Marching member costs concerns

[HornTeacher]

Actually, getting credit for an "elective" device or prop that does nothing toward the education of the students is rather misguided and short sighted. MORE credit should be given for those that do more with less, not the other way around. Simply throwing money around to get a higher score kind of defeats the whole premise of what is trying to be achieved. Marching Band (drum corps) is not the be all and end all of music education and IN FACT IMHO is not translated well into the real world. Personally, I would LOVE to see local circuits back to help the kids that really need it the most but frankly there needs to be a need large enough to support it. Couple that with the snobs that can't taint their ears to beginner level music and performance and half the people that visit these forums wouldn't support it anyways.

Personally, I find a great amount of truth to some of the points in this post. Politically-correct? To some, probably not. But correct? To my eyes...most certainly yes.

Edited January 1, 2015 by HornTeacher

[actucker]

Ok, let me just stop everyone here. Bands at the top of the game are not winning because of their props. I challenge any of you to find a BOA finalist (or semi-finalist) that isn't playing and moving at an incredibly high level. I'd challenge you to do the same at US Bands. Nobody is buying a championship, any more than they are in DCI or WGI. I'd submit that the reason you see professional looking props at that level is because the same groups that have that level of budget are also the groups that have the budget for high level instruction and equipment. In my experience, more than anything, it is that investment that separates bands competitively.

[Mello Dude]

I disagree. Lets do a hypothetical. Two bands march the SAME show, and do it just as well as the other BUT one has a MUCH larger budget than the other school thus has for lack of a better word "props". Who do you think is going to get the nod? Ideally it SHOULD be a tie, but realistically I think we know the answer to this question. I would also point out that "props" hide a LOT of dirt and/or can be used as a crutch or to make things exceedingly easier for the group using them (I would suggest looking at BD 2010 for a reference). We have already established on these forums that simply having a better sound system scores you better or even the difference in equipment. It should NOT make a difference but it always seems to.

[GUARDLING]

I disagree. Lets do a hypothetical. Two bands march the SAME show, and do it just as well as the other BUT one has a MUCH larger budget than the other school thus has for lack of a better word "props". Who do you think is going to get the nod? Ideally it SHOULD be a tie, but realistically I think we know the answer to this question. I would also point out that "props" hide a LOT of dirt and/or can be used as a crutch or to make things exceedingly easier for the group using them (I would suggest looking at BD 2010 for a reference). We have already established on these forums that simply having a better sound system scores you better or even the difference in equipment. It should NOT make a difference but it always seems to.

why would it be a tie if one band visually stimulated by whatever means, or presented a more complete visual package. You also think props hide dirt , well they also create more dirt and there tons of examples of that. You are looking ( or it seems ) at only 1 aspect of the total package. You are judged by what you present, musically as well as visually. JMO

Edited January 1, 2015 by GUARDLING

[actucker]

I disagree. Lets do a hypothetical. Two bands march the SAME show, and do it just as well as the other BUT one has a MUCH larger budget than the other school thus has for lack of a better word "props". Who do you think is going to get the nod? Ideally it SHOULD be a tie, but realistically I think we know the answer to this question. I would also point out that "props" hide a LOT of dirt and/or can be used as a crutch or to make things exceedingly easier for the group using them (I would suggest looking at BD 2010 for a reference). We have already established on these forums that simply having a better sound system scores you better or even the difference in equipment. It should NOT make a difference but it always seems to.

You could argue just about anything in the hypothetical, but in actual reality, the bands with the budget for excellent props also have more budget available for instruction and equipment. I've seen plenty of bands do extremely well with no props simply by playing and moving better than the other groups.

As for your sound system argument, how is it any different from one group having marimbas that are in tune where another does not. Tubas that are in good shape sound better than those with leaky valves or large dents. Fresh drum heads sound better than old dead ones. A sound system falls into the same conversation.

Props hide dirt? So do black pants. So does taking one kid off of a part who has difficult drill. So does tuning snare drums low and wet. The list goes on. As for your dig at Blue Devils, there were plenty of things they were clearly doing much better than anyone else that season, hence the championship they won. Pretty sure they didn't win music because of props. Props can also create dirt and composition issues. Just look at Cadets 2013. The logistics of those props were borderline impossible and they suffered for it. Anything you put on the field has the potential to both help you and hurt you.

Hiding weaknesses and exposing strengths has been the name of the game for a very very long time. That's what competition is.

I'd say again, find me a BOA or US Bands finalist that doesn't play and move incredibly well.

[DCI232323]

The cost of most summer music camps is double what marching drum corps costs and doesn't last as long.

Edited June 23, 2015 by kmkord

[corpsband]

I'd say again, find me a BOA or US Bands finalist that doesn't play and move incredibly well.

Twice asked -- never answered. The poster just wants drum corps / marching band to reflect the activity when they marched and/or became a fan. The rest of the message is IMO just a pot full of red herring.

[Mello Dude]

Guardling you are assuming just because they have "props" they have a more complete package and THAT is the problem.

[Mello Dude]

atucker, it wasn't a "dig" at BD it was a very astute observation of their show design. A VERY smart show that didn't have the visual demand of the other top 10..at all, but that is another topic. So lets go the reverse on this and say that both units sound the same BUT the other band has for lack of a better term "inferior" equipment. Does this now afford them a better score because of the inherent difficulty they have? We have heard ENDLESS rants here on this forum on "DyNasty" etc. You also make the assumption that the band that pays more for instruction is getting better instruction, does this also jade the resulting scores? I am of course talking about reality here and not just hypothetical. This is where I think DCI simply has issues in judging. I mean there is NO way (in the real world) a crappy Float drum line (if one were to exist) will lose to a better (unknown) Joe Blow line.

Back to the topic, sorry for the drifting. As I was saying before drum corps is not the real world of music. You don't warm up for hours on end and practice the same 8 minutes of music for a 1000+ hours perfecting it. That being said it's a hell of an experience if you can afford to do it. You will be in the best shape in your life after the year is over and have friendships that will last a lifetime. But is it required to go into music, not in the least.

[actucker]

atucker, it wasn't a "dig" at BD it was a very astute observation of their show design. A VERY smart show that didn't have the visual demand of the other top 10..at all, but that is another topic. So lets go the reverse on this and say that both units sound the same BUT the other band has for lack of a better term "inferior" equipment. Does this now afford them a better score because of the inherent difficulty they have? We have heard ENDLESS rants here on this forum on "DyNasty" etc. You also make the assumption that the band that pays more for instruction is getting better instruction, does this also jade the resulting scores? I am of course talking about reality here and not just hypothetical. This is where I think DCI simply has issues in judging. I mean there is NO way (in the real world) a crappy Float drum line (if one were to exist) will lose to a better (unknown) Joe Blow line.

Back to the topic, sorry for the drifting. As I was saying before drum corps is not the real world of music. You don't warm up for hours on end and practice the same 8 minutes of music for a 1000+ hours perfecting it. That being said it's a hell of an experience if you can afford to do it. You will be in the best shape in your life after the year is over and have friendships that will last a lifetime. But is it required to go into music, not in the least.

You can insist all you want. It was a clear dig at Blue Devils. The show had plenty of demand, and was incredibly clean. You reveal your bias by claiming they didn't have the same demand as the rest of the top 10. Give me a break.

Again, in a hypothetical conversation, you could justify just about any point. The fact is, no matter how well a group plays, bad equipment will limit how good they can sound, so your hypothetical example doesn't exist. A group on terrible equipment can not sound as good as a group on great equipment no matter how well they play. Does that affect judging? Yes. Should it? Absolutely. Judges should not have to evaluate the quality of the equipment and somehow take that into account. They have enough to contend with as it is. Either it sounds good, or it doesn't. Its on the band program/boosters/school board to figure out how to put good equipment in the kids hands.

As for instruction, have you ever considered why the guys at the top of the game are at the top of the game? Thom Hannum presided over one of the best percussion sections in DCI history. You didn't see Scouts winning drums when he was there, despite the fact that he's a legend. His name didn't seem to help Crown in percussion over the past 3 years. In fact they dropped off significantly when he came on board. Glen Crosby's name wasn't helpful either. Tom Aungst didn't head to Blue Stars and immediately start winning drums. Colin McNutt won drums over a bunch of bigger names just two seasons ago.

Every argument you have here is based on unrealistic hypothetical situations, thus making any practical argument about the issue moot.

Again, show me a finalist from BOA or US Bands that sounded bad or looked bad. Show me one that got there simply based on who teaches there. Show me a DCI program that won a caption simply based on who was writing or teaching there.