I want a clear, honest, and well thought answer to this

[Einstein On The Beach]

I've watched a BOA competition. It was good. DCI is better.

Even if BOA had the talent of DCI, I still would prefer DCI.

And that's your opinion, which is great

[Meaghatron]

And that's your opinion, which is great

Yes, my opinion is great. :)

[audiodb]

So I guess you're approaching this from a "if electronics get in anything goes" standpoint? My personal opinion is that if electronics were allowed there should be rules against using an electronic instrument to produce any sound that can already be produced acoustically (within reason) with the given instruments that we already have. How about that?

A nice sentiment, but unrealistic.

1. Slippery slope. Your suggestion is the electronic equivalent of the two-valve bugle proposal. When that was legalized in 1976, the DCI board went on record as being permanently opposed to the three-valve bugle. We all know how that turned out.

2. Where to draw the line? The past proposals specifically endorsed "electronic drums". Would you allow electronic drums, or not? If so, what distinguishes between legal "electronic drums" and illegal synthesized drums?

3. Enforcement. Even once a rule is agreed upon, there is no way to enforce it. I'll elaborate on this later.

I am aware that samples can be very realistic but you generally don't get that level of realism without investing in expensive equipment and expansive libraries, no?

Oh, great. So only the top six will have them. So much for a level playing field.

If you tilt the playing field far enough, some of the players will fall off.

I wasn't aware of this debate, and I'm curious as to how a corps would be able to get away with using EQs on the field without a judge...you know...seeing it?

It's happening in plain view. I've seen it. A DCI division I corps' mixing board, each channel having it's own individually-adjusted EQ settings. And this, at a late-season 2006 contest.

Fact of the matter is, many mixing boards have EQ built in. Every board I've ever used does. One wonders how the rulemakers could possibly have neglected to address this detail, when many of them have been playing with this technology in the marching band world for 30 years now - but they still haven't addressed it.

But anyway, if it is happening, that just shows even more why we need open, intelligent debate on this matter (even if it's just on the use of amplification and the mics) to discuss how to monitor and control electronics so that people don't get away with cheating.

In my mind, cheating with electronics is not different than cheating by having aged-out members in your corps. You may get away with it for a little while but you will be caught eventually.

Oh, but it is different. The age rule is policed for every marcher to the point where one would have to break federal law to slip by DCI - but then the Feds will catch you (and they have - 1989 SCV).

Electronics is a different story. How is anyone supposed to confirm or deny the functionality of all the devices contained in a 5-foot cubic Pandora's black box full of electronics sitting on the track of a HS football field in the midst of a 17-minute time block in which the corps can barely get the rig in and out in the allotted time? In fact, never mind the time limit - it simply isn't possible for anyone to check all functions of the systems we have in drum corps now without spending several hours at it. Add in electronic instruments, and the complexity multiplies.

It is not practical to pick and choose which electronics to allow and which to forbid. Selective electronics is not enforceable. We're seeing this issue with amplification, despite all the time we've had with the technology. Let's learn from history, lest we repeat it.

[mistofflies]

Ok first of all let me congratulate myself that I finally got you to stop making coy comments and actually address the issues in some form of debate!

:P

Ok, now that that's over...

A nice sentiment, but unrealistic.

1. Slippery slope. Your suggestion is the electronic equivalent of the two-valve bugle proposal. When that was legalized in 1976, the DCI board went on record as being permanently opposed to the three-valve bugle. We all know how that turned out.

2. Where to draw the line? The past proposals specifically endorsed "electronic drums". Would you allow electronic drums, or not? If so, what distinguishes between legal "electronic drums" and illegal synthesized drums?

3. Enforcement. Even once a rule is agreed upon, there is no way to enforce it. I'll elaborate on this later.

Well first of all, the more I've thought about it as I've debated pro-electronics the past few days, the more I've realized this: to enact electronics it would have to be specific. I'm thinking along the lines of a rule stating that, in the realm of instruments used to create melody and harmony, only electronic instruments that create synthesized sounds in real time would be allowed to be used. No samples. In other words, you're free to use a Moog or another device that doesn't emulate existing acoustic instruments. The exception I would consider might be piano samples. In addition to this, I would allow real-time synthesis of sounds that are recorded or looped on the field during the performance. Setting up a mic and letting a soloist live-record, edit, and morph his solos (similar the links I posted of other artists doing similar things in the this thread) in real-time. In that way the activity is still focused on acoustic instrumentation. I would additionally allow electronic drumsets, but not electronic drum samples played on synthesizers or music production stations. Why? Because playing an electronic drumset would also allow drummers to have the ability to use electronic software and synthesis while still forcing them to remain true to acoustic drumming principles and making them adhere to percussion techniques. In addition I don't see anything wrong with, say, an electronic trumpet being used because it's still played very much like a real trumpet and requires the same skill set. In this way, the amount of electronics allowed on the field would be limited to those that allow performers to use their skills on the field to perform in real time and would give very little lee-way for "rigging the equipment" ahead-of-time. In addition, why not have one more field judge added to the roster, someone who specializes in music production and is familiar with electronic equipment, to monitor the situation in the pit and make sure that sneaky snow designers aren't trying to gain competitive advantage by slight-of-switch? If it's too much to have at every show we could have them at major shows, regionals, and finals. I'm also against staff members being allowed to control the equipment. In my opinion, the show should be run by the kids on the field. In that way you're also ensuring that the corps will actually have to teach the kid(s) using the equipment how to run it which would be an additional safeguard against tampering by staff. Of course, that's assuming that the kid running the equipment has good morals and would reject any attempt at scrupulous behavior. Knowing how competitive this activity could be, maybe that's assuming a lot....but I also know that despite the competition there is honor. I don't think many people in the activity (at least performers on the field) want to win by tricks. What honor is there in that?

Oh, great. So only the top six will have them. So much for a level playing field.

If you tilt the playing field far enough, some of the players will fall off.

Right we agree on this point hands down. As I've said many-a-time I won't actually support active employment of electronics (right now I'm just supporting it in theory) until it's reasonable that the majority of corps could use the technology reasonably.

It's happening in plain view. I've seen it. A DCI division I corps' mixing board, each channel having it's own individually-adjusted EQ settings. And this, at a late-season 2006 contest.

Fact of the matter is, many mixing boards have EQ built in. Every board I've ever used does. One wonders how the rulemakers could possibly have neglected to address this detail, when many of them have been playing with this technology in the marching band world for 30 years now - but they still haven't addressed it.

I can only assume who you're referring to in this instance, although I'm sure my assumption isn't far off the mark. It seems to me, however, that if we're going to have amped pits we might as well have EQ due to the amps themselves compressing the sound, no? To be certain, some of the sound quality is lost along the process and if you're going to be using wireless mics and all that sort of hooplah...well...it almost seems necessary, no? Maybe that's a whole 'nother debate. It hadn't been brought to my attention before now, however, so I thank you for mentioning it. Oh and I'd like to add that IF I do end up supporting EQs I would support them under the same stipulation I stated above: that the performers are the ones running the board and not the staff members.

Oh, but it is different. The age rule is policed for every marcher to the point where one would have to break federal law to slip by DCI - but then the Feds will catch you (and they have - 1989 SCV).

Right but you're assuming that the corps themselves would refuse to be complicit in helping over-age members break the rules...something that you DON'T assume when it comes to electronics. In fact, it almost seems that you assume otherwise, that corps would readily become complicit in breaking as many rules as they can to gain a competitive advantage if electronics were to become legal.

Electronics is a different story. How is anyone supposed to confirm or deny the functionality of all the devices contained in a 5-foot cubic Pandora's black box full of electronics sitting on the track of a HS football field in the midst of a 17-minute time block in which the corps can barely get the rig in and out in the allotted time? In fact, never mind the time limit - it simply isn't possible for anyone to check all functions of the systems we have in drum corps now without spending several hours at it. Add in electronic instruments, and the complexity multiplies.

It is not practical to pick and choose which electronics to allow and which to forbid. Selective electronics is not enforceable. We're seeing this issue with amplification, despite all the time we've had with the technology. Let's learn from history, lest we repeat it.

Hey, it's not too late to bring back inspections, is it? :P Seriously, I'm not so sure it's not enforceable. What if DCI were to purchase and provide the usable electronics to each corps? They would provide the editing software, the sound boards, the synths, all of it, in equal proportion to each corps. The corps directors get to meet on a panel and decide what brand they'd like to work with, something like that? I mean, I'm speaking in really general terms here (and I'm sure you're going to skewer me for it but I'm not so concerned since I can just come back and address it in detail later, something I don't feel like getting to right now)....but it's an idea that can be built upon or played with until a workable framework comes out of it.

[MikeD]

It's amazing that the simplest points of logic go flying by when it doesn't fit your view. You yourself were equating adding brass and percussion with that of woodwinds. There is no point in displaying the flaws in your arguments because you're grandstanding the same as Einstein was at the opening of this thread.

Whether you want WW isn't a right or wrong answer. Denying plain logic is a right or wrong, and you're definitely on the wrong side. It's really difficult to write intelligent responses to posts like that, Mike. If you're willing to disregard the plain facts to push your agenda, you should look into politics as a future career.

I was equating the addition of instruments that were not legal...and then they were.

Those instruments were at one time not in drum corps...then they were...in the case of bells with a lot of the same sort of furor that goes on here, localized of course as there was no internet. While mallets are 'percussion', at the time the idiom was strictly 'drums'. See BAC 1969 at Philly VFW Nats.

There were even letters to the DCN editor bemoaning the addition of the contra NanciD's great historical site showed one).

[MikeD]

I have absolutely no problem with this, but what would be wrong with DCI forming an entirely new circuit? I imagine that if a division were started and DCI kept it for a couple of years, it would surpass drum corps in popularity and could stand on it's own.

IMO it would be a disaster to fragment DCI that way. The activity is too small at this point. If there were enough ensembles, fine.

[MikeD]

I have a feeling that a lot of people are forming an opinion on something they have little to no knowledge of.

It'll e interesting to learn of the judges training, experience, etc when it comes to future " voice judging " in a show. Few have talked about the very real possibilty of competitions being judged in the future by judges " forming an opinion on something they have little or no knowlwdge of ". Just what is the judges qualifications to judge voice ensemble anyway ? Are these judges singers, ? former singers ? trained and schooled singers ? What if corps has a singer or singing ensemble singing with poor voice modulation, technique, or even GREAT technigue, voice projection, etc...... would the judge even know ? I heard a Corps with a singer that to my ears was singing out of tune. Was the Corps score hurt because of this ? If not, why not ? The singer was out front and was made to be a central focus in the movement as a voice soloist.

And we haven't even begun to look at the judges qualifications in electronic synthesizers judging. These are interesting questions to pose, no ? As we move forward, it's always a good idea with so much riding on the line in these judged competitions to simply ask a basic question......" what are the judges qualifications to judge these new components we are incorporating in Drum Corps shows these days ?"

No different than a brass person doing music ensemble and/or effect and having to evaluate the percussion, or vice versa.

[audiodb]

Those instruments were at one time not in drum corps...then they were...in the case of bells with a lot of the same sort of furor that goes on here, localized of course as there was no internet. While mallets are 'percussion', at the time the idiom was strictly 'drums'. See BAC 1969 at Philly VFW Nats.

Mallet percussion was in drum corps decades earlier, Mike. Why do you persistently ignore that fact?

[sarnia sam]

Not another thread arguing football should be played on ice with skates to make the game faster.

Oops. Sorry. Wrong forum.

After reading the first half of the thread, skipping through the rest because it repeats too much of the first half, but with different voices, and bearing in mind that this topic is as old as the hills (do a search), a few realizations popped out.

Those who want electronics (and before that amps) have some common qualities:

- they want everyone to agree with them

- when everyone doesn't, they get uppity and condescending to those who disagree

- they can't stand well thought out, backed up arguments against their position

- they shift the argument when they are contradicted

- they home in on secondary issues and completely miss the main argument presented against their point of view

- they think everyone who disagrees with them wants marching tymps, inspections and valve rotors to make a return to the field

- are actually more narrow minded than those they accuse of being narrow minded

- aren't creative enough to work within the rules as they exist, just as they aren't creative enough to debate an issue.

- more than a few have never marched

Regards,

John Swartz

[audiodb]

IMO it would be a disaster to fragment DCI that way. The activity is too small at this point.

But adding another division is fragmenting DCI. A separate circuit, in contrast, does not require DCI to be fragmented.