Best Dressed Band in the Land

by **EastStang** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:38 am

Sorry Tradition trumps numbers. With 96 our band was pretty much louder than just about any band out there including UT's Show Band of the SW. And when you get much above that number you need to add those wimpy instruments like triangles, clarinets, etc. The Aggies have what 400 members in their band, can you think of a more boring band?

by **couch 'em** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:50 am

When the band had 96 members the bands of UT et. al. were much smaller than they are now.

by **RGV Pony** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:52 am

EastStang wrote:Sorry Tradition trumps numbers. With 96 our band was pretty much louder than just about any band out there including UT's Show Band of the SW. And when you get much above that number you need to add those wimpy instruments like triangles, clarinets, etc. The Aggies have what 400 members in their band, can you think of a more boring band?

There's a picolo (sp?) there already.

by **couch 'em** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:52 am

Peruna37 wrote:
NavyCrimson wrote:
I really don't see why we couldn't return to "96 Guys & a Girl." either?

All male band!!! Why not???!!!

Title IX... Diamond Girl / DiamondM / DiamondM75, do you want to clarify?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Title IX has to do with sports, which the band doesn't qualify as in the eyes of the NCAA. The band cannot be all-male because it is considered an educational oppertunity, and the school would lose federal cash if it descriminated based on gender in education.

by **EastStang** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:56 am

Title IX goes to all areas of college life, if the college accepts any Federal money (including research grants).

by **couch 'em** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:57 am

Guess it is indeed title IX

by **Peruna37** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:58 am

couch 'em wrote:
Peruna37 wrote:
NavyCrimson wrote:
I really don't see why we couldn't return to "96 Guys & a Girl." either?

All male band!!! Why not???!!!

Title IX... Diamond Girl / DiamondM / DiamondM75, do you want to clarify?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Title IX has to do with sports, which the band doesn't qualify as in the eyes of the NCAA. The band cannot be all-male because it is considered an educational oppertunity, and the school would lose federal cash if it descriminated based on gender in education.

Could be right, but in the 80's when the band was still under control of the athletic department wouldn't Title IX have applied due to the source of scholarship funding?

Personally, I think an all male band would of been fun, but at times we needed the female influence to keep some of us calm... and out of jail.

by **Peruna37** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am

EastStang wrote:Title IX goes to all areas of college life, if the college accepts any Federal money (including research grants).

That answer works too.

by **DiamondM75** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:08 pm

Peruna37 wrote:Not if you know their lastname...

BIRDDOG! It is a Scottish name, not a way of life.

by **couch 'em** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:12 pm

DiamondM75 wrote:
Peruna37 wrote:Not if you know their lastname...

BIRDDOG! It is a Scottish name, not a way of life.

Scottish.... even the men wear skirts in scotland. How fitting.

by **DiamondM75** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:18 pm

couch 'em wrote:
DiamondM75 wrote:
Peruna37 wrote:Not if you know their lastname...

BIRDDOG! It is a Scottish name, not a way of life.

Scottish.... even the men wear skirts in scotland. How fitting.

And you like it, don't you?

by **Diamond Girl** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:20 pm

Title IX had a big influence on the band needing to admit women, in the 'Era of Men' band (beginning in '58). There were times before that when women were allowed, and times when they weren't (when the administration prohibited them because they would have to wear trousers). In '72, the first woman wanted to get into the band, but she wasn't allowed. If she had tried again in '73, she would have been allowed. Whether she'd have lasted is a different story.

Women should be allowed if they can carry their weight (in terms of their instruments, which I used to be able to do, and spirit, esprit de corps, etc.) They need to be able to play loud (which is difficult due to lung capacity and all) and talent would be a plus. I do agree with no woodwinds, other than saxes and a piccolo (that's tradition).

by **couch 'em** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:34 pm

Hopefully the new coach will get the team winning. Winning = more people wanting to be in the band = the ability to actually be selective in who they take

by **Bergermeister** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:37 pm

EastStang wrote: The Aggies have what 400 members in their band, can you think of a more boring band?

I really appreciate the military style and precision of the A&M band. They never repeat a show in a season. That takes a lot of work. They do, however, have quite a few "marchers" who carry - but do not play - instruments. But, I'll take the Mustang Band over any other band, any day.

by **NavyCrimson** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:41 pm

Whoops - you're right. It was a "Doll". And she really was!!! :wink:

Title IX has done more to destroy the quality of sports & education than anything outside our court system & tax code.

Any way, I just finished my donation in to the Diamond M Club. Thx for the heads up about it. Never heard of it till today.

Best Dressed Band in the Land

Who is online