What was the most disgusting thing a staff member taught you?
Steven Michael Deal
rip into us. I thought that the disgusting things that staff taught
when not practicing would be entertaining to read...
Back in '89 (I think), the corps stopped at a rest area during
a long bus ride to Godknowswhere, USA. I got up off the floor
where I had been resting (have you ever tried to wedge a 6'6"+
frame into a bus seat?) in a place where I could stretch out. I
staggered towards the restrooms while picking dust buunies from
my clothes, and I saw our brass caption head with a group of
corps members surrounding him. Being a brass line type, I wandered
over to see what was going on. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Our
infamous(on this group at least) instructor was teaching a young
soprano player how to extrude a string of spit and suck it back
into your mouth.
I was shocked and intrigued. As a baritone, I felt at the time that
it was my duty to the corps to be one the foulest and strange people,
and a lowly former soprano was besting me in weirdness. It had to
stop! So, I infiltrated the group, and I did something that surprised
even me. I dribbled a spit/flem line of about *4 feet* long and sucked
it back into my mouth (with good length slapping the side of my face)!
I was still KING! Then to top off my performance, I belched while
saying my ABC's twice through.
Fortunately, I have out grown these childish endeavors, but I still
look back on them with fond memories. :)
Any other wacked out characters out there?!
Did anyone ever bid the time during rehearsal by doing pushups for
impure thoughts while looking at barely clothed guard members?!
By the way, the instructor marched with the Colts in the early
to mid 80's, and he posts to this group rather often! But I will
not reveal his name... :P
Steve Deal
Knights '87-'90
Baritone/Euphonium
"An intelligent mind is a mind which is not satisfied with explanations,
with conclusions; not is it a mind that believes, because belief is
again another form of conclusion. An intelligent mind is an inquiring
mind, a mind that is watching, learning, studying." -J. Krishnamuti
SACZBACK
interesting things occur on the field...here are some notables:
"Erica,,,,do you have a vibrator?"
"I wish I could show you my balls"
"Jennifer go get a Banana"
" No idiots, park it over there"
" Contras, bring me a rock"
the entire missle launcher speech...
"I want to see 6-8 inches of hard meat !"
There were also some very golden moments with Chaz...my fondest was whenhe
took the shirt off his back and polished the entire corps shoes before we
went on at Finals in '89
CHUCKBRASS
<Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Our infamous(on this group at least)
<instructor was teaching a young soprano player how to extrude a string
<of spit and suck it back into your mouth.
A worthy talent. You never know when you'll get uncontrollable cotton
mouth and need this skill. . .
<I was shocked and intrigued. As a baritone, I felt at the time that
<it was my duty to the corps to be one the foulest and strange people,
<and a lowly former soprano was besting me in weirdness.
You know what they say. . . those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach
play baritone.
<By the way, the instructor marched with the Colts in the early
<to mid 80's, and he posts to this group rather often! But I will
<not reveal his name... :P
I pray to the drum corps gods that this lunatic is not still teaching and
influenceing young minds!! Of course. . . on the other hand. . . there's
really not that much to do on your way from the Quad Cities to Cheyenne,
Wyoming. . .
. . . gotta go, it's dinner time and my mouf ish begruunning tru
waauudder!!
Chuckbrass
smith gary e
Check out a new Web Page for:
drum majors
marching percussion
student section leaders
dance teams
flag / rifle / saber
smith gary e
Check out the Drillquest Web page which features a free download
of both the Mac and Windows versions of their charting software. The
program is incredible and the demo really allows you to try out all the
features. There is a winter guard custom court option.
Rob Wiltbank
: impure thoughts while looking at barely clothed guard members?!
Hehe.. common pass-time. :) :)
Lesse; last year in Westshoremen -- we left the parking lot at about 2am
Saturday morning after a night rehearsal to make a gig up in Rhode
Island. So, we get there around 7 or 8ish with about 4 hours to gig
time, so everyone hops off the buss and sacks out to get a little
grass-time by the river. About 15 minutes later this mellophone chick
starts *freaking* out, screaming and convulsing -- the shore of this
little lake/river thing was INFESTED with rats and they were beggining to
migrate out way... Ya never saw 120 or so people get INTO a bus so fast.
:) :)
--
-= Rob Wiltbank || Tell me and I will forget; Show =-
-= w4...@hopi.dtcc.edu || me and I may remember; Involve me =-
-= http://www.dtcc.edu/~w4582/ || and I will understand for life... =-
R3...@vm1.cc.uakron.edu
>play baritone.
Actually, I'm a bari AND a future elementary school teacher (start looking for
my resumes after December of '97)!
Gadget
"Intelligence has far fewer practical applications than you'd think."
Nikk Pilato
members did. I think it all started with Jason Lichau, funny guy
extraordinaire, but soon everyone was doing it. We would pull our scrotum
(our ball-sack for you genital-impaired people) down through our shorts
and turn to each other and say: "Look! I sat in some gum..." It was
always good for a laugh or two, as well as dismayed looks from the color
guard. I must have sat in gum at least three times a week! ;)
Nikk Pilato
Phantom Regiment 1991-1994
Conductor 1994
Stephen Ford
I just can't resist. Now we know why Rockford has never won DCI. They've
just been pulling their scrotums.
RANDYGAR
Pilato) writes:
> We would pull our scrotum
>(our ball-sack for you genital-impaired people) down through our shorts
>and turn to each other and say: "Look! I sat in some gum..." It was
>always good for a laugh or two, as well as dismayed looks from the color
>guard. I must have sat in gum at least three times a week! ;)
Nikk...
You keep this up, and they're going to have a new gRAMDie category
for you next year: Best Mental Picture.
Randy Gardner
Ramirez
Brad Halls
first shown
the art of phecal methane combustion (that's fart lighting) by Rich
Hogan, the perc
caption head at Saginaires. Truly a turning point in my young life!
Brad.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\_\_\_ \_ \_ | Brad Halls (BHALLS) | CAD/CAM/PIM Department
\_ \_ \_ \_ | CADCAM Integration | Alpha Building, Suite
100
\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_ | & Planning | 15303 Commerce Park
Dr. S.
\_ \_ \_ \_ | Ford Motor Company | Dearborn, MI 48120
\_\_\_ \_ \_ | bha...@ford.com | (313) 337-3413
Dan Duckworth
us this equally great warm-up tune about choking chickens %^)
Modesty (and the fact that I have the responsibility of raising
two boys of my own now) prevents me from posting the entire text
of this little ditty. We would dance around in the morning singing
this song much to the amazement of the rest of the corps
(which probably explains a few things about how that season went).
Anyone out there heard this song before? I know the instructor
invented it on the fly, but I assumed it would be well known by
now.
Dan Duckworth
Troopers '87
DrmCrps
I think the scrotum is very important to DCI. Another favorite of mine
is...hey look at my little brains. Ha. Well...we certainly are the
disturbed :)
Ryan
KauffmanJ
access this stuff on soem historical meta-net of the future, but...
I marched in teh Belvederes, in '76, when we all wore overalls (preferably
with one strap unbuttoned, like we had seen the DM of Vanguard do). Well,
there are two tricks with the open fly:
first was to get a swatch of fabric like they use to make shaggy plush
toys and pin that to the inside of the fly opening. Then we'd walk around
(preferably into a McD's or other public establishment of good taste) with
an air of innocence inspite of about four handfuls of bush hanging out.
Second was to suppliemetn that by putting your arm in the side opening
(which looked like it was going into your pocket) and then extend a couple
of your fingers out through the fly and poking through the bush.
I'm gonna regret putting my name to this...
If you laugh, you still remember when you were 18. But if you flame you
must include your own most riduculus stunt of youth so we can all see a
fair comparison.
KauffmanJ
super Choke the Chicken chant
gc...@eden-backend.rutgers.edu
Crossmen 92 Contra Bass Section used to go through entire rehearsals
with their "little brains" hanging out! I guess they thought Beeker
would think it was cool! What an influence!
Gary
Doppeljr
writes:
>Crossmen 92 Contra Bass Section used to go through entire rehearsals
>with their "little brains" hanging out! I guess they thought Beeker
>would think it was cool! What an influence!
I thought that was called your easter eggs.
Someone famous once said, "If you can't be good, be good at it..."
GirlInToon
>Crossmen 92 Contra Bass Section used to go through entire rehearsals
>with their "little brains" hanging out! I guess they thought Beeker
>would think it was cool! What an influence!
>
>Gary
>
>
two guys painted their "brains" purple put glasses on them and jiggled to
heard it through the grapevine! classic
STUART RICE
Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
Date: 20 Apr 1996 20:46:46 GMT
>>>I can just hear him now..."Stuart E. Rice....Suuuuper Genius!"
>
>>No-name lurker shares his comedy.
>
>From: PoChAcCo <gc...@eden-backend.rutgers.edu>
>Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
>Date: 17 Apr 1996 21:40:09 GMT
>
>>>I can understand why you're so upset. The local Dairy Queen must have
>>>been closed!
>
>>Another rare gem. Come on, wimps. Run out of arguments already?
>
>>Stuart E. Rice
>I thought you had a sense of humor, Stuart....sorry Stuart E. Rice
>suuuper genius, because that is, after all, what you are...admit it!
Yes, but I use humor to relieve the frustration of dealing with arguments.
Maybe you use it to practice your comedy routine, I don't know. That's the
difference between you and I. It helps me deal with the issues. It helps
you avoid them.
>You know you want to! You're dying to tell the world! As for being a
>no-name lurker, I'm not sure what you mean by that...my e-mail address
>is plainly marked at the top of the page.
And you have my congratulations for taking this big step.
>The fact that my id name keeps
>changing is because I use the terminals at school, and they give me
>those stupid names sometimes. I don't feel like going through the
>trouble of having them changed. Besides, I usually sign my name at the
>bottom of the page anyway (unless I'm in a hurry, like now...but I'll be
>sure to sign EVERYTHING I write from now on just to please you Stuart
>E. Rice, suuuper genius...because that's what we're all here for. To
>please you!)
I hadn't seen it before, but thanks. You have my admiration for owning up
to these fine "arguments" you've been presenting.
>And anyway, you can always write to me in person and call me a "wimp"
>whenever you want,
No thanks. I'd much rather do it here. Otherwise, you'd have no reason to
prove me wrong by presenting some thoughtful commentary for a change..
>although I always thought such name calling was beneath you.
I'm flattered, but I'm not above giving people who insist on wearing a clown
suit to a serious discussion a virtual slap in the face.
>It's not beneath me, because I don't NEARLY have the kind of knowledge that
>you have about marching technique.
I'll just leave that one the way it is.
>I'm no suuuper genius, just one of the ignorant masses who gets off on
>hearing really loud, "crappy" hornlines like the Madison Scouts (joke),
>watching"mediochre musical theatre" like the Cadets (again, joke), and
>seeing60 brass players dance around like a bunch of morons.
Surprising, the way you assert your opinion, I'd have guessed you'd
thought you were a pretty smart guy (assuming you believe anyone has the
right to be smart). But then again, the way you back up your opinion, I can
see what you mean.
>I don't care much about the kind of marching technique that you like
>because, quite frankly it doesn't exist.
If you haven't studied it or instructed it, I could see why you'd think that.
>I'll just keep cheering blindly for that"joke" people call drum corps...
>that "crappy" excuse for music and movement we've been paying to see.
Whatever.
>I bow to the master...er, uh, suuuper genius. Sorry.
>
>Sorry to take up everyone's time...have a nice day! :) :) :)
>
>Kiss kiss!
>
>*******************
>* GARY CUZZOCREA *
>* BRIDGEMEN 87 *
>* CROSSMEN 90-92 *
>*******************
>(can you see it now?)
You're a braver man than I.
Stuart E. Rice
____________________________
From: Brian David Lowry <bdl...@eos.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:48:09 -0400
>The front of the field at Buffalo
>was like glass, and we had problems with our bucks (shoes) all season.
>For some reason, they ordered them from a different company, and the
>new ones had no traction. Not an excuse, just a problem. That was
>the slipperiest anything I've ever marched on, including wet grass
>at quarterfinals '94 (we marched the intro), and wet grass '93.
So you're saying they didn't notice their shoes were inadequate until they
experience the "condensation" of Finals? I don't buy it. Not giving a
damn what kind of shoes you execute in shows, again, they neglected their
marching that year. Were they expecting to make up for it by their ability
to swim?
>>>> 95 Cavaliers took technique. Could the Cadet's level of technique march
>>>> last Summer's Cavie "snake" or "sound molecules?" Hardly. And yet the
>>>
>>>I don't think that takes technique as much as rehearsal time.
>>
>>It takes both.
>Well, if I spent three months with my HS band, they could do it
>to -- no technique required.
Everything involving marching requires technique, regardless of how good or
crappy it looks. The question is, is the technique pleasant to look at, and
does it require a method of instruction?
>>>Cadets' technique is
>>>designed to be more effective at quicker tempos. I don't think
>>>that any other corps has a quicker average marching tempo than
>>>the Cadets, year after year. I challenge someone to prove me
>>>wrong on that one.
>
>>HMMmmmm...do you mean in performance or in theory? These are two very
>>different things. If you mean performance, how come Cavies consistantly
>>rank higher in visual that Cadets?
>I was challenging with the comment about quicker tempos. Cadets
>technique allows us to march at quicker tempos with more ease.
Sorry, but what the Cadets do technically is not easy. As we're so often
reminded. The problem is, it looks as difficult as it is.
>>>Cavie's technique, on the other hand, is a slight exaggeration
>>>of the natural motion of walking, with one exception-but even that is
>>>minute.
>I don't walk with a bicycle step, do you?
No, but then again, I'm not often in danger of being run over by bicycles,
either.
>Brian
Stuart E. Rice
_______________________
From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
Date: 22 Apr 1996 17:08:25 -0400
In article <srice.2955...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>>Of course he did. He had to. Particularly with 100,000 Brass Theater
>>fans breathing down his neck.
>
>
>
>wow ....if only all these people would come to BT show at once!
Yes - they would know to bring binoculars! :)
Stuart E. Rice
_____________________________
From: ri...@cco.net (SCVanFan)
Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 03:12:24 GMT
>A possible answer to the question of why BD had more air time than the
>Cadets is that maybe BD's show was easier to cut in places than the
>Cadets'...i dont know
>
>Jon Holm
Now, we can't have any intelligent arguments going on here (people might
get ideas), so just keep it to yourself and stick to the program here...
You're not so smart. You think you're smart, but you're not.
Stuart E. Rice
_______________________________
From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
Date: 23 Apr 1996 05:11:45 -0400
In article <srice.2957...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>>In that situation, if the form is a little bit off you're aiming for a
>>hole that won't be there and you don't know it until it's too late.
this shouldn't happen by the time finals rolls around IMHO
I agree. (Sorry. I digress again from the topic of this thread).
_________________________________
From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
Date: 23 Apr 1996 05:19:13 -0400
>>Stuart Rice is still involved in drum corps. How about Ben Tibbals?
>we are ALL involved one way or another...spectator,volunteer,member,RAMDer
>....
So from which perspective are you speaking from? It would help me
understand your feelings about my contributions.
Stuart E. Rice
____________________________________
From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
Date: 23 Apr 1996 05:25:52 -0400
(STUART RICE) writes:
>>On the contrary, I rather like it. I've had a half-year of modern, a
>>year of ballet. I think its swell, when it doesn't eat up 2:33 of time
>>that could be spent marching.
>at one point in the season we stood still at these points......i believe
>the longest we stood still was only 12 counts.....
Must have been pretty long counts, because I timed your dance sans marching
at one minute plus at one point.
>i believe.all corps have their big hit stand stills and Star was no
>different...
No, standstills require an instrument, and dance doesn't.
>however the movement made sense and the whole point of the show
>was to allow no crowd response(boos...applause WHATEVER you would normally
>do) so as we kept moving it kept everyone in silence.
I don't criticize your movement. I question your marching.
>Stu, our show was good, not the best ever, but it was FUN and i would
>rather have done movement than stand still. either way people would still
>pick us apart.
Fair enough.
(Sorry, folks, I realize this looks conciliatory. I'll try to be more
entertaining).
Stuart E. Rice
_______________________
From: Baba Booey <gc...@eden-backend.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
Date: 23 Apr 1996 21:38:16 GMT
>Hey Stuart, when I'm <gc...@eden.rutgers.edu> I ignore you.
>
>When I'm somebody else I don't.
I never guessed schizophrenia could be so much fun.
>You're SO clever!
>
>
>Keep including me in your posts...it makes me happy! I'll keep supplying
>you with material, so don't worry!
>
>I wish I was just like you!
Sounds like you have a busy job just being you...and you....and you. But
you sound qualified. You have to be an idiot to deal with people like you.
Stuart E. Rice
________________________________
From: a012...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Mark Lieberman)
Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
Date: 22 Apr 96 18:25:38 GMT
>Um..watch the 1994 high;ight tape...BD won and still cadets had more air
>time...cause of that damn 27 corps :-)
>
>Mark
Oops, another relevant remark. Let's stick to the topic, people...
Stuart E. Rice
________________________________
From: jord...@aol.com (Jordsterr)
Subject: Re: Who was better in '93 Star or the Cadets?
Date: 19 Apr 1996 21:51:01 -0400
>You know, just as I was about to make amends...I have to go back to my
>original opinion.
>
>Stuart Rice is full of shit.
Can't say I blame you. It's a lot easier than making an intelligent
argument.
Stuart E. Rice
_______________________
From: umaco...@cc.memphis.edu (OTTO)
Subject: Re: Who was better in '93 Star or the Cadets?
Date: 23 Apr 96 15:12:17 -0500
> In article <srice.2958...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> you write
>>Ah yes, but, alas, drum corps is still a marching art, and lessons on how
>>to make a living sitting on your ass are being offered in Bloomington (
>>the studious Cadets got off to a terrific head start last Summer, BTW, so
>>reserve your seats today).
>>
>>Stuart E. Rice
> Not to be abrupt, but get your head out of your ass......
>
>Go see a show, then talk about it 'till your heart is content.
Sorry, I'm of the poorer class. We don't have the money to drive across the
country to see such spectacles like BT and the Disneyworld/DCI
extravaganza. It seems all I can do is make up surveys for people who have
seen it, etc.
>You really
>have no basis of comparison in the matter. You are obviously completely
>ignorant on the Brass Theater portion of this subject, so how can you
>POSSIBLY comment?
>
> Alan "Otto" Compton
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Bill Cook has mentioned here
that many of their shows contain no marching. Of course, before they aspire
to the seated position, they'll have to get off their feet, but I'm
confident they'll manage this.
Stuart E. Rice
_______________________________
From: jord...@aol.com (Jordsterr)
Subject: Re: Who was better in '93 Star or the Cadets?
Date: 19 Apr 1996 21:56:50 -0400
>Stuart Rice is full of shit.
Now, you can't just say I'm full of "shit," its unbecoming an authority like
yourself. You have to be more specific: Dog shit...bull shit...baby shit...
bird shit...cow shit...
Stuart E. Rice
___________________________
From: tubu...@nwu.edu (joe)
Subject: Re: Who was better in '93 Star or the Cadets?
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 07:46:35 GMT
>> In article <srice.2958...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> you write
>>>Ah yes, but, alas, drum corps is still a marching art, and lessons on how
>>>to make a living sitting on your ass are being offered in Bloomington (
>>>the studious Cadets got off to a terrific head start last Summer, BTW, so
>>>reserve your seats today).
>>>
>>>Stuart E. Rice
>Stu, I would have to say that your last statement is pid. (get it? Stu-pid!
>haha)
:D
>Often times I must admit that I agree with you, BUT your comment here about
>Brass Theater is totally irrelevant and unwarranted. Obviously you have
>not seen a show (or even a tape of one) -- I would not say at all that
>they "sat on their asses" at all.
I never suggested they did. I am only suggesting they might know someone
offering lesson in that art.
>Instead they put just as much time and energy into an artful medium that is
>totally different and not comparable to drum corps.
No argument here. :)
>They have so little in common. The comparison you made above is not
>applicable and therefore null and void.
>
>Joe Exley
Then we're agreed - Cadets 95 was a momentary lapse of insanity! :)
Stuart E. Rice
______________________________
From: wma...@aol.com (WmACook)
Subject: Re: Who was better in '93 Star or the Cadets?
Date: 24 Apr 1996 07:35:56 -0400
>There is a good probability that Stuart doesn't have television out there
>at Flatland Press so he can just stay uninformed while marking little x'es
>and o's on a pure, white piece of unlined paper.
Sounds like a challenge. Perhaps I'll need a biology degree first so I don'
t get a papercut.
>I will always believe in Stuart's esoteric purity;
I'm touched.
>sort of cave like.
Its a little unsophisticated, but I'd like to think it will be around.
>His movement in marching purity probably won't go anywhere but being
>theoretical makes for good reading.
Funny, I'd have said the same thing about your purity in marching movement.
Not that I'm suggesting your type of entertainment has any theory to it,
mind you.
>1 2 3 4 -- 1 and a 2 and a 3 and a 4!!!!!
I take it you're a Lawrence Welk fan.
>Bill
>Bill
>
>Bill Cook
Third time's a charm!
Stuart E. Rice
____________________________
From: umaco...@cc.memphis.edu (OTTO)
Subject: Re: Who was better in '93 Star or the Cadets?
Date: 24 Apr 96 09:56:07 -0500
>>>I'm sorry to tell you this Stu, but if you had gone to a Brass Theater
>>>show and used your famous stopwatch, you would have noticed that Star
>>>marched more than any DCI corps last year.
>>Yes, I realize they still have this hangup about marching (it must be so
>>embarassing around the likes of CB), but a decade of drum corps will do
>>that to you. Give em a chance. They'll get rid of it.
>>
>>Smaller formations are much more forgiving than larger ones. Don't
>>confuse intricacy with difficulty. Also, there are many shows where they
>>don't march at all. Its a dispensable element for them, just as it was
>>for the Cadets. They march when they feel like it.
>
>>Stuart E. Rice
>Yet another example that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
>Alan "Otto" Compton
Yet another example of ego stated before opinion. At least, I'd like to see
the opinion sometime.
Stuart E. Rice
OTTO
>>>Ah yes, but, alas, drum corps is still a marching art, and lessons on how
>>>to make a living sitting on your ass are being offered in Bloomington (
>>>the studious Cadets got off to a terrific head start last Summer, BTW, so
>>>reserve your seats today).
>>
>>Go see a show, then talk about it 'till your heart is content.
>
> Sorry, I'm of the poorer class. We don't have the money to drive across the
> country to see such spectacles like BT and the Disneyworld/DCI
> extravaganza.
Wah........ Save up. Everybody else does it.
>>You really
>>have no basis of comparison in the matter. You are obviously completely
>>ignorant on the Brass Theater portion of this subject, so how can you
>>POSSIBLY comment?
> Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Bill Cook has mentioned here
> that many of their shows contain no marching. Of course, before they aspire
> to the seated position, they'll have to get off their feet, but I'm
> confident they'll manage this.
I don't see it coming. If they were going to stop marching, why would they
keep hiring marching staff and discussing future plans with them? You are
QUITE the pessimist.
>>>Yes, I realize they still have this hangup about marching (it must be so
>>>embarassing around the likes of CB), but a decade of drum corps will do
>>>that to you. Give em a chance. They'll get rid of it.
>>>
>>>Smaller formations are much more forgiving than larger ones. Don't
>>>confuse intricacy with difficulty. Also, there are many shows where they
>>>don't march at all. Its a dispensable element for them, just as it was
>>>for the Cadets. They march when they feel like it.
>>
>>>Stuart E. Rice
>
>>Yet another example that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
>
>>Alan "Otto" Compton
> Yet another example of ego stated before opinion. At least, I'd like to see
> the opinion sometime.
Pardon me, but I've stated my opinion on this matter before. At least mine is
an educated one. You, on the other hand, should stop taking what other people
think about Brass Theater and using it for your own purposes. Go see a show,
then you can form your OWN opinions about it. Instead, you use other people's
opinions to construct a not-so-workable opinion and use it as your own. This
sound wrong to anyone else? Stop whining about not having enough money to go
see a show. It doesn't cost THAT much if you actually try to look for
inexpensive ways. But, who am I kidding? You find it fun to use other
people's thoughts in an unjust manner. Why should you stop? You are a fake,
Stuart. Think for yourself occasionally.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***
Alan "Otto" Compton ***
Star 1991-1995 Bassline ***********
Colts 1990 Bassline *********** G.Z. W.J. B.S.
U of Memphis Music Dept ***
*umaco...@msuvx2.memphis.edu* ***
*** M.S. A.M.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***
gc...@eden-backend.rutgers.edu
>From: <gc...@eden-backend.rutgers.edu>
>Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
>Date: 20 Apr 1996 20:46:46 GMT
>
>
>>>>I can just hear him now..."Stuart E. Rice....Suuuuper Genius!"
>>
>>>No-name lurker shares his comedy.
>>
>>From: PoChAcCo <gc...@eden-backend.rutgers.edu>
>>Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
>>Date: 17 Apr 1996 21:40:09 GMT
>>
>>>>I can understand why you're so upset. The local Dairy Queen must have
>>>>been closed!
>>
>>>Another rare gem. Come on, wimps. Run out of arguments already?
>>
>>>Stuart E. Rice
>
>
>
>>I thought you had a sense of humor, Stuart....sorry Stuart E. Rice
>>suuuper genius, because that is, after all, what you are...admit it!
>
>
>Yes, but I use humor to relieve the frustration of dealing with arguments.
>Maybe you use it to practice your comedy routine, I don't know. That's the
>difference between you and I. It helps me deal with the issues. It helps
>you avoid them.
Since when is drum corps all about issues?! Drum corps is about people,
teamwork, and taking what you've been taught and performing in front of
thousands of people. Issues have nothing to do with why I marched drum
corps, or why a lot of people marched. Did you march in 83 because of
issues? I think you're spending too much time CREATING issues just to
piss people off.
>
>
>>You know you want to! You're dying to tell the world! As for being a
>>no-name lurker, I'm not sure what you mean by that...my e-mail address
>>is plainly marked at the top of the page.
>
>And you have my congratulations for taking this big step.
>
>>The fact that my id name keeps
>>changing is because I use the terminals at school, and they give me
>>those stupid names sometimes. I don't feel like going through the
>>trouble of having them changed. Besides, I usually sign my name at the
>>bottom of the page anyway (unless I'm in a hurry, like now...but I'll be
>>sure to sign EVERYTHING I write from now on just to please you Stuart
>>E. Rice, suuuper genius...because that's what we're all here for. To
>>please you!)
>
>
>I hadn't seen it before, but thanks. You have my admiration for owning up
>to these fine "arguments" you've been presenting.
Again, life is too short to "argue" about issues that DON'T EXIST!
Instead of wasting time with a bunch of talk, I'd rather pop in a video
or CD of my favorite corps and get in to what they DID, not what they
DIDN'T DO!
>
>
>>And anyway, you can always write to me in person and call me a "wimp"
>>whenever you want,
>
>
>No thanks. I'd much rather do it here. Otherwise, you'd have no reason to
>prove me wrong by presenting some thoughtful commentary for a change..
Here's a thought...GO AWAY!
>
>>although I always thought such name calling was beneath you.
>
>I'm flattered, but I'm not above giving people who insist on wearing a clown
>suit to a serious discussion a virtual slap in the face.
There's no such thing as a "serious" discussion with you. There's no
such thing as a DISCUSSION with you. You just accept your own concept
of reality and put the blinders on to anyone else's point of view.
A SERIOUS discussion with you would be a refreshing change...It's really
sad that you don't even realize what a joke you are.
>
>
>>It's not beneath me, because I don't NEARLY have the kind of knowledge that
>>you have about marching technique.
>
>I'll just leave that one the way it is.
Good. You do that. You could barely keep your horn up in the Blue Devils
and you have the balls to be THAT sarcastic?! I'll leave THAT one alone!
>
>
>>I'm no suuuper genius, just one of the ignorant masses who gets off on
>>hearing really loud, "crappy" hornlines like the Madison Scouts (joke),
>>watching"mediochre musical theatre" like the Cadets (again, joke), and
>>seeing60 brass players dance around like a bunch of morons.
>
>Surprising, the way you assert your opinion, I'd have guessed you'd
>thought you were a pretty smart guy (assuming you believe anyone has the
>right to be smart). But then again, the way you back up your opinion, I can
>see what you mean.
>
>>I don't care much about the kind of marching technique that you like
>>because, quite frankly it doesn't exist.
>
>
>If you haven't studied it or instructed it, I could see why you'd think that.
>
I know more than you think. I just can't tell what it is YOU'RE looking
for...TELL ME! Name me a drum corps that moves as fast as the Cadets
choose to move, while covering the distance they choose to cover. If
you can, tell me how perfect their individual technique is. There may
very well be an answer to that. I'D LIKE TO KNOW! I want to see it for
myself so I can have a ounce of respect for what you're saying!
>
>>I'll just keep cheering blindly for that"joke" people call drum corps...
>>that "crappy" excuse for music and movement we've been paying to see.
>
>
>Whatever.
Good one!
>
>
>>I bow to the master...er, uh, suuuper genius. Sorry.
>>
>>Sorry to take up everyone's time...have a nice day! :) :) :)
>>
>>Kiss kiss!
>>
>>*******************
>>* GARY CUZZOCREA *
>>* BRIDGEMEN 87 *
>>* CROSSMEN 90-92 *
>>*******************
>>(can you see it now?)
>
>
>You're a braver man than I.
Obviously.
>
>
>Stuart E. Rice
I REALLY want to understand what you're looking for. Really I do. I'm
starting to get tired of this virtual game of tag. It hasn't accom-
plished a thing (talking with you rarely does). If there exists a
performance that you think is representative of YOUR notion of
"drum corps", please tell us all what it is so we can SEE what you're
talking about. If such a thing doesn't exist, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT
IT! Giving a speech won't change anyone's perception of anything.
Make the change you want happen somewhere. SHOW US! Maybe then we'll
be able to appreciate your comments and drum corps *might* become a
better activity. (Like you care what we think) Well you obviously do...
you take up the time to criticize and answer every little thing we say.
Do your thing, Stuart. Educate the masses. Show us the Gospel according
to Stuart. It's a sincere request that I hope you will honor.
Gary Cuzzocrea
87 Bridgemen
90-92 Crossmen
%%REALNAME%%
Stuart, will you PLEASE ignore the people who attack you? All you guys do
is post line after line of "you're stupid! " " Am Not!" "Are Too!"
Please, for goshshakes, ENOUGH!!!!
You operate with a moral certainty I wish I had sometimes, but you are not
going to convince people of your superiority... God, I have high school
students who have realized this before you have.
Please, for your sake as well as ours...STOP IT! IT IS A CIRCULAR
ARGUMENT!
Trevor P. Pyle
tpp...@primenet.com (yes, this is really me, my account is screwed up)
GirlInToon
In article <srice.2970...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>
>(STUART RICE) writes:
>
>>>On the contrary, I rather like it. I've had a half-year of modern, a
>>>year of ballet. I think its swell, when it doesn't eat up 2:33 of time
>>>that could be spent marching.
>
>>at one point in the season we stood still at these points......i believe
>>the longest we stood still was only 12 counts.....
>
>Must have been pretty long counts, because I timed your dance sans
marching
>at one minute plus at one point.
>
No i mean COMPLETELY STANDING STILL WITH ABSOLUTELY NO MOVEMENT AT
ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>i believe.all corps have their big hit stand stills and Star was no
>>different...
>
>
>No, standstills require an instrument, and dance doesn't.
>
>
Stu...when you get off the bad weed you got a hold of let me know.
>>however the movement made sense and the whole point of the show
>>was to allow no crowd response(boos...applause WHATEVER you would
normally
>>do) so as we kept moving it kept everyone in silence.
>
>I don't criticize your movement. I question your marching.
>
let me see your ass marching around and THEN we will compare notes.
>>Stu, our show was good, not the best ever, but it was FUN and i would
>>rather have done movement than stand still. either way people would
still
>>pick us apart.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>
serioulsly though you bring up some illegitimate points that could be
legitimate if you didn't double talk us with that bullshit you are so
famous for. look me up at finals and we'll do a little basics and as a
heavy smoker i am sure i will have no problems out marching you. until
then you bore me.............
GirlInToon
In article <srice.2970...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>
>Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Bill Cook has mentioned
here
>that many of their shows contain no marching. Of course, before they
aspire
>to the seated position, they'll have to get off their feet, but I'm
>confident they'll manage this.
>
>Stuart E. Rice
>
>___________________________
no one sits except CB sometimes and if you really want to see it i will
swing the tickets if it will shut your hole.
GirlInToon
In article <srice.2970...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>Yet another example of ego stated before opinion. At least, I'd like to
see
>the opinion sometime.
>
>
what the f**k does that mean....now are you smoking bad crack? you really
shouldn't do that with a baby in the house.
GirlInToon
In article <1996Apr2...@msuvx2.memphis.edu>,
umaco...@cc.memphis.edu (OTTO) writes:
>Pardon me, but I've stated my opinion on this matter before. At least
mine
>is
>an educated one. You, on the other hand, should stop taking what other
>people
>think about Brass Theater and using it for your own purposes. Go see a
show,
>
>then you can form your OWN opinions about it. Instead, you use other
people's
>
>opinions to construct a not-so-workable opinion and use it as your own.
maybe we could put him in a show ...naw i doubt he can march (but he could
probably sit around and theorize about it) and God knows he can't
dance...but can he play?
STUART RICE
From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
Subject: Re: Stu-pidity
Date: 26 Apr 1996 00:35:23 -0400
>maybe we could put him in a show ...naw i doubt he can march
Of course I can. But I'm not sure anyone would recognize it anymore.
>(but he could probably sit around and theorize about it)
It'll do.
>and God knows he can't dance...but can he play?
Hey, man...
______________________________________
From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
Subject: Re: Stu-pidity
Date: 26 Apr 1996 00:34:25 -0400
>>Yet another example of ego stated before opinion. At least, I'd
>>like to see the opinion sometime.
>what the f**k does that mean....
Thank you for demonstrating it.
BTW, I've noticed your skill with the verbal one-fingered salute (the first
time was sent to me via E-mail). As a means of winning friends and
arguments, its not very effective.
>now are you smoking bad crack? you really shouldn't do that with a baby in
>the house
And that is the second time you have mentioned that I ought to be concerned
about my daughter (the first time was sent via E-mail, again). You'll post
a reason for this right now, followed by an apology, or one of us is history
on this newsgroup.
Stuart E. Rice
_______________________________________
From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
Subject: Re: Stu-pidity
Date: 26 Apr 1996 00:33:12 -0400
>Of course, before they aspire to the seated position, they'll have
>to get off their feet, but I'm confident they'll manage this.
>no one sits except CB sometimes
I never said they did. I only said that it might make them a
little more comfortable for those shows where they don't march at
all.
>and if you really want to see it i will swing the tickets if it
>will shut your hole.
That's very kind of you, but its the cost of transportation that
makes it prohibitive.
Stuart E. Rice
_________________________________
From: bobg@moon (Bob R. Gupta)
Subject: Re: Falling
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:34:40 GMT
In article <srice.2974...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>>There is nothing beautiful about speed marching because
>>nobody has ever learned to control it. Why don't we learn to
>>walk before we learn to run?
>I don't agree. I think drum corps have come a long way in defining
>technique for high-speed marching - not everyone can pull it off
>though.
Sorry, but what I'm seeing I hesitate to call marching. Not that
I'm expecting you to feel the same way, what some corps are passing
off as marching these days.
>>It can be a lot more artful, and is a little more interesting (I
>>dare say) than the unidirectional movement which our pursuit of
>>"athletic difficulty" is taking us.
>I don't understand your point here.
The ultimate in speed marching is faster. The faster you march,
the more you need to avoid direction changes (esp. big ones). The
more you do this, the more qualified you are for the 440, 100
meters, etc.
>>Are we so impressed by our four training variables that the only
>>way we think we can improve them is to march them faster? How is
>>it that theater, ballet and Aikido can handle moving in eight
>>directions, and we think we're "state of the art" with four?
>I agree that we can learn a lot from theater, ballet, and
>Aikido... oh wait... these things shouldn't be allowed since
>they're not "marching" :-)
Say, how is it that the only person who gets criticized for
affilliating drum corps with other arts is the guy trying to
restrict them?
>>One of the things that makes rifle spinning artful is making the
>>instrument airborn. I don't believe you can say the same thing
>>about marching (unless you think marching is ballet).
>Well, this really wasn't my point, but since you bring it up -
>Why not? When you perform a jazz run, there is a moment when both
>feet are off the ground - is this not airborn.
(now there's an argument with some substance. Not that it will
keep anyone entertained.)
>>Excusing these demonstrations suggests that you feel technique
>>which doesn't keep people on their feet is adequate.
>Way to go Stuart! twist my words around!!
Way to go! Avoid the issue and lie at the same time!
>I suggest that the reason people didn't stay on their feet was not
>due to technique or training problems.
...so apparently you don't feel the training was inadequate.
You'll excuse me for offending you, then, if that sounds to me like
you think it *was* adequate (your such a sensitive individual. I
think thats great). I don't know about you, but I think we could
do better than allow turf to do our thinking for us.
>-bob
>Garfield 86-87
>Crossmen 83-84
Stuart E. Rice
___________________________________
From: ma...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Matt LaFontaine)
Subject: Why Stuart Rice is wrong
Date: 25 Apr 1996 22:37:00 -0400
Here goes...
1-"Stuart Rice still participates in drumcorps. What does Ben
Tibbals do?"
>Stu, you are the person who has beaten to death the "posting on
>RAMD is being part of drumcorps" argument. You have had to to get
>some people off your back (which is no fault of yours). Mr.
>Tibbals still participates in drumcorps, and seemingly on an
>almost day-to-day basis, not unlike yourself.
You are making assumptions about how much stock I place in RAMD as
"effective participation."
>2-The Cadets guy who fell...
>There are a lot of reasons why this unfortunate individual may
>have fallen. Here are but three which differ from "individual
>marching technique".
>1-Nerves. Anyone who does not get nervous performing in front of
>20,000+fans is either gifted or insane. I'm going to assume this
>guy was not one of the lucky ones (in many senses) and a sudden
>overtake of nerves may have led to the "visual carnage". Lord
>know's it's happened to me.
I see. Do you feel this is acceptable? Could be prevented? By
the world's second best drum corps?
>2-Field Conditions. To quote you, "Been there, done that." In
>November at the OMEA State Marching Finals, I fell at the very end
>of the show on a rather simple move (in comparison to that of the
>Cadets) doing about 160bpm.
There you go. Now how do you explain it? Was the tempo too fast,
or the direction change to steep? Either way, your skills were
lacking. Unless you were in the midst of a seizure.
>(Our dm's had tachometers installed in the visors of their hats :)
>This was not do to an inferior "marching technique". Our band's
>marching technique has been consistently judged as superior not
>just on the ensemble level, but evern more so on the individual
>level. I simply slipped due to wet turf on which had been rained
>THE DAY BEFORE!
So its the turf's fault again. That's just not acceptable for me.
No reason for falling is acceptable.
>3-Concentration Lapse. Once again "I will admit I am not beyond
>the spector of dumb mistakes." 99% of "dumb mistakes" can be
>attributed to a momentary lapse in concentration (i.e. the fall).
I see folks at the mall walking with arms loaded, carrying on
conversations, and I don't see falling going on. Staying on one's
feet should require a great deal of concentration. However, doing
a good job of staying on one's feet should.
>If you have never made a Big Oops (tm) due to a momentary, split
>second loss of concentration, then you are almost a god. :D
When I became a high school drum major as a senior, I took up mace
(no one taught me) and did 50 foot tosses every show. I never
dropped the mace in performance. Surely 15 years of experience
walking could insure the same thing for corps.
>Stuart, there are probably hundreds of reasons for why that
>"unfortunate individual" could have fallen. We will never know
>which, unless you "do your homework" by finding out who it is and
>asking ;).
Of course. Anyone want to name them?
My point (which is not ment to be taken personally) is that odds
are against you, and you are probably wrong about why that person
fell.
Yes, but my assessment is based on recorded information, which
makes it the next best thing to those of the victims and some
witnesses.
>I've fallen in similar situations for a lot of other reasons that
>"improper technique" and one of those reasons is probably why the
>Cadet's marcher fell.
>Matt LaFontaine
It's a cop out. We have a responsibility to march well. Period.
Stuart E. Rice
STUART RICE
From: s01...@paladin.wright.edu (DANA BEAN)
Subject: Re: Who was better in '93 Star or the Cadets?
>>Yes, I do concur: Stuart Rice is full of shit! He says standing
>>around and playing concert numbers is not drum corps...it's
>>theater.
No, I said standing around looking cool, flailing arms wildly and
tracing the shape of a woman's body with one's hands, is theater.
Don't make me take it back.
>>Maybe Stuart doesn't know his history, seeing as how the history
>>of drum corps is full of concert numbers.
I'm having a hard time understanding how jumping up and down in
unison to "HO HO HO" can pass as a "concert" number. Particularly
when it takes such a huge hunk out of a program that is already
famished for marching. Call me old fashioned.
>>Maybe it's only now, the age of the 90's, that Stuart feels the
>>definition of drum corps has changed.
No, I suggested its in danger of changing. For the first time
since the 50's.
>>I guess drum corps are no longer allowed to do stand stills
>>anymore? Not my rules, nor DCI's, but certainly Stuart's.
On the contrary, I'd like to see drum corps stand for a change. Of
course, that means being in a stable, vertical position,
uninfluenced by dance or musical theater, so I'm not holding my
breath.
>>Maybe Stuart is just pissed off because Cadets beat BD?
No, just a little dissapointed that an extra 3 minutes of marching
can't top jumping up and down in unison to "HO HO HO".
>>No, that couldn't be it. He's not one to complain, why look at
>>all the wonderful things he says!!? Have you all read his latest
>>book on marching technique?
>>Jonathan Willis
What's your problem?
>Mr. Jon Band:
>Stuart is not here to provoke anything but thought.
Bested at last.
____________________________________________
From: "%%REALNAME%%" <%%USER%%@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Stu-pidity
Date: 25 Apr 1996 22:35:02 -0700
>Stuart, will you PLEASE ignore the people who attack you? All you
>guys do is post line after line of "you're stupid! " " Am Not!"
>"Are Too!" Please, for goshshakes, ENOUGH!!!!
But we're having such fun.
>You operate with a moral certainty I wish I had sometimes, but you
>are not going to convince people of your superiority...
Not this one again.
>God, I have high school students who have realized this before you
>have. Please, for your sake as well as ours...STOP IT! IT IS A
>CIRCULAR ARGUMENT!
>Trevor P. Pyle
Are your students always more concerned about comebacks than
issues?
Stuart E. Rice
________________________________________________
From: umaco...@cc.memphis.edu (OTTO)
Subject: Re: Stu-pidity
Date: 25 Apr 96 11:03:17 -0500
>>> Not to be abrupt, but get your head out of your ass...
>>>Go see a show, then talk about it 'till your heart is content.
>
>>Sorry, I'm of the poorer class. We don't have the money to drive
>>across the country to see such spectacles like BT and the
>>Disneyworld/DCI extravaganza.
>
>Wah........ Save up. Everybody else does it.
Sorry. Too busy spending what little money I have trying to make
a difference in drum corps.
>>Bill Cook has mentioned here that many of their shows contain no
>>marching. Of course, before they aspire to the seated position,
>>they'll have to get off their feet, but I'm confident they'll
>>manage this.
>I don't see it coming.
Neither did they, but you have to expect that kind of thing from
someone who coordinates halftime extravaganzas for bowl games.
>If they were going to stop marching, why would they keep hiring
>marching staff and discussing future plans with them?
If they were going to keep marching, why would they call their
marching staff "Visual"?
>You are QUITE the pessimist.
Only those who see a future for marching can afford such a title.
>>>>They march when they feel like it.
>>>>Stuart E. Rice
>>Yet another example that you don't know what the hell you're
>>talking about.
>
>>Alan "Otto" Compton
>>Yet another example of ego stated before opinion. At least, I'd
>>like to see the opinion sometime.
>Pardon me, but I've stated my opinion on this matter before.
Not that you have the courage to state it now.
>At least mine is an educated one.
Now there's comedy. Exactly where did your "educated" opinion come
from? From untrained DCI judges? From music educators who have
been borrowing and improvising since the 60s? From drum corps who
have no certified training in the study and instruction of
marching? From Joe Shmoes Book of Neat Drill Patterns and Advice
on Fundamentals? Where?
>You, on the other hand, should stop taking what other people
>think about Brass Theater and using it for your own purposes.
Music educators should stop exploiting a medium for visibility when
their real object is to "get rid of it" (MENC Western Division
President, 1994). I'd suggest you take care of your own problems
before taking on others.
>Go see a show, then you can form your OWN opinions about it.
>Instead, you use other people's opinions to construct a
>not-so-workable opinion and use it as your own.
At least its supported. And you?
>This sound wrong to anyone else? Stop whining about not having
>enough money to go see a show. It doesn't cost THAT much if you
>actually try to look for inexpensive ways.
Sorry, but I'd rather spend the money on high cam. At least I'll
have something to show for it. Something enduring to base these
"uneducated" opinions on. Not that I'm holding my breath about
folks like you caring enough for DCI to produce them, mind you.
>But, who am I kidding? You find it fun to use other people's
>thoughts in an unjust manner.
And you seem to be quite satisfied whining about it instead of
doing the same for your arguments.
>Why should you stop? You are a fake, Stuart. Think for yourself
>occasionally.
That's good advice, Alan. Try it sometime.
>Alan "Otto" Compton
>Star 1991-1995 Bassline
>Colts 1990 Bassline
>B.S. U of Memphis Music Dept
Stuart E. Rice
______________________________________
From: wma...@aol.com (WmACook)
Subject: Re: You Know You've Been Around RAMD Too Long/Much
When....
Date: 26 Apr 1996 06:29:51 -0400
>>You know you've been around RAMD too long when you finally see
>>Bill Cook mention Stuart Rice.
>Gadget -- But notice I only mention Stuart in passing. When
>Stuart starts teaching, I'm moving my family to the suberbs.
>Bill
What makes you think I want a city job?
>Bill Cook
Stuart E. Rice
___________________________________
From: jonw...@aol.com (Jonwband)
Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
Date: 25 Apr 1996 22:21:59 -0400
Stuart E. Rice Writes:
<<I have no objection, really. However, when these "gimmicks"
constitute
a
near re-definition of drum corps (as with only 5:48 of marching) or
even
imposes itself on our responsibility to the primary art (as with
2:33 of
dance), it concerns me.>>
What are you talking about? Re-definition? Drum corps used to
utilize concert numbers. You speak as if there exist rules that
state "this is drum corps and this is not." Where are they? I'd
like to see them.
That makes two of us. Well, I guess we can agree it doesn't
include woodwind instruments (although there are plenty of drum and
fife corps), and doesn't include marching on basketball courts,
although you could fit the wonderful "Swing3" on one.
>Drum corps have continually evolved throguh the years. From
>concert numbers, real bugles, symmetrical drills, and marching
>tympani, to the modern percussion ensemble, dance, ballet,
>asymmetrical drills, and props.
So the most significant progress we've made in marching was in
making drill asymmetrical? No wonder we're getting bored with it.
>>Our identity crisis is bad enough these days
>>without our catering other arts to such an extreme. If we're
>>trying to say "drum corps is art," it may work. If we're trying
>>to sell drum corps, its a dumb idea.>>
>Sounds to me like you are stereotyping drum corps.
Sounds to me like your looking for excuses to abandon standards.
>To me, the variety is what makes it so great. The fact that I'm
>not going to see 12 Madison's in a row. Not like that's a bad
>thing (I love the Scouts), but I enjoy seeing all the different
>ideas and concepts that make each show unique.
Its great family fun. I know some pizza parlors that envy us.
>If I could be so bold as to suggest something to you, Stuart, I
>would say that maybe you should argue this point from a different
>angle. I am reading between the lines a bit, but I think your
>problem is with how a show like Cadets gets judged. Maybe you
>would've felt better had they placed 6th.
It would certainly calm my fears about the future of drum corps
marching.
>If that's true then argue the actual scoring of such a show
>vs. what needs to be done in the judging community to ensure a
>fair score for all corps.
Been there. Done that. Doin it tommorow.
>I would not be totally against that. Does DCI need a minimum time
>limit on marching? I don't know, but that might be something to
>research.
Perhaps.
>I just think that saying what Cadets did is not drum corps sounds
>like sour grapes. There's also no validity in using the word
>"re-definition" since drum corps has always been evolving. Again,
>what's the definition? Is it in some book about corps? Maybe a
>better question is this: should we all have the same definition of
>drum corps?
We should have simillar, if not the same, definition.
>There were lots of people this past year that enjoyed the Cadets
>show, and I think the last thing we would want is for them or
>anyone else to never do a show like it again. Competition isn't
>everything. Entertainment means a lot too. After all, this is
>what the fans want more of.
>
>Jonathan Willis
Your argument is very compelling and justifies all of my fears
about how much we care about marching in drum corps.
Stuart E. Rice
____________________________________
From: <gc...@eden-backend.rutgers.edu>
Subject: STUART, STUART, STUART...
Date: 25 Apr 1996 22:55:17 GMT
>WHY I CAN'T IGNORE STUART...
>(As I lie comfortably on the psychiatrist's couch...)
>It's tough because he speaks his *mind*
Horrors.
>and seems to beg for people to even attempt to contradict him.
Even more people speaking their mind. This ought to be outlawed.
people could get ideas.
>Sometimes I wonder if he really means what he says, gives a shit
>at all, or if he just likes to get under people's skin, stand out
>from the crowd, and see his name in print.
All of the above, I confess.
>First, he makes it soooo easy.
That's very nice of you.
>Second, I have MASSIVE problems with the way he criticizes some of
>the corps the way he does. In essence, what he does, in his own
>unmistakable way, is succeed in devaluing a corps' entire summer
>experience and performance by using those famous "con-structive"
>words like "crappy", "shitty", etc. The associations with
>those words imply that the drum corps he speaks of (most recently
>Star93 and Cadets95) are NOT good drum corps, did NOT deserve the
>kind of recognition they received from the numerous panels of
>judges who judged them along the way, and fielded performances
>that were, as a whole, without value of any kind.
Now you are getting confused. I never suggested these corps were
crappy or without value. I suggested their marching was neglected
and/or unnacceptable, given their placing, due partly because they
are judged by individuals with no training.
>Furthermore, his implications serve to insult those members of the
>paying audiences who actually had the audacity to not only applaud
>for these shows, but actually like them enough to STAND and cheer.
I'm not concerned about the bottom 20 rows that stood and cheered
for Cadets 95. I'm concerned about the rest that didn't.
>Those thousands upon thousands of fans must have been INSANE to
>appreciate performances that Staurt did not.
There are not many things you can't do to get appreciated when
you're blaring away at some tune. Even crooked company front
become inspiring.
>I'll be the first one to acknowledge the fact that Stuart E. Rice,
>as an American citizen, has every right to speak his mind and
>voice his opinions. That doesn't mean, however, that the RAMD
>community and I can't exercise our own rights and tell Stuart that
>he is, for lack of a better phrase, full of shit. So, the next
>time Stuart says that some hard-working drum corps' show is
>"crappy" for the single-most stupid reason of "they stood still
>too much" or "they danced too much," just exercise your 1st
>amendment right and tell Stuart that "he talks too much!"
That's the spirit! Now all you need to do is come up with an
intelligent explanation for why I'm full of shit, and you'll
demonstrate the makings of an adequately intelligent drum corps
advocate.
>Gary Cuzzocrea
>87 Bridgemen
>90-92 Crossmen
Stuart E. Rice
________________________________
From: wma...@aol.com (WmACook)
Subject: Re: Why I Can't Ignore Stuart...
Date: 26 Apr 1996 06:30:17 -0400
In article <4lm83n$g...@igor.rutgers.edu>,
<gc...@eden-backend.rutgers.edu>
writes:
>That doesn't mean, however, that the RAMD community and I
>can't exercise our own rights and tell Stuart that he is, for lack
>of a better phrase, full of shit.
Gary -- Stuart loves attention!
That's correct. This may come as a surprise. I must have your
attention in order to communicate with you.
>Using the scatter principle, he can grace the 'net' with his
>light, humorous dissertations on the nebulous and pass it off as
>'great thoughts.'
Not that I'm agreeing, but I could do worse.
>But great thoughts must be based upon something other than getting
>a rise out of us.
Great thoughts must get a rise out of us if they're to be great
thoughts at all.
>It would help if he put some reasoning or experience behind it.
>Bill
It would help if you put some inquiring behind my experience.
Stuart E. Rice
___________________________
From: bobg@moon (Bob R. Gupta)
Subject: Re: Why I Can't Ignore Stuart...
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 17:45:54 GMT
>I agree that most of what Stuart writes is bullshit, but it also
>makes great reading. You know... the kind of stuff you love to
>hate :-) I think he gets off being flamed so he can then respond.
>What's a tennis player without another one to play against?
>So, what I'm trying to say is - I hope Stuart keeps it up so I
>have something fun to read on RAMD - just don't take him too
>seriously... For that matter, don't take me too seriously
>either....
>
>-bob
I may get my points across yet. :)
Stuart E. Rice
Ben Tibbals
In article <srice.2977...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> you write:
>________________________________________________
>From: umaco...@cc.memphis.edu (OTTO)
>Subject: Re: Stu-pidity
>Date: 25 Apr 96 11:03:17 -0500
>
>>>Bill Cook has mentioned here that many of their shows contain no
>>>marching. Of course, before they aspire to the seated position,
>>>they'll have to get off their feet, but I'm confident they'll
>>>manage this.
>
>>I don't see it coming.
>
>Neither did they, but you have to expect that kind of thing from
>someone who coordinates halftime extravaganzas for bowl games.
Excuse me. While I admit I have no idea what you're talking about, what
relevance does "halftime extravaganzas" have to do with Brass Theater?
Please explain...
>
>>If they were going to stop marching, why would they keep hiring
>>marching staff and discussing future plans with them?
>
>If they were going to keep marching, why would they call their
>marching staff "Visual"?
Do not all drumcorps use the word "visual" to describe marching? I
believe that the judges in DCI judge "visual" these days, not M&M.
This doesn't make any sense.
>
>>Pardon me, but I've stated my opinion on this matter before.
>
>Not that you have the courage to state it now.
This is idiotic. Why would this be cowardly? He HAS stated his opinion.
I hope you don't think that you scare us. I think humor is more common
when reading your posts than fear.
> >>At least mine is an educated one. >
>Now there's comedy. Exactly where did your "educated" opinion come
>from? From untrained DCI judges? From music educators who have
>been borrowing and improvising since the 60s? From drum corps who
>have no certified training in the study and instruction of
>marching? From Joe Shmoes Book of Neat Drill Patterns and Advice
>on Fundamentals? Where?
Who the hell did you learn from?!! The same people. While I like the
Devils, I don't think they were setting the standard in marching in
'83. Unless you invented marching, you had to have learned it from
someone. Otto learned it from Todd Ryan, who you might remember is
the reason that the Devils are now the corps that sets the standard in
technique.
>
>>Alan "Otto" Compton
>>Star 1991-1995 Bassline
>>Colts 1990 Bassline
>>B.S. U of Memphis Music Dept
>
>Stuart E. Rice
>______________________________________
Give me a break Stuart. How can you blast someone for not using facts to
support their statements when you never do. I still do not understand
what you actually do for drumcorps or what corps has exemplified the
marching virtues that you preach. Evidence would be a nice addition.
"Fiction is fun, but I find the reference section much more enlightening."
-Ace Ventura
Ben Tibbals
Ben Tibbals
>In article <srice.2974...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>
>sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>___________________________________
>From: ma...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Matt LaFontaine)
>Subject: Why Stuart Rice is wrong
>Date: 25 Apr 1996 22:37:00 -0400
>
>Here goes...
>
>1-"Stuart Rice still participates in drumcorps. What does Ben
>Tibbals do?"
>
>>Stu, you are the person who has beaten to death the "posting on
>>some people off your back (which is no fault of yours). Mr.
>>Tibbals still participates in drumcorps, and seemingly on an
>>almost day-to-day basis, not unlike yourself.
>
>You are making assumptions about how much stock I place in RAMD as
>"effective participation."
It seems to me that you spend an awful lot of time on RAMD.
Either your priorities are totaly off kilter, or you DO think that this
is "effective participation". That's the impression I get when I spend
an hour a day just reading your posts.
Ben Tibbals
mark pirkle
The Gospel according to Stuart?
What the hell?
And the Lord spake saying, "The Cadets bite ass."
And it was good.
What?
Kris Langley
PS: I DO like the Cadets, right below Madison on my top 10.
GirlInToon
In article <srice.2976...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>
>>>Yet another example of ego stated before opinion. At least, I'd
>>>like to see the opinion sometime.
>
>>what the f**k does that mean....
>
>Thank you for demonstrating it.
>
if you think i have an ego now you should have met me BEFORE i marched
corps. i am MUCH more sedated now. it was a simple question i asked if you
don't like the way i communicate, tough.
>BTW, I've noticed your skill with the verbal one-fingered salute (the
first
>time was sent to me via E-mail). As a means of winning friends and
>arguments, its not very effective.
>
i am crushed that you do not want to be my friend. spare me the lecture
dad.
>>now are you smoking bad crack? you really shouldn't do that with a baby
in
>>the house
>
>And that is the second time you have mentioned that I ought to be
concerned
>about my daughter (the first time was sent via E-mail, again). You'll
post
>a reason for this right now, followed by an apology, or one of us is
history
>on this newsgroup.
>
>
i will not apologize for you not being be able to handle a joke. this is
my personality...deal with it. those on here who know me, like me and
understand how i operate. here is a quick guide to understand me. if
someone is being stupe (or pid depending on the way you want to say it)
they are a "crack smoker" or a" crack baby" or someone who got a hold of
"some bad weed". so write that down for future reference. i hope i don't
make you "history" on this group over something as petty as this. as i
told you before (E-mailed to you) i am wishing the best for you and your
newborn so don't be so touchy. I AM NOT IMPLYING YOU ARE DRUG USER. . i am
sorry you plan on being "history" over this petty argument. rememeber
about taking everything with a grain of salt? well here is a big ol' can
of Mortons. oh...and i appreciate the threat of one of actually being
'History"...shows your maturity level. Later
>
GirlInToon
In article <srice.2977...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>It would help if you put some inquiring behind my experience.
>
>Stuart E. Rice
this is an officaial inquiry about you work in the past. if you feel you
must Email it...feel free
GirlInToon
In article <4lpna6$o...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, "%%REALNAME%%"
<%%USER%%@primenet.com> writes:
>Stuart, will you PLEASE ignore the people who attack you? All you guys do
>is post line after line of "you're stupid! " " Am Not!" "Are Too!"
>
>Please, for goshshakes, ENOUGH!!!!
>
>
if we did that it would accomplish even less.
WmACook
To park & play is fun and it sure makes a lot of racket!
Bill Cook
WmACook
Otto -- A lot of time is spent(hours per week?) by 'net' board folk with
stopwatches--stuart, et al. Now a stopwatch is used to measure how long a
drum corps parks-and-plays.
But there is not enough consideration given to running around while
playing 'Clar DeLune.' A number like this needs to be accentuated.
Perhaps kongs, whistles, and drum rolls might help while hiting 200 bpm.
This number should not be played when just standing around; we've got to
create some kind of distraction because the music is not only trite, it
sucks..
Bill
Bill Cook
Bob R. Gupta
In article <srice.2976...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
> The ultimate in speed marching is faster. The faster you march,
> the more you need to avoid direction changes (esp. big ones). The
> more you do this, the more qualified you are for the 440, 100
> meters, etc.
I don't see lack of direction changes in recent years.
> Way to go! Avoid the issue and lie at the same time!
My daddy is bigger than your daddy. Nyah....
> ...so apparently you don't feel the training was inadequate.
> You'll excuse me for offending you, then, if that sounds to me like
> you think it *was* adequate (your such a sensitive individual. I
> think thats great). I don't know about you, but I think we could
> do better than allow turf to do our thinking for us.
My point is that lack of technique is *not* why this individual
fell. Should we be prepared for earthquakes too :-)
STUART RICE
In article <1996042703...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> btib...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Tibbals) writes:
>>>>Bill Cook has mentioned here that many of their shows contain no
>>>>marching. Of course, before they aspire to the seated position,
>>>>they'll have to get off their feet, but I'm confident they'll
>>>>manage this.
>>
>>>I don't see it coming.
>>
>>Neither did they, but you have to expect that kind of thing from
>>someone who coordinates halftime extravaganzas for bowl games.
>
>Excuse me. While I admit I have no idea what you're talking about, what
>relevance does "halftime extravaganzas" have to do with Brass Theater?
>Please explain...
I can't explain, but I'll give you the punch line: Jim Mason.
>>>If they were going to stop marching, why would they keep hiring
>>>marching staff and discussing future plans with them?
>>
>>If they were going to keep marching, why would they call their
>>marching staff "Visual"?
>
>Do not all drumcorps use the word "visual" to describe marching?
I don't know many that call their marching instructors "Visual instructors."
>I believe that the judges in DCI judge "visual" these days, not M&M.
>This doesn't make any sense.
I agree.
>>>Pardon me, but I've stated my opinion on this matter before.
>>
>>Not that you have the courage to state it now.
>
>This is idiotic. Why would this be cowardly? He HAS stated his opinion.
That's not the same as stating it while addressing issues. It's unproved
until you do.
>I hope you don't think that you scare us. I think humor is more common
>when reading your posts than fear.
Well, its a start.
>>>At least mine is an educated one. >
>>
>>Now there's comedy. Exactly where did your "educated" opinion come
>>from? From untrained DCI judges? From music educators who have
>>been borrowing and improvising since the 60s? From drum corps who
>>have no certified training in the study and instruction of
>>marching? From Joe Shmoes Book of Neat Drill Patterns and Advice
>>on Fundamentals? Where?
>
>Who the hell did you learn from?!! The same people.
I guess that makes me an idiot as well. :)
>While I like the
>Devils, I don't think they were setting the standard in marching in
>'83.
Let me tell you something about Devs 83. They cared about marching
technique. They loved it, they believed in it, and they watched it die in
DCI in the wake of the Zingali technique (as long as the line is straight,
it doesn't matter). Nobody in drum corps had better tecchnique, and I've
still yet to see any Top 12 corps with better techique. Where did John OP
learn his technique from? If he had learned it only from corps, then why
was his technique kicking everyone's butt? Obviously he added something to
it. That's not the kind of thing that's handed to you.
>Unless you invented marching, you had to have learned it from
>someone. Otto learned it from Todd Ryan, who you might remember is
>the reason that the Devils are now the corps that sets the standard in
>technique.
And Ryan has OP very much to thank for his success there today. So what.
This is all personalities and no issues.
>>>Alan "Otto" Compton
>>>Star 1991-1995 Bassline
>>>Colts 1990 Bassline
>>>B.S. U of Memphis Music Dept
>Give me a break Stuart. How can you blast someone for not using facts to
>support their statements when you never do.
Excuse me, but I always do. I just don't do it en-mass here on RAMD except
at Symposium Week. I back up my arguments with facts whenever they are
politely requested.
I still do not understand
>what you actually do for drumcorps or what corps has exemplified the
>marching virtues that you preach. Evidence would be a nice addition.
Opportunities to present them are appreciated. Thank heaven's for RAMD
Virtual Symposium.
>"Fiction is fun, but I find the reference section much more enlightening."
> -Ace Ventura
Me too.
>Ben Tibbals
Stuart E. Rice
STUART RICE
>>It would help if you put some inquiring behind my experience.
>>
>>Stuart E. Rice
>
>this is an officaial inquiry about you work in the past. if you feel you
>must Email it...feel free
First things first (Stuart vs. Cindy).
STUART RICE
>But there is not enough consideration given to running around while
>playing 'Clar DeLune.' A number like this needs to be accentuated.
>Perhaps kongs, whistles, and drum rolls might help while hiting 200 bpm.
>This number should not be played when just standing around; we've got to
>create some kind of distraction because the music is not only trite, it
>sucks..
>Bill Cook
:D ...??!!??!?!
Stuart E. Rice'
STUART RICE
>look me up at finals and we'll do a little basics and as a
>heavy smoker i am sure i will have no problems out marching you.
Maybe you could. My best 5K is only 19:56, and I can't even fall down.
Stuart E. Rice
STUART RICE
>Since when is drum corps all about issues?!
Since RAMD provided a place to talk about them.
>Drum corps is about people,
>teamwork, and taking what you've been taught and performing in front of
>thousands of people. Issues have nothing to do with why I marched drum
>corps, or why a lot of people marched. Did you march in 83 because of
>issues?
I marched in 83 because I love marching. I raise issues about marching
because there may not be as much of it to love these days, and because I
want to provide a better experience in it.
>I think you're spending too much time CREATING issues just to
>piss people off.
No, I'm pissing people off to create an awareness of issues.
>Again, life is too short to "argue" about issues that DON'T EXIST!
Perhaps in your mind they don't. I would think you would allow others an
opportunity to discuss the possibility that they do, however.
>Instead of wasting time with a bunch of talk, I'd rather pop in a video
>or CD of my favorite corps and get in to what they DID, not what they
>DIDN'T DO!
You have a right to spend your time being satisfied with what they did.
That doesn't mean that's enough for others, however.
>Here's a thought...GO AWAY!
Here's another - ignore me.
>There's no such thing as a "serious" discussion with you. There's no
>such thing as a DISCUSSION with you.
I can see how that would be true for you - you see no issues to discuss.
Why not leave it alone then?
>You just accept your own concept
>of reality and put the blinders on to anyone else's point of view.
I've already heard your point of view. It's my perogative not to accept it.
>A SERIOUS discussion with you would be a refreshing change...It's really
>sad that you don't even realize what a joke you are.
Well, at least I'm entertaining (BTW, doesn't that give me the right to fall
on my ass?).
>You could barely keep your horn up in the Blue Devils
>and you have the balls to be THAT sarcastic?! I'll leave THAT one alone!
No, let's talk about it. Tell me, exactly how well would you do holding up
a euphonium bugle through a Blue Devils show which you had two days to learn?
>I know more than you think. I just can't tell what it is YOU'RE looking
>for...TELL ME! Name me a drum corps that moves as fast as the Cadets
>choose to move, while covering the distance they choose to cover.
The United States Men's Olympic Track Team.
>If you can, tell me how perfect their individual technique is.
Much better.
>There may
>very well be an answer to that. I'D LIKE TO KNOW! I want to see it for
>myself so I can have a ounce of respect for what you're saying!
Now you know. Anything else I can do for you?
>I REALLY want to understand what you're looking for. Really I do.
Well, I've found it helps to first explain what I'm *not* looking for. At
least its more entertaining. Not many here want more than that, so its the
least I can do for drum corps marching technique.
>I'm starting to get tired of this virtual game of tag. It hasn't accom-
>plished a thing (talking with you rarely does).
On the contrary, I think its made us all more aware of the issues
surrounding the events in question.
>If there exists a
>performance that you think is representative of YOUR notion of
>"drum corps", please tell us all what it is so we can SEE what you're
>talking about.
Until you care enough to have me out for a clinic, hire me to instruct your
corps, or at least read some of my materials, theres' not much I can do for
you.
>If such a thing doesn't exist, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Been there. Done that.
>Giving a speech won't change anyone's perception of anything.
I disagree, though there are better things I'd like to be doing.
>Make the change you want happen somewhere. SHOW US!
Been there. Done that. Doin it tommorow.
>Maybe then we'll
>be able to appreciate your comments and drum corps *might* become a
>better activity. (Like you care what we think) Well you obviously do...
>you take up the time to criticize and answer every little thing we say.
>Do your thing, Stuart. Educate the masses. Show us the Gospel according
>to Stuart. It's a sincere request that I hope you will honor.
>
>Gary Cuzzocrea
>87 Bridgemen
>90-92 Crossmen
Can do. Anytime, any place.
Stuart E. Rice
STUART RICE
In article <4ltrqa$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon) writes:
Stuart Rice writes:
>>And that is the second time you have mentioned that I ought to be
>>concerned about my daughter (the first time was sent via E-mail, again).
>You'll post a reason for this right now, followed by an apology, or one of
>us is history on this newsgroup.
Cindy writes:
>i will not apologize for you not being be able to handle a joke. this is
>my personality...deal with it. those on here who know me, like me and
>understand how i operate. here is a quick guide to understand me. if
>someone is being stupe (or pid depending on the way you want to say it)
>they are a "crack smoker" or a" crack baby" or someone who got a hold of
>"some bad weed". so write that down for future reference. i hope i don't
>make you "history" on this group over something as petty as this. as i
>told you before (E-mailed to you) i am wishing the best for you and your
>newborn so don't be so touchy. I AM NOT IMPLYING YOU ARE DRUG USER. . i am
>sorry you plan on being "history" over this petty argument. rememeber
>about taking everything with a grain of salt? well here is a big ol' can
>of Mortons. oh...and i appreciate the threat of one of actually being
>'History"...shows your maturity level. Later
Let me explain something to you, Cindy. I don't worry about well-wishers
who insult me. I worry about well-wishers who threaten me:
From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
Date: 18 Apr 1996 23:39:26 -0400
>you need to relax and enjoy...especially with a baby in the house.
After reading this (and some of your other insulting remarks), my reaction
was "this individual may be threatening my daughter." But I thought, "
perhaps it just came out wrong," and with great uneasiness, I deleted it
from my response and tried to ignore it.
Then you posted this:
From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
Subject: Re: Stu-pidity
Date: 26 Apr 1996 00:34:25 -0400
>what the f**k does that mean....now are you smoking bad crack? you really
>shouldn't do that with a baby in the house.
This was the most tasteless comment I have ever seen on RAMD (
congratulations. Fortunately, they aren't giving out gRAMDies for this),
But this was the least of my concerns. I was by this point very disturbed
about what seemed to me a very legitimate possibility that my daughter was
in danger (or at least being threatened). I still can't think of one good
reason why I should be involved in anything raising these type of concerns.
Now, if you can give me a good reason why my involvement in RAMD
and its carelessness should cause me to feel that my life or the life of
my family may be in danger, I'll post and apology myself before deleting
this newsgroup. Otherwise, I'm waiting.
Stuart E. Rice
Ben Tibbals
In article <srice....@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> you write:
>
> Now, if you can give me a good reason why my involvement in RAMD
>and its carelessness should cause me to feel that my life or the life of
>my family may be in danger, I'll post and apology myself before deleting
>this newsgroup. Otherwise, I'm waiting.
>
>Stuart E. Rice
to mean that your daughter was in danger. I really can't see any kind of
threat in them. I understand that you may be sensitive being a new
father and all but it's just a joke. Anyway, West Virginia is just too
far from Utah to be practical! :)
Ben Tibbals
Ben Tibbals
In article <srice.2989...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> you write:
>
>Can do. Anytime, any place.
>
>Stuart E. Rice
Thanks Stuart. I wish you would write like this every time. I know that
this is the first post of yours I have read where my brain hasn't
repeated "I hate this guy... I hate this guy" over and over. I
appreciate when you show more respect to others, even if others don't
show you the same respect, and I know that I will be more receptive to
your comments if you write like this. Thanks again.
Ben Tibbals
GirlInToon
In article <srice.2990...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>Maybe you could. My best 5K is only 19:56, and I can't even fall down.
>
>Stuart E. Rice
>
>
>
well......maybe if we were lucky enough to get a wet parking
lot............:)
GirlInToon
In article <srice....@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>>you need to relax and enjoy...especially with a baby in the house.
>
>
let me just say that that statement meant exactly what i said. with a
newborn every moment is precious and i would drop everything(except what
puts dinner on the table) to enjoy every little single thing that they
do(burp,pee,cry,wink,smile......)
simply Stu by this imeant you should enjoy your daughter right now and
worry less about this group. when my niece was born i decided i would have
all the time in the world to spend with her so i just did what i normally
did everyday(there was some distance between us) well something happened
and i realized not to take the joy of a child in someones life for
granted. luckily today everything is fine and i try to get home as much as
possible to spend time with her. so all i was saying was that (since it is
your first child and all) TRY NOT TO MISS A DAMN THING. CHILDREN ARE A
BLESSING AND NOT ALL CAN SHARE IN THAT BLESSING.
as far as this bullshit of 'threatening' you have got to be kidding. i
love any and all of God's children and the fact that you can even sugest
the thought of me harming yours or any other child is FRIGGING
INSANE!!!!!! i take that as the most insensitive,cruelestand frightening
thing any individual HAS EVERY SAID TO ME!!!! all of your threats to get
me out of this newsgroup will never work but paranoid acusation like the
one you state might be the thing to do it. so know that that everyone
knows about our views on this issue we can drop the whole frigging thing!
end of story.
Cindy Jackson
Andrew Tisdale
In article <wlrat62...@moon.toshiba.com> Bob R. Gupta,
bo...@toshiba.com writes:
> My point is that lack of technique is *not* why this individual
> fell. Should we be prepared for earthquakes too :-)
This whole question of whether technique was at fault is pointless, IMO.
In any given instance, you can make arguments as to whether better
technique would have solved the problem or not. The fact is that you
can't prove it, because you can't test it. That moment in time is not
repeatable.
I suppose someone (maybe Stuart, and probably my marching teacher, Mike
Grogan, for whom I have the greatest respect) might make the argument
that in the case of an earthquake, proper technique could solve the
problem, and you would not fall. This is actually useful from a teaching
standpoint, because most of us assume our naturally imposed limits are
far, far lower than they really are. However, it is quite a different
thing to categorically deny all causes for falls other than technique.
Wet turf, gopher holes, and earthquakes all are environmental problems
that can challenge any marcher. Can technique conquer ALL such variances
without exception? I maintain that the argument is pointless, because it
is unprovable.
Once again, from a teaching/learning standpoint, it is likely best to
take the point of view that you might have been able to have prevented
the fall by having better technique. This (generally) spurs the learner
on to improve the technique. Most novice marchers are very quick to
incorrectly blame the irregularities of the field. However, to say that
in point of fact, any particular fall was absolutely caused by faulty
technique is presumption of omniscience, IMHO.
Stuart Rice will undoubtedly disagree with me. Stay tuned for his heated
response.
Andrew Tisdale
Freelancers Mello 87, 89; Brass Instructor 91
P.S. Forgive my ignorance, but where did you march, Stuart?
mark pirkle
What the shit is this, Physics class?
The guy fell down went boom. I'm sure that the forces of nature
had something to do with it, centrifugal, inertia, gravity,
earthquakes in Bikini Atoll, etc.
He fell.
I fall down steps, and the only thing I'm thinking about on the
way down is, "Oh Jeepers, that hurts!"
This guy was probably thinking, "Oh Jeepers, I hope no one
steps on my freaking face."
Kris Langley
mark pirkle
Wait a minute...
I defended you in a post not too long ago.
Is this some shit about how "they don't do things like they
used to"?
If they did, we'd still be marching pony-step. Now, while some
people think that's just fine and dandy, I don't. And you
didn't march pony-step, but things are much different 13 years
later.
Granted, you may know what you like and what you don't like.
But, there is something to be said about a man who marched one
year, and then makes excuses about how he only had 2 days or
whatever to learn the show. If you only had that much time, why
did you go out, knowing full well that you couldn't hack it in
two days?
I don't feel sorry for you as far as the euphonium is
concerned, because I play contra. Two days is a REALLY bad
excuse.
Your opinion does matter, but don't criticise the existing
corps.
(I didn't get into this discussion until much too late, but if
you're talking about the domino effect that the Cadets had that
year, All I can say is: Ho boy, How embarrassingly funny.)
Kris Langley
STUART RICE
In article <4m3nr0$6...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> Andrew Tisdale <the_...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>From: Andrew Tisdale <the_...@mail.utexas.edu>
>Subject: Re: Stu-pidity
>Date: 30 Apr 1996 00:45:20 GMT
>> My point is that lack of technique is *not* why this individual
>> fell. Should we be prepared for earthquakes too :-)
>
>This whole question of whether technique was at fault is pointless, IMO.
>In any given instance, you can make arguments as to whether better
>technique would have solved the problem or not. The fact is that you
>can't prove it, because you can't test it. That moment in time is not
>repeatable.
This is not a good argument. Of course this can be tested. In fact, there
are tests done frequently (involving the elderly and child development)
which measure balance related factors. Even the ability to maintain a
straight path has been measured in relation to visual cues. It would be
more accurate to say that this kind of thing is tested all the time. The
question is, why don't we measure it. For as much concern as I have about
Bill Cook's interest in the art, at least he went as far as to do a study on
the fitness aspects of marching (nevermind that I couldn't get the published
results). As for us, we stand around and measure our success by falls per
show. It has not always been thus. You can make the argument that "this is
the 90's" or "I'm old-fashioned," but if that's what has become of the art,
you can have it.
>I suppose someone (maybe Stuart, and probably my marching teacher, Mike
>Grogan, for whom I have the greatest respect) might make the argument
>that in the case of an earthquake, proper technique could solve the
>problem, and you would not fall. This is actually useful from a teaching
>standpoint, because most of us assume our naturally imposed limits are
>far, far lower than they really are. However, it is quite a different
>thing to categorically deny all causes for falls other than technique.
Perhaps its the instructor in me, but if we can't take responsibility for
standing on our own two feet, what good are we.
>Wet turf, gopher holes, and earthquakes all are environmental problems
>that can challenge any marcher. Can technique conquer ALL such variances
>without exception? I maintain that the argument is pointless, because it
>is unprovable.
This is a good argument, but your point is vulnerable. It is provable, and
has a great deal of bearing on the nature of technique. The purpose of
marching has always been to take a person from one place to another as
efficiently and safely as possible. I highly doubt that the concessions
made by the Cadets to their own lack of skill will in the long run influece
what has defined "marching" for thousands of years, nor do I think that
the Cadets will continue to be able to call what they do "marching" if they
insist on passing off their negligence as "style".
>Once again, from a teaching/learning standpoint, it is likely best to
>take the point of view that you might have been able to have prevented
>the fall by having better technique. This (generally) spurs the learner
>on to improve the technique. Most novice marchers are very quick to
>incorrectly blame the irregularities of the field. However, to say that
>in point of fact, any particular fall was absolutely caused by faulty
>technique is presumption of omniscience, IMHO.
Another good argument. Here's a better argument: I had a colleague when I
instructed corps who was a dancer and marched in the aforementioned corps.
She had auditioned and won a spot on the TV series "Fame" prior to the last
Summer she marched. The reason why this Summer was her last (and why she
could not assume her position on "Fame"'s cast) was that she misstepped in a
sprinkler hole one day and severely injured herself. I once did the same
thing playing volleyball one day, but had a nicer recovery, fortunately.
When we instructed together (she was a fine guard instructor nonetheless),
she was still wearing a leg brace.
I don't know her view of the matter, but do you think she holds that
sprinkler responsible for her misfortune? Of course not. Though she may
not take full responsibility for it, she would accept at least some
responsibility (if not most) for her injury, as would all educated dancers.
Dancers are taught to dance, not injure themselves. My guess is her indoor
training made her overconfident about using her body on uneven surfaces. I'
m not trying to rule out our rare, inevitable misfortunes. I'm just saying
this is very much a technical matter, and any corps willing to make
concessions to injury or to unbalanced marching, let alone falling, is
teaching bad technique.
>Stuart Rice will undoubtedly disagree with me. Stay tuned for his heated
>response.
>
>Andrew Tisdale
>Freelancers Mello 87, 89; Brass Instructor 91
Its never necessary to give heated responses to anyone using their head.
Stuart E. Rice
Blue Devils 1983
STUART RICE
>as far as this bullshit of 'threatening' you have got to be kidding.
No, I'm not. I'm simply telling you how I felt about it. Are you
comfortable with my feeling that way?
>i love any and all of God's children and the fact that you can even sugest
>the thought of me harming yours or any other child is FRIGGING
>INSANE!!!!!! i take that as the most insensitive, cruelest and frightening
>thing any individual HAS EVERY SAID TO ME!!!!
That's very encouraging to hear, and I'm sorry to have made you feel this
way, but my question remains.
>all of your threats to get
>me out of this newsgroup will never work but paranoid acusation like the
>one you state might be the thing to do it.
That would be unfortunate because I only accused you of being careless, and
stating what I percieved and felt.
>so [now] that that everyone knows about our views on this issue we can drop
>the whole frigging thing! end of story.
>Cindy Jackson
I refuse to accept your careless remarks as a necessary hazard of this
newsgroup. I cannot afford to do so. Exactly how should I differentiate
real threats from imagined ones? Exactly how would you suggest I explain
your remarks (and my concerns about them) to my wife? I could not, unless I
also told her why we need not be concerned about it anymore. If that means
leaving RAMD, it would be one of the finest things I'd done in a long time,
and well worth the loss, given her concerns about how personally people take
issues around here.
Stuart E. Rice
boliske
In article <srice.2998...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) wrote:
The purpose of
> marching has always been to take a person from one place to another as
> efficiently and safely as possible. I highly doubt that the concessions
> made by the Cadets to their own lack of skill will in the long run influece
> what has defined "marching" for thousands of years, nor do I think that
> the Cadets will continue to be able to call what they do "marching" if they
> insist on passing off their negligence as "style".
>
The following is a quote from an article by Anne Burdick entitled
_Neomania: Feeding the Monster_. It is from the book _Looking Closer
Critical Writings on Graphic Design_ published by Allworth Press and the
American Institute of Graphic Design.
Style refers to the way in which form is handled. A vocabulary or set of
formal characteristics constitutes a particular style, recognized most
frequently in retrospect. Style itself is the visual language of a
culture: in fashion, in consumer goods, in art, in literature, in all
varieties of media. Style is ephemeral: it is timely. To be "in style" is
to embody the influences and values of your time.
(Personal Comment)
Because the technique and design systems of one drum corps do not reflect
the approaches of every other organization is not a valid reason for
negating them.
Only time and history will determine the validity of a methodology.
Care to respond Mr. Rice?
Ted Boliske
STUART RICE
In article <1996042921...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> btib...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Tibbals) writes:
>I know Cindy, but even if I didn't, I would have NEVER taken those posts
>to mean that your daughter was in danger.
The question is not whether you would have taken those comments to mean my
daughter was is danger. The question is: had you not known GirlInToon,
would you have taken those comments to mean *your* daughter *might* have
been in danger? Can you say with 100% certainty that you would not
have been concerned? I couldn't, and that is all that matters for me. But
out of curiosity, let me ask you: how much doubt would you tolerate in
the face of an anonymous stranger cursing you and telling you to take care
of your child? 1%? 10%?
>I really can't see any kind of
>threat in them. I understand that you may be sensitive being a new
>father and all but it's just a joke.
I'm not laughing. I doubt my wife will either.
>Anyway, West Virginia is just too far from Utah to be practical! :)
>
>Ben Tibbals
Well, for all I knew about GirlInToon, she could have been a purple
emmigrant from Mars with two sex organs and living next door. I frankly don'
t care about the particulars. This is a flat medium, and I treat it as
such. My interest in information, however, doesn't exceed my concern for my
family (or my tolerance for verbal behaviors which appear to threaten
them). Would that we could all feel comfortable pursuing our interests on
an educationally and politically level playing field here as you seem to
suggest you do. Not that it would make the internet any safer a place to
express yourself, mind you.
Stuart E. Rice
Ben Tibbals
In article <srice.2999...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> you write:
>I refuse to accept your careless remarks as a necessary hazard of this
>newsgroup. I cannot afford to do so. Exactly how should I differentiate
>real threats from imagined ones? Exactly how would you suggest I explain
>your remarks (and my concerns about them) to my wife? I could not, unless I
>also told her why we need not be concerned about it anymore. If that means
>leaving RAMD, it would be one of the finest things I'd done in a long time,
>and well worth the loss, given her concerns about how personally people take
>issues around here.
>
>Stuart E. Rice
There was no real or imagined treat there. I can't answer the question
as to how to differentiate between other possible threats but you
shouldn't need one for this comment. I think you take things more
seriously than most people considering the defensive and combatant
attitude you have. I think this is all a lot of bullshit and fluff but
it's ENTERTAINING bullshit and fluff. That's why I read and post. If
you're that prone to taking things personally maybe you should leave, but
I think leaving over Cindy's comments is kind of silly. DOn't worry too
much about what comes out of Jackson's Hole. he... he...
Ben Tibbals
Jennifer Sheppard
btib...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Tibbals) wrote:
>I think leaving over Cindy's comments is kind of silly. DOn't worry too
>much about what comes out of Jackson's Hole. he... he...
>
>Ben Tibbals
>
Groooooaaaaannnn!!!! That was terrible! You should have sent a corny
joke alert so i could prepare myself.
Jennifer Sheppard
Troopers '91-'98
GO TROOP!!!!
GirlInToon
In article <1996043020...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>,
btib...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Tibbals) writes:
> DOn't worry too
>much about what comes out of Jackson's Hole. he... he...
>
>Ben Tibbals
ahhh....Ben memories of mistaken nicknames.(was that Bob Medworth's line?)
too bad Red Balls got stuck with this one!
GirlInToon
In article <srice.2999...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>
>No, I'm not. I'm simply telling you how I felt about it. Are you
>comfortable with my feeling that way?
>
>
it is obvious you can feel however you want but you are still being
ridiculous.
>That would be unfortunate because I only accused you of being careless,
and
>stating what I percieved and felt.
>
>
i must have missed that part.
>>so [now] that that everyone knows about our views on this issue we can
drop
>>the whole frigging thing! end of story.
>>Cindy Jackson
>
>I refuse to accept your careless remarks as a necessary hazard of this
>newsgroup. I cannot afford to do so. Exactly how should I differentiate
>real threats from imagined ones? Exactly how would you suggest I explain
>your remarks (and my concerns about them) to my wife? I could not,
unless I
>also told her why we need not be concerned about it anymore. If that
means
>leaving RAMD, it would be one of the finest things I'd done in a long
time,
>and well worth the loss, given her concerns about how personally people
take
>issues around here.
>
>Stuart E. Rice
>
>
you are blowing the whole thing out of proprtion. plain and simple. what
exactly do you want me to do. call your wife? tell i am sorry i offended
youens because you took a remark totally out of context? this isn't about
that...it's about something deeper. i DIDN'T THREATEN YOU OR YOUR FAMILY.
to me a 'threat' is someone saying'when you go to sleep tonight expect
your chinchilla to dissapear'(God if you have one you probably will blow
this out of proportion too) so drop it. YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ARE NOT IN
DANGER FROM ME OR ANYONE ELSE IN THIS GROUP. so let's just get back to
drum corps that's what we are here for right? you can whine about this
longer if you want but personnaly i am too busy trying to better the
activity. later
>
atropos
In article <srice.3000...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>The question is not whether you would have taken those comments to mean my
>daughter was is danger. The question is: had you not known GirlInToon,
>would you have taken those comments to mean *your* daughter *might* have
>been in danger? Can you say with 100% certainty that you would not
>have been concerned? I couldn't, and that is all that matters for me. But
>out of curiosity, let me ask you: how much doubt would you tolerate in
>the face of an anonymous stranger cursing you and telling you to take care
>of your child? 1%? 10%?
>Stuart E. Rice
Get over it, Stu. Having sold a number of things over the internet (and
therefore giving my address out), I know what harrassment is. There are
some freaks out there that will say they want to buy what you're selling
for the express purpose of getting your name/address/phone number so
they can call you at all hours, send harrassing mail, etc. I have yet
to have someone show up at my doorstep, though.Being a single female
living alone, it can be frightening, but I put it in perspective. I've
also been stalked by two different people IRL though, so maybe I just
attract freaks. ;)
Di
GirlInToon
In article <4m69cr$c...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, Jennifer Sheppard
<jens...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
>Groooooaaaaannnn!!!! That was terrible! You should have sent a corny
>joke alert so i could prepare myself.
>
>Jennifer Sheppard
>Troopers '91-'98
>GO TROOP!!!!
>
>
>
sorry Jennifer...that was an inside joke from 93........but Ben never was
the comedian anyway:)
STUART RICE
From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
Subject: Re: Stuart vs. Cindy
Date: 1 May 1996 00:29:25 -0400
>what exactly do you want me to do. tell i am sorry i offended you because
>you took a remark totally out of context?
No, but saying you're sorry for what you did will do.
Stuart E. Rice
________________________
In article <1996043020...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> btib...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Tibbals) writes:
>There was no real or imagined treat there.
Amazing how easy it is for you to come to that conclusion. And I'm the
"armchair quarterback" here.
>I can't answer the question
>as to how to differentiate between other possible threats but you
>shouldn't need one for this comment.
Then why am I getting one anyway.
>I think you take things more seriously than most people considering the
>defensive and combatant attitude you have.
I care about the issues, yes.
>I think this is all a lot of bullshit and fluff but
>it's ENTERTAINING bullshit and fluff. That's why I read and post.
I'm glad you're enjoying it.
>If you're that prone to taking things personally maybe you should leave
Maybe so. It seems I can't make this thread entertaining enough for you.
Stuart E. Rice
STUART RICE
Geez, something relevant. This should be refreshing.
In article <nay338-3004...@nay338.optimum.net> nay...@optimum.net (boliske) writes:
> The purpose of
>> marching has always been to take a person from one place to another as
>> efficiently and safely as possible. I highly doubt that the concessions
>> made by the Cadets to their own lack of skill will in the long run influece
>> what has defined "marching" for thousands of years, nor do I think that
>> the Cadets will continue to be able to call what they do "marching" if they
>> insist on passing off their negligence as "style".
>>
>
>The following is a quote from an article by Anne Burdick entitled
>_Neomania: Feeding the Monster_. It is from the book _Looking Closer
>Critical Writings on Graphic Design_ published by Allworth Press and the
>American Institute of Graphic Design.
Looks like I may have spoken too soon. Marching is a performing art, not
art design.
>Style refers to the way in which form is handled. A vocabulary or set of
>formal characteristics constitutes a particular style, recognized most
>frequently in retrospect.
It will be interesting to see how the Cadets do this Summer.
>Style itself is the visual language of a
>culture: in fashion, in consumer goods, in art, in literature, in all
>varieties of media. Style is ephemeral: it is timely. To be "in style" is
>to embody the influences and values of your time.
I noticed this author did not comment (as yet) on what constitutes good
style and bad style. I would suggest that one of the fundamentals of good
style is the acceptance of the convention of an art. I don't see fashion
shows wherein the models are covered by paint or kitchen appliances.
They might fulfill the function of covering the body, but they would degrade
fashion design itself because there is no art to it. This is not to
say there aren't Andy Warhols out there wanting to make a political
statement about such things. However, the thing about Andy Warhol is he
painted the Campbell's soup cans, as opposed to going to the supermarked and
picking up a few dozen to glue to the canvas. There is no art in that (yes,
"unless you want to make a political statement about it," I realize). The
point is, don't expect your "art" to be taken seriously if you rely on
other media.
Simmilarly, when I go to a drum corps show, I don't want to see
musical theater or dance to a conspicuous degree. It's a nice touch, mind
you. I like to see interesting lapel pins on clothes. I like to see
unusual fabrics on people. I don't care to see people wearing posters of
Manet or duct tape, however.
>Because the technique and design systems of one drum corps do not reflect
>the approaches of every other organization is not a valid reason for
>negating them.
I agree. There are many systems of marching style, and each have developed
in the interest of a particular function, just as there are many approaches
to its choreography. But for drum corps to be taken seriously as an
artistic convention, we must agree on parameters which will define it (
regardless on how limiting we seem to believe this is), and not confuse it
with other artistic conventions. Worse, there is no excuse for approaching
any art as a dumping ground for other arts. Every art has priorities about
its media. I'm not saying that accompanying media don't often rally away
the attention of artist and audience. I'm saying its no excuse to make the
art itself ambiguous. In fact, its unnacceptable. How often do you see
Andrew Lloyd Webber sitting the cast down for a concert in the middle of
his broadway plays? How often does your local symphony orchestra decide
to feature your local ballet? How often do you see spoken dialogue in
operas? Being unconventional is a serious matter, and I'm not sure how
comfortable a manager of any of these organizations would feel about his
audience seeing such things.
>Only time and history will determine the validity of a methodology.
That much we can rely on. But it is up to us to make sure we don't
confuse legitimate, methodological style with what is often called "style"
out of convenience.
Stuart E. Rice
Richard Cohan
Damn Cindy, I'm impressed! You got a thread dedicated to you!
Rick 8-)
PS Are we still meeting next week?
RANDYGAR
In article <srice.3004...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
> I don't care to see people wearing posters of
>Manet or duct tape, however.
Stu-
Been a while since you've been in San Francisco, eh?
Randy
boliske
In article <srice.3004...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) wrote:
> Geez, something relevant. This should be refreshing.
>
> In article <nay338-3004...@nay338.optimum.net>
nay...@optimum.net (boliske) writes:
>
> > The purpose of
> >> marching has always been to take a person from one place to another as
> >> efficiently and safely as possible. I highly doubt that the concessions
> >> made by the Cadets to their own lack of skill will in the long run
influece
> >> what has defined "marching" for thousands of years, nor do I think that
> >> the Cadets will continue to be able to call what they do "marching"
if they
> >> insist on passing off their negligence as "style".
You made the above statement Stuart. While we're on the subject though,
you've neglected the military function of marching as well as the training
in discipline. The military roots of the drum corps activity were left
behind when the bugles were added and other types of music replaced the
calls of the fifes and drums.
> >>
> >
> >The following is a quote from an article by Anne Burdick entitled
> >_Neomania: Feeding the Monster_. It is from the book _Looking Closer
> >Critical Writings on Graphic Design_ published by Allworth Press and the
> >American Institute of Graphic Design.
>
> Looks like I may have spoken too soon. Marching is a performing art, not
> art design.
I'm sorry subtlety is not one of yout talents. Graphic Design involves
more than just art. It is a multi-dimensional field that provides visual
communication. Not unlike the performing arts.
>
> >Style refers to the way in which form is handled. A vocabulary or set of
> >formal characteristics constitutes a particular style, recognized most
> >frequently in retrospect.
>
> It will be interesting to see how the Cadets do this Summer.
>
> >Style itself is the visual language of a
> >culture: in fashion, in consumer goods, in art, in literature, in all
> >varieties of media. Style is ephemeral: it is timely. To be "in style" is
> >to embody the influences and values of your time.
>
> I noticed this author did not comment (as yet) on what constitutes good
> style and bad style. I would suggest that one of the fundamentals of good
> style is the acceptance of the convention of an art.
The
> point is, don't expect your "art" to be taken seriously if you rely on
> other media.
You missed the point. Good and bad style are subjective opinions. I may
not like the style of an artist (or drum corps) while still being able to
appreciate the material that is presented (or performed)
>
> Simmilarly, when I go to a drum corps show, I don't want to see
> musical theater or dance to a conspicuous degree.
Still don't get? Should I get out the big hammer?
>
> >Because the technique and design systems of one drum corps do not reflect
> >the approaches of every other organization is not a valid reason for
> >negating them.
>
> I agree. There are many systems of marching style, and each have developed
> in the interest of a particular function, just as there are many approaches
> to its choreography.
How can you make this statement and follow with a discussion on setting limits?
But for drum corps to be taken seriously as an
> artistic convention, we must agree on parameters which will define it (
> regardless on how limiting we seem to believe this is), and not confuse it
> with other artistic conventions.
I see no confusion with other artistic conventions. What I do see is a
lack of knowing the abilities of the performers and/or attempts to
integrate other influences into this activity. Where would classic opera
be without Mozart? He challenged the conventions of his time.
Worse, there is no excuse for approaching
> any art as a dumping ground for other arts. Every art has priorities about
> its media.
Being unconventional is a serious matter
Are you really suggesting that any art has no room for experimentation and
growth? Maintaining the status quo only leads to stagnation or worse
becoming just another historical phase.
>
> >Only time and history will determine the validity of a methodology.
>
> That much we can rely on. But it is up to us to make sure we don't
> confuse legitimate, methodological style with what is often called "style"
> out of convenience.
Careful the ground you walk Stuart. To this point you are more the critic
and theorist than performer and composer.
>
> Stuart E. Rice
One more qoute before I go:
Styles are assimilated overnight in the search for the "ever-evolving new."
This phenomenon is called _ neomania _, a madness for perpetual novelty.
Let's not confuse the why with the how.
Ted Boliske
R3...@vm1.cc.uakron.edu
>>I know more than you think. I just can't tell what it is YOU'RE looking
>>for...TELL ME! Name me a drum corps that moves as fast as the Cadets
>>choose to move, while covering the distance they choose to cover.
>
>The United States Men's Olympic Track Team.
Gadget
Out of control cuz Spring semester '96 is about to end!
Rick Beckham
In article <nay338-0305...@nay338.optimum.net>,
boliske <nay...@optimum.net> wrote:
>In article <srice.3004...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,
>sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) wrote:
<*mucho stuff deleted*>
>
>
>Are you really suggesting that any art has no room for experimentation and
>growth? Maintaining the status quo only leads to stagnation or worse
>becoming just another historical phase.
>>
We need to make sure that if drum corps evolve they evolve for the
better. We need to see a progression. To rightfully do that we need
to understand what drum corps is. Else it may evolve into something
that no longer resembles drum corps and may alienate drum corps fans.
You mention status quo, but corps have changed every year as long as
I've viewed them (late 70's). Change for change's sake can be
detrimental to the activity, and we should NOT permit this activity
to become a bastardization of some other art form. This will denigrate
both art forms.
>
>One more qoute before I go:
>
>Styles are assimilated overnight in the search for the "ever-evolving new."
>
>This phenomenon is called _ neomania _, a madness for perpetual novelty.
>
This quote sounds like a good argument for not allowing people to change
something simply to make a niche for themselves. Change should be made
only when something can be bettered, not to add to someone's resume.
The example I'm most familiar with is drumming. We should not water the
drum parts to match the original composition; drum parts should not be
sacrificed for a drill move, or an artistic endeavour (like a snare line
carrying spears during a roman period piece, this is pure horseshit
and has nothing to do with ART). Progression for the drumlines should
be 1.) more difficult coordinative and/or athletic parts 2.) ground
breaking ensemble arrangements 3.) drill that fits the music and not
vice versa.
boliske
In article <4mdit6$1...@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca>, rbec...@bnr.ca (Rick
Beckham) wrote:
> We need to make sure that if drum corps evolve they evolve for the
> better.
>
> You mention status quo, but corps have changed every year as long as
> I've viewed them (late 70's). Change for change's sake can be
> detrimental
we should NOT permit this activity
> to become a bastardization of some other art form.
I couldn't agree more. My concern with Stuart's arguments is that he is
trying to define what changes can or cannot occur. If true honest
evolution is to take place then mistakes must happen. How else will the
activity learn what the possibilities are or may be?
> >
> >One more qoute before I go:
> >
> >Styles are assimilated overnight in the search for the "ever-evolving new."
> >
> >This phenomenon is called _ neomania _, a madness for perpetual novelty.
> >
>
> This quote sounds like a good argument for not allowing people to change
> something simply to make a niche for themselves. Change should be made
> only when something can be bettered, not to add to someone's resume.
Where is the opportunity for trial and error? We'll never know if it is
better until the attempt is made and then take the time to reflect and
review.
Ted Boliske
Rick Beckham
>Beckham) wrote:
>
>
>> We need to make sure that if drum corps evolve they evolve for the
>> better.
>>
>> You mention status quo, but corps have changed every year as long as
>> I've viewed them (late 70's). Change for change's sake can be
>> detrimental
> we should NOT permit this activity
>> to become a bastardization of some other art form.
>
>I couldn't agree more. My concern with Stuart's arguments is that he is
>trying to define what changes can or cannot occur. If true honest
>evolution is to take place then mistakes must happen. How else will the
>activity learn what the possibilities are or may be?
>
free-for-all for designer expression. We should have parameters that
define what corps is/is not. Otherwise let's kill the rules we have,
time limits, age limits, instrumental limits, and see how long it
lasts.
>> This quote sounds like a good argument for not allowing people to change
>> something simply to make a niche for themselves. Change should be made
>> only when something can be bettered, not to add to someone's resume.
>
>Where is the opportunity for trial and error? We'll never know if it is
>better until the attempt is made and then take the time to reflect and
>review.
>
You'll know it's better if you see an area that needs improving. Throwing
something new into the stew just to change things, not to improve something,
will change the stew into goulash. Drum corps have not escaped Sturgeon's
Law; 90% of everything, puddings, paintings, politicians, books, movies,
everything, is shit.
When was the last time DCI reflected, reviewed, and repealed a bad
decision?
>
>Ted Boliske
gc...@eden-backend.rutgers.edu
Just couldn't stay out of this without making one observation...
Isn't ONE of the missions of drum corps marching (battery perc./brass
particularly) to provide a solid and smooth foundation upon which to
play your instrument unobstructed? Aren't the two completely dependent
on each other? If you don't march well, doesn't it stand to reason that
you won't play well either??? If this is so, I would venture to say that
the Cadets' marching technique hasn't really hurt them much if they can
place in the top 3 in brass and percussion nearly every year. And yes,
they sound good when they're NOT standing still as well!
Gary Cuzzocrea
87 Bridgemen
90-92 Crossmen
STUART RICE
In article <1777A8D4...@ukcc.uky.edu> D...@ukcc.uky.edu (atropos) writes:
>From: D...@ukcc.uky.edu (atropos)
>Subject: Re: Stuart vs. Cindy
>In article <srice.3000...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>
>sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>
>>The question is not whether you would have taken those comments to mean my
>>daughter was is danger. The question is: had you not known GirlInToon,
>>would you have taken those comments to mean *your* daughter *might* have
>>been in danger? Can you say with 100% certainty that you would not
>>have been concerned? I couldn't, and that is all that matters for me. But
>>out of curiosity, let me ask you: how much doubt would you tolerate in
>>the face of an anonymous stranger cursing you and telling you to take care
>>of your child? 1%? 10%?
>Di
Answer the questions. Then I'll "get over it."
Stuart E. Rice
STUART RICE
In article <srice.3017...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>>>The question is not whether you would have taken those comments to mean my
>>>daughter was is danger. The question is: had you not known GirlInToon,
>>>would you have taken those comments to mean *your* daughter *might* have
>>>been in danger?
>>>Can you say with 100% certainty that you would not have been concerned?
>>>I couldn't, and that is all that matters for me. But out of curiosity,
>>>let me ask you: how much doubt would you tolerate in the face of an
>>>anonymous stranger cursing you and telling you to take care of your
>>>child? 1%? 10%?
I take it that the silence over this issue means nobody on RAMD (including
parents) has the guts to answer these questions honestly ("honestly" being
the operative word here).
Stuart E. Rice
STUART RICE
Stuart writes:
>>How often do you see Andrew Lloyd Webber sitting the cast down for a
>>concert in the middle of his broadway plays? How often does your
>>local symphony orchestra decide to feature your local ballet?
Anonymous writes me:
>In many Webber musicals there are several spots in the shows where
>people stop moving and just sing.
This is not concertizing, however. It has a drammatic visual context, and
is given with props, character costumes, drammatic staging and often
movement or expression of some type. They are not seated in chairs placed
for purely functional concerns, nor are they lead by a conductor, nor are
they allowed to read music during their performance. These moments are
never allowed to cross the boundaries of visual drammatic expression, which
is one reason why they are so brief. Phantom of the Opera and Sunset
Boulevard are as close as they get to doing so, and there we must admit
these musicals would not be as successful if half of the show were to be
staged as aconcert. This is not to say that it can't be done. Lez Miz
recently presented their entire musical in a stationary conert-style form
(though more like an oratorio in effect). However, such examples
don't represent the medium, and shouldn't be confused with it.
>Jesus is on a cross, and I don't see him doing much movement at the end of
>JCS. In Cats one of the highlights is Memories and there is NO dance going
>on during this number.
Obviously, musicals make many accomodations for good solo
performances. However, even then the acting is essential. It
doesn't change the fact that drama takes place on a near constant
basis throughout the show, as should marching in drum corps.
>The last Ballet Company I was in delights in presenting live
>vocals and musicians on the stage with the dancers.
Again, a peripheral element [not to mention a departure from what is
accepted as "ballet"].
>Spoken dialogue in Opera is often call "recitative".
First, operas are hardly known for spoken dialogue, and second, "recitative"
is a free-form SONG, sung with speech-like rhythms and inflections. This is
not unconventional. The music still comes first in opera.
>I think any progressive manager of such organizations would love to
>do mixed bills.
And any such manager would be a fool if they didn't recognize that their
bread and butter came from performing the established repertoire which
defines the art (which is what their audiences pay to see) with integrity.
I'm still waiting for drum corps to create something respectable enough to
be called "standard repertoire" with its defining art (choreographed
marching). Until they do, they'll never find an audience willing to put up
will jerking them around with an entertainment substitute for drum corps.
You are confused about the point of this discussion. We're not trying to
establish whether or not something different *can* be done, or *has* been
done. That is an exercise for the dim of sight. We're trying to establish
whether or not it *should* be done, in the interests of establishing the art.
Stuart E. Rice
Ben Tibbals
No. Wrong again Stuart. The reason that nobody is talking about it is
because THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE. I have no interest in cultivating your
paranoia, neither does anyone else. Sorry for being so blunt, but I
thought this thread had died as it should have.
Ben Tibbals
atropos
In article <srice.3017...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>>From: D...@ukcc.uky.edu (atropos)
>>Subject: Re: Stuart vs. Cindy
>>Date: Wed, 01 May 96 10:02:43 EDT
>>In article <srice.3000...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>
>>
>>>The question is not whether you would have taken those comments to mean my
>>>daughter was is danger. The question is: had you not known GirlInToon,
>>>would you have taken those comments to mean *your* daughter *might* have
>>>been in danger? Can you say with 100% certainty that you would not
>>>have been concerned? I couldn't, and that is all that matters for me. But
>>>out of curiosity, let me ask you: how much doubt would you tolerate in
>>>the face of an anonymous stranger cursing you and telling you to take care
>>>of your child? 1%? 10%?
>
>
>>Di
>Answer the questions. Then I'll "get over it."
>
>Stuart E. Rice
>
ALL EXCEPT FOR ONE LINE of my reply, and didn't bother to acknowledge
the fact that he did so.
For those that did not read my original reply, it had to do with the
fact that I have been both virtually (over the net) and physically
(in what I consider to be "real life") stalked. I DID NOT WORRY ABOUT
THE VIRTUAL STALKING (as was stated in my original reply but which Stu
conveniently skipped over and deleted) even though it went so far as
phone calls which crosses over into real life. Granted, I have no
children to worry about, but being a single female living alone is not
much better.
To repeat it so Stu can't miss/ignore it:
I DID NOT WORRY ABOUT THE 'NET RELATED STALKING.
I DID NOT WORRY ABOUT THE 'NET RELATED STALKING.
I DID NOT WORRY ABOUT THE 'NET RELATED STALKING.
And now for the part Stu will feel comfortable about quoting:
Get over it.
Di
DANA BEAN
STUART RICE (sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu) wrote:
> In article <srice.3017...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
> >>>The question is not whether you would have taken those comments to mean my
> >>>daughter was is danger. The question is: had you not known GirlInToon,
> >>>would you have taken those comments to mean *your* daughter *might* have
> >>>been in danger?
> >>>Can you say with 100% certainty that you would not have been concerned?
> >>>I couldn't, and that is all that matters for me. But out of curiosity,
> >>>let me ask you: how much doubt would you tolerate in the face of an
> >>>anonymous stranger cursing you and telling you to take care of your
> >>>child? 1%? 10%?
> I take it that the silence over this issue means nobody on RAMD (including
> parents) has the guts to answer these questions honestly ("honestly" being
> the operative word here).
Stuart:
I find that guts is one thing that is very lacking on RAMD.
People are tough from behind their computers, but from there, they are
just average human beings.
I do not take issue with you or Cindy, but I will say that if
YOU perceived danger, then Cindy should accept that it is possible
that anyone could have misinterpreted (I say this because she did
clarify herself to an extent) it to be a danger.
People are NARROW and refuse to see that they are involved
in others' affairs. They are involved just by working with them or
by posting to the internet.
I marched 3 years in some very talented horn lines. Every one
of those years , the corps involved had more than its share of
people lacking good sense. There were many people I saw involved in DCI
corps that were trouble-makers. Now, I am not saying that they did not
belong there. They tried very hard to behave and to earn the
experience. It was good for them to be there, but I am saying that
after being involved with drum corps, I would not trust that someone
was joking.
I have personally witnessed well respected corps have members
threaten to physically harm other members (in recent years).
I saw this at both Bluecoats and Madison Scouts. They took away
from the experience. They did not deserve the honor of wearing the
uniform.
So, Cindy, please realize that we do not live is some
safe, comfortable little world where people should never see
things are potentially dangerous.
Barry York
.
> Stuart E. Rice
STUART RICE
In article <1996051014...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> btib...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Tibbals) writes:
>>In article <srice.3017...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> srice@alexandria.
>>lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>>>>>The question is not whether you would have taken those comments to mean my
>>>>>daughter was is danger. The question is: had you not known GirlInToon,
>>>>>would you have taken those comments to mean *your* daughter *might* have
>>>>>been in danger?
>>
>>>>>Can you say with 100% certainty that you would not have been concerned?
>>
>>>>>I couldn't, and that is all that matters for me. But out of curiosity,
>>>>>let me ask you: how much doubt would you tolerate in the face of an
>>>>>anonymous stranger cursing you and telling you to take care of your
>>>>>child? 1%? 10%?
>>
>>I take it that the silence over this issue means nobody on RAMD (including
>>parents) has the guts to answer these questions honestly ("honestly" being
>>the operative word here).
>>
>>Stuart E. Rice
>
>No. Wrong again Stuart. The reason that nobody is talking about it is
>because THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE. I have no interest in cultivating your
>paranoia, neither does anyone else. Sorry for being so blunt, but I
>thought this thread had died as it should have.
>
>Ben Tibbals
Your post suggests that at least one of the following is true about you. (
1) your lack either integrity, courage, or both to answer the questions, (2)
you feel answering the questions would justify my concern, and are ashamed
of the fact/more interested in deluding yourself with an argument where
your interest in it extends only as far as your appraisal as to how easy
it appears to "win" (and wouldn't that be nice for a change) or (3) you are
quite comfortable living in a virtual environment where people's concern
about infants can be manipulated into fodder for winning arguments via
derrogatory and careless remarks.
However, I expect that you haven't the guts to select one of these
options either, so I'll give you a test you can handle:
________________________________
Timothy McVeigh Aptitude Battery
I am a gutless coward about issues involving manners because (choose one or
more):
A. Manners breed morals and I'm alergic to both.
B. I delight in seeing small children threatened on RAMD, and I defend the
constitutional right to seeing insults confused with threats.
C. I don't want to encourage anything which might rob me of the pleasure of
seeing someone I dislike distracted from issues I'm too stupid about
to pass myself off as an expert on.
D. Its time we got serious about zero population growth, and threats on
children are the next best thing to promoting the conveniences of
abortion.
E. Its not like anyone is shooting your children. Yet.
F. I thought RAMD stood for rec.axemurderers.manipulation.daughters
G. What's the matter? Can't take a little joke?
H. You have no business telling me what a threat looks like until you
threaten someone's children yourself.
I. "Thank heaven for little girls! For they blow up in the most delightful
way!" (thought that one up just for you. from the musical "Gigi", I
believe).
J. Since when was feeling safe to express yourself an issue around here?
Stuart E. Rice
B. Romig
On Fri, 10 May 1996, STUART RICE wrote:
> In article <1996051014...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> btib...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Tibbals) writes:
>
> >>In article <srice.3017...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> srice@alexandria.
> >>lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
> >>>>>The question is not whether you would have taken those comments to mean my
> >>>>>daughter was is danger. The question is: had you not known GirlInToon,
> >>>>>would you have taken those comments to mean *your* daughter *might* have
> >>>>>been in danger?
> >>
> >>>>>Can you say with 100% certainty that you would not have been concerned?
> >>
> >>>>>I couldn't, and that is all that matters for me. But out of curiosity,
> >>>>>let me ask you: how much doubt would you tolerate in the face of an
> >>>>>anonymous stranger cursing you and telling you to take care of your
> >>>>>child? 1%? 10%?
> >>
<snip>
> >>
> >>Stuart E. Rice
> >
<major snip (The McVeigh Aptitude Test)>
Sorry for the length, but this has been brewing for awhile:
Ok, ok, I just can't stay out of this any longer. Stuart, I understand
completely that one values the safety/percieved safety of their children.
I work with 6 wonderful two-year olds, and while not being their parents,
I feel an incredible bond and protective feelings for them. I cannot
claim to understand what being a parent is like at this point in my life,
but I think I have a much better handle on what is involved than do many
RAMDers. At any rate, wasn't Cindy's original comment something to the
effect of:
"Are you smoking crack? I can't belive you're doing that with a baby in
the house."? This wasn't the exact wording, I don't believe but it is
VERY close, and I'll consider it close enough for argument's sake.
My next question is, how is this a threat to your child? Ok, maybe it
was in incredibly poor taste. Perhaps it was rude, and implied something
ugly about your commitment to your daughter's safety. But did it THREATEN
your daughter? I don't think so. Cindy was not being threatening. Maybe
slanderous, but not threatening.
And to answer your questions, I would leave 0% doubt about feeling my
children (my biological children in the future, or those that I care
for) were in danger. If I felt they indeed WERE in danger, I would do
whatever I could in my power to protect them and make sure their well-being
was preserved. But, at the same time, every off-hand comment about my
abilities as a father can not be taken as a direct threat towards my
children. I'm assuming there is no drug use in the Rice household, so
there is no real danger for your daughter. And Cindy implying that your
"crack smoking" is putting your daughter in danger was simply an attempt
to insult you, in very poor taste, I may add, but nonetheless, just an
insult. You talked of using threats on babies to win arguments and aviod
the issues, and I think this is exactly what YOU are guilty of. If there
was a threat, or even a REASONABLY precieved threat, then you have reason
to expect an things to be cleared up and then an apology to be made. But,
Stuart, I'm just very, very unclear as to how you interpreted the above
remarks to be anything but insulting, let alone a threat. She didn't say
she was going to come over to your house and have your baby taken away
since you like to smoke crack. She didn't say that you were going to kill
your daughter because you lack self control. She said she couldn't
believe you would smoke crack with your new baby in the house. The only
danger she implied was that YOU would hurt your daughter. And since you
don't, in fact, smoke crack, there IS NO DANGER!
Stuart, be insultd. Be upset. For God's sake, BE ANGRY! But I think
you, myself, and all the other netizens of RAMD can rest assured that
your daughter will be safe and sound under the care of her loving
parents, with no threat from the evil Cindy.
Bryan "Gizmit" Romig
Jennifer A Sullivan
Okay, here's my opinion (you wanted answers, Stuart...)
I would not have taken Cindy's comment to be threatening. In fact, I read it
when it was posted and it did not even occur to me that it would be a threat.
Especially since the topic of the thread (as just about any topic on RAMD)
was not something that one would think would come to violence.
So anyway, no I would not have been concerned.
On the other hand, Stuart was. Did Cindy explain and apologize? That is what
I think would be the appropriate way to end this.
Jen
--
Jennifer Sullivan jasu...@mit.edu
Graduate Student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Boston College Class of '94 *Go Eagles!*
Boston Crusaders Drum and Bugle Corps '94
MOORE
STUART RICE (sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu) wrote:
: >>>I couldn't, and that is all that matters for me. But out of curiosity,
: >>>anonymous stranger cursing you and telling you to take care of your
: >>>child? 1%? 10%?
: I take it that the silence over this issue means nobody on RAMD (including
: the operative word here).
:
:
: Stuart E. Rice
As a lurker on this particular discusting thread I had to speak up on this
one. I've read the original posts and all the following posts and it has
all been blown completely out of proportion. You mention an anonymous
stranger. GirlInToon is a regular poster of this newsgroup and had you been
truly worried about your daughter, if you have one, then instead of flaming
back and exacerbating the situation you should have taken the time to ask
other regular members what they know about GIT. Then if you were still
worried about her, and you felt that she was a threat a "concerned parent
would have called the authorities and reported her to everyone who would
listen. Your sanctimonious preaching and holier-then-thou attitude is not
productive to any discussion and to be quite honest, this newsgroup would
a much better place without you.
Sincerely,
Stephen F Moore
ps. No, I'm not threatening your life.
--
Stephen F Moore University of Nebraska at Omaha
E-mail = smo...@unomaha.edu Trombone/Euphonium
Internet = http://www.concentric.net/~moore93/drillwriters.html
Show Design & Drill Writing Private Lessons Performance
Ben Tibbals
Yes... I don't think I like you very much. No... I will not answer your
questions because you don't deserve my time. Thanks... Bye...
Ben Tibbals
STUART RICE
From: "B. Romig" <bro...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Re: Stuart vs. Cindy
On Fri, 10 May 1996, STUART RICE wrote:
> In article <1996051014...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> btib...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Tibbals) writes:
>
> >>In article <srice.3017...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> srice@alexandria.
> >>lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
> >>>>>The question is not whether you would have taken those comments to mean my
> >>>>>daughter was is danger. The question is: had you not known GirlInToon,
> >>>>>would you have taken those comments to mean *your* daughter *might* have
> >>>>>been in danger?
> >>
> >>>>>Can you say with 100% certainty that you would not have been concerned?
> >>
> >>>>>I couldn't, and that is all that matters for me. But out of curiosity,
> >>>>>let me ask you: how much doubt would you tolerate in the face of an
> >>>>>anonymous stranger cursing you and telling you to take care of your
> >>>>>child? 1%? 10%?
> >>
<snip>
> >>
> >>Stuart E. Rice
> >
<major snip (The McVeigh Aptitude Test)>
>Sorry for the length, but this has been brewing for awhile:
> Ok, ok, I just can't stay out of this any longer. Stuart, I understand
>completely that one values the safety/percieved safety of their children.
>I work with 6 wonderful two-year olds, and while not being their parents,
>I feel an incredible bond and protective feelings for them. I cannot
>claim to understand what being a parent is like at this point in my life,
>but I think I have a much better handle on what is involved than do many
>RAMDers. At any rate, wasn't Cindy's original comment something to the
>effect of:
>"Are you smoking crack? I can't belive you're doing that with a baby in
>the house."? This wasn't the exact wording, I don't believe but it is
>VERY close, and I'll consider it close enough for argument's sake.
NO. Absolutely not <repost>:
________________________________________________
In article <srice....@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> I write:
>From: sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE)
>Subject: Stuart vs. Cindy
>Date: 29 Apr 1996 19:37:16 GMT
>In article <4ltrqa$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon) writes:
>
>Stuart Rice writes:
>
>>>And that is the second time you have mentioned that I ought to be
>>>concerned about my daughter (the first time was sent via E-mail, again).
>>You'll post a reason for this right now, followed by an apology, or one of
>>us is history on this newsgroup.
>
>Cindy writes:
>
>>i will not apologize for you not being be able to handle a joke. this is
>>my personality...deal with it. those on here who know me, like me and
>>understand how i operate. here is a quick guide to understand me. if
>>someone is being stupe (or pid depending on the way you want to say it)
>>they are a "crack smoker" or a" crack baby" or someone who got a hold of
>>"some bad weed". so write that down for future reference. i hope i don't
>>make you "history" on this group over something as petty as this. as i
>>told you before (E-mailed to you) i am wishing the best for you and your
>>newborn so don't be so touchy. I AM NOT IMPLYING YOU ARE DRUG USER. . i am
>>sorry you plan on being "history" over this petty argument. rememeber
>>about taking everything with a grain of salt? well here is a big ol' can
>>of Mortons. oh...and i appreciate the threat of one of actually being
>>'History"...shows your maturity level. Later
>
>Let me explain something to you, Cindy. I don't worry about well-wishers
>who insult me. I worry about well-wishers who threaten me:
>
>From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
>Subject: Re: Top 4 Corps in 1996
>Date: 18 Apr 1996 23:39:26 -0400
>
>>you need to relax and enjoy...especially with a baby in the house.
>
>After reading this (and some of your other insulting remarks), my reaction
>was "this individual may be threatening my daughter." But I thought, "
>perhaps it just came out wrong," and with great uneasiness, I deleted it
>from my response and tried to ignore it.
>
>Then you posted this:
>
>From: girli...@aol.com (GirlInToon)
>Subject: Re: Stu-pidity
>Date: 26 Apr 1996 00:34:25 -0400
>
>>what the f**k does that mean....now are you smoking bad crack? you really
>>shouldn't do that with a baby in the house.
>
>This was the most tasteless comment I have ever seen on RAMD (
>congratulations. Fortunately, they aren't giving out gRAMDies for this),
>But this was the least of my concerns. I was by this point very disturbed
>about what seemed to me a very legitimate possibility that my daughter was
>in danger (or at least being threatened). I still can't think of one good
>reason why I should be involved in anything raising these type of concerns.
>
> Now, if you can give me a good reason why my involvement in RAMD
>and its carelessness should cause me to feel that my life or the life of
>my family may be in danger, I'll post and apology myself before deleting
>this newsgroup. Otherwise, I'm waiting.
>
>Stuart E. Rice
_______________________________________
My next question is, how is this a threat to your child?
Had you read the question to which you responded carefully (even not
carefully) you would not be asking this.
>Ok, maybe it
>was in incredibly poor taste. Perhaps it was rude, and implied something
>ugly about your commitment to your daughter's safety. But did it THREATEN
>your daughter? I don't think so. Cindy was not being threatening. Maybe
>slanderous, but not threatening.
You apparently are not in the habit of reading carefully. You'll excuse me
if I extend that courtesy to others.
> And to answer your questions, I would leave 0% doubt about feeling my
>children (my biological children in the future, or those that I care
>for) were in danger.
Well, I'm glad you don't take care of my child. I wouldn't want you waiting
until someone was pointing a gun to her head before you got a little
concerned.
>If I felt they indeed WERE in danger, I would do whatever I could in my
>power to protect them and make sure their well-being was preserved.
But unless you were 100% convinced, it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Is
this what you're telling me?
>But, at the same time, every off-hand comment about my abilities as a
>father can not be taken as a direct threat towards my children.
Then I would say you were a little oversensitive because NO comments about
my abilities as a father could be construed as a threat as far as I'm
concerned.
>I'm assuming there is no drug use in the Rice household, so
>there is no real danger for your daughter.
Well I'm flattered that you find me a capable enough parent that you believe
this.
>And Cindy implying that your "crack smoking" is putting your daughter in
>danger was simply an attempt to insult you, in very poor taste, I may add,
>but nonetheless, just an insult.
I'm not sure what's more insulting. Someone whose remarks can be confused
with threats to children or someone who is determined to assure me there is
no threat.
>You talked of using threats on babies to win arguments and aviod
>the issues, and I think this is exactly what YOU are guilty of.
A convenient argument for someone who doesn't understand the arguments in
the first place.
>If there was a threat, or even a REASONABLY precieved threat, then you have
>reason to expect an things to be cleared up and then an apology to be made.
Nice to hear you say that. Nice to hear someone here say that.
>But, Stuart, I'm just very, very unclear as to how you interpreted the
>above remarks to be anything but insulting, let alone a threat.
Re-read the original remarks and commentary above.
>She didn't
>say she was going to come over to your house and have your baby taken away
>since you like to smoke crack. She didn't say that you were going to kill
>your daughter because you lack self control. She said she couldn't
>believe you would smoke crack with your new baby in the house. The only
>danger she implied was that YOU would hurt your daughter. And since you
>don't, in fact, smoke crack, there IS NO DANGER!
I see. Well, again, I'm flattered that you have come to the conclusion that
I am not a threat to my daughter.
> Stuart, be insultd. Be upset. For God's sake, BE ANGRY! But I think
>you, myself, and all the other netizens of RAMD can rest assured that
>your daughter will be safe and sound under the care of her loving
>parents, with no threat from the evil Cindy.
> Bryan "Gizmit" Romig
This is not about the safety of my daughter. This is about the safety of
self-expression on RAMD.
Stuart E. Rice
____________________________________________
> So, Cindy, please realize that we do not live is some
>safe, comfortable little world where people should never see
>things are potentially dangerous.
>Barry York
I would like to thank Barry for his supportive remarks. For the sake of
focusing this argument, I would like to mention that Cindy's remarks, though
percieved by myself as dangerous, were a result of carelessness rather than
intent to harm. Although I don't think all remarks given carelessly are
necessarily void of real threat, I ask for an apology for the carelessness
anyway.
Stuart E. Rice
_______________________
From: D...@ukcc.uky.edu (atropos)
Subject: Re: Stuart vs. Cindy
Date: Fri, 10 May 96 14:45:55 EDT
In article <srice.3017...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>>>>The question is not whether you would have taken those comments to mean
>>>>my daughter was is danger. The question is: had you not known
>>>>GirlInToon, would you have taken those comments to mean *your* daughter *
>>>>might* have been in danger? Can you say with 100% certainty that you
>>>>would not have been concerned? I couldn't, and that is all that matters
>>>>for me. But out of curiosity, let me ask you: how much doubt would you
>>>>tolerate in the face of an anonymous stranger cursing you and telling
>>>>you to take care of your child? 1%? 10%?
>
>>>Get over it, Stu.
>
>>Answer the questions. Then I'll "get over it."
>
>Well, that's interesting. Stu left his post intact, but snipped
>ALL EXCEPT FOR ONE LINE of my reply, and didn't bother to acknowledge
>the fact that he did so.
I'll do better this time.
>I DID NOT WORRY ABOUT THE 'NET RELATED STALKING.
Congratulations. Does that make you an idiot, or just naive?
>And now for the part Stu will feel comfortable about quoting:
>
>Get over it.
>
>Di
Until you can answer those questions, Di, I'll do you the favor of assuming
you're just naive.
Stuart E. Rice
atropos
In article <srice.3040...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>
sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (STUART RICE) writes:
>my abilities as a father could be construed as a threat as far as I'm
>concerned.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>Answer the questions. Then I'll "get over it."
>>
>>Well, that's interesting. Stu left his post intact, but snipped
>>ALL EXCEPT FOR ONE LINE of my reply, and didn't bother to acknowledge
>>the fact that he did so.
>
>I'll do better this time.
>
>>I DID NOT WORRY ABOUT THE 'NET RELATED STALKING.
>
>Congratulations. Does that make you an idiot, or just naive?
>
>>And now for the part Stu will feel comfortable about quoting:
>>
>>Get over it.
>>
>>Di
>
>Until you can answer those questions, Di, I'll do you the favor of assuming
>you're just naive.
>
>Stuart E. Rice
>
Stu deleted the part where I answered his question in essay form as
he desired, and he snipped it and left only one sentence so he could
blast off a one-liner. I just wonder how many other times Stu has
done this to other people, and I now understand why so many people
think his arguing skills need help. Stu, if you can't handle it
when somebody blows your theories away, admit defeat. I've been
stalked in real life. I've been stalked in 'virtual' (newsgroup/
email) life. Virtual life IS NOT REAL LIFE. People bitch and
flame all the time. What Cindy said was tasteless, I agree with
that whole-heartedly. Accusing someone you don't know of doing
drugs is a sad way to conduct an argument. But you blew things
waaaaaaay out of proportion. Kinda like the Unabomber.
(JOKE...THAT WAS A JOKE...I'M NOT GOING TO BOMB YOUR HOUSE).
Well, time to get back to my 12-hour work/school day...wheeeee
>
di
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
STUART RICE
In article <4n2blu$2...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu> smo...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu (MOORE) writes:
>STUART RICE (sr...@alexandria.lib.utah.edu) wrote:
>: >>>I couldn't, and that is all that matters for me. But out of curiosity,
>: >>>let me ask you: how much doubt would you tolerate in the face of an
>: >>>anonymous stranger cursing you and telling you to take care of your
>: >>>child? 1%? 10%?
>:
>: I take it that the silence over this issue means nobody on RAMD (including
>: parents) has the guts to answer these questions honestly ("honestly" being
>: the operative word here).
>:
>:
>: Stuart E. Rice
>
>As a lurker on this particular discusting thread I had to speak up on this
>one.
Great. A lurker without the guts to answer the questions. Take a number.
>I've read the original posts and all the following posts and it has
>all been blown completely out of proportion. You mention an anonymous
>stranger. GirlInToon is a regular poster of this newsgroup
Read carefully now, Mr. Moore. GirlInToon was both anonymous and a stranger
to me at the time this started. Being a regular poster on RAMD does not
excuse you from being an idiot. Case in point.
>and had you been
>truly worried about your daughter, if you have one, then instead of flaming
>back and exacerbating the situation you should have taken the time to ask
>other regular members what they know about GIT.
1. You don't understand what a flame is.
2. You'll pardon me if I don't accept your interpretation of my perceptions.
>Then if you were still
>worried about her, and you felt that she was a threat a "concerned parent
>would have called the authorities and reported her to everyone who would
>listen.
Mm Hmm. So when you were a boy, did you call your mother everytime you
thought someone might be threatening you? Grade school must have been
traummatic for you.
>Your sanctimonious preaching and holier-then-thou attitude is not
>productive to any discussion
Preaching. I become concerned about something I percieve and I'm preaching.
>and to be quite honest, this newsgroup would a much better place without
>you.
Anyone care to second that.
>Sincerely,
>Stephen F Moore
>
>ps. No, I'm not threatening your life.
Well, then, you're missing out on all the fun of RAMD.
>Stephen F Moore
>Show Design & Drill Writing
I might have known someone making money this way would champion this idiotic
position. It must be a real threat to you to see people discussing the
issue of promoting the manners they need to use their brains. I suppose
it limits your opportunity to make a few bucks off their ignorance.
Stuart E. Rice
STUART RICE
In article <4n266n$g...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jasu...@athena.mit.edu (Jennifer A Sullivan) writes:
>I would not have taken Cindy's comment to be threatening. In fact, I read it
>when it was posted and it did not even occur to me that it would be a threat.
>Especially since the topic of the thread (as just about any topic on RAMD)
>was not something that one would think would come to violence.
People die for dumber reasons.
>So anyway, no I would not have been concerned.
Fair enough.
>On the other hand, Stuart was. Did Cindy explain and apologize? That is what
>I think would be the appropriate way to end this.
An expalantion was given, but no apology. And I agree.
>Jen
Stuart E. Rice
SCValumnus
I think this is a perfect example of a thread that should have been
relogated to e-mail rather than postings to the whole news group. I for
one have been following this for the same reasons that most people slow
down to rubberneck on the freeway. I would also be willing to bet that
most people have not responded because we have no idea what the argument
was caused by.
Of course I could be wrong....
STUART RICE
>>>>Answer the questions. Then I'll "get over it."
>>>
>>>Well, that's interesting. Stu left his post intact, but snipped
>>>ALL EXCEPT FOR ONE LINE of my reply, and didn't bother to acknowledge
>>>the fact that he did so.
>>
>>I'll do better this time.
>>
>>>I DID NOT WORRY ABOUT THE 'NET RELATED STALKING.
>>
>>Congratulations. Does that make you an idiot, or just naive?
>>
>>>And now for the part Stu will feel comfortable about quoting:
>>>
>>>Get over it.
>>>
>>>Di
>>
>>Until you can answer those questions, Di, I'll do you the favor of assuming
>>you're just naive.
>>
>>Stuart E. Rice
>>
>Okay, my only response this time is to laugh my ass off. Once again,
>Stu deleted the part where I answered his question in essay form as
>he desired, and he snipped it and left only one sentence so he could
>blast off a one-liner. I just wonder how many other times Stu has
>done this to other people, and I now understand why so many people
>think his arguing skills need help. Stu, if you can't handle it
>when somebody blows your theories away, admit defeat.
Just for fun this time, I'll not delete a single word of yours so I can see
how you blow away my "theory" of having been concerned for the life of my
daughter.
>I've been
>stalked in real life. I've been stalked in 'virtual' (newsgroup/
>email) life.
Very good. Now ask yourself, "might one have something to do with the
other?"
>Virtual life IS NOT REAL LIFE.
That must be a comforting belief for you. Ironic, given the evidence you
present.
>People bitch and
>flame all the time. What Cindy said was tasteless, I agree with
>that whole-heartedly. Accusing someone you don't know of doing
>drugs is a sad way to conduct an argument. But you blew things
>waaaaaaay out of proportion.
So what exactly would you like me to do about it? Apologize for my
perceptions? I've already done that. What next? Apologize for
parenthood? Or maybe you feel I should just keep such concerns to myself
and go along with the gag. "Gee, I'm sorry I felt threatened by your crude
remark. By all means, don't let my concerns about my daughter restrict your
freedom to make someone else feel threatened by your carelessness."
>Kinda like the Unabomber.
>(JOKE...THAT WAS A JOKE...I'M NOT GOING TO BOMB YOUR HOUSE).
Yes, its all so funny.
>Well, time to get back to my 12-hour work/school day...wheeeee
>>
>di
The Lord bless you and keep you.
Stuart E. Rice
BRomig
On Mon, 13 May 1996 13:50:32 GMT STUART RICE wrote:
<snips of various re-posted reposts>
>>Sorry for the length, but this has been brewing for awhile:
>> Ok, ok, I just can't stay out of this any longer. Stuart, I
understand
>>completely that one values the safety/percieved safety of their
children.
>>I work with 6 wonderful two-year olds, and while not being their
parents,
>>I feel an incredible bond and protective feelings for them. I cannot
>>claim to understand what being a parent is like at this point in my
life,
>>but I think I have a much better handle on what is involved than do many
>>RAMDers. At any rate, wasn't Cindy's original comment something to the
>>effect of:
>>"Are you smoking crack? I can't belive you're doing that with a baby in
>>the house."? This wasn't the exact wording, I don't believe but it is
>>VERY close, and I'll consider it close enough for argument's sake.
>NO. Absolutely not <repost>:
>In article <srice....@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> I write:
>>>Subject: Re: Stu-pidity
>>Date: 26 Apr 1996 00:34:25 -0400
>>
>>>what the f**k does that mean....now are you smoking bad crack? you
really
>>>shouldn't do that with a baby in the house.From: girli...@aol.com
(GirlInToon)
<snips>
I then wrote:
> My next question is, how is this a threat to your child?
And Stuart replied with:
>Had you read the question to which you responded carefully (even not
>carefully) you would not be asking this.
I read the question, Stuart. And I asked a question so YOU could answer
it. I already have my answer, and that is that there was no inherent
threat. Now YOU answer the question. I thought you were very against other
people who ignore questions and argue their points anyway. So, are you a
hypocrite? Answer the question so I can understand this great fear you
felt for you daughter. Tell me, please how you found the following to be
offensive:
>>>what the f**k does that mean....now are you smoking bad crack? you
really
>>>shouldn't do that with a baby in the house.From: girli...@aol.com
(GirlInToon)
And no avoiding the question this time or insulting my comprehension
abilities.
I wrote:
>>Ok, maybe it
>>was in incredibly poor taste. Perhaps it was rude, and implied something
>>ugly about your commitment to your daughter's safety. But did it
THREATEN
>>your daughter? I don't think so. Cindy was not being threatening. Maybe
>>slanderous, but not threatening.
And Stuart replied:
>You apparently are not in the habit of reading carefully. You'll excuse
me
>if I extend that courtesy to others
I read it. And everything I said still holds. Where is the threat?
And now, to answer some of YOUR questions:
I wrote:
>>If I felt [my children, or those in my care] indeed WERE in danger, I
would do >>whatever I could in my power to protect them and make sure
their well-being was >>preserved.
Stuart wrote:
>But unless you were 100% convinced, it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Is
>this what you're telling me?
Where did 100% convincing come from? I did NOT say, or imply, that. Is
there was a legitimate threat, or even a legitimate PERCIEVED threat, it
would be more than worth the trouble. But, Stuart, you have yet to show
HOW these comments by Cindy were threatening.
I wrote:
>>But, at the same time, every off-hand comment about my abilities as a
>>father can not be taken as a direct threat towards my children.
Stuart wrote:
>Then I would say you were a little oversensitive because NO comments
about
>my abilities as a father could be construed as a threat as far as I'm
>concerned.
So, now _I'M_ oversensitive? That's funny, Stuart!
Cindy was insulting YOU! She asked if YOU were smoking bad crack. she
didn't threaten your child. She wondered about why you would be smoking
crack with a child in the house. Face it, Stuart, you mis-read something
and are now trying to weasel your way out of it by turning words around on
people and not answering OUR questions. You took Cindy's comments as a
threat. But, have yet to show how, exactly, they were threatening.
I wrote:
>>I'm assuming there is no drug use in the Rice household, so
>>there is no real danger for your daughter.
Stuart responded:
>Well I'm flattered that you find me a capable enough parent that you
believe
>this.
Don't be flattered. It isn't a judgment of you, but rather an assumption
made by myself. I made this assumption because if you were, in fact,
smoking crack, this whole discussion would be moot.
I wrote:
>>And Cindy implying that your "crack smoking" is putting your daughter in
>>danger was simply an attempt to insult you, in very poor taste, I may
add,
>>but nonetheless, just an insult.
Stuart replied:
>I'm not sure what's more insulting. Someone whose remarks can be
confused
>with threats to children or someone who is determined to assure me there
is
>no threat.
Well, Stuart, sorry that my apparent ignorance is personally insulting to
you. But, once again, you have yet to show how Cindy's comments were
confused as threatening to children.
I wrote:
>>You talked of using threats on babies to win arguments and aviod
>>the issues, and I think this is exactly what YOU are guilty of.
Stuart wrote:
>A convenient argument for someone who doesn't understand the arguments in
>the first place.
I am not wrong when I say you are avoiding the issues. You have not
answered my most basic question: How was this all taken as a threat?
So please explain to me, oh Master of Argument (I honestly think of you as
this), exacly WHAT the argument IS. One minute it's about comments
misinterpreted as threats, now it's mysteriously something else. Make up
your mind, Stuart, what is this all about, exactly? A bruised ego? A
threat on your child? Your crack smoking? What?
I wrote:
>>If there was a threat, or even a REASONABLY precieved threat, then you
have
>>reason to expect an things to be cleared up and then an apology to be
made.
Stuart wrote:
>Nice to hear you say that. Nice to hear someone here say that.
I still believe this, but I do mean REASONABLE. Show me how you took it as
a threat, and I will apologize for my ignorance and and debating this
whole issue. I must be clind and completly missing something here. I WANT
to understand, however. But when you insult instead of discuss, it makes
things very difficult. I'm glad you have such passion in matters of your
daughter. But, emotion and logic are usually not interchangable. As Vince
wrote in his post about dealing with you, you must not allow emotion to
overtake the logic or your argument. I read this a long time ago, so if
those aren't Vince's exact words, I'm sorry. But, at any rate, it is a
valid point, and I think we (you, myself, the rest of RAMD) should try to
adhere to it.
I wrote:
>>But, Stuart, I'm just very, very unclear as to how you interpreted the
>>above remarks to be anything but insulting, let alone a threat.
Stuart wrote:
>Re-read the original remarks and commentary above.
Two things:
1) I HAVE re-read the original remarks and I am STILL unclear how you
interpreted them as threats
and
2) This debate is now about the COMMENTARY as well? When did this happen?
The original commentary is about the remarks she made. So, how could the
commentary be a concern if it hadn't been written yet? Nowhere in the
commentary do you explain how the coment is threatening; just that you
demand an apology and explanation.
Finally, I wrote:
>> Stuart, be insultd. Be upset. For God's sake, BE ANGRY! But I think
>>you, myself, and all the other netizens of RAMD can rest assured that
>>your daughter will be safe and sound under the care of her loving
>>parents, with no threat from the evil Cindy.
>> Bryan "Gizmit" Romig
And Stuart replied:
>This is not about the safety of my daughter. This is about the safety of
>self-expression on RAMD.
>Stuart E. Rice
So, all of the original comentary and all of the asking for an apologies
was simply to protect the integrity of the free speech on RAMD? I think
not. How is this suddenly about RAMD? I'm VERY confused by that last
statement. Are you trying to be a martyr? Are you throwing yourself in the
fire to save RAMD? Or are you using this as an example of how you should
watch what you say? I couldn't agree with my latter statement more: we
definitely SHOULD watch what we say and how we say it? But THIS IS NOT THE
ISSUE HERE! At least, it didn't start out being the issue. I challenge you
to point out exactly when this stopped being about your daughter and when
it started being about the free speech on RAMD.
<many more snips>
Until next time,
Bryan "Gizmit" Romig
Jordsterr
Stuart,
In another post I mentioned several examples of prominent composers mixing
in different genres. I did, however, neglect to mention the orchetsra
playing a minuet ON STAGE in Mozart's Don Giovanni. This is still much
discussed in music history classes.
Jordi Vilanova
Jordi Vilanova
94-96 Bluegrass Brass
87 Cadets
86 Star
Jordsterr
Rick Beckham writes:
>Just because drum corps is viewed as an art form doesn't mean it is a
free-for-all >for designer expression. We should have parameters that
define what corps >is/isnot. Otherwise let's kill the rules we have, time
limits, age limits, instrument
>limits, and see how long it lasts.
Yes, but why make the parameters so narrow? We all agree on some basics,
like that it should be on a field in a stadium. There should be winds and
percussion and an additional visual element. Keep it fair by not allowing
things that would give an unfair advantage like sampled instruments.
Those design parameters, to me, have no relation to age or time limits. I
have no trouble using ANY acoustic instrument. I even support electronic
amplification of some mallets and woodwind soloists. (Please don't flame
this, it's not worth arguing about to me)
>You'll know it's better if you see an area that needs improving.
Throwing >something new into the stew just to change things, not to
improve something,
>will change the stew into goulash.
But who's to say what needs improving? How big a deal was it to add arcs?
How difficult was it to get three valves? How controversial were George
Zingali's experiments? I remember hearing people (even friends) saying "I
don't want to think about it, I just want to watch it." These are all
subjective things, but I believe that they all eventually add up to make
this activity grow. Sure, it seems to be moving fast, but so is virtually
every art form in the world today. Just look at the world of pop. If
you're doing the same thing next year, you're out. Even "serious" music
is changing quickly.
Things that fail, fail. You don't see too many failed ideas in drum corps
used again.
Let's say that in 97, the Cadets decide to change all the color guard to
majorettes. I'm guessing that they would change back again in 98. They
tried something new last summer. Even under criticism by such respected
people as Stuart Rice, they still managed to be a huge hit with fans AND
place second in the world. So they're doing more of it this year. If in
1982, the Cadets had placed 26th instead of 7th, I doubt they would have
done what they did in 83. That's how designers decide where to try
improvements.
BRomig
So, I see that it has been over a week and Stuart has failed to answer any
of my questions. Am I to assume that your silence means that I am right,
Stuart? Or perhaps you have decided to "move on because there are more
important things to talk about," which, simply put, means, "I have no
chance of winning this argument so I'll now stop it and question it's
validity."
I really would like you to answer my questions and finish this discussion,
or are you walking away from my challenge? I really doubt that the latter
is true.
Bryan "Gizmit" Romig
BRomig
And now, via private e-mail, Stuart Rice has declined to answer any of MY
questions. He apparently feels he need not offer an explanation to others,
although he expected others to explain their action to him. This is
shallow, irresponsible, and very unlike the Stuart Rice that I know. So, I
guess this means he is admitting defeat. Glad to know you can admit you're
wrong, Stu. . .
Bryan "Gizmit" Romig