Drum Corps History 101-DCI Today style
Bill Haas
I have spoken with many current members on and off this board, and they are
as concerned with the perpetual bashing of old versus new going on on this
board and in the activity. The question is why.
Instead of having the equivalent of the NWO-WCW slamboree in RAMD and at
numerous show sites around the country- people should be careful who they
challenge to get in their face, they might meet the proverbial 800 lb
gorilla with a long memory- I want to make a couple of observations about
the latest issue of DCI Today.
First, contrary to popular belief, there was drum corps before DCI, there
was drum corps before you were born and there was drum corps before you
marched. That is true for all of us.
Let's look at some of the numerous examples of revisionist history in the
latest edition of DCI Today.
To Quote Jay Bocook:
"I don't think we have to throw out the white towel and say we are going to
go back and do shows of little or no substance just so we can get applause."
"As a result of working with better trained musicians drum corps have also
learned to be much more "educated"......In the 60's and 70's the kids really
didn't read much music in drum corps. They were taught by rote; ie. "push
this button here or there"... The problem then was you spent so much time
(teaching notes) just to get to a beginning performance level."
To quote Michael Cesario:
"At the DCI Instructors/Judges College this past January I showed a video of
a 1971 corps as a point of reference. We read and hear that "in the old
days" the audience was standing and screaming at every turn, there was
magnificent military precision, the stadiums were filled, there was all kind
of magnificent flag work going on during concert, and on and on. What we
realized though, was that we sometimes have these golden memories about the
"old days" and in fact most of the visual presentation from the era was
pretty substandard by today's ideas of design and achievement.
After DCI was born all that changed.... All that remains is that we still
play drums and we still play bugles and we still move around on the field.
Everything else has undergone dramatic revolution and all of it for the
better"
To quote Jim Campbell:
"I don't know who said drum corps has to be the torchbearer for rudimental
drumming, but I don't agree we have that responsibility. DCI does not have
to be the one to continue the heritage dating back to the revolutionary War.
Drum Corps must evolve to attract participants and an audience."
"Exploration of the art form today has significantly improved from the late
80's to early 90's. Then it was an exercise of going through a checklist of
mandatory items...Now they have decided that the product is more important
than the judging and the scores. This allows more creativity and more risk
taking, which means less rubber stamping and more diversity, where people
are pushing their own envelopes further than ever before."
which he follows by saying
"I hesitate to call drum corps art; I prefer to think of it as a musical
sport."
So, if you are wondering the reason the current members are attacking the
past, it isn't because they have researched old drum corps, listened to our
performances as we listen to theirs, or any other logical reason. IT IS
WHAT THEY ARE BEING TAUGHT.
The members today are being taught that everything before DCI was
Neanderthal, and everything in the early years was transition to the art we
have today. So, let's look past the words and posts and then look at the
evolution of education in DCI, as the issue of DCI Today tries to do. The
issue, ironically enough is called "Forward March". Marching is as lost an
art as rudimentary drumming.
We have made a turn into the politically correct new millennia. I lost
count how many times in the newsletter the key phrase used was "the marching
music community". The YEA! education double speak is now the buzzword, Drum
and Bugle corps is just a sub section.
And a last, the future of drum and bugle corps from Michael Cesario
"The recent DCI Instructors Judges College was terrific. I have been hoping
for this since the days of Baggs and Angelica. It reminded me of the give
and take of the glory days of DCI growth. The creators are once again the
people who determine what will be judged and how it will be judged."
That paragraph alone is better than 100 "swashed my buckles". "The glory
days of DCI growth"....less fans, less corps, less kids marching. Yes
indeed, the growth of the activity under DCI is something to behold .
"The creators are once again the people who will determine what will be
judged and how it will be judged." Whatever happened to excellence of
performance and execution? I can't wait to see what comes out of this.
A lot of what was said directly supports what Ken Mazur has been saying all
along. This is not for the kids any more. This is about the egos of the
designers, arrangers and (as only Michael Cesario could call them)
"creators".
Bill Haas
rbeckham
"Bill Haas" <ianm...@gte.net> writes: > I have spoken with many current members on and off this board, and they are
> as concerned with the perpetual bashing of old versus new going on on this
> board and in the activity. The question is why.
>
> Instead of having the equivalent of the NWO-WCW slamboree in RAMD and at
> numerous show sites around the country- people should be careful who they
> challenge to get in their face, they might meet the proverbial 800 lb
> gorilla with a long memory- I want to make a couple of observations about
> the latest issue of DCI Today.
>
> First, contrary to popular belief, there was drum corps before DCI, there
> was drum corps before you were born and there was drum corps before you
> marched. That is true for all of us.
>
> Let's look at some of the numerous examples of revisionist history in the
> latest edition of DCI Today.
>
> To Quote Jay Bocook:
>
> "I don't think we have to throw out the white towel and say we are going to
> go back and do shows of little or no substance just so we can get applause."
>
This statement displays total ignorance, or denial.
> "As a result of working with better trained musicians drum corps have also
> learned to be much more "educated"......In the 60's and 70's the kids really
> didn't read much music in drum corps. They were taught by rote; ie. "push
> this button here or there"... The problem then was you spent so much time
> (teaching notes) just to get to a beginning performance level."
>
> To quote Michael Cesario:
>
> "At the DCI Instructors/Judges College this past January I showed a video of
> a 1971 corps as a point of reference. We read and hear that "in the old
> days" the audience was standing and screaming at every turn, there was
> magnificent military precision, the stadiums were filled, there was all kind
> of magnificent flag work going on during concert, and on and on. What we
> realized though, was that we sometimes have these golden memories about the
> "old days" and in fact most of the visual presentation from the era was
> pretty substandard by today's ideas of design and achievement.
>
> After DCI was born all that changed.... All that remains is that we still
> play drums and we still play bugles
There are those who would change even this last unique remnant.
>and we still move around on the field.
> Everything else has undergone dramatic revolution and all of it for the
> better"
>
I'd like to see Cesario define 'better'. Perhaps he speaks from the
position of a well paid 'creator'.
> To quote Jim Campbell:
>
> "I don't know who said drum corps has to be the torchbearer for rudimental
> drumming,
I say it, as do many other rudimental enthusiasts. It is part of what
makes field music unique. Why would anyone want to migrate concert
percussion onto a football field? The acoustics aren't there to support
concert style. This is beside the point that field music should keep
the audience from falling asleep. Rudimental drumming keeps the
sound unique. Add harps and strings to a brass quartet and tell me
the sound doesn't matter.
>but I don't agree we have that responsibility. DCI does not have
> to be the one to continue the heritage dating back to the revolutionary War.
> Drum Corps must evolve to attract participants and an audience."
>
Nobody said drum corps should't evolve. As long as people don't confuse
evolvution with progress, because marching percussionists playing
concert style is a step backwards.
> "Exploration of the art form today has significantly improved from the late
> 80's to early 90's.
I'd like to see his list of the improvements.
>Then it was an exercise of going through a checklist of
> mandatory items...
Wow, how wrong could anyone be? There never was compulsories in corps.
>Now they have decided that the product is more important
> than the judging and the scores. This allows more creativity and more risk
> taking, which means less rubber stamping and more diversity,
Tell that to the YEA crowd. How many corps now fit the YEA mold? 6?
>where people
> are pushing their own envelopes further than ever before."
>
I'd like to know what envelopes he thinks are being pushed. Nothing's
new.
> which he follows by saying
>
> "I hesitate to call drum corps art; I prefer to think of it as a musical
> sport."
>
Huge contradiction. If it's a sport it must have parameters, criteria,
from which to judge. This is the single most confusing element of drum
corps, and is responsible for so many people's misunderstanding of
the activity. It is a competition. It is judged. It must have criteria
etched in stone for the judges to judge. The criteria must adhere as
close to objectivity as it possibly can so the participants/members/
judges/audience have faith that what is being judged is judged
properly. Subjectivity must be avoided. Otherwise it can become a
political game. Once we widen the parameters for what can be judged
we loose credibility. You can't have it both ways; anything goes, no-
holds-bar, unlimited creativity, or a judged activity with boundaries.
> So, if you are wondering the reason the current members are attacking the
> past, it isn't because they have researched old drum corps, listened to our
> performances as we listen to theirs, or any other logical reason. IT IS
> WHAT THEY ARE BEING TAUGHT.
>
> The members today are being taught that everything before DCI was
> Neanderthal, and everything in the early years was transition to the art we
> have today. So, let's look past the words and posts and then look at the
> evolution of education in DCI, as the issue of DCI Today tries to do. The
> issue, ironically enough is called "Forward March". Marching is as lost an
> art as rudimentary drumming.
>
I heard that.
> We have made a turn into the politically correct new millennia. I lost
Ltn Mundy
>I have spoken with many current members on and off this board, and they are
>as concerned with the perpetual bashing of old versus new going on on this
>board and in the activity. The question is why.
>
>Instead of having the equivalent of the NWO-WCW slamboree in RAMD and at
>numerous show sites around the country- people should be careful who they
>challenge to get in their face, they might meet the proverbial 800 lb
>gorilla with a long memory- I want to make a couple of observations about
>the latest issue of DCI Today.
Thank you Bill, both for this great post, and for saving us from the
"wrestlemania" of RAMD. Some people in this newsgroup should definitely *not*
be wearing tights.
>First, contrary to popular belief, there was drum corps before DCI, there
>was drum corps before you were born and there was drum corps before you
>marched. That is true for all of us.
>
>Let's look at some of the numerous examples of revisionist history in the
>latest edition of DCI Today.
>
>To Quote Jay Bocook:
>
>"I don't think we have to throw out the white towel and say we are going to
>go back and do shows of little or no substance just so we can get applause."
Little or no substance? Look at some of Santa Clara's shows from the early
seventies. They have substance even by their narrow, elitist standards.
>"As a result of working with better trained musicians drum corps have also
>learned to be much more "educated"......In the 60's and 70's the kids really
>didn't read much music in drum corps. They were taught by rote; ie. "push
>this button here or there"... The problem then was you spent so much time
>(teaching notes) just to get to a beginning performance level."
>
>To quote Michael Cesario:
>
>"At the DCI Instructors/Judges College this past January I showed a video of
>a 1971 corps as a point of reference. We read and hear that "in the old
>days" the audience was standing and screaming at every turn, there was
>magnificent military precision, the stadiums were filled, there was all kind
>of magnificent flag work going on during concert, and on and on. What we
>realized though, was that we sometimes have these golden memories about the
>"old days" and in fact most of the visual presentation from the era was
>pretty substandard by today's ideas of design and achievement.
They are substandard by today's ideas. Are today's ideas better? More correct?
There's an assumption here that needs to be challenged.
>After DCI was born all that changed.... All that remains is that we still
>play drums and we still play bugles and we still move around on the field.
>Everything else has undergone dramatic revolution and all of it for the
>better"
Better by whose standards? Ken Turner and Micheal Cesario? These people decide
what is "good" for our entire activity. <Warning: Politically Incorrect rant to
ensue.> These pretentious "artists" sit (much to the chair's displeasure) and
pontificate on what is "better". Well who the hell are you? They spew utter
bullshit with no backing, justification, or explanation and expect us to say
"Oh! How stupid of me, you are, of course, correct." I WILL NOT do it. I am not
a sheep blinded by art buzzwords. I will not accept what you say, simply
because you are the one saying it. So get off your collective asses, and tell
me why today's corps is so superior. And don't tell me it's more advanced
artistically, or more refined. Drum corps is NOT art. It is entertainment, and
at the moment, pretty damned dull entertainment.
>To quote Jim Campbell:
>
>"I don't know who said drum corps has to be the torchbearer for rudimental
>drumming, but I don't agree we have that responsibility. DCI does not have
>to be the one to continue the heritage dating back to the revolutionary War.
>Drum Corps must evolve to attract participants and an audience."
So inaudible buzz rolls and an the omnipresent rim shot is more entertaining
than in your face rudimental drumming? Give me a break, I'm not qualified to
say which is better, but today's drumming sounds like a detuned RX-7, and I
don't need to pay 75 bucks to hear that.
>"Exploration of the art form today has significantly improved from the late
>80's to early 90's. Then it was an exercise of going through a checklist of
>mandatory items...Now they have decided that the product is more important
>than the judging and the scores.
Which is a damned good thing, as the judging doesn't even make any *attempt* at
objectivity.
> This allows more creativity and more risk
>taking, which means less rubber stamping and more diversity, where people
>are pushing their own envelopes further than ever before."
More diversity? You must be kidding. Half the top twelve playing cookie-cutter
Cadets' shows is diversity?
>which he follows by saying
>
>"I hesitate to call drum corps art; I prefer to think of it as a musical
>sport."
Last time I checked, the guys designing the commercials don't preach on what is
good football or basketball. If it is a sport, why are Ken Turner and Micheal
Cesario, self proclaimed artists, telling us what we should and shouldn't like.
>So, if you are wondering the reason the current members are attacking the
>past, it isn't because they have researched old drum corps, listened to our
>performances as we listen to theirs, or any other logical reason. IT IS
>WHAT THEY ARE BEING TAUGHT.
>
>The members today are being taught that everything before DCI was
>Neanderthal, and everything in the early years was transition to the art we
>have today. So, let's look past the words and posts and then look at the
>evolution of education in DCI, as the issue of DCI Today tries to do.
The kids are being taught an unprecedented disrespect for the people that paved
the way for them, so let's ignore that and talk about education?? Uhh, no
thanks. I think we need to address this former first.
> The
>issue, ironically enough is called "Forward March". Marching is as lost an
>art as rudimentary drumming.
No kidding.
>We have made a turn into the politically correct new millennia. I lost
>count how many times in the newsletter the key phrase used was "the marching
>music community". The YEA! education double speak is now the buzzword, Drum
>and Bugle corps is just a sub section.
>
>And a last, the future of drum and bugle corps from Michael Cesario
>
>"The recent DCI Instructors Judges College was terrific. I have been hoping
>for this since the days of Baggs and Angelica. It reminded me of the give
>and take of the glory days of DCI growth. The creators are once again the
>people who determine what will be judged and how it will be judged."
>
>That paragraph alone is better than 100 "swashed my buckles". "The glory
>days of DCI growth"....less fans, less corps, less kids marching. Yes
>indeed, the growth of the activity under DCI is something to behold .
So fewer and fewer corps are out there, playing for fewer and fewer fans, who
get more confused and disenchanted by what they see ever year, and this is the
"glory days". This little prevarication reveals a dangerous attitude on the
part of the leaders of our activity. They are more concerned with the "artists"
and instructors, than the kids. The MEMBERS are the number one priority, and
there are fewer an fewer of them every year.
Are we giving them better life lessons? Probably not. Are we giving them
more musical education? Yes, but who cares? Drum corps is *not* the primary
educational element in a kid's musical life. Any parent that wants musical
education for their kid should be sending them to Tanglewood, or Interlochen,
not drum corps.
>"The creators are once again the people who will determine what will be
>judged and how it will be judged." Whatever happened to excellence of
>performance and execution? I can't wait to see what comes out of this.
>
>A lot of what was said directly supports what Ken Mazur has been saying all
>along. This is not for the kids any more. This is about the egos of the
>designers, arrangers and (as only Michael Cesario could call them)
>"creators".
The management and designers of DCI are, for the most part, a mutual admiration
society that is alienating it's base of support. Where have our priorities as
an activity gone?
Alan
>Bill Haas
>
>
>
>
>
>
></PRE></HTML>
JB GALAHAD
Bill,
Hey Bill, it's your nemesis Mike (MDA...@ETS.ORG) on my son's AOL acount again.
<"I don't think we have to throw out the white towel and say we are going to
go back and do shows of little or no substance just so we can get applause.">
Very few folks would knock Jay's capabilities as an arranger, but boy, is he
wriong in that quote about the history of DC music! Look at Argonne's great
shows of the ealy 70's, Boston's late 60's, BS' great shows of the late 60's,
our (Garfield's) wonderful music of the 71-72 era, 27th's great music of the
70's, the Bridgemen, Muchachos, etc, etc, etc. even the Garden State corps I
taught in the mid-70's was playing Berlioz and Nelhybel. Sure, there was drek
out there, but the good stuff was GREAT.
<In the 60's and 70's the kids really
didn't read much music in drum corps. They were taught by rote; ie. "push
this button here or there".>
While he was wrong in the above, on THIS one I do tend to agree, which makes
the great music that DID come out all that much more wonderful.
<It reminded me of the give
and take of the glory days of DCI growth. >
Odd thing tio say. When has DCI EVER experienced 'growth'? It has only shrunk
since DCI has existed. Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burns!
No oneeciates the wonderful music the kids of today are making on the field
more than me, but that takesd NOTHING away from our era!
Mike
DCIGene
This whole thing is silly as I have stated before. I think Bill is making the
same point here and I know he is not taking sides persay.
I do want to say that I love drum corps no matter if it was before I was born
or when i ever have kids....I LOVE DRUM CORPS!!!! Bring on the brass (no
matter how many valves they have), bring on the drums (no matter what YOU think
they should sound like), bring on the corps (for whom we who love this thing
truly cheer for - the kids). And let's not forget the traditions being held up
in many Senior corps today. And what about the inner city corps that are never
noticed on a field? they are still a drum corps because that is what they are
striving for.
Bill made a good move though....he asked those who have been there and are
still here. Granted, Jay Bocook may not be the oldest bird on the Drum corps
nest but he makes some good points in his statement.
You know who I want to hear from....Wayne Downey, Scott Stewart, Dennis
Delucia, Don Warren, and any other corps involved individual who continues to
stick it out. they probably sit back and laugh at us who just talk the talk
and they have walked and contunue to walk the walk....no matter where it
goes....for the sake of drum corps and the kids who still can march. For the
kids in the stands who sit and watch a video at their HS or in the stands for
the first time and say, "I want to do that". There is nothing more important
than that in drum corps and we need to stay focused on that fact people. let's
drop this whole trying to prove the point thing and talk the talk ONLY if we
are willing to walk the walk as well. No more armchair directors and
staffers....You want to influence drum corps...get off your butts and do
something for it.
My thoughts are my own and they are now for yours as well.
DCIGene
DCIGene
"If it's not Drum Corps, I don't want to know."
DVAdams
Bill Haas wrote:
<snipped>
>To Quote Jay Bocook:
>
>"I don't think we have to throw out the white towel and say we are going to
>go back and do shows of little or no substance just so we can get applause."
That comment is complete nonsense.
>"As a result of working with better trained musicians drum corps have also
>learned to be much more "educated"......In the 60's and 70's the kids really
>didn't read much music in drum corps. They were taught by rote; ie. "push
>this button here or there"... The problem then was you spent so much time
>(teaching notes) just to get to a beginning performance level."
Where was this guy in the 70's anyway? Was he the same guy that was writing
"spam in a can" marching band arrangements?
I can't believe people buy statements like this. We had 6 music majors in our
drum line- I suppose these people should give their degrees back. BTW, every
part we had was written out, and almost every exercise was too.
< more snippage>
>So, if you are wondering the reason the current members are attacking the
>past, it isn't because they have researched old drum corps, listened to our
>performances as we listen to theirs, or any other logical reason. IT IS
>WHAT THEY ARE BEING TAUGHT
Thanks for confirming that for me.
>A lot of what was said directly supports what Ken Mazur has been saying all
>along. This is not for the kids any more. This is about the egos of the
>designers, arrangers and (as only Michael Cesario could call them)
>"creators".
I don't think its just ego. If the activity is all about how the kids compete,
then the incomes of the designers and arrangers depend directly on how well the
kids do. That isn't a very reliable way to make your living. The focus of the
competion has been turned because the people who make their living at it want
it that way. You can imagine the dismay of someone arranging or doing drill for
a top three corps that drops to say, tenth. Do you think they might be worried
about losing clients?
Some people will read this and assume that I am accusing all instructors of
being greedy opportunists. Nope. In fact, you have to recognize that these
people love drum corps so much that they decided to make it their work. My
problem with it is that the decisions being made may have more to do with
widening someone's client base than whether drum and bugle corps continue to
exist.
-Dave Adams-
LEG at cba
In article <199805190541...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, dci...@aol.com
(DCIGene) writes:
>You know who I want to hear from....Wayne Downey, Scott Stewart, Dennis
>Delucia, Don Warren,
Good point.
Someone might want to ask these folks where they got *their* start in the
activity. Ask Wayne who taught him to play a bugle, ask Dennis who showed him
how to hold those sticks. I think the reason you *don't* hear from these
people in particular is that they don't feel the need to pontificate. They are
not insecure and know that they are carrying on the true drum corps traditions
without fanfare.
Larry Girard, Jr.
SplinterGr
Dave Adams' citing of Jay Bocock's previous life as the arranger of so many of
those ultra-fine "corps-style" marching band arrangements gets a big "Hey
now!". Anyone who believes that a drum and bugle corps on a football field is
capable of putting together an 11 minute show which is artistically
"substantive" is sadly deluded. There might be musically challenging material
covered in today's shows, but that was also true back in the mid-70's when I
started marching, so Bocock's statement was made from an apparent state of
ignorance. In no case does the drum corps form allow for serious artistic
statement; the means of communication are much too limited.
I suggest that Michael Cesario (and what the hell, I've held my tongue for a
year, would this man please stop letting himself be referred to as a 'Broadway
designer': I've never seen one reference to his New York professional stage
design work in the thousands of reviews and articles I read as part of my job
as a REAL Artistic Director for a professional theatre producing organization -
I suspect that he's padding his resume) take a look at Chris Lloyd's "Waiting
for Gufman" - a savagely funny take on a small town "triple threat" and his
pathetically delusioned attempt to put together a community theatre show which
is entertaining yet "artistically substantive". It could easily have been set
among the staff meetings and camps of 75% of the drum corps in the US.
In direct reference to Cesario's comments about the apparent simplicity of
1970's drill patterns - having a group symmetrically laid out across the field
is not only as or more difficult to clean than series of interconnected
squiggly lines, it's more visually impressive 9and one of the reasons why tapes
of old 70's shows make the corps apprear to be larger than today's, even though
they're all marching about 128 people). Every day, the "more is more, busier is
better" approach of DCI drill writers makes Steve Brubaker's absence all the
more painful, as he was apparently the last to understand the importance of the
basic concept that easily read, visually focused drill is aesthetically more
pleasing than unfocused busy-ness.
I swear, these guys are completely oblivious to the damage they've done to the
product by trying to make it an extension of their college music programs (and
think about it: the last time you saw a big public turnout for a recital by a
college musical group was?.....)
Matt
James Dittrich
rbeckham wrote:
>
> > To quote Jim Campbell:
> >
>
>> >where people
> > are pushing their own envelopes further than ever before."
> >
>
> I'd like to know what envelopes he thinks are being pushed. Nothing's
> new.
>
It isn't new. Some of the stuff just has been given a new name.
>
> > So, if you are wondering the reason the current members are attacking the
> > past, it isn't because they have researched old drum corps, listened to our
> > performances as we listen to theirs, or any other logical reason. IT IS
> > WHAT THEY ARE BEING TAUGHT.
> >
> > The members today are being taught that everything before DCI was
> > Neanderthal, and everything in the early years was transition to the art we
> > have today. So, let's look past the words and posts and then look at the
> > evolution of education in DCI, as the issue of DCI Today tries to do. The
> > issue, ironically enough is called "Forward March". Marching is as lost an
> > art as rudimentary drumming.
> >
>
> I heard that.
>
Good God, we're all hearing it. We sucked, We sucked, We sucked! Just ask
Kevin. He's going to tell me in person;).
-Terri
>
RobbSi
<<We sucked, We sucked, We sucked! Just ask
Kevin. He's going to tell me in person;).
-Terri>>
Every morning, as I splash water on my face and prepare for the day, I stare at
myself in the mirror & reflect on a particular RAMD-ers posts. Certain RAMD-ers
say -- in essence -- the drumming back then sucked. I drummed back then. So,
my drumming sucked. Yes?
If only drum corps would stay the same like the timeless taste of Capn'
Crunch Peanut Butter Crunch, people would never criticize my generation's
accomplishments (although compared to modern cereal prizes, the toys found in
cereal boxes back then REALLY sucked).
-- Robb Sirat
NARD and IARP enthusiast
Martin McIsaac
Many, many thanks to Bill Haas for again authoring such a thought
provoking post. This should, generate a lively discussion. I hope some
of you current members wade in.
I too must count myself an uncouth and uncultered relic of the past. I
admit it, I cannot appreciate and or comprehend the shear magnitude of
design genius possessed by men like Michael Cesario and others. An
example of that genius which immediately comes to mind is Kristy Spears
D.M. of P.R. in the '96 finals. Towards the end of P.R.s '96 show, the
camera gave us a closeup of a, talented, determined young woman
literally pushing her corps to the title. Watching her masterfully
direct that corps to it's triumphant conclusion brought a lump to my
throat. When she turned and smiled to the crowd, it reaffirmed to me why
I've done this thing for thirty years and why it's the greatest activity
on the planet. But you design giants knew better. That special moment
could be improved. So the next year, we're greeted by the same young
woman wearing a black wet suit, gold dog collar and directing a
"concept" even Wagner didn't get. The list of your improvements and
innovations to Drum Corps is endless, but this one immediately comes to
mind.
So please Mike et. al., just keep telling me what's good. Keep telling
me and the rest of my "know nothing peers" just what we should
unreservedly appreciate. And you kids out there, you just keep coming up
with your tour fees, making those huge time and effort commitments and
maybe, just maybe, if your able to interpret the visions of these
giants, you'll be rewarded by a restrained but very polite applause from
your audience. (Madison, Crossman, Magic last year excluded) Because you
see, it's no longer about you. It's now about creative genius judged by
creative genius. Feel privledged to be touched by this level of
greatness.
To the gentlemen whom these quotes are attributed, after you've
alienated the very last fan through your "design uber alles" mentality,
is your plan to go and "enlighten" the bands. God, I hope so.
Lastly, thanks, I was on the fence as to whether or not to attend
Orlando again this year. Your comments to DCI Today have made this a
real easy call.
Marty McIsaac
BAC Sr.
Bill Haas
mold...@gac.edu wrote in message <6jt77s$98r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>In regards to Michael Cesario, he was a big contributer to Regiment's
>91, 93, and 96 shows (his brother helped in 96, too). Did those shows
>alienate the common fan?
I don't recall anyone saying they alienated the common fan. Boring has been
said about some of the programs Michael has designed.
>
>Alot of you people on RAMD, especially the older generation, are really
>quick to jump on the bash-Cesario bandwagon.
This is not generational Michael, although many are trying to make it so.
Read the Cesario threads of the last year and many of the 'new generation'
have bashed him too.This is a fundamental disagreement about 'art' versus
'popular entertainment' in drum corps. No more, no less. There are people
from all generations on both sides of the discussion.
If the statements he made in a public publication cannot withstand the
scrutiny of the audience reading it, then debate will follow. No one has
bashed Michael. I question statements he made and the direction he desires
the activity to take in the future.
>Maybe you haven't considered the tremendous love he has for drumcorps. The
kind of >love that causes a person to dedicate so much of their life to this
activity.
No one denies Michael's love of the activity. But, the fact is that Michael
receives monetary compensation for his work. The remarks he made regarding
the future of the activity in the areas of art, entertainment and judging
concern me. His remarks regarding the generation of drum corps that he
marched in (as I remember he wore the Kilt) apall me. I don't remember many
members in our era criticising the past .
Now it is common for the todays members and 'creators' to view our
performances as second rate-and openly criticize. The whole focus of
DCI-Today was a discussion of the future of the activity from three
perspectives- Brass, visual, and Percussion.
We 'old timers' are being held up as the before picture in the examples, the
ugly face before the wonders of plastic surgery. I would have an easier
time if our performances were discussed with respect and as a step in the
evolution of the activity, both in DCI Today and on RAMD. It was a
different era, with different criteria.
To call himself and his fellow designers, arrangers, etc "creators" is
ludicrous. A choreographer is not a creator. An arranger of music is not
a creator. IMHO the last two creators in the activity were Robert Smith and
Scott Boerma with their original music.
To allow the 'creators' to decide what is judged and how is to allow the
inmates to run the the prison. That is like a gymnast going to the judges
and saying "This is what I am trying to achieve and this is how you will
judge it". Input is one thing. But those whose work is being judged cannot
decide the standards and criteria. Judging is supposed to be 'objective'.
>I've been present at quite a few corps meetings where Greg or Michael have
spoken
>and I've found them to be quite inspiring and caring people. The
suggestion
>that they are in it for the money is far-fetched at best.
No one is denying Michael's talent or dedication. BUT-WHATEVER HAPPENED TO
HAVING FUN? This activity is not for the members anymore. It is turning
into an event staged to find out who can come up with the hardest brass and
concert percussion arrangements, and the most hectic design that is
performed as well as the members are capable. The reward is for the
difficulty of the program and the design, not the excellence of execution of
the corps or the fan appeal of the show.
I watched Magic the last two years. In 96 was an artistic program, that
basically was work for the members, met with the lukewarm standing O's that
the 'art' shows get. They finished tied for 8th. In 97, was entertainment
first, free form scatter drill for long portions of the show and the members
had FUN. Laughing, smiling, singing and turning the fans on. REAL STANDING
O's. Finished 10th, one tenth away from 11th. Twenty years from now, when
you are an old-timer which show will you reach to watch/hear first?
If the 'creators' reward what they consider 'art' , we are going to have
symphonies on a football field, doing z pulls at 250 and ballet, playing to
empty stands.
The place for education is school. The place for symphonies is in a concert
hall. The place for art is in a gallery. The football field is a place for
the drum corps to perform entertaining programs for their fans.
Bill Haas
Ryan Ronald
First of all, Bill Haas, since when can art not be entertaining? You look
at art as being pure boredom. I disagree. Yes, if someone where to come
out with an all-Brahms show, it would bore everyone to death. Even though
brahms musical art is considered masterpiece, it does not hold the same
entertainment value we look for in drum corps today.
And why does everyone jump on classical music when they talk about art?
is jazz any less artistic? Is contemporary any less artistic?
When you talk about Smith and Boerma and how they are the only real
"creators" in the past few years. Well, by that rationale, how can you
not commit Marc Sylvester, Tony Hall, Garret Decker, John Brazale, etc. to
be creators? They are "creating" something out of nothing.
And as for harder arrangements, I do not see how that is taking the
activity away from the members. The reason the demand has increased is
because it is not as easy to score that "10" as it used to be. And I am
very sorry, but this IS a competitive event.
Ryan Tysdal
Phantom Regiment Baritone
1996-1997-1998-????
mold...@gac.edu
In article <3561E7...@erols.com>,
bosc...@erols.com wrote:
> To the gentlemen whom these quotes are attributed, after you've
> alienated the very last fan through your "design uber alles" mentality,
> is your plan to go and "enlighten" the bands. God, I hope so.
> Lastly, thanks, I was on the fence as to whether or not to attend
> Orlando again this year. Your comments to DCI Today have made this a
> real easy call.
> Marty McIsaac
That's too bad. I think we're going to have a pretty entertaining show.
Have fun at home.
In regards to Michael Cesario, he was a big contributer to Regiment's
91, 93, and 96 shows (his brother helped in 96, too). Did those shows
alienate the common fan?
Alot of you people on RAMD, especially the older generation, are really
quick to jump on the bash-Cesario bandwagon. Maybe you haven't considered
the tremendous love he has for drumcorps. The kind of love that causes
a person to dedicate so much of their life to this activity. I've been
present at quite a few corps meetings where Greg or Michael have spoken
and I've found them to be quite inspiring and caring people. The suggestion
that they are in it for the money is far-fetched at best.
Michael Oldemeyer
Phantom Regiment 94,6,8.
euphonium
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
StefCheng
><<We sucked, We sucked, We sucked! Just ask <BR>
>Kevin. He's going to tell me in person;).<BR>
><BR>
>-Terri>><BR>
><BR>
>Every morning, as I splash water on my face and prepare for the day, I stare
>myself in the mirror & reflect on a particular RAMD-ers posts. Certain
>say -- in essence -- the drumming back then sucked. I drummed back then.
>my drumming sucked. Yes?<BR>
><BR>
> If only drum corps would stay the same like the timeless taste of Capn'<BR>
>Crunch Peanut Butter Crunch, people would never criticize my generation's<BR>
>accomplishments (although compared to modern cereal prizes, the toys found
>cereal boxes back then REALLY sucked).<BR>
><BR>
>-- Robb Sirat<BR>
> NARD and IARP enthusiast<BR>
I don't get it...I'm relatively new to RAMD, but this whole "you suck" thing
really seems like it's going both ways. I'm not saying that the "older"
generation sucks, but I personally don't get it. I've read numerous posts by
the "older" generation and many of them are just as insulting to current
members as other posts are to you guys. I mean, it is definitely not cool
coming onto RAMD and reading posts by people who are all a part of the same
activity telling each other they suck, know what I mean? It goes both ways.
RARIDAN
>The football field is a place for
>the drum corps to perform entertaining programs for their fans.
>
>
Gotta agree with Bill, when I was marching in the mid to late 70's drill
instructors where just beginning to get away from straight lines during
judging, this to avoid ticks for dress. Now they put the tymps and glocks and
whatever else in a pit so there are fewer persons marching. I would like to see
a corp rearange its pit during the show(TFIC).
RAR...@AOL.COM (Pete Reynolds)(Bluecoats75-77)
mda...@ets.org
In article <6jt77s$98r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
mold...@gac.edu wrote:
>
> In regards to Michael Cesario, he was a big contributer to Regiment's
> 91, 93, and 96 shows (his brother helped in 96, too). Did those shows
> alienate the common fan?
>
Not this one, as PR has been my favorite corps since the late 80's. My 2nd
favorite all-time opener is the Saint Saens "Organ Symphony" PR did a few
years back (my first will ALWAYS be 27th's "Crown Imperial").
> Alot of you people on RAMD, especially the older generation, are really
> quick to jump on the bash-Cesario bandwagon. Maybe you haven't considered
> the tremendous love he has for drumcorps.
Well, he certainly put his foot in his mouth with his comments about 'old'
drum corps. If it's a given that a lot of the fans of DC who go to shows ARE
old marching members, to make comments disparaging what they (ahem, WE) did is
not the best way to insure good will. Even if every word he says is true,
there are ways of saying it that don't diss the past accomplishments of corps
members. I love the drills and music of today, but I also love the past glory
of drum corps performances, something Michael doesn't seem to feel. Sure, the
drills were simpler than today, esp the ones he writes, which are wonderful,
but every era is what it is, and what follows builds upon it. If it weren't
for the 60's and 70's drills, there wouldn't BE 80's and 90's drills.
Mike, Garfield 70-72
PS: Gee, here's a Mike writing to a Mike about a Mike. :-)
mda...@ets.org
In article <199805191435...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rob...@aol.com (RobbSi) wrote:
>
> If only drum corps would stay the same like the timeless taste of Capn'
in
>
Robb,
You mean you never got a Captain Whiz-bang Magic Decoder Ring in your cereal?
Talk about a GREAT prize! :-)
Mike
mda...@ets.org
In article <199805200456...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
stef...@aol.com (StefCheng) wrote:
>
> I don't get it...I'm relatively new to RAMD, but this whole "you suck" thing
> really seems like it's going both ways. I'm not saying that the "older"
> generation sucks, but I personally don't get it. I've read numerous posts
by
> the "older" generation and many of them are just as insulting to current
> members as other posts are to you guys.
I'm afraid I have to agree with you, Steph. There's WAY to much tunnel vision
on this topic. The 'old' generation talks about how lame percussion writing is
today, and how boring the shows are, and then expects the current marcher to
NOT react in kind. The 'new' generation disses the great drumming of the past
and then wonders why the 'old' folks get all riled up. Every era had/s it's
uniqueness; every era had/s it's top-flight performances. Each should be
enjoyed for what they were/are.
Mike, Garfield 70-72, Asst Marching Band director, West Windsor/Plainsboro HS,
NJ 94-??
mda...@ets.org
In article <Pine.A41.3.96.980519...@inst.augie.edu>,
Ryan Ronald <rrty...@inst.augie.edu> wrote:
>
> First of all, Bill Haas, since when can art not be entertaining? You look
> at art as being pure boredom. I disagree. Yes, if someone where to come
> out with an all-Brahms show, it would bore everyone to death.
Hey! He's one of my favorite composers; you could create a REAL great show of
his music.
>
> And why does everyone jump on classical music when they talk about art?
> is jazz any less artistic? Is contemporary any less artistic?
>
No, it's a huge mistake to think that ART=Classical. Even "Ice Castles" is art
(well, maybe).
>
> And as for harder arrangements, I do not see how that is taking the
> activity away from the members. The reason the demand has increased is
> because it is not as easy to score that "10" as it used to be.
Not to mention that the AVERAGE player is FAR superior to the past, as most
top-X players have been studying brass/percussion in their scholastic setting
as well as DC. It takes nothing away from my generation's performers to say
that; in fact, it makes what we DID accomplish that much more amazing.
BTW, you are lucky to be a member of a DC like PR; never forget that.
Mike, Garfield 70-72
mda...@ets.org
In article <6jtg0o$o5d$1...@gte2.gte.net>,
"Bill Haas" <ianm...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
> If the statements he made in a public publication cannot withstand the
> scrutiny of the audience reading it, then debate will follow.
Agree, Bill. If you are going to make public statements about something, you
have to expect that there will be another side weighing in as well.
>
> No one denies Michael's love of the activity. But, the fact is that Michael
> receives monetary compensation for his work.
Which I'm sure you have no problem with. Every professional deserves to be
compensated for their work, and as one of the top desiginers/drill
writers/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, Michael does too.
> His remarks regarding the generation of drum corps that he
> marched in (as I remember he wore the Kilt) apall me. I don't remember many
> members in our era criticising the past .
>
True. There are other ways to say the same thing about the current state of
things WITHOUT dissing what went on before.
>
> We 'old timers' are being held up as the before picture in the examples, the
> ugly face before the wonders of plastic surgery. I would have an easier
> time if our performances were discussed with respect and as a step in the
> evolution of the activity, both in DCI Today and on RAMD. It was a
> different era, with different criteria.
>
EXACTLY!!!!
>
> To allow the 'creators' to decide what is judged and how is to allow the
> inmates to run the the prison. That is like a gymnast going to the judges
> and saying "This is what I am trying to achieve and this is how you will
> judge it". Input is one thing. But those whose work is being judged cannot
> decide the standards and criteria. Judging is supposed to be 'objective'.
>
I agree with most of that, as one who has been a judge for over 20 years.
Sure, staff folks should have a say in the criteria, but to be in the driver's
seat seems silly to me.
>
> I watched Magic the last two years. In 96 was an artistic program, that
> basically was work for the members, met with the lukewarm standing O's that
> the 'art' shows get. They finished tied for 8th. In 97, was entertainment
> first, free form scatter drill for long portions of the show and the members
> had FUN. Laughing, smiling, singing and turning the fans on. REAL STANDING
> O's. Finished 10th, one tenth away from 11th. Twenty years from now, when
> you are an old-timer which show will you reach to watch/hear first?
>
IMHO, BOTH of those shows you mentioned are 'ART'. Every show generates
different emotions. Maybe the brass line wasn't quite up to generating the
emotion a great symphonic show can generate (in 96), but were VERY capable of
performing well in a 'pop' style (in 97).
>
> The place for education is school. The place for symphonies is in a concert
> hall. The place for art is in a gallery.
>
The place for education to happen is EVERYWHERE. Thbe place for ART is ALSO
everywhere.
<The football field is a place for
> the drum corps to perform entertaining programs for their fans.>
But we may disagree a bit on what 'entertaining' is. I say it's the FULL
spectrum of show concepts, not merely the 'pop' culture. It never was in DC,
even in OUR day. You still had all styles of show.
A small example (I know it's about a band, but it's what I've been involved
with): I put together some cuts from an orcestral CD for a second number for
our band show last year. The first portion, a WW feature, was "Entrance of the
Sardar". When our arranger heard it, his FIRST comment was something like:
"Yes! That was done by St Lucy's in 1960-something". The second
portion was Moussorgsky's "Gopak"; I see it's being done by a DCA corps this
year. Symphonic music can be totally entertaining, and if done right even MORE
so than 'pop' music.
Mike
James Dittrich
StefCheng wrote:
>
> ><<We sucked, We sucked, We sucked! Just ask <BR>
> >Kevin. He's going to tell me in person;).<BR>
> ><BR>
> >-Terri>><BR>
> ><BR>
> >Every morning, as I splash water on my face and prepare for the day, I stare
> >at<BR>
> >myself in the mirror & reflect on a particular RAMD-ers posts. Certain
> >RAMD-ers<BR>
> >say -- in essence -- the drumming back then sucked. I drummed back then.
> >So,<BR>
> >my drumming sucked. Yes?<BR>
> ><BR>
> >Crunch Peanut Butter Crunch, people would never criticize my generation's<BR>
> >accomplishments (although compared to modern cereal prizes, the toys found
> >cereal boxes back then REALLY sucked).<BR>
> ><BR>
> >-- Robb Sirat<BR>
> > NARD and IARP enthusiast<BR>
>
> really seems like it's going both ways. I'm not saying that the "older"
> generation sucks, but I personally don't get it. I've read numerous posts by
> the "older" generation and many of them are just as insulting to current
> coming onto RAMD and reading posts by people who are all a part of the same
> activity telling each other they suck, know what I mean? It goes both ways.
I would never tell a kid(well, I'm forty, so they're kids to me) that they are no
good, or suck, for lack of a better term. I teach high school kids. So I am not
saying or writing this sort of thing.....my mother did a better job of parenting
than some, from what I gather from reading RAMD.
-Terri
James Dittrich
DVAdams wrote:
>
> Bill Haas wrote:
>
> <snipped>
> >To Quote Jay Bocook:
>
> Where was this guy in the 70's anyway? Was he the same guy that was writing
> "spam in a can" marching band arrangements?
Still is, Dave. I just listened to a CD full of his arrangements, including
"Theme from Coach" and get this, a full medley of Monkees tunes. (said like
Austin Powers): OOoooh, Groovy Baby!
-Terri
Harry Baer IV
I'm not going to quote this really long post...there's been enough of
that already.
Why is it that so few in the world of drum corps today are able to
tolerate anything other than their own ideas about what drum corps
should be? Granted, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but come
on! Try to have an open mind, and look at what this activity has had to
offer, both pre-DCI and now.
Pre DCI-types: I understand your frustration with DCI. I know that some
of the shows are incomprehensible. Please, I was born in 1972, and I
don't get some of the new shows any better than you do! But the fact
remains that much of what DCI did was necessary to keep drum corps
alive. The activity needed to change, to get away from the censorship in
the VFW/American legion era.
The fact is, when people say that drum corps is better today, they
usually mean that the shows of today are harder, particularly from a
drill standpoint. There was an awful lot of "Forward March!" in the old
days. Let's face it, a lot of the seemingly impossible drill of today is
phenomenal when you finally see it done properly. (Let us all thank SCV
for asymmetrical drill.)
Whether we like to admit it or not, there have been shows in the past
few years which were entertaining and superior in quality. (Phantom
Regiment '96, Madison almost any year, Crossmen '97.) Not all that has
happened with DCI is by definintion bad.
I am willing to admit whole-heartedly that some of the shows of today
lack any entertainment value whatsoever, but please, let's not become
slaves to the hyperbole of "Corps is NEVER entertaining these days, and
EVERYTHING was better about the old days." Please- try not to mock what
you don't understand.
Modern DCI-Types: Whenever we get on our high horse about the quality
of our performances today, and scoff at older types who don't understand
the show concept, there's one thing we should keep in mind- without
them, there would BE no drumcorps.
If it weren't for the pre DCI days, we would have had no starting point
for today's drum corps. Where would the Blue Devils be without those
early days? Would they even exist? Ditto on Regiment, Cadets, Scouts,
and a host of others. Those rudiments you attack so fervently gave birth
to today's more complex drumming, and those piston-rotor horns were a
necessary step in the evolution of brass playing. Try not to demonize
the past- without it, we wouldn't have corps about which to argue.
Oh, well, I've said my piece, now flame if you must, but keep in mind
that BOTH sides of this argument have merit.
Harry Baer IV
Westshoremen '96, '97
arranger
Hi Bill,
I've watched this thread with mild interest and have a couple questions for you.
I, too, got the issue of DCI Today and read all the same interviews as most
people here.
Why did this particular round of interviews inspire such violent reaction?
I feel that a lot of what they said is being taken in a very narrow context here
on RAMD. Read those pages again and try to get to the root of their meaning
instead of staying on the surface with issues about intolerance, lack of
respect, and an "US vs. THEM" mentality. The point of the articles wasn't to
draw a better picture of today by blasting the past.
Instructors/designers today do not talk badly about corps of the past as some
would have us believe. What a complete waste of time that would be. And for
what purpose?
This whole thread has been demeaning and abusive to the very people who are
actively involved in creating (yes CREATING) today's shows. What is your
purpose in protracting this ugliness?
"Bill Haas" <ianm...@gte.net> writes:
>
> If the statements he made in a public publication cannot withstand the
> scrutiny of the audience reading it, then debate will follow. No one has
> bashed Michael. I question statements he made and the direction he desires
> the activity to take in the future.
Which statments would those be? Michael talked about the differences between
corps at the beginning of the DCI era and compared them to the shows that are on
the field today. Nothing more. He certainly stated nothing specific in terms
of change for the future. Where are your disagreements?
> No one denies Michael's love of the activity. But, the fact is that Michael
> receives monetary compensation for his work. The remarks he made regarding
> the future of the activity in the areas of art, entertainment and judging
> concern me. His remarks regarding the generation of drum corps that he
> marched in (as I remember he wore the Kilt) apall me. I don't remember many
> members in our era criticising the past .
Seems like a bit of hyper-sensitivity to me. Michael is in the position he is,
in part, because he desires to be here. I've said it before and I'll say it
again - - don't complain about others changing "your" activity if you're not
putting in the same effort.
> We 'old timers' are being held up as the before picture in the examples, the
> ugly face before the wonders of plastic surgery. I would have an easier
> time if our performances were discussed with respect and as a step in the
> evolution of the activity, both in DCI Today and on RAMD. It was a
> different era, with different criteria.
This is accurate. While it is unfortunate that you were offended by this
comparison, today's performances and show designs are more coordinated, and have
more content. It just "is".
> To call himself and his fellow designers, arrangers, etc "creators" is
> ludicrous. A choreographer is not a creator. An arranger of music is not
> a creator. IMHO the last two creators in the activity were Robert Smith and
> Scott Boerma with their original music.
This barely deserves a response. . . so here is a very short one. Creating is
making something new where that "thing" didn't exist before. Arrangements,
drill, uniforms, etc., are creations. What is your hang up with this? What do
you hope to accomplish by pursuing this issue?
> To allow the 'creators' to decide what is judged and how is to allow the
> inmates to run the the prison. That is like a gymnast going to the judges
> and saying "This is what I am trying to achieve and this is how you will
> judge it". Input is one thing. But those whose work is being judged cannot
> decide the standards and criteria. Judging is supposed to be 'objective'.
WHAT? have you read ANYTHING Jeff Mitchell has posted here? Judging has ALWAYS
had a subjective element.
Who do you think these instructors are? Prisoners? Undesirable elements of our
society that don't deserve to work with kids? No. . . they (we) are people just
like you who happen to make it a point to be concerned with every aspect of our
activity. We live with our decisions 24 hours a day out on tour. We design
judging systems that reflect the needs of the groups, not of the judges.
Why is this so confusing to you? Why do you go so far out on a limb with this
bitter attitude? Since when should we model our activity on the State Penal
System?
> No one is denying Michael's talent or dedication. BUT-WHATEVER HAPPENED TO
> HAVING FUN? This activity is not for the members anymore. It is turning
> into an event staged to find out who can come up with the hardest brass and
> concert percussion arrangements, and the most hectic design that is
> performed as well as the members are capable. The reward is for the
> difficulty of the program and the design, not the excellence of execution of
> the corps or the fan appeal of the show.
Your argument is transparent. It is now painfuly obvious that the majority of
your ill-will is pointed directly at the Cadets/YEA! organization. Simply put,
no one else's drill/music would have elicited that sort of response.
Fun is in the eye of the beholder/participant. Defining "fun" is like defining
"entertainment". Pointless. It is different for each individual.
> I watched Magic the last two years. In 96 was an artistic program, that
> basically was work for the members, met with the lukewarm standing O's that
> empty stands.
Well, Bill, who DO you like? What was the point of this little tirade? Who is
going to have the balls big enough to stand up for what's going RIGHT in drum
corps? If things are so bad, why do you let your son participate?
This petty whining about YEA, Cadets, fast drill, fun, and all the rest is
ignoring the reality of today. We, as an sctivity, take better care of the
kids, design better shows, provide more educational opportunities, and have a
historical perspective that generations before us did not have. We (drum corps
participants) are also in the unique position of being able to set the direction
of the future of the activity. That direction isn't backwards.
For what it's worth,
Chuck Naffier
Colts Program Coordinator
Colts Brass Arranger/Caption Head
RobbSi
<<Robb,
You mean you never got a Captain Whiz-bang Magic Decoder Ring in your cereal?
Talk about a GREAT prize! :-)
Mike>>
Only the plastic submarine with the hard baking soda tablet and small vial of
vinegar. Of course, I had more fun playing with the box than playing with the
prize.
Scott Gordon
: In article <Pine.A41.3.96.980519...@inst.augie.edu>,
: Ryan Ronald <rrty...@inst.augie.edu> wrote:
: > First of all, Bill Haas, since when can art not be entertaining? You look
: > at art as being pure boredom. I disagree. Yes, if someone where to come
: > out with an all-Brahms show, it would bore everyone to death.
I've often thought that the opening movement to Brahm's first symphony
would be a spine-chilling opener, if it were arranged well. I can imagine
PR doing it.
Scott
John Layman
Bill Haas <ianm...@gte.net> wrote in article
<6jtg0o$o5d$1...@gte2.gte.net>...
> There are people from all generations on both sides of the discussion.
True.
> I don't remember many members in our era criticising the past.
We need to be honest and objective in appraising both the strengths and
weaknesses of drum corps' past. If we aren't, then we can't hope for honest
appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of drum corps' present.
> We 'old timers' are being held up as the before picture in the examples,
the
> ugly face before the wonders of plastic surgery. I would have an easier
> time if our performances were discussed with respect and as a step in the
> evolution of the activity, both in DCI Today and on RAMD. It was a
> different era, with different criteria.
As a long-time fan - but someone at arm's length from the activity during
the DCI era - what most strikes me is the degree to which drum corps has
become DCI-centric. Whatever DCI has accomplished for good or ill, it's
only to be expected that the organization's vested interests will tend to
produce propaganda representing that all progress that has taken place in
the past quarter century is somehow due to DCI. But that's a distortion.
Shaking loose from the veterans' organizations freed drum corps, but I
don't see that DCI actually prompted any great leap forward - the momentum
was already there and very evident; you can hear it by sitting down with a
set of Fleetwoods that spans the sixties and early seventies.
John Layman
mda...@ets.org wrote in article <6juhd3$55m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I'm afraid I have to agree with you, Steph. There's WAY to much tunnel
vision
> on this topic. The 'old' generation talks about how lame percussion
writing is
> today, and how boring the shows are, and then expects the current marcher
to
> NOT react in kind. The 'new' generation disses the great drumming of the
past
> and then wonders why the 'old' folks get all riled up. Every era had/s
it's
> uniqueness; every era had/s it's top-flight performances. Each should be
> enjoyed for what they were/are.
While I agree with you, I think this is all may just be symptomatic of
competitive spirit with a thyroid condition -- a mania for ranking
_everything_. Good grief, RAMD has more top ten lists than Letterman! Uhh,
let's list the top ten snack foods to take on tour.
Bill Haas
arranger wrote in message <6juqef$mu7$2...@europa.frii.com>...
Hi Chuck,
Now that the pleasantries are over.... :-)
>
>I've watched this thread with mild interest and have a couple questions for
you.
>I, too, got the issue of DCI Today and read all the same interviews as most
>people here.
>
>Why did this particular round of interviews inspire such violent reaction?
For one thing, DCI Today, as the newsletter of the activity, gives us a
view into the real thinking of those who are in charge. My post did not
have a violent reaction to the statements made. Most I let pass without
comment. However, your reaction is more 'violent' than mine. I am sorry
if I offended you personally, that was not my plan. I did however expect
this answer from you ( Don Taylor or Marty McCartt) when I wrote mine.
>
>I feel that a lot of what they said is being taken in a very narrow context
here
>on RAMD. Read those pages again and try to get to the root of their
meaning
>instead of staying on the surface with issues about intolerance, lack of
>respect, and an "US vs. THEM" mentality. The point of the articles wasn't
to
>draw a better picture of today by blasting the past.
But, that was in fact what happened.
>
>Instructors/designers today do not talk badly about corps of the past as
some
>would have us believe. What a complete waste of time that would be. And
for
>what purpose?
I suggest you reread Jay Bocook's statement again.
"I don't think we have to throw out the white towel and say we are going to
go back and do shows of little or no substance just so we can get applause."
Or, how about Michael Cesario's
" What we realized though, was that we sometimes have these golden memories
about the "old days" and in fact most of the visual presentation from the
era was
pretty substandard by today's ideas of design and achievement."
That may not be talking badly, but it certainly qualifies as damning with
faint praise the programs and designers of the past.
>
>This whole thread has been demeaning and abusive to the very people who are
>actively involved in creating (yes CREATING) today's shows. What is your
>purpose in protracting this ugliness?
Ugliness? Intelligent discussion it what I have seen. Better than a member
of a top 12 corps 'challenging' 'old-time' percussion people to see him
personally so he can explain how today is superior to the past. Better than
the "xyz corps sucks' threads.
<snip of defense of Michael Cesario-for space>
>> We 'old timers' are being held up as the before picture in the examples,
the
>> ugly face before the wonders of plastic surgery. I would have an easier
>> time if our performances were discussed with respect and as a step in the
>> evolution of the activity, both in DCI Today and on RAMD. It was a
>> different era, with different criteria.
>
>This is accurate. While it is unfortunate that you were offended by this
>comparison, today's performances and show designs are more coordinated, and
have
>more content. It just "is".
In your humble opinion. IMHO, there are shows from all eras that excel, and
others that fail. I will stand on my statement-it was different eras, with
different criteria and a step in the evolution of the activity.
>
>> To call himself and his fellow designers, arrangers, etc "creators" is
>> ludicrous. A choreographer is not a creator. An arranger of music is
not
>> a creator. IMHO the last two creators in the activity were Robert Smith
and
>> Scott Boerma with their original music.
>
>This barely deserves a response. . . so here is a very short one. Creating
is
>making something new where that "thing" didn't exist before. Arrangements,
>drill, uniforms, etc., are creations. What is your hang up with this?
What do
>you hope to accomplish by pursuing this issue?
Your definition and mine differ. Why are you so acrimonious Chuck? I
respect the work you and everyone does, but I don't have to agree with your
opinions. Is that what you consider pursuing the issue? Debate and
discussion?
<another snip for space>
>Who do you think these instructors are? Prisoners? Undesirable elements
of our
>society that don't deserve to work with kids? No. . . they (we) are people
just
>like you who happen to make it a point to be concerned with every aspect of
our
>activity. We live with our decisions 24 hours a day out on tour. We
design
>judging systems that reflect the needs of the groups, not of the judges.
>
>Why is this so confusing to you? Why do you go so far out on a limb with
this
>bitter attitude? Since when should we model our activity on the State
Penal
>System?
It was an analogy. I apologize if I offended you again. BUT again to quote
Michael Cesario:
"The creators are once again the people who determine what will be judged
and how it will be judged."
Input yes. Determine, no. Maybe I read the statement wrong. Please explain
your read on that statement.
<snip>
>Your argument is transparent. It is now painfuly obvious that the majority
of
>your ill-will is pointed directly at the Cadets/YEA! organization. Simply
put,
>no one else's drill/music would have elicited that sort of response.
Where did this come from? That I am bitter, my ill will is towards
YEA!/Cadets, no one else's drill/music would have brought this response.
If you want my opinions on what I consider BAD in shows I will be happy to
do it privately. I have not gone 'public' with the three shows that really
bothered me in 97, and not one of them was a YEA! corps. *I* will not
insult 128 kids publicly with my opinions on the design/music flaws of their
program. They work too hard for that.
>
>Fun is in the eye of the beholder/participant. Defining "fun" is like
defining
>"entertainment". Pointless. It is different for each individual.
Hey, finally we agree.
>
>> I watched Magic the last two years. In 96 was an artistic program, that
>> basically was work for the members, met with the lukewarm standing O's
that
>> empty stands.
>
>Well, Bill, who DO you like? What was the point of this little tirade?
Who is
>going to have the balls big enough to stand up for what's going RIGHT in
drum
>corps? If things are so bad, why do you let your son participate?
What tirade Chuck? Please explain. You have made this entire post a
personal challenge and neither of my posts in this thread have been. Your
emotion is riding high, not mine. I have posted many times what shows I
have liked and they have covered all musical styles, all visual styles from
all eras going from 62 SKEK to 97 Crossmen and SCV.
As for my son's participation, I love this activity. Period. I have passed
that love along to him. I do not allow him to participate, he chooses to
participate.
>
>This petty whining about YEA, Cadets, fast drill, fun, and all the rest is
>ignoring the reality of today. We, as an activity, take better care of the
>kids, design better shows, provide more educational opportunities, and have
a
>historical perspective that generations before us did not have. We (drum
corps
>participants) are also in the unique position of being able to set the
direction
>of the future of the activity. That direction isn't backwards.
You are the one that brought up YEA!/Cadets. The reality of today is the
activity is losing fans, yet the designers (in most cases), etc are still
writing to please the judges (and perpetuate their employment and paycheck).
Drum corps should be fun, for the members and the fans alike. How many
times have I said that? The direction the activity needs to take isn't
forward or backward, it is to become fan friendly and affordable so more
kids and fans can participate.
As for the historic perspective, well it needs work. I have watched 37
years of drum corps. I have said it before and I will say it again. As a
general statement, with some exceptions, today's corps are much more
talented and the programs more demanding than drum corps from the past.
The product of drum corps itself, I am not sure about.
>For what it's worth,
>
>Chuck Naffier
>Colts Program Coordinator
>Colts Brass Arranger/Caption Head
Bill
John Layman
> For one thing, DCI Today, as the newsletter of the activity, gives us a
> view into the real thinking of those who are in charge.
This is precisely the sort of thing I meant when I observed that drum corps
has become so DCI-centric. ~DCI Today~ is the the newsletter of the
organization -- that's a rather different thing than saying it's the
newsletter of the activity. I think it's frightening that people have come
to speak about DCI and drum corps as of they were completely synonymous.
This leads me to make a comment directed to the editors of DCW. It seems to
me that DCW has a really vital role, as an independent voice for opinion
and reporting. But...
When the man who succeeded Don Pesceone at the head of DCI [his name
escapes me at the moment] disappeared from the scene, I never saw one word
of explanation reported in DCW. To this day, I'm unaware of what took place
there. Now, I can appreciate that there may have been reasons this was
treated with such discretion that it was swept under the rug. On the other
hand, if there was a newsworthy story in drum corps at that moment, surely
that was it!
I think there must surely be other folks like myself, subscribers who have
a keen interest in drum corps, but no active involvement. I get drum corps
news from DCW and DCT, not from the grapevine. Sometimes, that apparently
means that I don't get it, at all.
Bill Haas
John Layman wrote in message <6jv3h3$2kt$5...@gte1.gte.net>...
>Bill Haas <ianm...@gte.net> wrote in article
><6jv1aa$5ch$1...@gte2.gte.net>...
>> For one thing, DCI Today, as the newsletter of the activity, gives us a
>> view into the real thinking of those who are in charge.
>
>This is precisely the sort of thing I meant when I observed that drum corps
>has become so DCI-centric. ~DCI Today~ is the the newsletter of the
>organization
That is what I meant, not what I said. Freudian slip I guess.
>-- that's a rather different thing than saying it's the
>newsletter of the activity. I think it's frightening that people have come
>to speak about DCI and drum corps as of they were completely synonymous.
Bill
Knamaky
You guys all need to quit trying to put words in people's mouths. Nowhere did I
say anyone sucked, and nowhere have I said that drumming back in the day
sucked. Don't read what isn't there.
Kevin
><HTML>Subject: Re: Drum Corps History 101-DCI Today style<BR>
>From: James Dittrich <Gmen...@worldnet.att.net><BR>
>Date: 5/20/98 2:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time<BR>
>Message-id: <6jujhl$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net><BR>
><BR>
><FONT SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>StefCheng wrote:<BR>
>> <BR>
>both ways.***************I would never tell a kid(well, I'm forty, so they're
>kids to me) that they are no good, or suck, for lack of a better term. I
>teach high school kids. So I am not saying or writing this sort of
>thing.....my mother did a better job of parenting than some, from what I
>gather from reading RAMD.-Terri<BR>
><BR>
></FONT><FONT SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
></HTML>
Knamaky
>Better than a member<BR>
>of a top 12 corps 'challenging' 'old-time' percussion people to see him<BR>
>personally so he can explain how today is superior to the past.
Go back and reread the post and/or posts. Where do you guys come up with this
stuff? My post was the result of someone else challenging me to say what I said
in a previous post to people's faces. Also, what I said was that by today's
standards, the SCV 75 solo would get blown away and it is simplistic. You are
placing a blanket statement over what I specifically said. Don't try and put
words in that weren't there.
Kevin
mda...@ets.org
In article <199805201449...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
rob...@aol.com (RobbSi) wrote:
>
> <<Robb,
>
> You mean you never got a Captain Whiz-bang Magic Decoder Ring in your
cereal?
> Talk about a GREAT prize! :-)
>
> Mike>>
>
> Only the plastic submarine with the hard baking soda tablet and small vial
of
> vinegar.
Beats playing with your rubber duckie in the bath! :-)
>Of course, I had more fun playing with the box than playing with the
> prize.
>
> -- Robb Sirat
> NARD and IARP enthusiast
>
And of course, in some cases the box tastes better than the cereal as well.
mda...@ets.org
In article <6juqjt$ei0$1...@hades.csu.net>,
Sure would! As would some of his choral music translate to the field. The
'Requiem' has some beautiful spots, and for short novelty type of number there
are the 'Liebeslieder Waltzer', as collection of short pieces that might be
of some use. Not to mention a piece I sang in College, 'Shicksalslied' a
beautiful work. Of course, there's LOTS of orchestral stuff to pick a show
from.
And yes, PR is the corps to do it up right!
Matt LaFontaine
arranger (arra...@frii.com) wrote:
: Your argument is transparent. It is now painfuly obvious that the
: majority of your ill-will is pointed directly at the Cadets/YEA!
: organization. Simply put, no one else's drill/music would have elicited
: that sort of response.
One thing I will say about this is I can think of one example that would
have illiceted this response: The guard work for the Bluecoats in "You and
the Night and the Music". This bordered on sheer pornography!
At first there was some good equipment work written in there, but then the
guard staff decided to replace it with some guard members humping in the
front of the drill. I was deeply ashamed when the corps went to do a run
through in front of a middle school and we couldn't let kids watch that
part of the routine; we pulled the guard off of the field for that section
of the drill.
By and large I do agree with most of what you say regarding Bill's remarks.
Except I think it may be necessary in this case to separate the
musical instructors/arrangers from the visual people. Granted, I have an
extremely limited drum corps experience, but it seems to me like from what
I've seen in the stands and from the fans I've talked to it's the funky
visual stuff (not limited to Cadets/YEA!) that gets under people's skins.
Plus, I've rarely seen a visual instructor (except for the field techs)
that are as interested in precise marching/maneuvering as they are in
choreography and visual tricks. This causes a huge identity crises for
drum corps that is at the root of much of the current conflict.
Regards,
Matt LaFontaine
mda...@ets.org
In article <6jujne$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
James Dittrich <Gmen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> DVAdams wrote:
> >
>
> Still is, Dave. I just listened to a CD full of his arrangements, including
> "Theme from Coach" and get this, a full medley of Monkees tunes. (said like
> Austin Powers): OOoooh, Groovy Baby!
>
Awful stuff, to be sure. A lot of what is put out for public consumption is
pure drek, but to be fair, Jay does some WONDERFUL stuff as well.
mda...@ets.org
In article <199805190916...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>
> >"As a result of working with better trained musicians drum corps have also
> >learned to be much more "educated"......In the 60's and 70's the kids
>really
> >didn't read much music in drum corps. They were taught by rote; ie. "push
> >this button here or there"... The problem then was you spent so much time
> >(teaching notes) just to get to a beginning performance level."
>
> Where was this guy in the 70's anyway? Was he the same guy that was writing
> "spam in a can" marching band arrangements?
LOL!!!
> I can't believe people buy statements like this. We had 6 music majors in
our
> drum line- I suppose these people should give their degrees back. BTW, every
> part we had was written out, and almost every exercise was too.
>
In the 71 Garfield drum line, of the 4 snares, 3 tri-toms, and 4 timps, 4 of
us were percussion majors.
Yes, the AVERAGE player is FAR better today than in 71, but we weren't all
that bad either. People should just appreciate every era for what it was and
is.
mda...@ets.org
In article <6juqef$mu7$2...@europa.frii.com>,
arranger <arra...@frii.com> wrote:
>
> Which statments would those be? Michael talked about the differences
between
> corps at the beginning of the DCI era and compared them to the shows that
are on
> the field today. Nothing more.
Every generation is the best that it can be for that generation, so the entire
comparison is silly. Our drill instructor, Bobby Hoffman, did WONDERFUL things
visually for us during my Garfield years (70-72). Are they in ANY way
comparable to those of the CBC today? Not if you compare them head to head,
but in relative terms to their day they were certainly both forward-looking
and avant garde. Why would Michael even want to bring up the 'old' drills,
unless it was to pump up todays at their expense? He should be taling with
reverence about the old days, as the foundations developed then are what make
today's wonderful shows possible.
>
> > We 'old timers' are being held up as the before picture in the examples,
the
> > ugly face before the wonders of plastic surgery. I would have an easier
> > time if our performances were discussed with respect and as a step in the
> > evolution of the activity, both in DCI Today and on RAMD. It was a
> > different era, with different criteria.
>
> This is accurate. While it is unfortunate that you were offended by this
> comparison, today's performances and show designs are more coordinated, and
have
> more content. It just "is".
>
The problem is in HOW the comparison is made, Chuck. The corps of the past
achieved wonderful results for their time. Relatively untrained musicians
using what would today be low-end equipment still managed to create great
music and drill, for their time. It's not the comparison that is wrong, but
the WAY in which it is made that demonstrates a lack of appreciation for what
went on before. Sure, the marching members today are GREAT, the music is
wonderful, and the drills fantastic. All of the above also apply to the past
as well, but at a different level.
>
> This barely deserves a response. . . so here is a very short one. Creating
is
> making something new where that "thing" didn't exist before. Arrangements,
> drill, uniforms, etc., are creations. What is your hang up with this? What
do
> you hope to accomplish by pursuing this issue?
>
Agree with you on this one totally. The folks who write the music and drills
are creating an experience for the kids and audience that is great.
> WHAT? have you read ANYTHING Jeff Mitchell has posted here? Judging has
ALWAYS
> had a subjective element.
>
True. Even putting down ticks on the sheet was subjective! It looks nice and
objective, but after all, just what WAS a tickj anyway? It was the judges
decision that an error was made, which is totally subjective.
> We design
> judging systems that reflect the needs of the groups, not of the judges.
>
Sheets and criteria should be jointly decided upon by the instuctors and
judging comunity, not be either side all by themselves.
I tend to agree with much of what you've said, Chuck, but Bill also has some
valid points to make in his reaction to the article. There are ways of stting
things that don't make it look like you're tearing down one era to pump up
another, from EITHER side of the issues.
LerContra
If drum Corps is so bad nowadays then why do you guys keep coming to the
shows. I know when I march the crowd really seems to aprecciate it. Some
times things get blown out of proportion that you are trying to remember. i
don't think crowd responses were that much better back when all of the
people who don't march now marched. Its like that huge bass that you caught
10 years ago.
First it was 20 inches than 21 than 24 than 27 than it became 32 and you
had to wrestle it with your bear hands too. As in respect I love to watch
shows from nowadays to. I love every Drum Corps show that i see all the way
from Cadets of First Baptist to Blue Devils. Yes Championship attendence
has been low lately because of the spot though. Not because corps are less
entertaing. Drum corps is changing just like rock and roll. And It will
change from what it is now too. All i am trying to say is that Drum Corps
is as good now as it has ever been and quit trying to glorify the past to
much. Learn to aprecciate what Corps is now and support those of us that
march. It isn't much fun to have all the people that used to march say we
suck.
Maybee some of it is jellousy because your corps didn't do what we do
today. I don't know all I am trying to say is we need your support and not
your critisism. Thanks
LerContra
i agree completly
Ryan Ronald wrote in message ...
>First of all, Bill Haas, since when can art not be entertaining? You look
>at art as being pure boredom. I disagree. Yes, if someone where to come
>out with an all-Brahms show, it would bore everyone to death. Even though
>brahms musical art is considered masterpiece, it does not hold the same
>entertainment value we look for in drum corps today.
>
>And why does everyone jump on classical music when they talk about art?
>is jazz any less artistic? Is contemporary any less artistic?
>
>When you talk about Smith and Boerma and how they are the only real
>"creators" in the past few years. Well, by that rationale, how can you
>not commit Marc Sylvester, Tony Hall, Garret Decker, John Brazale, etc. to
>be creators? They are "creating" something out of nothing.
>
>And as for harder arrangements, I do not see how that is taking the
>activity away from the members. The reason the demand has increased is
>because it is not as easy to score that "10" as it used to be. And I am
>very sorry, but this IS a competitive event.
>
>Ryan Tysdal
>Phantom Regiment Baritone
>1996-1997-1998-????
>
>
arranger
Hey Bill,
>Now that the pleasantries are over.... :-)
Ayup. :-)
>>I've watched this thread with mild interest and have a couple questions for
>>you. I, too, got the issue of DCI Today and read all the same interviews as
most
>>people here.
>>
>>Why did this particular round of interviews inspire such violent reaction?
>
>For one thing, DCI Today, as the newsletter of the activity, gives us a
>view into the real thinking of those who are in charge. My post did not
>have a violent reaction to the statements made. Most I let pass without
>comment. However, your reaction is more 'violent' than mine. I am sorry
>if I offended you personally, that was not my plan. I did however expect
>this answer from you ( Don Taylor or Marty McCartt) when I wrote mine.
Clarification: I was asking for your interpretation of the reaction on RAMD - -
not implying your own reaction was violent. Far from it!
Interesting that you would "expect" this answer from Don, Marty, or myself. We
all represent the "new" generation of instructors/designers who see something
good happening when all is sorted out. We are the type of people who will go to
any lengths to make sure something positive is experienced by the kids.
We're not the "name" guys, or the "old" guys. . . just the guys who make an
awful lot of good things happen for the kids.
>>I feel that a lot of what they said is being taken in a very narrow context
>>here on RAMD. Read those pages again and try to get to the root of their
>>meaning instead of staying on the surface with issues about intolerance, lack
>>of respect, and an "US vs. THEM" mentality. The point of the articles wasn't
>>to draw a better picture of today by blasting the past.
>
>But, that was in fact what happened.
You know, I read all those articles and did not feel that at all. Things don't
just "happen". We allow ourselves to feel one way or another. Rather than
getting offended, try to figure out why they might have said something.
>>Instructors/designers today do not talk badly about corps of the past as
>>some would have us believe. What a complete waste of time that would be. And
>>for what purpose?
>
>I suggest you reread Jay Bocook's statement again.
>
>"I don't think we have to throw out the white towel and say we are going to
>go back and do shows of little or no substance just so we can get applause."
>
>Or, how about Michael Cesario's
>
>" What we realized though, was that we sometimes have these golden memories
>about the "old days" and in fact most of the visual presentation from the
>era was
>pretty substandard by today's ideas of design and achievement."
>
>That may not be talking badly, but it certainly qualifies as damning with
>faint praise the programs and designers of the past.
I suggest you understand the context in which those statements were made. The
article does not tell the whole story. There are "extremists" in both camps. .
. the old, the new. Jay's statement is a reaction to those who feel we must go
back to the pre-DCI style shows. Yes, we got applause. We get applause today.
Jay is saying "don't sell out the music or kids" just to get applause. He ALSO
said that he thinks you can do both. He is right.
As far as "faint praise" goes. . . the past is the past. How much homage and
glory should we give the past before it looms larger than what we do today?
Sorry if that sounds sarcastic. . . but the fact is the past is done. Move on.
We have our tapes, CD's, yearbooks, and friends. That's enough.
And politically correct or not, Michael's statement is accurate. By TODAY'S
standards the visual presentation of yesteryear is substandard. Make no mistake
- - he did not say, or imply, the PERFORMANCES were substandard. The
presentation. What is your oldest video in your collection? Mine is a 1966
Cavaliers performance and 1968 Skyliners. The drill is AWFUL by today's
standards. So is the colorguard work. Why does that level of performance need
homage paid to it? Respect? Yes. Attention? No.
>>This whole thread has been demeaning and abusive to the very people who are
>>actively involved in creating (yes CREATING) today's shows. What is your
>>purpose in protracting this ugliness?
>
>Ugliness? Intelligent discussion it what I have seen. Better than a member
>of a top 12 corps 'challenging' 'old-time' percussion people to see him
>personally so he can explain how today is superior to the past. Better than
>the "xyz corps sucks' threads.
Your post was intelligent. Many responses were not. Please notice I didn't use
the word "suck" or "old timers" in my post.
><snip of defense of Michael Cesario-for space>
Why snip that? It was relevant to the subject.
>>> We 'old timers' are being held up as the before picture in the examples,
>the
>>> ugly face before the wonders of plastic surgery. I would have an easier
>>> time if our performances were discussed with respect and as a step in the
>>> evolution of the activity, both in DCI Today and on RAMD. It was a
>>> different era, with different criteria.
>>
>>This is accurate. While it is unfortunate that you were offended by this
>>comparison, today's performances and show designs are more coordinated, and
>>have more content. It just "is".
>
>In your humble opinion.
Nope - - not my humble opinion. Try playing a current DCI Video for someone
(last 10 years would be "current") and then play them something from, say, 1974.
I've done that. Many times. You know what? The first-time viewer likes the
"now" stuff better. It is only us "experienced" people who look back on those
performances with any nostalgia or appreciation.
>IMHO, there are shows from all eras that excel, and
>others that fail. I will stand on my statement-it was different eras, with
>different criteria and a step in the evolution of the activity.
You seem to be using two different standards of reasoning. First, you say that
it is unfair or unfavorable to say that today's designs are better than those of
yesteryear. Then you say that yesteryear's shows can only be compared to those
standards & criteria. Which is it? Where is the problem? I frankly don't see
the issue. Today is different than yesterday. No qualifiers or subjectivity.
>>> To call himself and his fellow designers, arrangers, etc "creators" is
>>> ludicrous. A choreographer is not a creator. An arranger of music is
>>> not a creator. IMHO the last two creators in the activity were Robert Smith
>>>and Scott Boerma with their original music.
>>
>>This barely deserves a response. . . so here is a very short one. Creating
>>is making something new where that "thing" didn't exist before. Arrangements,
>>drill, uniforms, etc., are creations. What is your hang up with this?
>>What do you hope to accomplish by pursuing this issue?
>
>Your definition and mine differ. Why are you so acrimonious Chuck? I
>respect the work you and everyone does, but I don't have to agree with your
>opinions. Is that what you consider pursuing the issue? Debate and
>discussion?
You didn't answer my questions. What is your hang up with this subject? You
obviously have strong feelings about this as you mention this issue often.
I will answer yours.
I do not feel "acrimonious". You seem to be "creating" your own vocabulary and
passing judgement on today's show "creators". That is fine - - it's a free
country. But your own limited version of "creation" does not give you the right
to belittle those people by claiming they are "ludicrous". You crossed the line
between pointing out disagreement with product and personal attack. People can
call themselves whatever they like. I was merely telling you WHY they could be
considered "creators". You use language that differs from your claim that you
"respect" the work of today's instructors/designers.
>>Who do you think these instructors are? Prisoners? Undesirable elements
>>of our society that don't deserve to work with kids? No. . . they (we) are
>>people just like you who happen to make it a point to be concerned with every
>>aspect of our activity. We live with our decisions 24 hours a day out on
>>tour. We design judging systems that reflect the needs of the groups, not of
>>the judges.
>>
>>Why is this so confusing to you? Why do you go so far out on a limb with
>>this bitter attitude? Since when should we model our activity on the State
>>Penal System?
>
>It was an analogy. I apologize if I offended you again. BUT again to quote
>Michael Cesario:
>
>"The creators are once again the people who determine what will be judged
>and how it will be judged."
>
>Input yes. Determine, no. Maybe I read the statement wrong. Please explain
>your read on that statement.
Again, understand the context of the comment. For many years now the judging
community (which includes many former instructors) forgot who they were serving.
Let's remember the tail doesn't wag the dog. Drum corps can exist without
judges. Not the other way around.
Judges many times were guilty of arrogance - - thinking that only they knew what
was best for the acitivity. Try getting comments on your tapes like "that was
too drum corpish" once to understand how I come by this opinion.
Do you really think the Cavaliers would have designed their 1997 show if the
judges were rewarding what the crowd wants? How about the Glassmen? Blue
Knights? The judges dictated what was good and what was "worthy" in performance
and in quality/design issues. The end result? Today's judging system. Today's
shows. Today's placements. Today's attendance. Is that what you want?
Everything I've read from you in the past indicates that this is not so.
So we, the instructors, took our activity back from the judges. We told them
that they could either judge it the way we wanted or they could find a new
leisure time activity. The dog now wags the tail. . . as it should be. We will
still have standards, and still have rankings/ratings. There will still only be
one winner at Nationals in each division. But, knowing we will get credit for
designing shows that appeal to audiences (which is what we WANT) as well as
incorporating good musical/visual ideas will help encourage
instructors/designers to make this happen.
>>Your argument is transparent. It is now painfuly obvious that the majority
>>of your ill-will is pointed directly at the Cadets/YEA! organization. Simply
>>put, no one else's drill/music would have elicited that sort of response.
>
>Where did this come from? That I am bitter, my ill will is towards
>YEA!/Cadets, no one else's drill/music would have brought this response.
Well - - let's look at my guideposts. No one except the Cadets last year had a
drill or musical book that was harder or faster. Your example talked about 250
bpm, etc. . . that's the Cadets. Not Glassmen, Colts, Magic, SCV, Phantom, or
anyone else.
Your repeated disagreements with YEA's involvement with Magic. Your frequent
disagreements with Hopkins when he bothered with this forum.
That's where I come be my opinion. If it is wrong I take it back with a
thousand apologies.
>If you want my opinions on what I consider BAD in shows I will be happy to
>do it privately. I have not gone 'public' with the three shows that really
>bothered me in 97, and not one of them was a YEA! corps. *I* will not
>insult 128 kids publicly with my opinions on the design/music flaws of their
>program. They work too hard for that.
Hmmmm. . . interesting. . . but you will tell the world that their
instructors/designers are not worthy of respect. Instructors are these kids'
second family out on the road, along with everyone who they spend their summers
with. How does that look different than telling the kid they are, in essence,
stupid for going to that corps?
>>Fun is in the eye of the beholder/participant. Defining "fun" is like
>defining
>>"entertainment". Pointless. It is different for each individual.
>
>Hey, finally we agree.
Bill, we agree on a lot of things - - we really do. But, in the same way that I
couldn't stand Jay Wise telling us all that drum corps is hopeless, I can't
stand listening to negativity about the future of this activity. This board is
rampant with pessimism and you helped to fuel the fire IMO (on this issue).
Sometimes it seems like you LOOK for issues to be offended by so you can post
here. I know you DON'T do that. . . but sometimes it looks that way from this
side of the screen.
>>> I watched Magic the last two years. In 96 was an artistic program, that
>>> basically was work for the members, met with the lukewarm standing O's
>>> that empty stands.
>>
>>Well, Bill, who DO you like? What was the point of this little tirade?
>>Who is going to have the balls big enough to stand up for what's going RIGHT
>>in drum corps? If things are so bad, why do you let your son participate?
>
>What tirade Chuck? Please explain.
I challange your ideas. I don't dislike you and have found you to be an amiable
sort of guy who truly cares for the good of the activity and the participants.
The tirade comes from the fact that you seemed to have shot first and then
aimed. What I got out of the articles in DCI Today was obviously much different
than you. Think about who DCI Today is aimed at. What is the target audience?
The band world mostly. DCI has had a "black eye" for years in the band world
(where we get most of our kids) because of educational issues and competitive
ethics.
The interviews were with 3 people who are HIGHLY visible in the band world as
well as the drum corps world. Band directors want to hear about how things have
changed for the better. If they believe this, contrary to everything they
learned in college in 1975, drum corps can gain the support of those folks who
control our future.
Bands fill stands at shows. The buy the tickets, schedule the shows, dictate
the tour, send us kids, and provide most of our instruction. The folks at DCI
Today understand who their target audience is and cater to that faction in this
magazine.
The issue of "respecting" tradition and such is a tangent that too many people
took out of context. Jay, Michael, and Jim grew up in drum corps. They're the
ulitmate drum corps rats. . . yet we quite willingly take these people to task
when they don't have the same vision or use the same words as us. Not what I
would describe as a healthy situation. That's why the "tirade".
>You have made this entire post a
>personal challenge and neither of my posts in this thread have been. Your
>emotion is riding high, not mine. I have posted many times what shows I
>have liked and they have covered all musical styles, all visual styles from
>all eras going from 62 SKEK to 97 Crossmen and SCV.
>
>As for my son's participation, I love this activity. Period. I have passed
>that love along to him. I do not allow him to participate, he chooses to
>participate.
Fair enough. You have my respect for the way in which you conduct yourself.
My challenge was not intended to be personal, nor do I feel I am being
"emotional" about this. I don't understand people who turn on each other. I
feel that the people who attacked the ideas and presentations of the 3 men in
DCI Today don't know as much as they think they do. Opinions are fine, but
uniformed opinions are worth the paper they are printed on.
>>This petty whining about YEA, Cadets, fast drill, fun, and all the rest is
>>ignoring the reality of today. We, as an activity, take better care of the
>>kids, design better shows, provide more educational opportunities, and have
>>a historical perspective that generations before us did not have. We (drum
>>corps participants) are also in the unique position of being able to set the
>>direction of the future of the activity. That direction isn't backwards.
>
>You are the one that brought up YEA!/Cadets.
Your history of posting hardly allows you to bow out of the YEA argument that
easily.
>The reality of today is the
>activity is losing fans, yet the designers (in most cases), etc are still
>writing to please the judges (and perpetuate their employment and paycheck).
Show me that's the case. I just told you WHY the shows have turned out like
they did. I just explained to you that we are taking our activity back. These
are not overnight solutions. As for employment and paychecks, name me 3
designers who make their living solely off of drum corps.
>Drum corps should be fun, for the members and the fans alike. How many
>times have I said that? The direction the activity needs to take isn't
>forward or backward, it is to become fan friendly and affordable so more
>kids and fans can participate.
If drum corps was work instead of fun, why would there still be any of us here?
The fact is, we who still choose to participate DO have fun. Did you read the
rest of Jay's article wherein he talks about the transitional period in Broadway
history? Doesn't that strike you as a pretty good analogy about what is
happening here? Don't you have hopes and suspicions that we may have turned a
very long corner in our evolution in this activity?
As an active part of a design team, as a teacher, a friend, and participant for
the past 19 years (you win in the # of years competition) I see things getting
much better in the future. Part of that begins with taking our activity back
from the judges again. Part of it means retaining the "fun". Part of it means
being more educationally sound. Part of it means partnering with groups/people
who can benefit the activity (BOA, Disney, Cesario, etc.)
The part I am convinced will do us more harm than good is to continually beat up
those who still bother to try and make drum corps a good thing. I respect
Michael, Jay, and Jim for their efforts. . . and find it unfathomable that
people who say they support drum corps willingly bash these foks over something
as simple as their perception of the future.
>As for the historic perspective, well it needs work. I have watched 37
>years of drum corps. I have said it before and I will say it again. As a
>general statement, with some exceptions, today's corps are much more
>talented and the programs more demanding than drum corps from the past.
>The product of drum corps itself, I am not sure about.
Well, we're living in a different world. Not better, not worse. Different. If
drum corps was in its perfect state 37 years ago you would have never seen the
'97 Crossmen.
Chuck
Contra4Evr
May I please begin by saying that some of these posts are extensive?
Ahh,well...they are quite interesting and have sparked a thought in which I
would like to share...(uh oh!!)
I'll ,again, begin by saying drum corps is a lot like life in many aspects.
When we are born, are minds are full of empty thoughts ,but we are so
enthralled at the thought of attention and so ,therefore, we begin to learn new
things from that attention such as a voice, a touch, a smell. Drum corps ,
pre-DCI, can be related to this by it's past integrities. When drum corps
began, they were ran through youth organizations and were full of fresh ideas
learning from their peers. Not knowing what to do next , they watched their
'peers' and transformed their child-like energy into the wonderful activity of
drum corps. In this very same manner, the audience were like children. Excited
to see this new , fresh idea. Almost like a child with a new toy or playmate (
Some of us adults and teens get a kick out of this too!! =) And in many
ways....they've all grown up. Matured for a lack of a better word...
As when a child develops into a young adult and begins to gain knowledge of the
rolemodels, drum corp grew into it's new era of DCI. Ahh, Drum Corps
International. It was a time to rejoice I'm sure. This organization allowed for
more friendships, loves, introductions., knowledge... and COMPETITION! As does
the teenager struggle with peer pressure and not having the right clothes, hair
cut, shoes... the drum corps gained knowledge of new ideas and began to almost
create bit of copy-catness. IN todays world, this is considered morally
unjustified. For everyone to be like Barbie in a child's eyes I would assume.
BUT...as Michael J. Cesario stated in the Summer edition of "DCI Today" ..."If
every corps looked and sounded like the Madison Scouts, the Madison Scouts
would no longer be special." Therefore, why are we now complaining about corps
being individuals instead of all marching with the same style? I must admit one
more Michael J. Cesario quote .." If we put them behind a screen or made them
wear rehearsal clothes I think you would know exactly which corps was the Blue
Devils and which corps was the Phantom Regiment just from the way they sound or
the way they move." ( DCI Today Summer 1998 edition)
For this change in the world of drum corps, I think we ought to get over the
bitterness and grudges .....and ENJOY what the corps have on display for us
today. No, you musn't expect the pre-DCI shows that you saw way back when. New
arrangers have new arrangements. New designers have new designs. New directors
have,well..new directions. This we must respect and not criticize. Feel free to
go to college, get your degree, gain knowledge, and work with corps. Get a
directors position...and,hell...so us what you're made of, but until
then...there is no need to criticize the works of the fine drum corps we have
today. No matter what division, what style, what speed... every corps is based
on the essential values of the activity and we can only hope for more
creativeness upon the basic ideals of the activity. So,come on peoples...be
happy. Sit back , relax, and enjoy the show.
Oh yes...I also must mention that criticism is healty,but tearing down
individuals and corps through an international activity and service isn't
healthy.I do respect the ideals of the pre-DCI drum corps. In fact, I greatly
respect and love all drum corps. But I feel it only necessary to applause at
the creativity seen on the field today. NO need to judge in spectatorship my
friends....just enjoy!
If you must..."Flame" away...
Sincerely & Brassly,
Leah Kortman
Mike Collins
> And politically correct or not, Michael's statement is accurate. By TODAY'S
> standards the visual presentation of yesteryear is substandard. Make no
mistake
> - - he did not say, or imply, the PERFORMANCES were substandard. The
> presentation. What is your oldest video in your collection? Mine is a 1966
> Cavaliers performance and 1968 Skyliners. The drill is AWFUL by today's
> standards. So is the colorguard work. Why does that level of
performance need
> homage paid to it? Respect? Yes. Attention? No.
Hey chuck...
Unless it's just a typo, your contradicting yourself. First you say the
performances were NOT substandard but then you state 'Why does that level
of PERFORMANCE need homage paid to it' implying that the performances WERE
slop, there's slop today just as much as yesterday, just less of it (more
due to less # of corps in my opinion). I think what some people are upset
about is this supposed 'standard' of visual today and that it is just the
end-all of the activity. If I can try to put this into musical terms,
let's say that Mozart represents the past and that any good late Romantic
era composer represents the present (I know this is a little simplistic,
but gets the point across). I don't think anyone would argue that the
past, represented by Mozart, still remains a masterpiece today, even
though it is much simpler (at least harmonically) in scope then the later
period. Musically, we can still hear a Mozart symphony right next to
Mahler 5 and love both of them, but in today's environment, there seems to
be this vibe that symetrical drill, more guard work/less dance, more
rudimental drumming is all bad. I'm not saying return to the past, but as
with Mozart, why can't there be room for both and let them both be
competitive on the sheets? This is the problem I see with the 'standards'
of today. It is just as hard (some will say harder) to pull off Mozart
correctly as it is to do Mahler, and it's just as 'hard' (for you people
saying the drills had to get 'harder' to keep the competition going) to do
some of the visual things the 'fogeys' did. The vibe I get from people
(older farts like me, can't believe 33 is now OLD!) is that there is an
'elitist' feeling in the design end today, mainly visually, that seems to
'poo-poo' on the older programs. Just incorporate the best of the old
with the best of the new and it will be great!! And for me personally,
remember that the venue is '128 kids running around on a football field'
as my teacher and good friend Greg Woll said. If it takes binoculars to
see it or a hearing aid to hear it, don't do it!
--
Mike Collins (mike...@ix.netcom.com)
1984,86 Blue Devils
1988-91 VK Brass Instuctor
1991-97 Lead Trumpet Disneyland Magic Kingdom Korps
1997-Now Elementary Band Teacher (listen to THAT all day!!)
mold...@gac.edu
In article <6jugqi$4gr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
mda...@ets.org wrote:
> Well, he certainly put his foot in his mouth with his comments about 'old'
> drum corps. If it's a given that a lot of the fans of DC who go to shows
> ARE old marching members, to make comments disparaging what they (ahem, WE)
> did is not the best way to insure good will. Even if every word he says is
> true, there are ways of saying it that don't diss the past accomplishments
> of corps members. I love the drills and music of today, but I also love the
> past glory of drum corps performances, something Michael doesn't seem to
> feel. Sure, the drills were simpler than today, esp the ones he writes,
> which are wonderful, but every era is what it is, and what follows builds
> upon it. If it weren't for the 60's and 70's drills, there wouldn't BE 80's
> and 90's drills.
I certainly agree on your last point. I hope I didn't come across as
belittling what was performed in the 60s and 70s.
And I want to commend you, Mike, and Bill Haas for making arguments based
on the issues. The only reason I entered this thread was because some of
it's participants were making the issue personal.
Michael Oldemeyer
Phantom Regiment 94,6,8.
euphonium
2 more days, 2 more papers, 3 more tests, then...aaahhhh, drumcorps.
DVAdams
Terri Dittrich wrote:
>mda...@ets.org wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Awful stuff, to be sure. A lot of what is put out for public consumption is
>> pure drek, but to be fair, Jay does some WONDERFUL stuff as well.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>Hey, I'm not ripping him. You have to pay the bills. We're playing his
>arrangements. The Planets. It is wonderful.
My characterization of Bocook's work for marching bands was out of line. It was
a reaction and not a response, and I apologize for that.
However, I still feel Bocook was out of line when he said:
> >"As a result of working with better trained musicians drum corps have also
> >learned to be much more "educated"......In the 60's and 70's the kids really
> >didn't read much music in drum corps. They were taught by rote; ie. "push
> >this button here or there"... The problem then was you spent so much time
> >(teaching notes) just to get to a beginning performance level."
-where it applies to the 70's.
I marched in two corps.The first was a little parade corps that I joined in in
1968 at the age of 11. The little corps did not get a lot of band members
signing up in the 60's. So I guess for a while, and at least until people
learned to read, there was rote learning going on. The thing is, it didn't take
us too long to catch on to the fact that it was a lot easier to learn your
parts if you could read them. By the time that little corps made it back to the
competition field in 1972, we knew that when a new member joined one of the
most important things they needed to do was to read their parts. It was simple
practicality. Rote learning required an enormous investment in Instructor time-
a resource in scant supply in our corps. In about a third of the cases ( my
guess ), we were taking kids who couldn't play or read and then teaching them
how.
I think thats probably why I resent Bocooks' remarks. What he described is a
distortion of what -in my experience- took place. I don't believe that the
experience of the Scarlet Knights, a corps that never scored higher than a 57
points, was unique either. IMHO Bocook is discounting the unique role in
musical education that drum corps instructors played in the early 70's.
And as far as the second corps I marched with, the '78 Phantom Regiment is
concerned, the statement is ridiculous. Our caption head Marty Hurly used to
mail us our parts between camps. We were expected to learn the music on our own
before we got there.
That isn't rote learning.
Dave Adams PR '78
Scarlet Knights '68-'77
TubusMax
Uuugghh... this one gets my vote for the most annoying thread...
Entertaining does not have to mean simple.
Entertaining does not mean un-artistic.
Artistic does not mean boring.
There have been entertaining shows that were POST 1970.
To be entertaining you do not have to be only symmetrical and high mark time.
To be entertaining does not mean you have to play Come to Jesus in whole notes
To be artistic and progressive does NOT mean that you have to avoid major
chords, symmetrical sets, and traditional stuff.
To be competitive does not mean you have to be weird.
To be artistic does NOT mean you have to be weird.
To be competitive does not mean you have to be traditional.
Weird is fine, just dont bore me.
To be creative does NOT mean you have to be theatrical.
You do not have to be theatrical to be entertaining.
You do not have to be theatrical to be artistic.
It is possible to be entertaining, traditional, artistic and progressive all at
the same time.
...and sound great too...
It is possible to fill a stadium without a Mouse and Woodwinds.
It is possible to play f*cking loud with good tone.
It is possible to think and feel at the same time.
It is possible to learn and be moved at the same time.
ciao,
joe exley
PS.... have FUN at camp
everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
VKGARRY73
Matt wrote a lot, but:
>The one thing in this whole thread that I've only seen Bill address is the
question of who this activitiy is for.
>
>
Matt,
Outstanding. The most important thing an instructor, or "creator", can do
is park their ego outside. If you're not there for the kids, then get out! If
you're that good, you should be a performer, not a teacher. (Not to say that
some teachers are not outstanding performers as well.)
Another thing you can do to get the most out of a performance is to GIVE
THE MEMBERS OWNERSHIP. I got tremendous response and hard work by giving my
students ownership. Listen to what they are feeling, let them participate in
the creative end, and watch what happens. When it's THEIR show, they will go to
the wall for you, every time.
BTW, anytime an instructor tells you they "love drum corps", ask them when
the last time was they drove all over town to pick up and drive members to
rehearsal, and didn't even expect gas money; And when the creative part of
their job didn't require extra compensation because it was just part of the
job. And did all this for $250 a month. Wait, that's not love, that's crazy!
Bring on the rubber room.....
Comparing one era with another is pointless. You cannot compare the
equipment, i.e. better design and materials for drums and bugles, lighter
weight for drums and auxiliary equipment. I couldn't crabstep at 180mm with 65
pound tenors if my life depended on it. It would also be nearly impossible to
dance with 8 foot steel poles with 5 pound pikes on the ends, and with real
rifles and sabres.
I only ask that each era treat the other with the same respect you would
like to receive.
As an analogy, A.J. Foyt drove his Indy 500-winning roadster from 1961
for a lap around the brickyard during qualifying last weekend. Everyone stood
and applauded because they appreciated the history they were witnessing. A.J.
himself said that the car was only capable of going about 100mph slower than
the race cars of today. But that didn't keep thousands of spectators from
cheering his lap in an outdated, slow, poorly designed race car. But back in
it's day.......
Oh, yeah, and Indy car racing existed before USAC, CART, and the IRL.
There's just a better appreciation of history there.
Garry
VK Percussion '70-'73
VK Staff '80-'85
VKGARRY73
Mike wrote:
> Even putting down ticks on the sheet was subjective! It looks nice and
decision that an error was made, which is totally subjective.
>
>
I have to agree here. I remember getting sheets back from judges that
could have been done with a can of paint and a roller. But then I would watch
them judge the "elite" lines, standing on the track, tapping their toes with
their clipboard behind their backs, as the ticks flew right past their ears.
But I could hear them 20 rows up?
I'm not complainig about our sheets. God knows, we had a long way to go
then. I just wanted to see the some continuity in how the lines were judged.
VKGARRY73
Terri wrote:
>I would never tell a kid(well, I'm forty, so they're kids to me) that they are
no good, or suck, for lack of a better term.
Terri,
It was this attitude from the STAFF at VK during the '79 season that
caused the revolution that started the whole VK image of the mid-80's to early
'90's. I actually heard this from a staff member: "Well, you guys suck, but do
the best you can." Can you believe this?!? No wonder they finished 33rd, and
almost all quit or went to other corps. They had so much more talent than the
staff gave them credit for. It would have been easier for the new staff if the
previous staff had believed in, and encouraged the corps.
mda...@ets.org
In article <199805202120...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
contr...@aol.com (Contra4Evr) wrote:
>
> May I please begin by saying that some of these posts are extensive?
Uh, like yours WASN'T? :-)
> Ahh,well...they are quite interesting and have sparked a thought in which I
> would like to share...(uh oh!!)
>
That's what we're here for!
> BUT...as Michael J. Cesario stated in the Summer edition of "DCI Today"
..."If
> every corps looked and sounded like the Madison Scouts, the Madison Scouts
> would no longer be special." Therefore, why are we now complaining about
corps
> being individuals instead of all marching with the same style?
Actually, the complaint by some here is that the corps ARE all the same style
today, something I don't happen to believe, but others do.
>I must admit one
> more Michael J. Cesario quote .." If we put them behind a screen or made
them
> wear rehearsal clothes I think you would know exactly which corps was the
Blue
> Devils and which corps was the Phantom Regiment just from the way they sound
or
> the way they move." ( DCI Today Summer 1998 edition)
>
Exactly.
>
>I do respect the ideals of the pre-DCI drum corps. In fact, I greatly
> respect and love all drum corps. But I feel it only necessary to applause at
> the creativity seen on the field today. NO need to judge in spectatorship my
> friends....just enjoy!
>
Right. EVERY era was unique, and what followed built upon the foundation into
what we have today. As long as the history isn't trashed in the effort to
applaud what is here today, I'm with you.
> If you must..."Flame" away...
>
No flames, just comments. Good post, although a bit 'extensive'. :-)
Mike
mda...@ets.org
> > Bill said:
> >I suggest you reread Jay Bocook's statement again.
> >
> >"I don't think we have to throw out the white towel and say we are going to
> >go back and do shows of little or no substance just so we can get
applause."
> >
> >Or, how about Michael Cesario's
> >
> >" What we realized though, was that we sometimes have these golden memories
> >about the "old days" and in fact most of the visual presentation from the
> >era was
> >pretty substandard by today's ideas of design and achievement."
> >
> >That may not be talking badly, but it certainly qualifies as damning with
> >faint praise the programs and designers of the past.
>
> Chuck replied:
> I suggest you understand the context in which those statements were made.
The
> article does not tell the whole story. There are "extremists" in both
camps. .
> . the old, the new. Jay's statement is a reaction to those who feel we must
go
> back to the pre-DCI style shows. Yes, we got applause. We get applause
today.
> Jay is saying "don't sell out the music or kids" just to get applause. He
ALSO
> said that he thinks you can do both. He is right.
>
When Jay says that he doesn't want to 'go back and do shows of little or no
substance', it implies that the past WAS of little or no substance, which IMHO
was not the case, in many instances. Sure, there was a lot of drek out there.
However, the best then was pretty darn good and full of substance, even by
today's standards. Is today better? IMHO, yes. But was yesterday 'empty'? No
way. I taught a class 'B' corps in the mid 70's that played Berlioz and
Nelhybel, and we did some unusual meter pieces as well, even one in 7/4. One
of my percussion features (the early days of mallets) was DeBussy's
"Golliwog's Cakewalk", and another was a Walton piece I arranged for
percussion with brass quintet accompaniment. In Garfield, we did Gounod, Ives,
Mahler, Clifton Williams, Howard Hanson, and others. Sure, some corps DID play
stuff that viewing today doesn't hold up all that well, but not every corps
was that bad.
> As far as "faint praise" goes. . . the past is the past. How much homage
and
> glory should we give the past before it looms larger than what we do today?
Not more than it deserves, but not less either. I'm not a big 'history' guy,
but you don't build a higher and brighter the future by burying the past, you
build it by standing on it's shoulders.
>
> And politically correct or not, Michael's statement is accurate. By TODAY'S
> standards the visual presentation of yesteryear is substandard.
Yes, drills today are FAR more intricate and, as I teach a highly competitive
band (sorry about that, Bill), I'm constantly amazed at how complex the drills
are today. However, to say 'substandard' is to bury the past in praise of the
present. There are other ways to have made the same point without the negative
connotation of 'substandard'. Sure, put the 1970 anybody on the field today
against DCi top-X corps, and it would look like a WWI biplane competing
against an F-16. That is totally irrelevant, though. For their day, the drills
were advanced as they could be, IN their day.
> What is your oldest video in your collection? Mine is a 1966
> Cavaliers performance and 1968 Skyliners. The drill is AWFUL by today's
> standards. So is the colorguard work.
Mine are the 71/72 era. Yes, guards do a lot of walking around pointing their
flags at stuff, and yes, brass are shoulder-to-shoulder much of the time, in
straight lines, except for Bobby Hoffman's drill for us in 72. I'd not want to
return to THAT era. Today drill is FAR more interesting. However, I don't feel
they were substandard in their era; I feel that they were wonderful for their
day. Face it Chuck, Michael should have used terminlogy less degrading in his
statements. He could have made the exact same point without riling up the
folks who actually MARCHED those shows.
> Today is different than yesterday. No qualifiers or subjectivity.
>
Exactly!! To use terms like 'substandard' and 'little substance' are just as
wrong in describing the past as the folks who put down the present, which I
happen to LOVE, even as an old-timer myself.
>
> So we, the instructors, took our activity back from the judges. We told
them
> that they could either judge it the way we wanted or they could find a new
> leisure time activity. The dog now wags the tail. . . as it should be. We
will
> still have standards, and still have rankings/ratings. There will still
only be
> one winner at Nationals in each division. But, knowing we will get credit
for
> designing shows that appeal to audiences (which is what we WANT) as well as
> incorporating good musical/visual ideas will help encourage
> instructors/designers to make this happen.
>
Good. This explains it to me better than the previous posts, so I hope it
works out as you wish!!
>
> Think about who DCI Today is aimed at. What is the target audience?
> The band world mostly. DCI has had a "black eye" for years in the band
world
> (where we get most of our kids) because of educational issues and
competitive
> ethics.
>
I'm not sure, given DCI's past experience, that I like the idea of them aiming
at bands, from the band side of things, anyway. :-)
> I don't understand people who turn on each other. I
> feel that the people who attacked the ideas and presentations of the 3 men
in
> DCI Today don't know as much as they think they do. Opinions are fine, but
> uniformed opinions are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
"Aren't worth...", just to be pedantic here. :-)
People have hot buttons, and poorly chosen words can certainly set those
buttons to fire. The comments made in the paper obviously did just that.
Lots of good points on both sides here, from Bill AND Chuck.
Knamaky
That is correct. I said juvenile by TODAY'S standards. What is your point?
Kevin
><HTML>Subject: Re: Drum Corps History 101-DCI Today style<BR>
>From: James Dittrich <Gmen...@worldnet.att.net><BR>
>Date: 5/20/98 3:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time<BR>
>Message-id: <6k00p5$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net><BR>
><BR>
><FONT SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Knamaky wrote:<BR>
>> <BR>
>> You guys all need to quit trying to put words in people's mouths. Nowhere
>did I<BR>
>> say anyone sucked, and nowhere have I said that drumming back in the
>day<BR>
>> sucked. Don't read what isn't there.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Kevin<BR>
>> <BR>
>> >Subject: Re: Drum Corps History 101-DCI Today style<BR>
>> >From: James Dittrich <Gmen...@worldnet.att.net><BR>
>> >Date: 5/20/98 2:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time<BR>
>> >Message-id: <6jujhl$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net><BR>
>> ><BR>
>the> >"older"> generation sucks, but I personally don't get it. I've read
>numerous> >posts by> the "older" generation and many of them are just as
>insulting to> >current> members as other posts are to you guys. I mean, it is
>definitely not> >cool> coming onto RAMD and reading posts by people who are
>all a part of> >the same> activity telling each other they suck, know what I
>mean? It goes> >both ways.***************I would never tell a kid(well, I'm
>forty, so they're> >kids to me) that they are no good, or suck, for lack of a
>better term. I> >teach high school kids. So I am not saying or writing
>this sort of> >thing.....my mother did a better job of parenting than some,
>from what I> >gather from reading RAMD.-Terri<BR>
>> ><BR>
>> ><BR>
>> ><BR>
>> ><BR>
>> ><BR>
>> ><BR>
>*************<BR>
><BR>
>Why I'm wasting anymore of my valuable time with this, I don't know. I <BR>
>probably only have 20 more good years. But I'll disect this.<BR>
><BR>
>You said your five year old sister could play SCV's '75 drum solo. Unless
>she's <BR>
>some sort of prodigy, I would assume you are saying the drum solo they played
><BR>
>was pretty juvenile. <BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>-Terri<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
Knamaky
The director of my corps reads this newsgroup, but if you want you can send him
an email. He can be reached at Bria...@aol.com. His name is Brian Hickman.
As far as my posts. I wrote them, and have reread them and you need reread them
also. I said: the 75 SCV drum solo is not up to today's standards and would be
blown away by TODAY'S standards. I said nothing of what I think of old school
lines, or what I think of the activity, or what I think of corps today, or
anything else for that matter. I did say what I thought of this particular solo
compared to TODAY'S standards. "Think before you speak." I do. How about this
one: Practice what you preach.
Kevin
><HTML>Subject: Re: Drum Corps History 101-DCI Today style<BR>
>From: James Dittrich <Gmen...@worldnet.att.net><BR>
>Date: 5/20/98 3:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time<BR>
>Message-id: <6k01fd$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net><BR>
><BR>
><FONT SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Knamaky wrote:<BR>
>> <BR>
>> >Better than a member<BR>
>> >of a top 12 corps 'challenging' 'old-time' percussion people to see
>him<BR>
>> >personally so he can explain how today is superior to the past.> > Go back
>and reread the post and/or posts. Where do you guys come up with this> stuff?
>My post was the result of someone else challenging me to say what I said> in
>a previous post to people's faces. Also, what I said was that by today's>
>standards, the SCV 75 solo would get blown away and it is simplistic. You
>are> placing a blanket statement over what I specifically said. Don't try and
>put> words in that weren't there.> > Kevin***************Reread your own
>post, young Kevin. You said your five year old sister could play that solo
>and I said I wish you'd say that to my face. And I do wish it. I am a forty
>year old woman with a son and I weigh about 125 lbs. so I'm no threat to this
>kid. I'd really like to teach him lesson which is "think before you speak."
>I'm cutting him some slack by not sending some of this stuff to the director
>of his corps so he can see for himself the ill will this young man is
>spreading amongst the paying customer(me) with the disposable income drum
>corps desperately needs.-Terri<BR>
Knamaky
Terri,
p.s.-Leave my mother out of it.
Kevin
WmACook
In article <199805202120...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
contr...@aol.com (Contra4Evr) writes:
>If you must..."Flame" away...
Leah -- Not me! A great note.
Bill
Bill Cook
wma...@aol.com
http://www.cookgroup.com
http://www.cookgroup.com/star
SplinterGr
Something I've noticed in Chuck and a few others' responses to this thread is
the practice of using the late 60's and early 70's as the comparitive example
when pointing to the superiority of the modern product. But many (if not most)
of us who feel that things are headed in a bad direction now are finding
today's product inferior NOT to what was being done 30 years ago (that would be
goofy - the shows are quantifiably more difficult today) , but rather to what
was being done much more recently - say 10 to 15 years ago.
The musical and visual programs of most of the major corps in the late 70's to
late 80's integrated solid musical technique with the traditions of the drum
corps form (presentational shows rather than prop-laden "dance" or "serious
theme" ('gag!')-oriented programs). Someone (maybe Chuck) made comment about
showing old video to newbies and then putting on the recent years'
championships, and yes, if the old video was from 1972, no doubt they're going
to prefer the newer shows. Compared to the 1970 Des Plaines Vanguard (for
example), most shows today are much more sophisticated and difficult, and much
more impressive.
However, I'd bet that if you put on tape of the 1989 Cavaliers, the 1980 27th
Lancers, 84 Garfield or the 1990 Blue Devils - the older shows would kick hell
out of almost anything from last season you could show.
Since this is the case, it might be helpful to stop comparing "pre-historic"
material with the modern in order to point out the latter's sophistication -
compare rather the relatively recent against the new to get a fairer bead on
the subject.
When this is done, it becomes a bit harder to come down in favor of the
"artistically substantive" shows of today, since the slightly-older shows still
do a good job of blending intricate musical and visual ideas with show-stopping
and audience pleasing presentation - exactly the thing which is missing in too
many corps' shows today.
The modern conceits' damage to the form haven't yet gotten to the point of
irreparability - but I suspect they're getting awful close....
Matt
Contra4Evr
GUYS!!! Chill out...it's too close to tour,man....
~leah =)
Jeff Mitchell
arranger wrote:
> Once again, I just sit here shaking my head that people allow mere words to rile
> them up. And, of course, I notice no one has bothered to contact any of the
> gentlemen who were interviewed to ask them what THEY meant. Lots of pessimism
> here about drum corps in general, and lots of people looking for "plots".
> Rather unbearable for any length of time.
Well this is second hand, but here goes;
After reading DCI Today and having attended the DCI Judge/Instructor meeting in
January where Jay Bocook and Micheal Cesario made lengthy presentations, perhaps a
little more information might be helpful. This thread has generated much discussion
with only a speck of the total sum of their thoughts on the state of the activity.
The quotes Bill posted are there in black and white, but they are somewhat out of
context. There is also some background information that you might find informative.
Perhaps the perception on an old versus new WCW-NWO match is a bit exaggerated.
The first session began with the 1971 Anaheim Kingsmen coming off the line in the
World Open at the Manning Bowl in Lynn, MA. There was no attempt by Micheal to
demean old-time drum corps, but for everyone to simply see and hear what it was. The
reaction of the audience of judges and instructors was terrific. Most of us knew
every note of that show and it was a wonderful way to begin the weekend. Now what I
saw and heard on the video differed greatly from my remembrance of being there in
person. I might add that my set of Fleetwood records from this contest has been worn
thin and it is perhaps my favorite drum corps contest of all time.
The Kingsmen simply had very little movement or equipment work, it wasn't at all
like my memory of the event. My recall of the audience reaction was also faulty.
There was polite applause and a standing ovation at the end of the show not much
different that of the typical corp today. I couldn't help thinking the 1997 Crossmen
got a much better response at the Manning Bowl. This was Michael's point, It wasn't
an attempt at revisionist history, but simply the reality of what occurred that
evening back in 1971.
Michael's reference to the days of DCI growth under Don Angelica and Dr. Baggs are
reflective of the era of 1974-1984. Don was the DCI Judge Administrator and Dr.
Baggs was a judge, who served as a link between the judge-instructor community and
the DCI Board of Directors. Both were great men of vision, who had a lasting effect
on the activity. I, as are many others, deeply indebted to both of them. They gave
me the opportunity to judge and helped me grow as a judge and human being. Now we
all have our glory days and Michael's, despite wearing the Kilt, might be his
efforts as program coordinator for the Garfield Cadets in 1983 and 1984.
In this era there was a great deal of growth in terms of our conception of what a
drum corps show could consist of. The visual restrictions of the AL-VFW days were
gone. No longer could one person have the authority to tell corps, as was done in
1971, that they could not wear costumes, juggle, or dance. Many folks consider the
late 1970's-early 1980's the zenith of our activity. The Bridgemen's concept and
many others were made possible by the relaxing of the rules of the game.
The major focus of the weekend was to resurrect the Instructor-Judge task force
which, during the days of Angelica and Baggs, set the direction around rules changes
and rule interpretation. This was axed during one of the numerous fiscal crisis of
the 1980's. While you are displeased with the thought of "creators" formulating
rules, this was the case during the early days of DCI. Recently much of the "power"
regarding rules has been in the hands of the BOD, as was the case in the reduction
of the judging panel to 7 in 1994. There simply was a decision to use 7 judges and
the judges were left to decide how to implement, leaving the instructors out of the
proverbial loop.
Enter Dan Acheson and his vision to convene the judges and instructors in Chicago
this January and his support for the task force. This is a positive move for the
activity, IMHO. In my early years as a judge, we meet every winter and this exchange
of information, comraderie, and communication between judges and corps' staff, away
from the heat of competition, was very positive. In major sports, the referees and
umpires don't make the rules. The leagues, which DCI could be construed as, do. The
officials are there to carry out the rules to the best of their abilities. This
winter meeting was a major step forward.
As far as Jay Bocook is concerned, his quotes certainly didn't capture his
presentation in the least. Jay stated he became an arranger because he wanted to
understand how 1960's drum corps arrangers created the sounds he heard and be able
to do so himself. He has a deep appreciation for the greats of the past. I know this
because he said so. We spoke about how terrific arrangers like Kenny Norman and Ed
Denon were and how good their charts still sound today. He really is a class guy and
his work speaks for itself.
Now you might think about "substance" in a different light. Jay spoke of how corps
in the past simply chose unrelated pieces of music for a show. (Mike Davis, feel
free to comment of the theme shows of 1971, especially Garfield, and tell everyone
how they helped start DCI). The brass arranger wrote it, handed it the drum writer,
who gave it to the keyboard/pit arranger. Then the drill writer made a tape, wrote
the drill and gave the tape to the guard writer, who added guard work and maybe
later figured out where to place the guard on the field. Today corps use time lines
and other devices to better coordinate the elements, choose music that gives the
program theme, etc... This view of substance reflects the increasingly sophisticated
team approach.
Of course, this is not say the product is universally accepted as better.
As far as "educated", please remember that even instructors and judges could not
read or write music. One arranged and taught by rote my horn line. It may seem odd,
but today my respect is greater for that man than it was in the days of pre-DCI drum
corps. Imagine the skill it took to write and maintain an entire show in your mind,
and then imagine this man teaching several corps. It would have been far easier to
write it out.
So by corps staff being better "educated", the reference is to formal skills,
rehearsal techniques, and the mainstream of the musical world. This again, is not a
slam, just a reference of then and now. If you taught in the 1960's and 1970's,
having members who didn't read music was a reality. It did take some time to teach a
chart. It was amazing to write marching band charts and simply hear it sight read
after many years of working with corps. This doesn't mean that we didn't have great
musicians and that simply because one lacked formal musical training meant they were
inferior.
What needs to be addressed is not new versus old, a sort of gene(ir)rational war,
but the change in the vocabulary of the design team. The choice of movement styles,
marching as opposed to dance, the percussion writing and the choice of music are all
topics of interest. To make broad generalizations regarding any era are pointless as
this thread has pointed out very clearly.
There has always been a wide variety of approaches to drum corps. There have always
been shows pushing the envelope. There have always been corps the audience preferred
over the judge's choices. This is why this is such a great activity. There is no one
correct approach. There is no one correct style. Each corps can present a unique
vision of what they are about to the audience. The diversity of styles, approaches,
musical concepts, and ways to visually present the corps are what makes this all
fascinating to me. This has been my view since the 1960's. I can't wait to hear and
see the 1998 shows. I'm pumped up. psyched, and ready to experience all the corps.
I've felt this way every year since the 1960's. See it. feel it, hear it!
Well, it's getting late so I'll end this here.
Jeff
Mike Collins
> Now you might think about "substance" in a different light. Jay spoke of
how corps
> in the past simply chose unrelated pieces of music for a show. (Mike
Davis, feel
> free to comment of the theme shows of 1971, especially Garfield, and
tell everyone
> how they helped start DCI). The brass arranger wrote it, handed it the
drum writer,
> who gave it to the keyboard/pit arranger. Then the drill writer made a
tape, wrote
> the drill and gave the tape to the guard writer, who added guard work
and maybe
> later figured out where to place the guard on the field. Today corps use
time lines
> and other devices to better coordinate the elements, choose music that
gives the
> program theme, etc... This view of substance reflects the increasingly
sophisticated
> team approach.
> Of course, this is not say the product is universally accepted as better.
But this approach, at least to me would be like saying for dinner i'm
going to start with bean soup, then have a salad that has lima beans in
it, then a soybean hamburger with chilibean side dish....(yawn) I LIKED
the fact that you could have totally dissimilar pieces together and in
fact, some of the more successful symphony concerts I've attended have had
great 'variety'. There is this vibe today that a show MUST have some
theme, otherwise it's 'unsophisticated'. And some of these 'themes' I've
seen that are supposed to tie the shows together are pretty slim threads,
if any. Why can't somebody come out and have a show called 'three
kick-ass tunes and a drum solo' performed at the levels of today and win?
If your first gut reaction to that starts into the 'theme' oriented
attacks of a show like that, then you have one of the main problems with
today, the lack of variety that CAN occur when designers feel this need to
have some binding tie in the entire show. Don't get me wrong, some do it
great, but I think corps should be competitive with the former type of
show also. '88 VK was considered one of our best shows ever, yet if you
think about it, what do Magical Mystery Tour, Zorba the Greek, Malaguena,
the afro-carribean drum solo we had, and 'Americana' have to do with any
vaulted theme? It was supposedly a 'world tour' but give me a break! The
pieces were VERY dissimilar, yet people still talk to me about that show
more than any other (not to slight the others at all!) I admit that I
haven't seen dci in awhile (mainly due to the ridiculous times to see it
at 3 am, etc. and the impossibility at finding it in the tv guide!) and
correct me if i'm wrong, but you don't really see this type of show much
anymore. Why? Does the repertoire HAVE to be so interrelated to be
successful, i.e. competitive? I can't remember the poster, but he
mentioned that this old vs. new seemed to be rooted in pre-70's
comparisons when it's actually the 80's that many people feel should be
gone back to. I really don't know where to stand on this personally (I
tend to lean more with the 'old timers') but I will relay this. A good
friend of mine marched one year of corps with me back in 82 and he would
pretty much just watch the telecast every year for his 'fix'. Starting
about maybe 4-5 years ago, he started making the comment that he wasn't
really entertained by most of the shows and found himself looking at his
watch to wonder how long they had been going on. There has been MUCH
debate as to what causes this in people (or that it even exists) these
days. I will not try to state what/when/where/why/how, only that it DOES
exist in many of the shows these days for people like my friend, and
people like my friend are the ones leaving the activity. The die-hards,
as in any venue, will always be there. You all can now go back to the
squabble, the way I figure it, economics will eventually decide who is
right. Hopefully all the 'newbies' are...
Mike Collins
> What needs to be addressed is not new versus old, a sort of
gene(ir)rational war,
> but the change in the vocabulary of the design team. The choice of
movement styles,
> marching as opposed to dance, the percussion writing and the choice of
music are all
> topics of interest. To make broad generalizations regarding any era are
pointless as
> this thread has pointed out very clearly.
Here, here! Totally agree with this.
arranger
mike...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Collins) writes:
> Hey chuck...
Hi Mike,
> Unless it's just a typo, your contradicting yourself. First you say the
> performances were NOT substandard but then you state 'Why does that level
> of PERFORMANCE need homage paid to it' implying that the performances WERE
> slop, there's slop today just as much as yesterday, just less of it (more
> due to less # of corps in my opinion).
Yes, you are correct - - I should not have typed "performance". I should have
typed design, coordination, and physical/musical demand. Of course, that will
probably get me yelled at as well. . . :-)
Your friend Greg is one smart guy. . . and you're pretty on-top of things
yourself!
I really do enjoy drum corps of all eras. . . I just don't happen to be one of
the "thin-skinned" who get offended every time someone says something
"questionable" about past drum corps.
Could the language of the interviews have been edited and gone through with a
fine-tooth comb to make sure it came out "vanilla"? Yeah, no doubt about it.
Once again, I just sit here shaking my head that people allow mere words to rile
them up. And, of course, I notice no one has bothered to contact any of the
gentlemen who were interviewed to ask them what THEY meant. Lots of pessimism
here about drum corps in general, and lots of people looking for "plots".
Rather unbearable for any length of time.
I have to go get ready for Colts Camp - - and refresh myself with the knowledge
that we're having fun with our show, people like it, kids are getting good
experiences. That's enough for me.
take care,
Chuck Naffier
PS - Joe Exley told me that I have inadvertantly created a soprano solo tribute
to you. It involves starting the note facing the endzone and turning while
holding the note out for EVER. Hope you enjoy the show!
rbeckham
Excellent post
splin...@aol.com (SplinterGr) writes: > Something I've noticed in Chuck and a few others' responses to this thread is
mold...@gac.edu
In article <199805210913...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
This is the most intelligent post I've read in this ng the whole year.
Bravo, Joe.
Michael Oldemeyer
Phantom Regiment 94,6,8.
euphonium
1 more day, 2 more tests, 1 more presentation, then...aaahhhh...drumcorps.
Clark D. Brooks
The proposition is put forth without fear of contradiction that people
marching today are more skilled than the ones I marched with in the seventies.
I think back about the dozen or so college music majors I had the pleasure
of marching with...umm... that I marched with...well... that I marched near.
On the whole, the musicianship I heard from them was somewhat above average.
None of them evidenced the fire (or volume) of the kids who were fighting for
escape from the grinding boredom of small ex-industrial cities (or as in
my case, cows :)
I hypothesize that college music majors have not changed much, as a
population, over the last couple decades. This leads me to the conclusion that
drum corps has not gotten much more musical over that time. ( I believed
that anyway :) If drum corps had, others opine that it would only be up
to the level of the college-trained musician... "somewhat above average".
As others have testified, I got my introduction to Stravinsky, to Dvorak,
to Copland & of course Britten through drum corps. Music is whatever
sound moves your soul - drum corps still does it.
-- Clark
Marion, SCV, Kilts, 27th
--
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be Science.
RHardi5005
Thanks Jeff, very much appreciated.........pretty clear post response!
Ralph Hardimon
James Christian
mda...@ets.org wrote:
> Not to mention that the AVERAGE player is FAR superior to the past, as most
> top-X players have been studying brass/percussion in their scholastic setting
> as well as DC. It takes nothing away from my generation's performers to say
> that; in fact, it makes what we DID accomplish that much more amazing.
I still don't see how you can say that. North Star from 1980's soloist is one of
my absolute favorites. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but I just don't see
people attempting stuff like that anymore (and now they have better instruments to
do it with).
And drummers that I see now. Most of them have no speed or endurance. I don't
see many individuals that have come from the new school of rudimental drumming
that can play stuff that the top drum lines were back then (as an entire 11 person
line).
I don't mean this to be a slam on anybody, but I think you're discrediting
yourself and everyone from your era when you make statements like this.
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
James Christian
> And as for harder arrangements, I do not see how that is taking the
> activity away from the members. The reason the demand has increased is
> because it is not as easy to score that "10" as it used to be. And I am
> very sorry, but this IS a competitive event.
>
> Ryan Tysdal
> Phantom Regiment Baritone
> 1996-1997-1998-????
Demand has increased? Horn lines aren't trying to tongue as fast or play as
high. Drum lines have much more tacet time and rinky-dink parts. Less
equipment work in the guard. Obscure drills that have no form and cannot be
judged.
I would welcome more demanding parts. If you mean more complex, then I would
agree. Complex is not always difficult, as difficult is not always complex.
Random rudiments and oddly phrased timing patterns thrown out make it sound
more complex and less accessible, but they are NOT demanding. Four straight
measures of 32nd note paradiddles is simple (in form), but quite demanding to
play.
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
James Christian
If drum Corps is so bad nowadays then why do you guys keep coming to the shows.Many people HAVE quite coming.
I know when I march the crowd really seems to aprecciate it. SomeGo watch the tapes.
times things get blown out of proportion that you are trying to remember. i
don't think crowd responses were that much better back when all of the
people who don't march now marched.
Its like that huge bass that you caught 10 years ago.Go watch the tapes.First it was 20 inches than 21 than 24 than 27 than it became 32 and you
had to wrestle it with your bear hands too.
As in respect I love to watchIs the fact that they're not as entertaining just a separate thing?
shows from nowadays to. I love every Drum Corps show that i see all the way
from Cadets of First Baptist to Blue Devils. Yes Championship attendence
has been low lately because of the spot though. Not because corps are less
entertaing.
Drum corps is changing just like rock and roll. And It willGo watch the tapes.
change from what it is now too. All i am trying to say is that Drum Corps
is as good now as it has ever been and quit trying to glorify the past to
much.
Learn to aprecciate what Corps is now and support those of us thatI'm someone from 'the new generation', and I don't like a lot of the junk going on today. I've worked hard to be able to play as well as I can, and I get mad when the judges can't recognize rudiments I play or tell me my parts are "too rudimental", and I would think it would upset you too.
march. It isn't much fun to have all the people that used to march say we
suck.Maybee some of it is jellousy because your corps didn't do what we do
today. I don't know all I am trying to say is we need your support and not
your critisism. Thanks
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
James Christian
Harry Baer IV wrote:
> Pre DCI-types: I understand your frustration with DCI. I know that some
> of the shows are incomprehensible. Please, I was born in 1972, and I
> don't get some of the new shows any better than you do! But the fact
> remains that much of what DCI did was necessary to keep drum corps
> alive. The activity needed to change, to get away from the censorship in
> the VFW/American legion era.
> The fact is, when people say that drum corps is better today, they
> usually mean that the shows of today are harder, particularly from a
> drill standpoint. There was an awful lot of "Forward March!" in the old
> days. Let's face it, a lot of the seemingly impossible drill of today is
> phenomenal when you finally see it done properly. (Let us all thank SCV
> for asymmetrical drill.)
That's just the point. It's not being done properly. Marching technique and
intervals are sloppy.
> Whether we like to admit it or not, there have been shows in the past
> few years which were entertaining and superior in quality. (Phantom
> Regiment '96, Madison almost any year, Crossmen '97.) Not all that has
> happened with DCI is by definintion bad.
Compare that to earlier years when they were ALL entertaining.
> I am willing to admit whole-heartedly that some of the shows of today
> lack any entertainment value whatsoever, but please, let's not become
> slaves to the hyperbole of "Corps is NEVER entertaining these days, and
> EVERYTHING was better about the old days." Please- try not to mock what
> you don't understand.
I don't know of anyone that has said it's NEVER entertaining these days.
Entertaining shows are just harder to come by.
> If it weren't for the pre DCI days, we would have had no starting point
> for today's drum corps. Where would the Blue Devils be without those
> early days? Would they even exist? Ditto on Regiment, Cadets, Scouts,
> and a host of others. Those rudiments you attack so fervently gave birth
> to today's more complex drumming,
As I said in an earlier post, complex doesn't neccessarily mean difficult. There
are many awkwardly phrased rhythms now days which sounds more complex (just because
it's unrelateable), but most of it's just easy timing stuff.
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
ryan shepherd
On 21 May 1998 09:49:30 GMT, vkga...@aol.com (VKGARRY73) wrote:
<big snip>
Not to detract from a fabulous thread (and I'm not kidding). But the
following is not only a fantastic example, but it was a GREAT moment
for those of us that were lucky enough to be there.
OK, back to the debate!
Ryan flip Shepherd
> I only ask that each era treat the other with the same respect you would
>like to receive.
> As an analogy, A.J. Foyt drove his Indy 500-winning roadster from 1961
>for a lap around the brickyard during qualifying last weekend. Everyone stood
>and applauded because they appreciated the history they were witnessing. A.J.
>himself said that the car was only capable of going about 100mph slower than
>the race cars of today. But that didn't keep thousands of spectators from
>cheering his lap in an outdated, slow, poorly designed race car. But back in
>it's day.......
> Oh, yeah, and Indy car racing existed before USAC, CART, and the IRL.
>There's just a better appreciation of history there.
>
>
>
>
Martin McIsaac
big snippage from excellent post
> about maybe 4-5 years ago, he started making the comment that he wasn't
> really entertained by most of the shows and found himself looking at his
> watch to wonder how long they had been going on. There has been MUCH
> debate as to what causes this in people (or that it even exists) these
> days. I will not try to state what/when/where/why/how, only that it DOES
> exist in many of the shows these days for people like my friend, and
> people like my friend are the ones leaving the activity. The die-hards,
> as in any venue, will always be there. You all can now go back to the
> squabble, the way I figure it, economics will eventually decide who is
> right. Hopefully all the 'newbies' are...
>
> Mike Collins (mike...@ix.netcom.com)
> 1984,86 Blue Devils
> 1988-91 VK Brass Instuctor
> 1991-97 Lead Trumpet Disneyland Magic Kingdom Korps
> 1997-Now Elementary Band Teacher (listen to THAT all day!!)
I too have run into this situation many, many times. I've convinced
numerous family members to attend recent shows after many years of
absence. En masse, their response to these "new type" shows have been,
HUH? Bear in mind all of these people had extensive D&B backgrounds,
(marching/management) dating back to the late '40's.
These "unsophisticated" former stalwarts felt no connection with what
was being presented to them. Their comments ranged from "why are they
running around like that," to "what are they playing and why is it so
soft?" The best comment I heard came from a cousin, who marched many
years with a nationally renowned and now defunct inner city corps, he
stated after viewing BD, "they're perfect but where's the heat?" "It's
like kissing your ex-wife, clinically perfect but perfunctory and
passionless." I found all of their comments most revealing.
Nowadays, these people are immediately dismissed as hopeless relics. I
say, these are the same people who took out second mortgages on their
homes to keep their corps going and lived and breathed this activity for
a very long time. Their opinions have great value and there are lessons
to be learned from them. If drum corps continues to loose this
connection to their founders, then it's future could very well be high
priced, elaborate productions played to stands sprinkled only with
equally high priced "creative" talent.
BTW, as an aside, an elderly aunt, a former guard captian in the early
50's, almost had a stroke when she watched last years Bluecoats. That
was kinda funny :)
Marty McIsaac
BAC Sr.
mda...@ets.org
In article <35653BA3...@hotmail.com>,
James Christian <james_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> mda...@ets.org wrote:
>
> I still don't see how you can say that. North Star from 1980's soloist is
one of
> my absolute favorites.
I was referring to the AVERAGE player, not the superstar soloists, who are
great in EVERY era. In fact, I even capitalized AVERAGE to make it clear
exactly what I was referring to.
>I'm not trying to insult anyone, but I just don't see
> people attempting stuff like that anymore (and now they have better
instruments to
> do it with).
>
There is also no question TO ME (note the "TO ME") the the average music book
is FAR superior to what was written years ago, in any area you can think of,
form demand thru pharasing thru musicality, thru orchestration techniques,
etc. And yes, the charts then WERE fabulous as well; it makes what is played
today even better, to me.
> And drummers that I see now. Most of them have no speed or endurance. I
don't
> see many individuals that have come from the new school of rudimental
drumming
> that can play stuff that the top drum lines were back then (as an entire 11
person
> line).
>
Well, they are certainly far better percussionists than the AVERAGE drummer of
the past; there are also a LLT more of them than in my era. In the 70-72 era,
most drum lines were around 4 snares, 3 or 4 tenors (or tri-toms), 3 or 4
timps, a couple of straight basses, and a couple of cymbals. 15 or 16 drummers
was a large line. Also, there was no pit percussion, which IMHO has added
IMMENSELY to what the overall percussion sections play today. Doesn't make
what we did 'substandard'; it makes today all that much better.
> I don't mean this to be a slam on anybody, but I think you're discrediting
> yourself and everyone from your era when you make statements like this.
>
No, I NEVER disparage what we did. In saying that what is on the field today
is superior, I'm not denigrating us. I'm just saying that today is better,
that's all. It doesn't make us substandard or simplistic. Far from it. It just
makes today all that much more amazing. I choose NOT to disparage the past in
building up the present, unlike others.
Musically yours,
Mike Garfield 70-72
mda...@ets.org
In article <6k0dh4$rgb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
mold...@gac.edu wrote:
>
> In article <6jugqi$4gr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> mda...@ets.org wrote:
>
>Sure, the drills were simpler than today, esp the ones he writes,
> > which are wonderful, but every era is what it is, and what follows builds
> > upon it. If it weren't for the 60's and 70's drills, there wouldn't BE
80's
> > and 90's drills.
>
> I certainly agree on your last point. I hope I didn't come across as
> belittling what was performed in the 60s and 70s.
>
No, to your credit you didn't.
> And I want to commend you, Mike, and Bill Haas for making arguments based
> on the issues. The only reason I entered this thread was because some of
> it's participants were making the issue personal.
>
Thanks! And I'm VERY envious of you marching with MY favorite corps of the
90's!
Mike
mda...@ets.org
In article <199805210833...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
dva...@aol.com (DVAdams) wrote:
>
>
> My characterization of Bocook's work for marching bands was out of line. It
was
> a reaction and not a response, and I apologize for that.
>
You can see how 'mere' words can make a big impact other than what you might
have intended.
> However, I still feel Bocook was out of line when he said:
> > >"As a result of working with better trained musicians drum corps have
also
> > >learned to be much more "educated"......In the 60's and 70's the kids
really
> > >didn't read much music in drum corps. They were taught by rote; ie.
"push
> > >this button here or there"... The problem then was you spent so much time
> > >(teaching notes) just to get to a beginning performance level."
> -where it applies to the 70's.
>
I agree in part; yes, there was a lot of rote stuff, even in the top corps,
but it wasn't ALL that bad. Of our (Garfield) 71 snares/tri-toms/timps, 4 of
the 11 were percussion majors in college.
Characterizing ANY era as this-or-that leads to problems in
overgeneralization, IMHO. Every era has it's good and bad.
mda...@ets.org
In article <199805212016...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
splin...@aol.com (SplinterGr) wrote:
>
> Something I've noticed in Chuck and a few others' responses to this thread
is
> the practice of using the late 60's and early 70's as the comparitive
example
> when pointing to the superiority of the modern product.
The late 60's/early70's was the last non-DCI era of corps, so it makes a nice
point of comparison.
Also..
People tend to think of when THEY marched as the 'past' when thinking about
these isses, and that era IS when both Bill and I marched. The 80's? That's
NEW stuff! :-)
Mike, looking at grey hair (well, it beats the alternative - NO hair!)
mda...@ets.org
out of
> context. There is also some background information that you might find
informative.
Unfortunately we only get to see what is written, not all of the GREAT stuff
you experience 'behind the scenes', as it were.
>
> The first session began with the 1971 Anaheim Kingsmen coming off the line
in the
> World Open at the Manning Bowl in Lynn, MA.
I just got a copy of that! it's funny, I didn't care for their "Mickey Mouse
Club" then, adn I still find it, er, uh, rather "Mickey Mouse" in nature.
Also, I preferred Blue Rock's "American Salute" of the same year (but I
hated their "Horse Race" even then), but Anaheim WAS great overall!
>
> The Kingsmen simply had very little movement or equipment work, it wasn't at
all
> like my memory of the event.
Look at just about ALL of the drills and guard work of that era. Basically,
the flags just did a lot of pointing at stuff. Watch 27th's marvelous Chicago
concert number, and see how the flags just STAND there! It was a completely
different generation of drill and guard design.
>My recall of the audience reaction was also faulty.
> There was polite applause and a standing ovation at the end of the show not
much
> different that of the typical corp today.
Right, the image of hordes of screming fans is not something I remember of our
era, either. I always thought it was becasue I marched in Garfield, who never
really genereated the WOW audience reaction I thought others did. It just
wasn't our style. Even 27th at the 71 World Open, in their own back yard,
didn't generate all that much crowd reaction.
>
> Michael's reference to the days of DCI growth under Don Angelica and Dr.
Baggs are
> reflective of the era of 1974-1984. Don was the DCI Judge Administrator and
Dr.
> Baggs was a judge, who served as a link between the judge-instructor
community and
> the DCI Board of Directors. Both were great men of vision, who had a lasting
effect
> on the activity. I, as are many others, deeply indebted to both of them.
As am I. My one and only year on horn, 1972, Don was our horn instructor. He
taught me a LOT, as I had rejoined the corps in March and had to start as a
pure beginner at brass (being a percussion major in college). Also, he would
have each of the music majors arrange a short piece for the corps. We would
play it at rehearsal and don would give us tips on arranging. He was a GREAT
teacher all around!
Dr Baggs attended my senior percussion recital in college, in 1975. Just
prior to entering the stage for my first piece, a timpani solo, his son
Bernie told me his dad was a timpanist in college! Imagine how a drum corps
kid who looked at Dr Baggs as almost a god felt hearing that just prior to
performing!
> The visual restrictions of the AL-VFW days were
> gone. No longer could one person have the authority to tell corps, as was
done in
> 1971, that they could not wear costumes, juggle, or dance.
People who bemoan the existence of DCI tend to forget the pre-DCI era!
Boston's 69 percussion feature springs to mind right away. Listen to a
recording of the Philly VFW's to hear the solo without the bells, that were
banned by the VFW! BOOM-CHICK-BOOM-CHICK-BOOM-CHICK-CHICK over and over for a
minute and a half or so!
>
> Now you might think about "substance" in a different light. Jay spoke of how
corps
> in the past simply chose unrelated pieces of music for a show. (Mike Davis,
feel
> free to comment of the theme shows of 1971, especially Garfield, and tell
everyone
> how they helped start DCI).
Actually, the things I remember were us being nearly bounced from the 70 VFW's
in Miami because of the peace sign, and of course the Boston solo mentioned
above, not to mention the awful reaction to the 71 Cavies circus show (by the
judges, not the fans and other corps members). Our 71 show was fairly
successful, as I guess the VFW couldn't complain about a corps depicting the
Revolutionary War!! I mean, we DID have the Colonials win! :-) However, we
used to get pounded a bit by some judges, esp percussion, that couldn't
understand our musicality. Also, I can remember negative comments about us
passing out librettos at shows that described the elements of our
presentation. (Gee, was that comment a dig at me?)
> As far as "educated", please remember that even instructors and judges could
not
> read or write music.
Right, which made it tough on those instructors who COULD read/write music.
Some judges, esp percussion again, just could not understand musicality and
percussion writing. I for one love the upgrade in general musical knowledge of
the judging community. One example that I mentioned elsewhere, is part of our
71 show, where the sops and 1/2 the drumline played a 2/4 "Turkey in the
Straw" while the lower brass and other 1/2 of the drum line played a 3/4
minuet. We got CREAMED in percussion demand, as they said we split the line in
1/2, so it was obviously easier to play the parts with fewer players. No
credit for the fact that we were playing two completely different parts
simutaneously, in 2 different time signatures. Also we had a 'cannon' effect,
where our big bass drum hit first, followed by our smaller bass, in an echo
effect. We got ticked every show for the bass drums 'not playing together'!
>One arranged and taught by rote my horn line. It may seem odd,
> but today my respect is greater for that man than it was in the days of
pre-DCI drum
> corps. Imagine the skill it took to write and maintain an entire show in
your mind,
> and then imagine this man teaching several corps. It would have been far
easier to
> write it out.
>
Exactly so! It makes what was accomplished then all that much more amazing!
>
> To make broad generalizations regarding any era are pointless as
> this thread has pointed out very clearly.
>
Absolutely!!!
> There has always been a wide variety of approaches to drum corps. There have
always
> been shows pushing the envelope.
Right! Those corps that pushed were not usually rewarded in their day
(*sigh*), but they helped lead to the progression and to what we have today in
DC and MB (sorry Bill!).
>There have always been corps the audience preferred
> over the judge's choices.
And ones like us who were neither! (*sigh* again) But we loved what we did!
>This is why this is such a great activity. There is no one
> correct approach. There is no one correct style. Each corps can present a
unique
> vision of what they are about to the audience. The diversity of styles,
approaches,
> musical concepts, and ways to visually present the corps are what makes this
all
> fascinating to me.
Right! I see just as much diversity in show design today as there was THN. You
had those who pushed, and you had those that stayed within the 'norm', just as
today. You had symphonic corps, like us, and you had 'popular' corps like Blue
Rock and Anaheim. In those days, the symphonic tended to NOT be rewarded as
much as they are today.
Mike
Ltn Mundy
>> And as for harder arrangements, I do not see how that is taking the
>> activity away from the members. The reason the demand has increased is
>> because it is not as easy to score that "10" as it used to be. And I am
>> very sorry, but this IS a competitive event.
>>
>> Ryan Tysdal
>> Phantom Regiment Baritone
>> 1996-1997-1998-????
>
>Demand has increased? Horn lines aren't trying to tongue as fast or play as
>high.
Whoa....back that truck up. I've listened to numerous older corps and not one
of those hornlines played a show that would be as demanding as a top 12 show
now until about '82. Now there may have been the exception here and there, but
in general terms, today's hornlines play much more demanding parts, with better
intonation, tone quality, balance, blend, and dynamic range. Please Mike and
Bill, don't tell me how wonderful some of Sandra Opie's hornlines were, or how
difficult the Cavies concert number was in 'XX. There were certainly some
wonderful things done, but if you were honest with yourself, you would admit
that they were the exception, not the rule.
> Drum lines have much more tacet time and rinky-dink parts. Less
>equipment work in the guard.
More dance. Now I'm no guard person, but I know that for *me* dance is a whole
lot harder than spinning a flag or rifle would be. You may like a more
equipment oriented show, but I seriously doubt if it is harder.
> Obscure drills that have no form and cannot be
>judged.
That's BS. Watch a recent finals tape, and there will be 6 maybe 7 scatter
drill sets in the bunch. Assymetrical drill has very obvious form, and *can* be
judged, if you understand it.
>I would welcome more demanding parts. If you mean more complex, then I would
>agree. Complex is not always difficult, as difficult is not always complex.
>Random rudiments and oddly phrased timing patterns thrown out make it sound
>more complex and less accessible, but they are NOT demanding. Four straight
>measures of 32nd note paradiddles is simple (in form), but quite demanding to
>play.
I'm sorry, but stick to drumming. It is an open question whether today's
drumming is more difficult, but in guard, hornline, and marching. things are
much more difficult on the whole. If you want to attack execution, you might
have a point, but please do not comment on idioms you obviously don't know a
lot about.
Alan
>Rudimentally yours,
>James Christian
>
></PRE></HTML>
Ltn Mundy
>> Pre DCI-types: I understand your frustration with DCI. I know that
>some
>> of the shows are incomprehensible. Please, I was born in 1972, and I
>> don't get some of the new shows any better than you do! But the fact
>> remains that much of what DCI did was necessary to keep drum corps
>> alive. The activity needed to change, to get away from the censorship in
>> the VFW/American legion era.
>> The fact is, when people say that drum corps is better today, they
>> usually mean that the shows of today are harder, particularly from a
>> drill standpoint. There was an awful lot of "Forward March!" in the old
>> days. Let's face it, a lot of the seemingly impossible drill of today is
>> phenomenal when you finally see it done properly. (Let us all thank SCV
>> for asymmetrical drill.)
>
>That's just the point. It's not being done properly. Marching technique and
>intervals are sloppy.
For the most part, that's true.
>> Whether we like to admit it or not, there have been shows in the
>past
>> few years which were entertaining and superior in quality. (Phantom
>> Regiment '96, Madison almost any year, Crossmen '97.) Not all that has
>> happened with DCI is by definintion bad.
>
>Compare that to earlier years when they were ALL entertaining.
Ahh....another sufferer of the "glory daze" syndrome. I don't think you can
find a corps from the pre-DCI era that played the complex, confusing shows that
are done today, but to say that they were *all* entertaining is ridiculous.
>> I am willing to admit whole-heartedly that some of the shows of
>today
>> lack any entertainment value whatsoever, but please, let's not become
>> slaves to the hyperbole of "Corps is NEVER entertaining these days, and
>> EVERYTHING was better about the old days." Please- try not to mock what
>> you don't understand.
>
>I don't know of anyone that has said it's NEVER entertaining these days.
>Entertaining shows are just harder to come by.
Agreed.
>> If it weren't for the pre DCI days, we would have had no starting
>point
>> for today's drum corps. Where would the Blue Devils be without those
>> early days? Would they even exist? Ditto on Regiment, Cadets, Scouts,
>> and a host of others. Those rudiments you attack so fervently gave birth
>> to today's more complex drumming,
>
>As I said in an earlier post, complex doesn't neccessarily mean difficult.
I'm sorry, it does. Whether a 13/8 feature is more demanding than one full of
the rudimental drumming common in the past is for you to decide, but it *is*
difficult.
>There
>are many awkwardly phrased rhythms now days which sounds more complex (just
>because
>it's unrelateable), but most of it's just easy timing stuff.
Easy? Sheeit....you try counting some drum parts today. They may not be as
physically demanding, but mentally they are *much* more difficult. But then,
you probably have no basis for comparison, as the odds are that you never *saw*
any music in the pre-DCI era.(Which is not to say that *nobody* read music,
just not many. Especially drummers)
I am tired of people attacking the difficulty of modern shows. You may not
*like* them (Hell, I don't like a lot of them), but to say they are simple, or
"easy" is nothing more than ignorance. Or a blind unwillingness to admit what
your brain tells you because of some emotional attachment to what *you* did.
Bill Haas
Ltn Mundy wrote in message
>>Demand has increased? Horn lines aren't trying to tongue as fast or play
as
>>high.
>
>Whoa....back that truck up. I've listened to numerous older corps and not
one
>of those hornlines played a show that would be as demanding as a top 12
show
>now until about '82. Now there may have been the exception here and there,
but
>in general terms, today's hornlines play much more demanding parts, with
better
>intonation, tone quality, balance, blend, and dynamic range. Please Mike
and
>Bill, don't tell me how wonderful some of Sandra Opie's hornlines were, or
how
>difficult the Cavies concert number was in 'XX. There were certainly some
>wonderful things done, but if you were honest with yourself, you would
admit
>that they were the exception, not the rule.
I am not going to defend the charts that were played, they were easier than
today's in most cases. Why? Because performance and execution were the
reward in scoring, not the difficulty of the book and the attempt at
execution as is made today. If you were going to play a section of double
and triple tonguing you had to execute it. That is why runs a la BD 93 in
the great Divide, 97 Cadets and many others could not be done..
There is wonderful music in each era in my opinion. There was crap played
in each era in my humble opinion. Today the reward is a symbiosis of
visual, and music- NOT in the individual areas of percussion, brass and
visual.
In my opinion Drum Corps has gone through 4 distinct stages in the 37 years
I have been involved with the activity.
Phase One- Prelude to greatness 1962-1971: Corps moving away from strictly
popular music programming. Moving away from Moon River, Frank Sinatra and
simple jazz into more complex charts and drill, moving into the realm of
Classical music and advanced Jazz, starting to experiment with the
instruments (glocks, tymps, tenors and tuned basses) that foreshadowed the
pit of today.
Phase Two- Almost there (1972-1982)- Full musical integration of all
styles. The theme show rules. Moving away from Military drill and the
color presentations into the beginnings of the dance and visual performances
that continue to this day. The beginning of the full utilization of the
color guard as an essential show element.
Phase 3- The new drum corps-(1983-1992)- The essential era of drum corps
history. All musical styles and programming flourish. Asymmetrical drill
opens the door to new heights in design and program integration, especially
true in the color guard where equipment work and interpretive performance
are at their peak. Percussion moves away from rudiments towards concert
percussion and the program now is unlocked from 4/4 march tempos.
Phase 4-The Theater era (1993-????)- All boundaries are gone, shows have no
essential elements and the addition of true theater to the football field
with essential show elements centered on areas other than the musical
performance (see 94-97 BD, 1997 Scouts Pirate Show, 1997 Magic). Props,
costumes, make-up and other essential theater elements have taken the focus
(to some degree) away from the musical performance making the corps in some
cases the pit orchestra at a Broadway show or a ballet, even to the point
where essential show elements are sung or danced as opposed to played (1996
Bluecoats, 1997 Magic, 1997 Cavaliers).
That is my interpretation of the evolution of DC in the last 40 years. I
loved shows from all the eras, and I have disliked shows from all the eras.
None is right, wrong, better or worse. Personal tastes may vary, and all of
us are more comfortable with some than others.
Bill
A note to Chuck, Joe Exley and others: If I write something on this board,
I will take the consequences of that action. It is difficult to remove
quotes from an article and keep them in full context, but the point was not
to flame any of the three gentlemen whose quotes I took from the articles,
but to move the debate to a different level on this newsgroup. A discussion
in a rational and composed manner rather than the depths where this has been
before.
Jeff Mitchell
Mike Collins wrote:
> In article <3564F746...@prodigy.net>, JEFFMI...@prodigy.net wrote:
>
> > Now you might think about "substance" in a different light. Jay spoke of
> how corps
> > in the past simply chose unrelated pieces of music for a show. (Mike
> Davis, feel
> > free to comment of the theme shows of 1971, especially Garfield, and
> tell everyone
> > how they helped start DCI). The brass arranger wrote it, handed it the
> drum writer,
> > who gave it to the keyboard/pit arranger. Then the drill writer made a
> tape, wrote
> > the drill and gave the tape to the guard writer, who added guard work
> and maybe
> > later figured out where to place the guard on the field. Today corps use
> time lines
> > and other devices to better coordinate the elements, choose music that
> gives the
> > program theme, etc... This view of substance reflects the increasingly
> sophisticated
> > team approach.
> > Of course, this is not say the product is universally accepted as better.
>
> But this approach, at least to me would be like saying for dinner i'm
> going to start with bean soup, then have a salad that has lima beans in
> it, then a soybean hamburger with chilibean side dish....(yawn)
Gee, that meal sounds like a real gas to me.
> I LIKED
> the fact that you could have totally dissimilar pieces together and in
> fact, some of the more successful symphony concerts I've attended have had
> great 'variety'.
I agree here, no problem.
> There is this vibe today that a show MUST have some
> theme, otherwise it's 'unsophisticated'.
I don't agree. Theme and sophistication are unrelated.
> And some of these 'themes' I've
> seen that are supposed to tie the shows together are pretty slim threads,
> if any.
This is why I don't agree. Many theme shows aren't.
Corps today try to put their show in a package (like a meal, hold the beans,
please), rather than the older approach of playing an Off-the-Line, Color-Pre,
Into-Concert, Concert, Production, Drum Solo, Exit, and Finale. Pre-DCI drum
corps rules mandated shows have certain elements based on the rules and a
standard form evolved. The form of the show was set by starting and finishing
off the field, presenting the colors, and standing still for as close to 3 1/2
minutes as you possibly could. The choice of music was done on a number by
number basis. Therefore, you could play Berlioz and follow it with Tower of
Power (Anaheim 1974), Crown Imperial and Chameleon (27th 1975) without issue.
Corps later found it easier to play within one style to promote better
musicianship and technique.
> Why can't somebody come out and have a show called 'three
> kick-ass tunes and a drum solo' performed at the levels of today and win?
I think that was the 1997 Crossmen and 1995 Madison shows. They both did very
well.
> If your first gut reaction to that starts into the 'theme' oriented
> attacks of a show like that, then you have one of the main problems with
> today, the lack of variety that CAN occur when designers feel this need to
> have some binding tie in the entire show.
That's why you can't have all the beans, nothing to bind oneself.
> Don't get me wrong, some do it
> great, but I think corps should be competitive with the former type of
> show also. '88 VK was considered one of our best shows ever, yet if you
> think about it, what do Magical Mystery Tour, Zorba the Greek, Malaguena,
> the afro-carribean drum solo we had, and 'Americana' have to do with any
> vaulted theme? It was supposedly a 'world tour' but give me a break! The
> pieces were VERY dissimilar, yet people still talk to me about that show
> more than any other (not to slight the others at all!)
But there was a theme, VK! It doesn't need to be musical, it can be many things
as VK and the Bridgemen before them used humor and joy to bind it together.
> I admit that I
> haven't seen dci in awhile (mainly due to the ridiculous times to see it
> at 3 am, etc. and the impossibility at finding it in the tv guide!) and
> correct me if i'm wrong, but you don't really see this type of show much
> anymore. Why?
Because VK and the Bridgemen were better on the field than they were at
managing money unfortunately, that's why. It's not that this still won't work,
it just the practicitioners of this style are no more. That is probably the
biggest reason you don't dig corps as much as you did in the 80's. We have lost
so many corps that we can't replace; 27th, Suncoast, VK, Bridgemen, Sky Ryders,
Les Eclipse, Star, Freelancers, Dutch Boy, Avante Garde, North Star, Florida
Wave, and probably 10 more that I can't put a finger on right now. There went
the variety that many miss today. It's a number game.
> Does the repertoire HAVE to be so interrelated to be
> successful, i.e. competitive? I can't remember the poster, but he
> mentioned that this old vs. new seemed to be rooted in pre-70's
> comparisons when it's actually the 80's that many people feel should be
> gone back to. I really don't know where to stand on this personally (I
> tend to lean more with the 'old timers') but I will relay this. A good
> friend of mine marched one year of corps with me back in 82 and he would
> pretty much just watch the telecast every year for his 'fix'. Starting
> about maybe 4-5 years ago, he started making the comment that he wasn't
> really entertained by most of the shows and found himself looking at his
> watch to wonder how long they had been going on. There has been MUCH
> debate as to what causes this in people (or that it even exists) these
> days. I will not try to state what/when/where/why/how, only that it DOES
> exist in many of the shows these days for people like my friend, and
> people like my friend are the ones leaving the activity. The die-hards,
> as in any venue, will always be there. You all can now go back to the
> squabble, the way I figure it, economics will eventually decide who is
> right. Hopefully all the 'newbies' are...
One of the real problems is too many fans expect the live experience of a drum
corps show to be transmitted through a television set. You have to be there to
"See It, Hear It, Feel It." Come on out to a show and really hear see what drum
corps looks like and sounds like. You might be pleasantly surprised. It might
not be all that different than the old days. Some posters on the RAMD spend
countless hours talking about drum corps and rarely see a show. How can one
compare the live experience of the past to the televised highlight show of
today? You know this maybe the problem with many of the discontented fans.
Get out to a show!
See the corps.
Buy a T-Shirt.
Boo the Judges.
1998 will be a great year for drum corps, be there.
Jeff, shamelessly plugging ticket sales
Jeff Mitchell
Ralph,
Plus I didn't mention everyone was yelling, "There's Ralph" every 12.7
seconds during the 1971 Anaheim video.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeff
JB GALAHAD
Larry,
<Out of that same
hornline, at least 4 players became either professional musicians or music
educators.>
Where do folks think that todays staff members and judges come from? Many
marched when we marched or later, and many became music majors. LOTS of them
played in their HS bands.
Mike, usually mda...@ets.org
JB GALAHAD
Alan,
<Please Mike and
Bill, don't tell me how wonderful some of Sandra Opie's hornlines were, or how
difficult the Cavies concert number was in 'XX. There were certainly some
wonderful things done, but if you were honest with yourself, yo uwould admit
that they were the exception, not the rule.>
Well, they WERE great horn lines. :-)
However, that aside, where do you get ANY sort of idea like that you mentioned.
I for one applaud what is done today; the average group plays music FAR more
demanding than the AVERAGE group of my day. Every corps marches more demanding
drill, and the guard work today is wonderful. Personally, I prefer a mix of
equipment and dance that utilzes equipment a bit more than today, but after
all, I AM an old fogie. :-)
Defending the past against charges of being substandard in no way takes away
from supporting today's corps.
Mike, usually mda...@ets.org
JB GALAHAD
Larry,
<Mike, I think you should mention who that arranger is. (It's John Arietano,
isn't it??)>
Bingo!! John is one of the most talented people I know in the field. His band
writing has improved SOOOO much over the past few years it's a joy to work with
him!! We meet a few times each winter to lay our our show, and then he takes
what we come up with and runs with it. His 'Candide' chart for us 3 years back
is one ofmy all-time favorite band charts, and his 'Dance of the Tumblers' for
us this year was great too.
I can't WAIT to see this years music; our opener should be in next week!
Mike, usualy mda...@ets.org
JB GALAHAD
Garry,
<I just wanted to see the some continuity in how the lines were judged.>
It used to fry us to watch a few judges grandstand when certain corps were on
the field, esp the drum judges. I remember one guy throwing up his hands as if
to say "Look, I can't find ANYTHING to hit" when one of the favorites was
playing. Anmother time a drum judge laid on his back UNDER the snares (and
still didn't tick them). Of course, OUR 71 show was SO misunderstood by most of
the drum judges it was a shame. We split our corps into two grops, the sops and
1/2 the drum playing a 2/4 "Turkey in the Straw" to represent the Colonials and
the lower brass and other 1/2 of the drumline playhing a 3/4 minuet to
represent the British, all at the same time. We actually were told by many drum
judges that our show lacked demand because we split the line into 2 groujps, so
it was easier for each 1/2 to play, as there were only 1/2 as many players
playing the parts.
Used to drive us NUTS.
Mike, usually mda...@ets.org
James Christian
>Demand has increased? Horn lines aren't trying to tongue as fast or play as
>high.
Whoa....back that truck up. I've listened to numerous older corps and not one
of those hornlines played a show that would be as demanding as a top 12 show
now until about '82. Now there may have been the exception here and there, but
in general terms, today's hornlines play much more demanding parts, with better
intonation, tone quality, balance, blend, and dynamic range. Please Mike and
Bill, don't tell me how wonderful some of Sandra Opie's hornlines were, or how
difficult the Cavies concert number was in 'XX. There were certainly some
wonderful things done, but if you were honest with yourself, you would admit
that they were the exception, not the rule.
I'll give you that today's horn lines have better tone quality, intonation, etc., but they also didn't have as good of instruments to play on back then. As far as demand goes, I don't see any horn lines today even attempting some of the stuff they used to do. Go listen to Phantom's 1974 "Night on Bald Mountain" (no one is attempting to do stuff like this; you can hear a short excerpt on their homepage at: http://www.regiment.org/audio/1974.ram); 1980 Northstar (especially the stuff at the end), Phantom (french horns in opener), Bridgemen (soprano runs in opener); and many others. They used to do just plain in-your-face runs. I'm not saying that no one does this anymore, just there seemed to be more in the past--or at least they were more blatant and wowing.
Also, go listen to the hornlines on Former Scout's homepage. (http://www.geocities.com/~formerscout/)
Of course there were horn lines that played easier parts, just as there
are now, but these aren't just rare examples I listed above. There
was something to be said for the "wow factor".
> Drum lines have much more tacet time and rinky-dink parts. Less
>equipment work in the guard.More dance. Now I'm no guard person, but I know that for *me* dance is a whole
lot harder than spinning a flag or rifle would be. You may like a more
equipment oriented show, but I seriously doubt if it is harder.
Go watch some tapes of the 27th Lancers and other guards from the late 70's/early 80's.
When people are all doing interpretive dance that is not together, there is no exposure. No one can possibly know if they're doing it right or wrong, because when everyone is purposely doing something different, there is no right or wrong. It's ambiguous.
> Obscure drills that have no form and cannot be judged.That's BS. Watch a recent finals tape, and there will be 6 maybe 7 scatter
drill sets in the bunch.
That's 6 maybe 7 more unjudgable sets than there used to be.
Assymetrical drill has very obvious form, and *can* be judged, if you understand it.
I meant that the scatter drills cannot be judged. Assymetrical drills DO have a visible form (in most cases), but they are MUCH less exposed than symmetrical drills are. In symmetrical forms, it is much harder to make sure that everything is perfectly lined up, and interval spacing is imperative. It is much easier to get away with slightly offset intervals when you have asymmetrical drill.
If you don't believe me, point out the mistakes in these two shapes:
symmetrical: asymmetrical:
* *
* *
* *
*
* *
* *
*
*
* *
* *
*
*
* *
* *
*
*
* * *
*
* *
*
* *
* *
* *
*
* *
* *
* *
*
* *
* *
*
*
* *
* *
* * *
Both shapes have a definant form, but the dot out of place is much more
obvious in the first shape than the second.
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
James Christian
mda...@ets.org wrote:
> >I'm not trying to insult anyone, but I just don't see
> > people attempting stuff like that anymore (and now they have better
> instruments to
> > do it with).
> >
>
> There is also no question TO ME (note the "TO ME") the the average music book
> is FAR superior to what was written years ago, in any area you can think of,
> form demand
Read my newest post on this thread about the lack of demand in every section.
> thru pharasing thru musicality,
I still don't think musicality is better, at least in percussion. Most of today's
writers don't seem to know how to phrase rudiments. Most of the stuff is just
awkwardly arranged licks throughout the whole show.
> thru orchestration techniques, etc. And yes, the charts then WERE fabulous as
> well; it makes what is played today even better, to me.
> Well, they are certainly far better percussionists than the AVERAGE drummer of
> the past;
This is field music. Rudimental drumming. Multiple 2 minute tacet sections and
cresc/decresc buzz rolls are just orchestral parts on a football field.
Also, rudimental drumming is also a part of percussion. Most of today's players
(I'll go so far as to say ALL of today's players) can't play a lot of the stuff
that the percussionists used to.
> there are also a LLT more of them than in my era. In the 70-72 era,
> most drum lines were around 4 snares, 3 or 4 tenors (or tri-toms), 3 or 4
> timps, a couple of straight basses, and a couple of cymbals. 15 or 16 drummers
> was a large line. Also, there was no pit percussion, which IMHO has added
> IMMENSELY to what the overall percussion sections play today. Doesn't make
> what we did 'substandard'; it makes today all that much better.
Yes the larger lines and addition of instruments has added a lot. In the
70's/early 80's, 7 or 8 snares was a small line. Now it's the norm. Lines have
shrunk since then and are playing less. The pit has grown and is the center of
all of the percussion playing.
> > I don't mean this to be a slam on anybody, but I think you're discrediting
> > yourself and everyone from your era when you make statements like this.
> >
>
> No, I NEVER disparage what we did. In saying that what is on the field today
> is superior, I'm not denigrating us. I'm just saying that today is better,
> that's all. It doesn't make us substandard or simplistic. Far from it. It just
> makes today all that much more amazing. I choose NOT to disparage the past in
> building up the present, unlike others.
>
> Musically yours,
> Mike Garfield 70-72
Let me rephrase that: I think you're doing a great DISSERVICE to yourself and
others with statements like that. I'm almost certain that we have different
definitions of what is 'better'. I define it as who plays the hardest parts the
cleanest, while still entertaining. I have to say that your generation and on up
to the early 80's was much better at that. I'm guessing that you look more at the
shaping & phrasing and the wider variety of sounds that you can get. (Correct me
if I'm wrong.)
Rudimentally yours,
James Christian
SplinterGr
Unfortunately, this thread has turned into a "comparitive difficulty" argument
rather than one regarding overall content and effect of the contemporary
fashion of shows.
1. "More difficult" is not necessarily the same thing as "more effective". It
might make the instructional staff feel a great sense of accomplishment in
presenting to the kids a chart with nothing but constant 16th note runs for the
middlevoices, but it does not always mean that the chart will translate into a
better emotional experience for the audience member over one which is
technically simpler, but melodically and harmonically more emotionally ripe.
Sometimes (particularly when the form has to contend with less than ideal
ambient surroundings, as on a football field in the middle of summer), simpler
and less subtle charts will actually work better for the viewer. Complex forms
in all of the performing arts have their place - but it's rarely outside with
the viewer 40 yards away from the piece.
2. The level of pre-formed expertise being brought to the activity by the
marchers these days is awesome - but we should also recognize that this
expertise level is a result of a judging system which has made programs
designed for kids of more average ability untenable - which is kind of a shame,
since some of those simpler shows, while not being all that challenging for the
average member today, allowed for participation by a wider demographic range of
kids ( which, when combined with much lower dues and tour fees, kept the
activity available for children of all means - something which doesn't seem to
be true anymore). The more technically difficult shows have helped turn an
activity which was originally for a wide range of kids into one exclusively for
the most-talented only. From a youth activity standpoint, I don't know how
anyone could say this was good.
So yes, the PARTS of the show are more difficult than in the past, but in many
cases, the WHOLE of the programs are much less effective with the audiences.
And if the responses of the audiences I've seen the last few years are an
indicator, the current shows are MUCH less effective than those of 10 to 20
years ago. When your core audience stops supporting your work, as has happened
to DCI over the last few years, you can take it as a sign of failure, and many
of the corps directors should. After all, they're the ones who hire the program
co-ordinators....
A theory which hasn't yet been floated is that this need to "push the
envelope" (and I'll bet Tom Wolfe wishes he'd trademarked the phrase...) could
be the result of instructional staffs who've simply been at it too long. NO
creative position should be held too long, since the occupant has a tendency to
either get bored and stop working, or get bored and try to do too much with the
job - and the latter seems to be a culprit in the current case. It might be
time for certain members of the long-standing professional drum corps
"designer" class to consider moving on. The job really isn't (or shouldn't be)
demanding enough to keep an adult occupied for more than a few seasons - Lord
knows it wasn't for me.
Have a fine weekend folks (oh, and if you have a chance, stop by the new
website for Splinter Group's latest project - it's at "www.irishrep.com"...)
Matt
Jeff Mitchell
JB GALAHAD wrote:
> Another time a drum judge laid on his back UNDER the snares (and
> still didn't tick them).
Was this Jack Pratt? He would often do this to check the type of gut used on the
drums. He was a great snare drummer and the ultimate character.
Jeff
JB GALAHAD
Jeff,
No, it wasn't Jack, although as I said in the EMail I sent you, he and I taught
the Monarchs/Kings's Regiment together in the mid 70's. And you ARE correct, he
was quite a character. He had the most extensive classical music album
collection I ever saw, before or since. Also, he colected comics WAY before is
was a big-time thing, so I wonder how much his collection would be worth today!
Mike, usually mda...@ets.org
JB GALAHAD
James,
<I still don't think musicality is better, at least in percussion. Most of
today's
writers don't seem to know how to phrase rudiments. >
You assume that rudimental drumming is the ideal, which I don't. I don't thinjk
we'll EVER agree on that, but that's OK.too. You certainly state your POV
extremely well I just disagree somewhat, although maybenot as much as it
comesacross as. :-)
<Also, rudimental drumming is also a part of percussion. >
Never said it wasn't. I got my start in corps; in fact, I was a percussion
major whose primary experience in percussion was corps throughn HS, as I played
bari sax in my HS band and jazz band.
Also, I played some ancient fife and drum stuff at my college senior recital
("Three Camps" and "downfall of Paris" kind of stuff). Sure, rudiments are
important, but they're not the be-all and end-all to me.
<The pit has grown and is the center of
all of the percussion playing.>
The available colors in the pit percussion make it a great focus for the
percussion seciton, IMHO. I don't like leaving the field percussion out,
though, and I too would like to see more field contribution than I sometimes
see, although only if it is musically valid and supports the brass.
<I'm almost certain that we have different
definitions of what is 'better'.>
Yep, I thnik we do.
<I define it as who plays the hardest parts the
cleanest, while still entertaining. >
I've never been a big demand-for-demand's-sake person, although I don't like
boring simplistic stuff either. Probably because most of my judging teaching
the past 20 years has been HS band it has made me prefer the total-show
presentaiton as opposed to a single caption. Where I have judged there IS no
percussion judge; it's just all music judging.
<I'm guessing that you look more at the
shaping & phrasing and the wider variety of sounds that you can get. (Correct
me
if I'm wrong.)>
You're exactly right! There's room for all opinions and tastes, so I have no
quarrel with yours; it's just not mine!
Musically yours,
Mike
Tim Mena
James Christian wrote:
>
> > And as for harder arrangements, I do not see how that is taking the
> > activity away from the members. The reason the demand has increased is
> > because it is not as easy to score that "10" as it used to be. And I am
> > very sorry, but this IS a competitive event.
> >
> > Ryan Tysdal
> > Phantom Regiment Baritone
> > 1996-1997-1998-????
>
> high.
Ummmm....what? I'm sorry but you are truly deluded. I think you need
to go have a listen again, bub.
> Drum lines have much more tacet time and rinky-dink parts.
I can see how you can say that but they are still playing decent parts.
> Less
> equipment work in the guard.
Huh???? Just because the guard dances now doesn't mean they handle less
equipment.
> Obscure drills that have no form and cannot be
> judged.
ok probably.
>
> I would welcome more demanding parts. If you mean more complex, then I would
> agree. Complex is not always difficult, as difficult is not always complex.
> Random rudiments and oddly phrased timing patterns thrown out make it sound
> more complex and less accessible, but they are NOT demanding. Four straight
> measures of 32nd note paradiddles is simple (in form), but quite demanding to
> play.
>
> Rudimentally yours,
> James Christian
Tim Mena
mda...@ets.org
In article <199805231333...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
splin...@aol.com (SplinterGr) wrote:
>
> 1. "More difficult" is not necessarily the same thing as "more effective".
True.
>It
> might make the instructional staff feel a great sense of accomplishment in
> presenting to the kids a chart with nothing but constant 16th note runs for
the
> middlevoices, but it does not always mean that the chart will translate into
a
> better emotional experience for the audience member over one which is
> technically simpler, but melodically and harmonically more emotionally ripe.
Sure, an 'easier' tune can be as or more effictive than a 'demanding' one.
And, who says 'demanding' only applies to what we call 'flypaper music'? It
may be even MORE demanding to perfect the less technically challenging piece,
in that you can't hide musicality behind runaway-train 16th note patterns.
>
> 2. The level of pre-formed expertise being brought to the activity by the
> marchers these days is awesome - but we should also recognize that this
> expertise level is a result of a judging system which has made programs
> designed for kids of more average ability untenable
There have always been tiers of competitive performance levels in drum corps.
Even in MY old days you had the excellence of the top national corps, while
you also had the hundreds of lower-level corps that provided training for
beginners. And everything in between. It's not the fault of the judges that
the infrastructure has disappeared in drum corps, leaving (almost) only the
superstructure.
>
> And if the responses of the audiences I've seen the last few years are an
> indicator, the current shows are MUCH less effective than those of 10 to 20
> years ago.
Even going WAY back, these massive audience reactions just don't seem to be as
reality as they are memory. Watch videos from the old days and you'll see
polite applause, even at shows like the World Open in 71.
MaureenGreene
RobbSi wrote:
If only drum corps would stay the same like the timeless taste of Capn'
> Crunch Peanut Butter Crunch, people would never criticize my generation's
> accomplishments (although compared to modern cereal prizes, the toys found in
> cereal boxes back then REALLY sucked).
But isn't it interesting that, although the cereal prizes pale by
comparison to today's wonders, I do believe we treasured them more than
my four year old does his. Even with the cereals in the boxes, has
pushing the envelop made for better choices or just more choices of
bizarre combinations that appeal to progressively fewer in the
increasingly segmented market even as they get more expensive.
Hmm, drum corps as breakfast cereal...a tasty analogy
James Beatty
Why don't people bitch about things that can't be changed? You
are really just wasting your time talking about the old days and how
it used to be better. Well I have news for you things have changed.
Get over it!
James Beatty
Jeremiah Peterson
Was the Force with splin...@aol.com (SplinterGr) when this was
written?
>
>I swear, these guys are completely oblivious to the damage they've done to the
>product by trying to make it an extension of their college music programs (and
>think about it: the last time you saw a big public turnout for a recital by a
>college musical group was?.....)
>
>Matt
Since you asked, Matt....
It was in mid April. The Michigan State University Men's Glee
Club (of which I am a proud member) packed the Wharton Center to
capacity (2500 +) for their annual Spring Concert. Included in the
crowd were several state senators and Lt. Governor Connie Binsfield.
The campus and community love us (why, I'll never know and understand,
but I'll take their love any day!!)
Jeremiah Peterson
Drum Corps Fan
******************************************************
Official RASSM Cool Person
(-o-) RASSM Pin Holder
Received HNTC(Hard Nut to Crack) Award for Valor at
Halifax, Sith War II
******************************************************
C3PO: And YOU said it was pretty here!
We've got enough Youth... How about a Fountain of Smart?
******************************************************
mda...@ets.org
In article <356c6647...@news.servtech.com>,
James,
It's NEVER a waste of time to discuss the roots of an activity, and the
traditions of the past. Look at baseball for the prime example of that. No one
denies that DC has changed, and I for one love BOTH past and present. It's
when the folks of the present trash the past in an effort to build up the
present that gets my dander up. Every era had it's uniqueness, and no era is
'inferior' to another, IMHO. Personally, I'd love to be marching today to
experience the incredible performances of today, but not at the expense of
marching when I did, where we ALSO had incredible performances.
Mike, Garfield 70-72
MaureenGreene
James Beatty wrote:
>
> Why don't people bitch about things that can't be changed? You
> are really just wasting your time talking about the old days and how
> it used to be better. Well I have news for you things have changed.
> Get over it!
>
> James Beatty
changed?" Well, they DO because they perceive that by not standing
mutely by, they may cause some of the agents of change to hold up a
second or they might give someone a jolt as to what is happening and --
as least subtly -- change the course.
If people hadn't of bitched, we'd have continued a bizarre roation that
would have taken DCI to random podunk locations. We'd probably be
watching woodwind competitions right now, and the new-found -- at least
verbalized -- need to create entertaining shows for the fans might not
have been a thought in the ruch to greater artistic heights.
The great thing about free speech is that implies that speech is
powerful and that thought and discussion can solve issues. Indulge!
The activity you save may be your own!!
I hope to never get over it.