Cadets 2006

[MikeD]

Sorry Matt, personal enjoyment is NOT a valid example.

We went to three-valved bugles. This allowed arrangements to be more complex (for the most part), and it also allowed us to get instruments for less (supposedly) since they no longer had to be be custom made. THAT is an example of improving the activity.

Personal choice...the compleixity issue is just your personal choice on that. Some would say that even if true it was not an improvement agt all. So...it boils down to your own likes and dislikes on that one, even as I do agree...because it is MY own personal "like" as well.

We went to a pit instead of marching our timpani and xylophones. That allowed us to expand on the timbres of the percussion section, and it removed the timpani from the visual field, which were pretty darned unwieldy and unsightly. It had visual benefits for the corps, as well as aural benefits.

Again, some would argue that if you can't carry it, it doesn't belong. I agree that it is an improvement, but it's just based on my own personal likes, as it is yours.

We dropped the tick system, which allowed corps to try new and different things, take chances, and give us shows that were visually and musically more complex.

There are thread aplenty bemoaning the loss of the tick system...IMO a decided improvement for many of the reasons you say, plus that it is a poor method of evaluating performance in an activity like this in general.

Howver, again, it's just my personal choice...as it it yours.

THOSE are examples of improving the activity. "I like it" is NOT an example. Sorry. Not every change improves the overall activity, even if it improves YOUR personal enjoyment of the activity. But you don't speak for the activity. This is why I am not sitting here saying that voice/singing has ruined the overall activity...though it has certainly ruined MY enjoyment of certain shows.

Forums like this are places where personal thoughts are discussed. "Improvement" is a subjective concept, so by definition we are all providing our own interpretation of improvement as it relates to the DC activity.

I can't speak for the activity in terms of my personal enjoyment.

You just did in much of the above.

Asymmetrical drill improved your view of the activity, but not the activity itself...at least not that I can think of right now, though give me time, and maybe I could come up with something. What I am looking for is an answer from Mike about how singing/voice has improved the activity, as 3-valved bugles and grounded pits did. Not a personal "thumbs up."

Well, I gave one...it provides the capability for a decades-long legal element...one or more voices...to be used in balance with the rest of the ensemble.

[dbc03]

I HATE ****ING AMPLIFICATION!

If you are ####### amplification you're lucky you haven't been electrocuted already. Way to completely freak out because someone has a different opinion though

[kdaddy]

As for singing and voice, I could argue that it allows for more complex arrangements, certainly explores new timbres, and adds musical complexity to a show, and adds visual complexity as well when you consider what the Cadets are doing. Those are the improvements, according to the very same justifications you gave above.

Theoretically, they would add to the show designer's ability to tell a story.

I don't personally feel that way, but that could be an argument for "improvement."

[Kamarag]

I stand by my comments.

They were correct then, and they are now.

Like Bluecoats guard beating Cadets. Um - nope... should never have happened. IMHO

Rediculous is right. The Cadets guard book was designed to stand out and "win" a guard trophy. The Bluecoats on the other hand, designed a guard book that complements the complete program. It's integrated into the total product, unlike the Cadets. In the end, the Bluecoats have the superior product.

I'll take integration and "total program" design any day, and thankfully, the judges are starting to do the same.

[MikeD]

Mike, sorry, I certainly never meant to imply that. And I wasn't really meaning to respond to YOUR use of them, but it was my opinion that in the Drum Corps idiom that if you use a sound board to balance and blend the horns then the corps themselves, at least to a point, has diminished responsibilites and the judges are then judging the performance of the person running the sound board. Maybe I'm wrong, but I certainly was not taking a swipe at you and the work you do. I haven't ever done that to anyone on DCP and I would not ever.

No prob.

I'm certainly not expecting to see wireless mics all over the field. It would be a ligistical nightmare in the short time to set up. I think the unobtrusive use now is OK.

As for balance issues...the corps still have to play in balance under the current setup...I know in our case we worked just as hard on balance. The sound board was not a panacea.

And I'm not anti Cadets either (not saying you implied that at all, but just wanting to make that clear). They have brought fresh although controversial ideas to Drum Corps. Last year it paid off, this year it didn't - at least in the judges eyes. Big deal if they don't like it, the corps is performing and having the experience of a lifetime. If every show that doesn't win is unworthy or has no value then we have lots of kids wasting their time.

That's fior sure.

I always tell our kids there are three things that control our scores and placements at a show...

1) How well we perform

2) How well the others perform

3) What the judges think....

...and as we only have control over 1) we have to NOT let our own worth and satisfaction be based on extrnal elements out of our direct control.

[WOOHOO]

NO!

YOU'RE WRONG!

How would the ballad not be possible without the singer? In fact, I have a recording from early this year of the ballad without the singer. It is a ballad, and it does not have a singer. Therefore, it is "possible."

And there are FIVE HUNDRED ****ING OTHER BALLADS that don't either. And they were all POSSIBLE.

I HATE ****ING AMPLIFICATION!

I think a different baby is in order.

Edited August 9, 2006 by WOOHOO

[The Tsar]

Really? Are you sure?

Yes, I am. Just as sure of your opinion as you are.

The only objective example I saw in there was that moving to three-valve horns allowed corps to purchase horns for less. More complex arrangements, visual benefits and expanded timbres of grounded pits, adding musical and visual complexity, these are all elements that matter only if we're talking about personal enjoyment of shows. Heck, I could find people on DCP who wish horns still had two-valves, who wish that you had to march it to play, or that wish the tick system would return. The wish these things because that's what leads to their own personal enjoyment.

You're always going to find flat-earthers. In any activity. You'll find people on DCP who still bemoan the addition of the second valve, for crying out loud. But you can't point to the flat-earthers as proof against betterment of the activity.

As for singing and voice, I could argue that it allows for more complex arrangements, certainly explores new timbres, and adds musical complexity to a show, and adds visual complexity as well when you consider what the Cadets are doing. Those are the improvements, according to the very same justifications you gave above.

More complex arrangements? They are not the same thing, Matt. Adding a third valve allowed drum corps to play notes that they had not been able to play before, in keys that they had not been able to brave before. We added a third valve, therefore, there was an improvement. Singing doesn't add any notes we can't already play (unless you want to do something with a sopranino or with falsetto). And how does using singing/voice add visual complexity, as you say above? No, using a voice may use a different timbre, but it doesn't add to the complexity, or rather...new flexibility available to corps arrangers when we went to 3-valvers between 1990 and 1993. We can add a new timbre in drum corps by using anything, including woodwinds. But is that really what we want? Would that add to the activity? Or would it further blur the line between drum corps and marching bands?

Certainly we can't use our personal enjoyment to say whether the acitivity is doomed or booming. In that, you are correct. However, we are still able to speak our opinion.

But of course. That is all we ever do, unless we are elected to speak for others. No one should read into my comments any more than me speaking for myself. However, I think history bears me out. The drum corps activity has benefitted from 3-valved instruments, has it not?

We can speak for ourself, and yes, our personal enjoyment has a very large bearing on how we feel about the activity. As I see it, Mike was only speaking his own thoughts, and certainly you are free to counter with your own. But to discount his thoughts because he included his own personal enjoyment as a factor in his decision is wrong.

I didn't discount his own personal enjoyment as a factor for his own entertainment. If it entertains him, great! But woodwinds would also entertain him. Live animals on the field might entertain some. Doing nothing but military drill and Sousa marches might entertain others. None of these things would fundamentally improve the activity. Yes, that is my opinion, but I believe in it strongly. Some changes affect our enjoyment, some changes affect the activity, period. I have seen no proof yet that singing/voice is improving the activity, I have seen a lot of "it's improving MY enjoyment" type charges....GREAT! Naked girls on the field would greatly improve MY enjoyment of the activity, but it certainly wouldn't improve the activity itself!

If you want to talk about the activity improving, certainly butts in the seats will always help with that. And butts in the seats are by and large determined by audience enjoyment. We can't speak for anyone in the audience but ourselves, but if we enjoy a show that has amped voice, to us, we can consider that an improvement.

So you're saying that if we didn't have ampled voice, some people wouldn't show up to a show? See where the hole is with that thinking? Unless amped voice (as being used by all of about 3 corps right now) is solely responsible for bringing fans into the stands, we can't claim that it is improving the activity. Those fans would be there anyhow. What, are choral majors and narrators lining up in ticket lines to come see those three shows but getting hot dogs for the other 20-something non-voice/singing corps?

No offense Matt, but we certainly have very differing opinions on a lot of things, and I do find myself taking it with a grain of salt that you did not march in a corps. I've never held it against you, I am not an elitist, but I have to wonder how you would feel about certain things had you marched. You come from a marching band program that probably has (or would) use the very things we are talking about, and I come from a drum corps era that did not use those things...however, don't mistake this for a "drum corps dinosaur" argument. After all, there have been tons of changes made that I like or applaud now (and certainly, one needs look no further than Mike, who could be considered a New Age Dinosaur.) :P

Once again, we will have to agree to disagree.

[LAMystreaux]

People attending shows is one of the best ways to put into perspective the state of the activity I would think.