[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fw: March definition

To: brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Fw: March definition
From: John Todd <john.todd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 18:23:13 +0100
Priority: low
References: <008a01bf061b$1d003620$2b5afea9@ronhg.castle.net.au> <270CF433BE1@RIP-STAFF1.UCRYSJ.AC.UK> <FFFFFFFF.243E99EB@xtra.co.nz>
Reply-to: brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Adrian J Raven wrote:

> > I've always understood that march contests were all about style and
> > technique - getting these right seems much more important to me than
> > whether or not timps are allowed, or getting bogged down in fuzzy and
> > ultimately meaningless concerns of definition.
>
> But this happens in the Antipodes where the rule book is far more important than
> any musical consideration. We don't have musicians running the band scene over
> here, so the old farts need something to hang their hat on. : )
>
> Cheers,
> Ade.

Do you think there are musicians running the movement over here ??? That's not the
case, our movement is run by adjudicators ;-)

<JT>


--

References:
- Fw: March definition
  - From: Ron Grice
- Re: Fw: March definition
  - From: David Lancaster
- Re: Fw: March definition
  - From: Adrian J Raven

Prev by Date: Marches + more twaddle
Next by Date: Cyberband 2000
Previous by thread: Re: Fw: March definition
Next by thread: Re: Fw: March definition
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread