JimF-LowBari Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Trivia: who first coined the term "nattering nabobs of negativism" ? Spiro (my Hero) Agnew (Agnew??? What's Agnew with you??) Only the IRS kept him from the presidency :sshh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kusankusho Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 So you are telling me that having members stand on the sideline for an entire show did not effect the homogeneity of a drum corps show?homogenous - Uniform in structure or composition throughout. Now 90% of the kids are marching while 10% aren't, that's not uniform in structure throughout. By this argument the pit shouldn't exist because their sound is not homogenous with brass instruments. They are different in a lot more ways than the range they play in. Voice is just another instrument just like a marimba or vibes, except that it's a lot closer to a brass instrument than either of those two because at least it's a wind instrument of sorts. You misinterpret "homogenous" - brass is not the same as percussion - it's not the issue. Grounding the pit was an evolution - the drill for marching mallets was somewhat limited and the weight of some of that equipment was killing the kids' backs. Some were already putting little legs on the front of the keyboards to take the strain off when they were not moving in the drill. Grounding them was a logical response to a safety issue, among other things (the ability to cover more range with full size marimbas, etc). I'm afraid your grounded pit analogy does not hold up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_S Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Your analogy is very flawed. For one thing, the overall concept of drum corps did not change with the grounding of the pit, visually or musically. How are earth did the concept of drum corps not change visually? A whole section of the corps was now able to perform without marching. Sounds pretty drastic to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 You misinterpret "homogenous" - brass is not the same as percussion - it's not the issue.Grounding the pit was an evolution - the drill for marching mallets was somewhat limited and the weight of some of that equipment was killing the kids' backs. Some were already putting little legs on the front of the keyboards to take the strain off when they were not moving in the drill. Grounding them was a logical response to a safety issue, among other things (the ability to cover more range with full size marimbas, etc). I'm afraid your grounded pit analogy does not hold up. You are misusing homogenous. There are already varying instruments in drum corps, adding one more is not that big of a change. I'm sure lots of people #####ed about grounding pits just like lots of people are #####ing now about amplification. It's ALL evolution. Sure, the reasons are different, but it's still a change. I stand by my analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 So you are telling me that having members stand on the sideline for an entire show did not effect the homogeneity of a drum corps show?homogenous - Uniform in structure or composition throughout. Now 90% of the kids are marching while 10% aren't, that's not uniform in structure throughout. By this argument the pit shouldn't exist because their sound is not homogenous with brass instruments. They are different in a lot more ways than the range they play in. Voice is just another instrument just like a marimba or vibes, except that it's a lot closer to a brass instrument than either of those two because at least it's a wind instrument of sorts. You're trying to change the definition of the argument. I'm talking about the structure of the show; whether the pit marches or not has nothing to do with that. As for whether the pit fits in or not--listen to old recordings and hear how the sound of keyboards, timpani, "toys" and other non-battery percussion has changed from the past to today; the sound of the modern pit fits into the ensemble sound much more than in previous years of clangy keyboards on the field or on the sideline. As I said, all the changes we've seen have contributed to moving towards a more homogeneous sound and concept, but vocal amplification does not. I have no opposition to voice in and of itself; it's been used many times to great effect. It's amplified voice specifically that I and many other alumni and fans oppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 You are misusing homogenous.There are already varying instruments in drum corps, adding one more is not that big of a change. I'm sure lots of people #####ed about grounding pits just like lots of people are #####ing now about amplification. It's ALL evolution. Sure, the reasons are different, but it's still a change. I stand by my analogy. Change is not good in and of itself. Your analogy is still flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Change is not good in and of itself. Your analogy is still flawed. Plenty of people thought grounded pits were a bad change too. I still stand by my analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 How are earth did the concept of drum corps not change visually? A whole section of the corps was now able to perform without marching. Sounds pretty drastic to me. The overall visual concept of the corps didn't change drastically as a result of this; drill is still what it was with the exception of the few folks who played those instruments. Perhaps a question would be, how would drill have developed if corps still had to carry timpani and keyboards, or would those instruments have been eschewed entirely in order to focus on developing drill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kusankusho Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 You are misusing homogenous. Quite right - on purpose to illustrate the flaw in your statement. There are already varying instruments in drum corps, adding one more is not that big of a change. I'm not sure how many total verses there are in the Star Spangled Banner, but would you feel adding one more at the beginning, in a disco idiom, would be a big change? I'm sure lots of people #####ed about grounding pits just like lots of people are #####ing now about amplification. It's ALL evolution. Sure, the reasons are different, but it's still a change. I stand by my analogy. We can debate if its evolution or not, but I'll take your point that it is for the moment. Now - is all evolution good? The cheetah has evolved to be a specialist in speed, at the expense of strength. It can run down anything but can't keep what it killed if a hyena shows up. It will probably go extinct because of it someday. Evolution isn't always positive. This amp "evolution" in the eyes of a demonstrated majority of posters, is not positive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 The overall visual concept of the corps didn't change drastically as a result of this; drill is still what it was with the exception of the few folks who played those instruments. Perhaps a question would be, how would drill have developed if corps still had to carry timpani and keyboards, or would those instruments have been eschewed entirely in order to focus on developing drill? The over all musical concept of the corps hasn't changed drastically as a result of amps either. The music is still what it was with the exception of a few folks using a mic every now and then. 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.