Natural Progression vs. Forced Change

[Penn State]

Natural Progression vs. Forced Change

Re: Musical Cop-Out, Stringed Bass and Spirit, an offshoot thread

First, let’s define the two terms used in the title of this thread:

Nature: 7: having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>

Progression: 2 a: the action or process of progressing : advance b: a continuous and connected series : sequence

Forced: 2: done or produced with effort, exertion, or pressure <a forced laugh>

Natural Progression: Changes that occur that remain true to the origins, but allow for enhancement

Forced Progression: Changes that occur that are in conflict with nature, unnatural to the origin(s)

It is not practical to go into a deep history of drum and bugle corps on a post. I will make an attempt to sum up the progression to the best of my ability to present day (2000- ).

History, in summary

The drum and bugle corps original instrumentation began with field drums and soprano bugles (probably better defined as field trumpets). As the activity began to move forward the brass choir expanded and slowly added valves (1 piston, 1 piston 1 rotor, 2 pistons, 3 pistons). The drum line initially utilized bass drums and snare drums. Over time, multi-tenors were added with the use of harnesses, keyboard instruments and timpani were grounded on the front sideline and all was right as rain.

In 2000, the use of multi-keyed instruments was utilized by drum corps (Cadets and Blue Devils) for the first time. Although the pitch of brass changed (G to Bb/F) the same foundations of the activity remained the same. Side note: the original marching brass designs issued by F.E. Olds where designed and based on the G brass choir by Z. Kanstul. (citation) Given that, I feel it is safe to say almost all marching brass designs are based on the original F.E. Olds and King line and relatively speaking (excluding the trumpet and soprano) differ only in the pitch (key) of the instrument.

All though the percussion section expanded (battery and the pit) and the key of the brass choir changed, the activity was still experiencing a natural progression. In other words, if it’s a bell front brass instrument or a percussion instrument, it is still a drum and bugle (probably better named brass) corps.

The addition of amplification to the front ensemble (aka pit). Although the least offensive of the ‘electronic era’ changes, this action clearly became the focal point for significant changes that would occur in the activity. Up unto to this point nothing utilized by a drum and bugle corps on the field required the use of electricity. The next change, which many deemed to be very offensive, amplified vocals. Although it may be argued this was a natural progression, that argument is only valid if you recognize the forced change of amplification. I personally feel any such argument is null and void, as they are based on forced changes. The addition of more, non brass and percussion instruments has further blurred the identity of the drum and bugle corps.

In summary, any changes that flow from the origins of the activity are natural progressions. Any changes that do not flow from the origins of the activity are forced changes. The phrase ‘its apples (drum corps) and oranges (marching band)’ is used frequently. We may have started with apples but now we have lemons (not drum corps) and they (DCI) insist they’re still apples.

Works Cited

Forced. Merriam-Webster online Dictionary. Retrieved on June 21, 2009 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forced

Natural. Merriam-Webster online Dictionary. Retrieved on June 21, 2009 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

Progression. Merriam-Webster online Dictionary. Retrieved on June 21, 2009 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progression

Note: Unable to locate the article regarding Mr Kanstul, will updated when possible.

[stimmung]

Interesting post and your argument is well stated but I personally have to disagree with the idea of "Natural v.s. Forced". Drum and Bugle Corps is not a natural sentient being which arose from the Earth and walks among us, and now we have somehow disturbed it by adding amplification or B-flat horns or whatever. Drum corps was created by us and it can be changed by us, which makes this whole argument moot. I mean, you're essentially comparing drum corps to, say, a polar bear, and the polar bear was just chilling out in the North Pole minding its own business until we came in and built an oil derrick on its home. This notion is just completely absurd, and while I do respect what you're trying to say completely, I really think you're just kind of grasping for straws in order to defend the reverence you hold for your own very conservative views.

I digress a bit though, I'm just going to say that in the case of so called "natural progression" and "forced change" that they are both the same, there is no difference. Should Teddy Roosevelt have waited for the human race to evolve to the point where we could respect certain natural landmarks? No of course not, he had to conserve things like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon, otherwise we'd have bloody malls and Walmarts at those places right now, and jeez that's still an example of Nature v.s. Human! Drum corps? That's Humans v.s. Human construction, so certainly we have a say into how it does or does not progress.

Edited June 21, 2009 by stimmung

[CorpsLife]

Whats Done is Done! Now Lets get out there and Watch some Lemons!

[j.morgus]

Interesting post and your argument is well stated but I personally have to disagree with the idea of "Natural v.s. Forced". Drum and Bugle Corps is not a natural sentient being which arose from the Earth and walks among us, and now we have somehow disturbed it by adding amplification or B-flat horns or whatever. Drum corps was created by us and it can be changed by us, which makes this whole argument moot. I mean, you're essentially comparing drum corps to, say, a polar bear, and the polar bear was just chilling out in the North Pole minding its own business until we came in and built an oil derrick on its home. This notion is just completely absurd, and while I do respect what you're trying to say completely, I really think you're just kind of grasping for straws in order to defend the reverence you hold for your own very conservative views.

I digress a bit though, I'm just going to say that in the case of so called "natural progression" and "forced change" that they are both the same, there is no difference. Should Teddy Roosevelt have waited for the human race to evolve to the point where we could respect certain natural landmarks? No of course not, he had to conserve things like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon, otherwise we'd have bloody malls and Walmarts at those places right now, and jeez that's still an example of Nature v.s. Human! Drum corps? That's Humans v.s. Human construction, so certainly we have a say into how it does or does not progress.

It may be that I haven't finished my first pot of coffee yet, but don't those two paragraphs contradict each other?

To many of us, drum corps is a national treasure, and we would like to keep it from having electronic super rock shows built on top of it.

[Elmo Blatch]

To many of us, drum corps is a national treasure, and we would like to keep it from having electronic super rock shows built on top of it.

This

[stimmung]

It may be that I haven't finished my first pot of coffee yet, but don't those two paragraphs contradict each other?

To many of us, drum corps is a national treasure, and we would like to keep it from having electronic super rock shows built on top of it.

They don't contradict each other at all, I even explained it twice.

Drum corps is a human construction

The grand canyon is a natural construction

To imply that humans passing legislation to change a construction of their own being is forced change is absurd, since WE, or whoever is passing said legislation, are the gods of that construction. And I'm going to say it again, drum corps is not a sentient being. This argument sounds a lot like economic conservatives who talk about the free market as if its some sort of god.

[jwillis35]

Natural Progression vs. Forced Change

Re: Musical Cop-Out, Stringed Bass and Spirit, an offshoot thread

In summary, any changes that flow from the origins of the activity are natural progressions. Any changes that do not flow from the origins of the activity are forced changes. The phrase ‘its apples (drum corps) and oranges (marching band)’ is used frequently. We may have started with apples but now we have lemons (not drum corps) and they (DCI) insist they’re still apples.

I really like what you put together with this article. I did not quote it all for brevity, but you make many interesting and excellent points.

Now for some counterpoint, although in a fun way:

As for the use of electricity to amplify the pit instruments, one could make a transition from the following: Just as the marching brass used (bugles, etc.) was bell-front, the natural progression of the percussion section was to find a better means of projection. Corps experimented with different types of battery and mallet instruments, and they tried different types of resonators to project sound into the stands more accurately. Also, we have the natural progression of playing levels. Over the years instructors have constantly been trying to provide the best education, the best teaching methods, and the best results. There is a natural progression here, one which has led to wanting their students to play with better technique. Some of this was the reason for amplification in the pit. Better mallet technique and ability to project acoustic sounds not typically designed for outdoor use.

Now, whether these corps are using the amplification for better technique only is up for debate, and so is the use of instruments not typically designed for outdoor use.

Where I agree with you, only I will use a different example, is in the natural progression of the instruments themselves. The early corps played instruments that were built and designed for field, for outdoor use. When projection issues came up, it was over type of bell-front and design or size, or how to better project the battery. Even when the pit was first introduced, one of the main reasons was to get the timpani off the field (a natural progression). Adding various cymbals to the pit was also natural because they were designed to project outdoors. Even the bells were fine because timbre and range made it possible for them to be used outdoors to a lesser extent.

However, I would say the forced progression, in terms of pit, has been the use of marimba, vibraphone, xylo, and other instruments. These instruments were not designed for the field, but each year corps were fielding more of them, and now add amplification and it has become overkill in many instances, not to mention that balance levels have been horrible with many corps. Guys, like myself, who are big jazz buffs and who love a great rhythm section, are often perplexed by the drum corps "rhythm section." And the electronics adds an element that the humans doing the performing are no longer in control of, balance and blend. The corps need a professional sound man for that.

In my opinion, the pit has gone too far.

However, having said all that, I must also mention this bit of philosophy that I truly believe (not that others will):

Progression or Evolution can come about due to many circumstances. Some will be forced, even in evolution (think ice age, think war, think protest). Some will be much more natural (think life, environment for the most part, even think personality and things like personal taste). Forced or unforced, progressions will take place. They are unstoppable because all they need is an idea and someone behind that idea with enough courage to give it a shot. This doesn't mean it will work, but there are no guarantees in progression, and error is often the beginning of success. The evolution of drum corps has been both natural and forced. Through trial and error we have arrived at our present status, and over the next 10 to 20 years we will see more of both.

[j.morgus]

Where I agree with you, only I will use a different example, is in the natural progression of the instruments themselves. The early corps played instruments that were built and designed for field, for outdoor use. When projection issues came up, it was over type of bell-front and design or size, or how to better project the battery. Even when the pit was first introduced, one of the main reasons was to get the timpani off the field (a natural progression). Adding various cymbals to the pit was also natural because they were designed to project outdoors. Even the bells were fine because timbre and range made it possible for them to be used outdoors to a lesser extent.

However, I would say the forced progression, in terms of pit, has been the use of marimba, vibraphone, xylo, and other instruments. These instruments were not designed for the field, but each year corps were fielding more of them, and now add amplification and it has become overkill in many instances, not to mention that balance levels have been horrible with many corps. Guys, like myself, who are big jazz buffs and who love a great rhythm section, are often perplexed by the drum corps "rhythm section." And the electronics adds an element that the humans doing the performing are no longer in control of, balance and blend. The corps need a professional sound man for that.

In my opinion, the pit has gone too far.

Nicely put.

Before the storm starts, I am not advocating a return to 1970, or 1980, (or 1920) or eliminating the pit, or anything like that.

When the activity began, all of the instruments in use were designed to be military signaling devices, and thus used out doors. This is true even of color guard equipment. Perhaps, in retrospect, the ill advised turn came when instruments that were never originally intended for such use were incorporated, and ways were sought to make them fit, much as driving a square peg into a round hole.

Just a thought that was prompted by the quote above. I will understand if you disagree.

[Lance]

Using dictionaries to support opinions about something as abstract as what is "forced" or "natural" change wrt a marching band?

Just no.

[ShortAndFast]

I'm not sure that you can draw a meaningful "natural vs forced" distinction. Any change to DCI's rules is "forced" by an action of the DCI BoD. If they didn't vote to change the rules, the rules would not change. This was as true for grounded pit, three-valve horns and Bb as it is for electronics. The DCI rules are, and always have been, what the member corps want them to be.

Other circuits, with different member corps, have chosen a different set of rules than DCI. Maybe those rules are "better", maybe they are more similar to those of DCI in the 80s and 90s, maybe they are more to your liking. But they are not the ones that DCI chooses to use today.