tubamann Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Reading comprehension. Its a good thing. I comprehend very well, thank you. God forbid my opinion is different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancerlady Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Just a point of clarification, there is no "voice amplification rule."There is a rule making use of vocals in drum corps legal.. that was done WAAYYY back in the 80s, I think.. There is a rule making use of amplification of pit instruments legal -- that just happens to include all instruments in the pit which are not brass or illegal. Voice being a "legal instrument" since the 80s, it's encompasssed. Also, to get a proposal before the BOD, you would just need to draft it. I believe you can obtain a proposal form from DCI.. though right now may not be the best time to request it since they run a lean ship and it's the height of the competitive season.. this would be low on the priority-o-meter. It would also lend credence to your proposal to have the support of one or more DCI members or even DCI Board members. Someone will have to be at the meetings in person to propose it. Hope that helps. Stef Hey this is a good idea and am glad you brought this up. It gives me something to think about...proposing a rule...hmm...(the wheels are turning). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancerlady Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Yes mamm..and I am standing up for what I beleive in...the corp's right to have the freedom to use the amps as THEY see fit.The simple fact of the matter is that there has never been an instrumentation rule change that has been repealed and that will not change. A majority of the corps wanted amplifiacation, and almost all of them use it now. It is here to stay. Period. I know that this grates some people to no end but there is a portion of the DC world that does support the use of amps, even if we don't like a particular corps interpretation or use. For the record, I dont care for the Cadet's use this year, but I do support them having the freedom to try things out, and yes, be cheezy or silly. If it is crappy, then it will be judged as such. I'm not going to get in argument with you about this, that is not what this thread is for, and that is the point I was making...please respect that. That's all. Whether or not they are here to say..who knows what the future holds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBob Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 I would encourage you to support corps that have avoided amped voice, by buying souvenirs, contributing if possible, and let them know specifically why you are supporting them. That way you are encouraging them to avoid amps in the future. ...or helping them save up for one. I mean, I daresay there are non-amped corps out there who would like to use amps but can't afford them. Oh, and just to be on topic, I think the proposed "peaceful resistance" is the best way to go about this. As someone else has pointed out, there is no "amped voice" rule, but the artistic choice to amplify the human voice (or anything, really) is one that is in the show designers' hands. Just because it's available doesn't mean it must be used, and some corps that have done so in the past, such as Bluecoats and Crown, have chosen not to this season. The chances of getting the amplification rule repealed are, IMO, low, but they might be lower (might) than appealing directly to show designers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kusankusho Posted July 18, 2006 Author Share Posted July 18, 2006 I'm sure you know that I'm in favor of amps, even amped voice. That said, I have no problem with what the original poster is saying. They're displeased, even though I'm not, and they would like to see something change. Rather than blast the activity as it is, they're trying to come up with positives ways of effecting change, methods that will be effective without being offensive. I applaud that goal, even if I disagree with their position. Thank you Matt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubamann Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 I'm sure you know that I'm in favor of amps, even amped voice. That said, I have no problem with what the original poster is saying. They're displeased, even though I'm not, and they would like to see something change. Rather than blast the activity as it is, they're trying to come up with positives ways of effecting change, methods that will be effective without being offensive. I applaud that goal, even if I disagree with their position. True sir..they can try to make this change. I will give them credit to stand up for what they beleive in. I just think that they are dead wrong. I will end my discussion of this here. I feel that this will go the way of the other attempts, and that will be fine with me. As I have said, if it is impractical, cheesy or a point-vaccuum, amped voice will fade out on its own merits, or lack therof. Peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancerlady Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 I'm sure you know that I'm in favor of amps, even amped voice. That said, I have no problem with what the original poster is saying. They're displeased, even though I'm not, and they would like to see something change. Rather than blast the activity as it is, they're trying to come up with positives ways of effecting change, methods that will be effective without being offensive. I applaud that goal, even if I disagree with their position. I knew there was a reason I have always liked you (even though we disagree alot we still respect each others opinions)..take notes people.. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storkysr Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 If amps are here to stay in DCI I will be disappointed but powerless. Consider my opposition as a preemptive strike against amps for the future in DCA. I would hope that our display of non-support would at least delay that for the foreseeable future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kusankusho Posted July 18, 2006 Author Share Posted July 18, 2006 Hey this is a good idea and am glad you brought this up. It gives me something to think about...proposing a rule...hmm...(the wheels are turning). Would it be an addendum - "excluding the human voice" sort of a thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburstall Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) How about:Getting over it. The amp rule is here to stay, and some corps may use amplified voice. It is what the corps want...the freedom to use it if they choose. I am sure that DCI will address theuse of voice in the judging criteria in the near future. You can ##### and complain all you want, but nothing is going to change. There are many people who don't care either way, and will judge each corps use of amps or vocals on their own merit, instead demanding an arbritrarty rule change based on their own dislikes. Just my .02 Not necessarily so. Law are being repealed all the time. Even out beloved Constitution had an amendment repealed (remember 16th and 18th...something about alcohol ). If there's enough people against it, it can be repealed. Nothing is ever "here to stay". Edited July 18, 2006 by sburstall 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.