to him any corps which performs any work by Philip Glass out of original context would be an abomination. So, unless he is in line with those constancies, his ‘sacrilege’ and ‘idiomatic’ statements are, well, bunk.

[CCorps]

If Joe Allison wants to contend that the Madison '88 baritone solo would have been "more idiomatic" with a trombone, and that a high school wind ensemble which played one of the Holst suites with nine bell-front euphoniums and no trombones is "sacrilege", that is of course his right to hold those opinions. But we need to ask him to please be consistent: Unless he desires to be hypocritical, if a drum corps does the Rite of Spring solo on anything other than a bassoon it thus, by his standards, would not be idiomatic; moreover, by his standards, any drum corps which played Barber’s Adagio for Strings on Brass instruments would also be a sacrilege; and that also means that to him any corps which performs any work by Philip Glass out of original context would be an abomination. So, unless he is in line with those constancies, his ‘sacrilege’ and ‘idiomatic’ statements are, well, bunk.

Stu-logic I agree with? Good job Stu!

[corpsband]

alright i have to make time to listen to the podcast.

denmark, rotten, etc...

[HockeyDad]

Just to be clear: I brought up money only because Joe Allison did, when he said that one reason he could not argue against drum corps adding woodwinds was that he earns his living, in part, from various things he does with woodwinds.

That says it all. The attitude of "what's in it for me" versus "what can I do for the activity".

[garfield]

alright i have to make time to listen to the podcast.

denmark, rotten, etc...

Me, too. I'll just be certain to not listen after I've eaten.

[cixelsyd]

In the spirit of "anything goes- blank cavas for artistic expression" I'd love to see Daft Punk hit a few DCI shows this summer. They don't use woodwinds or strings (they'd have to give Nile Rogers the night off on guitar duty)

Why? Guitar is legal in DCI, whether electric (Teal Sound) or acoustic (Oregon Crusaders).

[Michael Boo]

You are correct, Michael. I should have been more precise. To me, the term 'paycheck' represents more than just actual cash. A better word would have been 'benefit.' That would also include concerns like power and influence, network associations, etc. I believe similar benefits accrue to corps directors who make decisions in a like environment.

Thank you for the clarification. It clears things up in my mind and I appreciate that.

[corpsband]

Just to be clear: I brought up money only because Joe Allison did, when he said that one reason he could not argue against drum corps adding woodwinds was that he earns his living, in part, from various things he does with woodwinds. My response is that there is no absolute reason the one should have to do with the other. As was recently noted in another thread, the primary job of one of DCI's top visual judges is real estate, but we don't see anyone arguing that this means that corps should regularly incorporate, say, surveying motifs into their drill.

Having listened to the podcast it was clear (to me at least) that Dr. Allison is referring to his real life job (ie a professor of music at EKU ) and had nothing at all to do with his status as ajudicator in DCI or elsewhere.

I think you mischaracterized his point.

[corpsband]

Well, Stu should be amused that Joe Allison defends new drum corps instrumentation on the grounds that "this is marching music's major league". Pay no attention to the judge using the sports metaphor behind the curtain!

Unfounded

He doesn't pursue any sort of sport analogies. The "marching music's major league" is used in the context of DCI being highest level of excellence in marching music.

Joe Allison's argument that Madison '88's baritone solo would have been "more idiomatic" (and thus preferable) if it had been a trombone solo is also an argument in favor of woodwinds. So is Matthew Parunak's argument about experienced college players being told by their instructors that they can only participate in marching band (and presumably drum corps) if they remain on their primary instrument.

Most of the comments in this regard have to do with refuting the idea that MB and DC are somehow different. The most relevant quote is "that ship has sailed". The MB and DC products are essentially identical. They differ mostly in excellence.

Also notice that Allison argues at one point that the possibility of trombones will give drum corps the chance to sound different from one another, in response to the claim, with which he apparently agrees, that too many corps all sound the same, but at another point he hints that corps will soon have to use trombones, because judges will start to expect that extra element. So much for variety!

Greg Basham says at one point in defense of DCI's potential use of French horns that "At least you still buzz your lips on a mouthpiece". This implies that he wouldn't want woodwinds in drum corps. But later he's "offended" that "band" is being used by Tim Hinton as a "dirty word", which suggests that Basham doesn't care if the two activities blend. (Kudos to Hinton, who's generally not very good at defending his position, at this point for at least trying to explain the idea that there ought to be a uniqueness to drum corps. To which Allison immediately sneers, as is his wont throughout the discussion, that he doesn't see much difference between them anymore--which is just Hinton's point! Allison the enabler is apparently incapable of recognizing the irony here.) But then Basham makes his position absolutely clear when he says he'd rather have a drum corps play Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5 with clarinets than mallets. To which one might as well ask, why not strings, then? Why not have the players sit for the entire show like a real orchestra? Why not allow corps to play or the full 50 minutes Shostakovich's piece requires as originally written? After all, as Allison says at one point, DCI and BOA shouldn't be making rules that limit the corps' choices. (But can you really trust someone--a judge no less!--who says that show

designers are "brilliant minds" who "always come through" with shows that "wow" the audience?)

Later Allison completely contradicts himself without realizing it, when first he discusses an occasion where a high school wind ensemble "played one of the Holst suites with nine bell-front euphoniums and no trombones" and he calls that a "sacrilege", despite having said that all instruments should be welcome in drum corps because it's wrong to "limit artistic choices". On what grounds can he possibly claim that it was wrong for that wind ensemble to expand their artistic choices?

Finally, Basham's claim that if a corps like Crown or BD or Cadets thought that it was artistically important to use a woodwind instrument and take a deduction in points, then they would do so is ludicrous. When was the last time a Finalist-caliber corps deliberately risked a penalty for the sake of artistic achievement? Even Boston, a lock for Finals after Prelims but with no shot at a medal by that point, didn't use the baby powder last year after they were penalized for it in Prelims. If it were the case that top corps really would take such risks, then George Hopkins need never have bothered with all his rules proposals through the years! Any corps who wanted to use electronics or amplification or woodwinds before they were permitted would have done so. But who actually used a synthesizer before 2009, because they felt they had to for the sake of their musical selection? (I think they were wrong, as it happens, but never mind that.) The 1985 Boston Crusaders, who finished in 20th place with little chance of moving higher than 19th place no matter whether "Axel F" included a keyboard or not.

Had I only read your summary, I would have concluded that all the MRT panelists are idiots. Having listened to the podcast, they are clearly passionate about the reaction some people have had to the rule change. Taken as whole, each panelist represent their viewpoint pretty clearly (and certainly with a great deal of emotion). I suggest that all DCP readers take the time to listen for yourself and draw your own conclusions.