Recommended Posts

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?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cixelsyd - always enjoy your astute opinions!  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.