KVG_DC Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 8 hours ago, Year Fiver said: Currently, neither woodwinds nor strings are allowed in any musical capacity, whether on the field or in the pit. String instruments that have been featured during the past few years have only been allowed because they're classified as electronics, ie they are electric violins, electric guitars, etc (or they were prop instruments "played" by actors, with their "music" being produced by a synth). The proposal, as written, would have allowed for any instrument to be used in any capacity, both on the field and in the pit, as a section or as a solo. So corps A could have changed nothing, corps B could have featured a woodwind soloist in the pit, and corps C could have fielded a full woodwind/strings line for the whole show in the drill, and those would have all been legal. Hmm. By this reasoning, if Bloo really wants to have their ensemble in the pit, they could use one of those electronic woodwind instruments and classify it as electronics then? Or would that be 'too close for comfort?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithHall Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 Hmmmmm (just dropping by to say Hi!) So why not add more brass, percussion and guard? 100 brass, 60 guard and 45 percussion? Who needs amplification then? Of course you really should spend more on judging musicianship and not as much on visual and guard! Wouldn't that add more revenue? I, for one, would rather see music being the focus and visuals secondary! 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 9 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said: Well have an on topic question about AI. And I don’t mean artificial intelligence or Allan Iverson.... What was in the proposal that is different from currently? Was it that other instruments can be used on the field and not confined to the pit? Saw some guesses in posts but no clear answer. Currently, DCI drum corps are allowed to use brass, percussion, and electronic instruments. They can also amplify all of the above. And since the synthesizer is an electronic instrument, they can produce any sound artificially via sampling. Since ordinary, non-electronic string instruments and woodwinds are not in that list above, they cannot be used in DCI field competition. That is where the rule change would have altered things. It needs to be noted here that the DCI SoundSport division has different rules. Any instruments can be used there. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Currently, DCI drum corps are allowed to use brass, percussion, and electronic instruments. They can also amplify all of the above. And since the synthesizer is an electronic instrument, they can produce any sound artificially via sampling. Since ordinary, non-electronic string instruments and woodwinds are not in that list above, they cannot be used in DCI field competition. That is where the rule change would have altered things. It needs to be noted here that the DCI SoundSport division has different rules. Any instruments can be used there. Ok non-electronic is the operative word then as use of a violin few years back kept throwing me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post cixelsyd Posted January 13, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2020 11 hours ago, garfield said: I'm pretty sure they weren't concerned about the public reaction when the task force made its recommendation. It was a consideration, I'd bet to be sure, but not the driving motivation of the BoD in bringing it to a vote. Not concerned about the public reaction? They assigned the proposal to an unaffiliated BoD person. They submitted it, in defiance of DCI rules, without a sponsoring signature. They delayed public release of the rule change proposals until the last minute. They withheld the vote tally, only for that one proposal, in an unprecedented act of secrecy. DCI has done everything it could to conceal the identities of corps directors who are proponents. Obviously, that was done because they were concerned about public reaction. No one wants to be the one who loses donors to other corps over this. 9 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 cixelsyd - always enjoy your astute opinions! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 13 hours ago, garfield said: It matters because the discussion was about losing "legacy" fans' SPENDING on the activity, and the contention is that newer fans and their spending would replace the legacy fan's spending. Do you, personally, agree with that contention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppycock Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 1 hour ago, cixelsyd said: Not concerned about the public reaction? They assigned the proposal to an unaffiliated BoD person. They submitted it, in defiance of DCI rules, without a sponsoring signature. They delayed public release of the rule change proposals until the last minute. They withheld the vote tally, only for that one proposal, in an unprecedented act of secrecy. DCI has done everything it could to conceal the identities of corps directors who are proponents. Obviously, that was done because they were concerned about public reaction. No one wants to be the one who loses donors to other corps over this. Or they're sneaking snivelling cowards! 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 There were, reportedly, only a handful of directors who stood up and expressed support for the proposal - the majority of those who spoke about it were not in favor, and for a variety of reasons, from the financial and practical to the aesthetic. Even in secret ballot, it would seem likely the voting wasn't close. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 57 minutes ago, Slingerland said: There were, reportedly, only a handful of directors who stood up and expressed support for the proposal - the majority of those who spoke about it were not in favor, and for a variety of reasons, from the financial and practical to the aesthetic. Even in secret ballot, it would seem likely the voting wasn't close. Any way to find out who stood up to support, I feel like in years past we have seen a list of who voted for/against rule changes. 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.