Rules Congress

[MikeD]

Not... quite... the same.

There are still prolly a few kids there that Mom and Dad make them do it. And yes, it's a problem in NJ when you have several thousand kids in a regional HS in many instances with 30 or less musicians in the band. Many school boards, parents, and local folk think a band is better when it's BIG. Even when it's a big, sloppy, droning 300 piece band with two kids in tiger costumes running around in the formations during the show. Yeah, I've seen it.

It may be "more" like DCA and DCI, but it's still not quite the same. Emphases in scholastic programs also make a difference. Understandably so.

Even with DCA staff working with a High School program, how many students actually gut it out and stick with a DCA unit? Some may be more successful than others, but even DCA is culling less than half a percent of the HS kids into their ranks when you spread out the potential. You end up with the most determined of the determined. It makes for a difference. And I don't mean most talented. The most determined and teachable. Anyone not determined nor teachable is gone by March or April at best.

None of our kids are there because of mom and dad making them...quite the opposite, sad to say. There are band members who want to join MB, but their parents won't let them.

When I say it is like drum corps, I only mean in the sense that all of our kids want to be there. Beyond that, of course not.

[MikeD]

Do you think there's any danger that if this happened, either:

(1) Because many organizations wouldn't want the logistical challenges of dealing with larger numbers, you'd have a division with just two or three corps, which by definition means the same corps were always medalling?

or

(2) A handful of corps would thus swallow up all of the members, putting the corps in the limited-size division out of business, or forcing them to be really small? Atlanta CV goes unlimited, pulls lots of members from Alliance, who either fold or can field nothing larger than a minicorps, for example?

No idea if there would be a danger of it happening, though to me it would be a good thing, not a danger. It would be a way to add a full complement of WW without impacting the brass all that much.

As to your second example...IMO it is up to an organization...any organization...to create an environment to attract and maintain their membership. If CV ends up with lots of members from Alliance, to continue your example, my question would be "What did Alliance do that caused a lot of members to want to leave?"

[MikeD]

OK. Thanks very much for that reply.

So a question for anyone:

Do we think that DCI judges are following your lead as regards synthesizers? If a corps doesn't have any synthesizers, they'll be judged based on the instrumentation that they do have? Or have judges told corps that they need synthesizers?

And what about amplified pit percussion? The Cavaliers had a great pit sound in the early 2000s, and they voted against allowing amplification, and when that rule change passed, their director said that they didn't need amplification and wouldn't be using it. But then partway through the 2004 season, they changed their mind. Were the judges telling them they had to have it? Have judges been doing so since? Or when a corps, like Legends this year, opts not to amplify the pit, are the judges accepting that this can be an appropriate musical choice?

And how have (for amplification) and will (for electronics) the judges in DCA behave(d) in this regard?

Amplified pits permit a group to not only utilize better technique, but also mallet selections that produce a more characteristic sound. So while the Cavies had a great pit sound in terms of pre-amp days, what was their 2004 sound quality as compared to the corps that were able to utilize those improvements?

As to what DCI judges do...or DCA will do...I have no window into that.

[N.E. Brigand]

Really. They synthesizer is not the driving force in attracting younger members. Many younger members join to enhance their pre-existing band experience. Many students come from very competitive marching bands that utilize many different instruments including synths. Synthesizers do not necessarily make an ensemble good or bad. How that synth is used does make a determination as to whether it is. .... The synth is just another tool that can be used to enhance a show. If you believe that is setting the standards to match the student's tastes you are entitled to that opinion, however, I can say that it comes more from the design team's tastes and standards. Since most design teams are filled with professional educators who utilize this technology with their own programs I would say that it comes from what we know works. As far as band directors telling students that a musical ensemble must have a synth to be good, I can only speak from my own experiences as an educator and an adjudicator and state that when used in a well thought out way the synth can be an effective tool. When not used well it can be a detriment.

I didn't say that corps needed synthesizer to attract members, or that corps who choose to use a synthesizer for aesthetic reasons would be letting students set the standards.

I asked why synths were needed in drum corps, and I was told, in this thread, that it was because kids expect marching bands and corps to have synthesizers--in which case, yes, changing corps to match what kids expect (instead of leading kids and helping their tastes to grow) really would be letting them set the standards. If kids are really saying, as others have told me, "I will only march a corps that has a synthesizer, because all the cool bands have synthesizers, and therefore you need to have a synthesizer to be cool", then that's very sad. But you apparently disagree with the people who said that to me (again, in this thread). That's great. You think that synths can be a valuable tool, but not a requirement. I hope that's how they are treated in DCA. I hope that a corps who decides not to use a synthesizer isn't told they should have one. May I assume you agree with me?

[posaun1]

I didn't say that corps needed synthesizer to attract members, or that corps who choose to use a synthesizer for aesthetic reasons would be letting students set the standards.

I asked why synths were needed in drum corps, and I was told, in this thread, that it was because kids expect marching bands and corps to have synthesizers--in which case, yes, changing corps to match what kids expect (instead of leading kids and helping their tastes to grow) really would be letting them set the standards. If kids are really saying, as others have told me, "I will only march a corps that has a synthesizer, because all the cool bands have synthesizers, and therefore you need to have a synthesizer to be cool", then that's very sad. But you apparently disagree with the people who said that to me (again, in this thread). That's great. You think that synths can be a valuable tool, but not a requirement. I hope that's how they are treated in DCA. I hope that a corps who decides not to use a synthesizer isn't told they should have one. May I assume you agree with me?

As we discussed in the caucus, the judges are to judge on what they hear. If a corps decides to not utilize this tool that is their decision. Much the same as a corps may choose to use Bb or G instruments. Most have chosen to use Bb. Most corps will choose to use electronics and amplification. Personally I feel that the synth can be used to augment and give new effects to a show. I do not believe that it should be the primary focus of the show. Too much can go wrong when you ask any one performer to be the primary focus of any large portion of a show, just ask Blue Devils 1989. He who lives by the soloist dies by the soloist. I have told my director that we should use it to enhance, but be able to perform the show with just as much effect if it weren't there, that way if there is rain it won't hurt our overall performance by not having it.

[BigW]

There are band members who want to join MB, but their parents won't let them.

When I say it is like drum corps, I only mean in the sense that all of our kids want to be there. Beyond that, of course not.

Yeah, the dreaded "C" word:

Commitment.

Heaven forbid anyone cares deeply about anything in this day and age.

[BigW]

As we discussed in the caucus, the judges are to judge on what they hear. If a corps decides to not utilize this tool that is their decision. Much the same as a corps may choose to use Bb or G instruments. Most have chosen to use Bb. Most corps will choose to use electronics and amplification. Personally I feel that the synth can be used to augment and give new effects to a show. I do not believe that it should be the primary focus of the show. Too much can go wrong when you ask any one performer to be the primary focus of any large portion of a show, just ask Blue Devils 1989. He who lives by the soloist dies by the soloist. I have told my director that we should use it to enhance, but be able to perform the show with just as much effect if it weren't there, that way if there is rain it won't hurt our overall performance by not having it.

POW! Target, cease fire!

Been way too crazy busy of late to really get that kind of thinking down on my end. 51 hour work week last week, looking at 46-47 for this one. I am frazzled.

I believe, thinking about this very thing the point where people seem to get disturbed about electronics/sampling is when they begin to perceive the show is more about those things than the actual musical and visual content of the program. When programs enroach into that realm, and I've seen it happen at the DCI level-- that's when people begin to get uneasy or get out the torches and pitchforks.

If it's integrated into the package and used intelligently and thoughtfully to enhance solid composing in the visual and musical realms- people will like it. When it gets overbearing and the show becomes too centered for too much of the program on narrative, a few actors on a stage, sound samples, things that make one feel the show isn't about the overall mass of performers on the field and their efforts (or lack of!)... then, people get upset.

[GUARDLING]

OK. Thanks very much for that reply.

So a question for anyone:

Do we think that DCI judges are following your lead as regards synthesizers? If a corps doesn't have any synthesizers, they'll be judged based on the instrumentation that they do have? Or have judges told corps that they need synthesizers?

And what about amplified pit percussion? The Cavaliers had a great pit sound in the early 2000s, and they voted against allowing amplification, and when that rule change passed, their director said that they didn't need amplification and wouldn't be using it. But then partway through the 2004 season, they changed their mind. Were the judges telling them they had to have it? Have judges been doing so since? Or when a corps, like Legends this year, opts not to amplify the pit, are the judges accepting that this can be an appropriate musical choice?

And how have (for amplification) and will (for electronics) the judges in DCA behave(d) in this regard?

AS others said. My experience has been Judges only judge what is presented to them.

[N.E. Brigand]

As we discussed in the caucus, the judges are to judge on what they hear. If a corps decides to not utilize this tool that is their decision. ...

Great. Thanks much for the insight into what the instructors are thinking, that most of us are not privy to.

[N.E. Brigand]

Amplified pits permit a group to not only utilize better technique, but also mallet selections that produce a more characteristic sound. So while the Cavies had a great pit sound in terms of pre-amp days, what was their 2004 sound quality as compared to the corps that were able to utilize those improvements?

I continue to find this line of reasoning deeply flawed--because what you mean is "more characterisic" of how mallet instruments sound when used indoors, not "more characteristic" of how they had sounded for decades outdoors, which is to say, it's a subjective choice to prefer the first sound to the second sound--but there's no point in drawing it out any further now.