2020 DCI Rules Proposals

2020 Drum Corps International Rules Change Proposals DCI Rules Change Process Overview.........................................................2 Brass Amplification Limitations.....................................................................5 Evaluation Structure Innovation...................................................................7 Guard Sheet Enhancement........................................................................ 11 Any Instrument Policy.................................................................................13 Allow For Live Sampling Created in Real Time..........................................15 Rules & Systems Task Force Voted On by the Membership......................18 Scoring System Update..............................................................................21 Sound Reinforcement Limits......................................................................25

13 DRUM CORPS INTERNATIONAL RULES CHANGE PROCESS OVERALL GUIDELINES The formalized Rules Proposal form, a sample of which can be found in this document, is the ONLY tool of choice for proposals to change the rules. The discussion of competitive rules and changes to those rules will occur every other year to create a one-year of change/learning and one-year of stability/mastery cycle. Consequently, every other year, a Rules Congress would convene. The DCI Membership approved an exception to hold a “Rules Congress” in 2019. It would include the Rules and Systems Task Force (RSTF) and its advisors, instructor representatives, judge liaisons, the Judge Administrator, the Artistic Director, and the Directors of the units. There would be a full instructor caucus, caption caucus, and representative voting occurring in caucus to advise directors on potential changes. New rules’ proposals would be submitted to the Artistic Director/RSTF by October 15th prior to Congress, using the RSTF to sort and edit the proposals. Some proposals will go directly to the Executive Director, who will forward appropriately to voting members because they do NOT require input from the instructional community. Typically and generally, the rules proposals that move forward through the RSTF will concern judging sheets, systems, personnel and judging systems. Other proposals will be returned to their authors for clarification or for additional material. And others will be passed to members of the judging community for advice on application and training, prior to the Rules Congress caucus discussions. The RSTF will assemble, publish, and distribute the proposals and any ancillary information in a timely fashion, allowing all potential attendees the ability to have discussion and thought on each proposal. In addition, there may be enrichment sessions offered at the Rules Congress, sponsored by the RSTF, featuring experts conversant in topics apropos our activity and time. In those years in which there is no Rules Congress, there may be opportunities for interdisciplinary meetings, which might combine judges and instructors interactively, or might be used to further judge training concurrently with the annual January Directors’ meetings. 1.1 Any instructional member or corps director of an active drum corps (must have competed in a DCI sanctioned show) the previous summer, or an active judge of DCI may submit a rules proposal on his/her own behalf or on behalf of another. 1.2 The sponsoring corps Director or the appropriate Judge Liaison, Judge Administrator, or the Artistic Director will sign the completed (and required) Rules Proposal Form.

14 1.3 Rules changes may be submitted and reviewed only in October prior to the Rules Congress, scheduled for every other year as stated above. Prior to an Instructor caucus vote, or recommendation to the Voting Members, the proposer may augment, change or modify the proposal, or allow modification from the floor. If after a vote, a proposal is defeated at the instructor caucus, that rule cannot be resubmitted for another two-year cycle. It cannot go to the Voting Members meeting without the approval of the instructor caucus. 1.4 Those rules change proposals – once passed by the Instructors’ Caucus and the Voting Members – which require field trials and judging system modifications or which have an impact on judging systems and judging application or rules shall be referred to the RSTF for discussion of trial and possible implementation. After any necessary trials, the proposal would then be voted upon by the RSTF. The Artistic Director or the Judge Administrator shall make a full report to the Executive Director at the conclusion of any such field trials. The Executive Director and/or the Artistic Director may request another vote by the voting membership of the Directors prior to implementation. The Timetable for a Rules Change 2.1 October 15 prior to the Rules Congress: This is the deadline for submitting Rules Change Proposals. The Artistic Director will receive ALL proposals, review them for completeness and prepare them for distribution to the RSTF members. Any proposals that are not directly related to judging, judging systems, systems, judging personnel, and judging philosophy move to the Executive Director. The Executive Director guides and directs those proposals as necessary. Incomplete proposals are returned to the author or signatory without any further review. 2.2 October 15: The Artistic Director, or at his direction, The Judge Administrator, will contact various DCI personnel for advice on financial impact, marketing, and the potential impact for promoters/sponsors of DCI events. 2.3 November 15: The RSTF discusses and submits, through the Artistic Director or the Judge Administrator, a written opinion of the various proposals (including a suggested implementation time line). The Executive Director receives the opinion of the RSTF and discusses the opinion with appropriate DCI personnel. 2.4 December 1: All complete proposals and attachments (pertinent to judging and systems) to be mailed, electronically delivered, or posted to the RSTF members by the Artistic Director or Judge Administrator for review. 2.5 December 8: The RSTF compiles opinions on the proposals for potential impact to the judges and judging system, logistics at shows and for sponsors, operational changes for the DCI office and a recommended time frame/implementation plan. Rules proposals may be rejected by the RSTF on the basis of insufficient data/research or lack of clarity/definition to the proposal or results of trials. 2.6 December 15: All reviewed proposals to be distributed to the judges, corps, directors and instructional staff members for their review, prior to the Rules Congress Process.

15 DCI RULES CONGRESS PROCESS 3.1 At the Rules Congress, the RSTF will be responsible for leading the discussion, debate, and voting in the caption caucus meetings prior to the advancement to the full instructor caucus. Each drum corps, in attendance, that competed in the previous summer’s DCI tour will have one vote per caption in the caucus meeting. 3.2 The RSTF will be responsible for leading the discussion, debate, and voting in the full instructor caucus. At this final meeting of the Congress a vote will be taken. Each DCI World Class member corps and each DCI Open Class Grand Finalist Corps may cast one vote. A simple majority of those qualified members present and voting is necessary in order that the proposal move to the Board of Directors. 3.3 At the Board of Directors meeting, the RSTF, through the Artistic Director and/or the Judge Administrator, under the direction of the Chair, will be responsible for leading the discussion, debate, and voting. Votes from the caption caucus meetings, the full instructor caucus, all attachments from DCI Committees, and final rule proposals will be available for the Board of Directors. 3.4 Those proposals receiving a favorable majority vote of the Board of Directors will be scheduled for implementation based upon the recommended time frame/process as previously determined by the Rules Committee. Once again, a rule is passed by a simple majority of those qualified members present and voting.

Proposal: Brass Amplification Limitations Submitted by: Michael Martin (The Cavaliers)



Proposal: Evaluation Structure Innovation Submitted by: Chris Komnick, Nick Monzi, Jason Robb (Madison Scouts)

Title of Proposed Change: Evaluation Structure Innovation Description: We propose to introduce new layers within the DCI evaluation and feedback system, so as to better maximize fan engagement, the dosage of information provided to corps and adjudicators, and the quality of adjudicator feedback. This proposal calls for a pilot test of the following evaluation structure, during the first four weeks of the 2020 DCI competitive season, running from June 19-July 18: ● All Monday-Tuesday shows: Groups receive an overall ranking based solely on fan voting*, conducted through the DCI website/app. Do not receive adjudicator feedback or scores. ● All Wednesday-Thursday shows: Groups receive an overall ranking based solely on fan voting*, conducted through the DCI website/app. Also receive adjudicator feedback from a full panel of judges. Do not receive recorded scores for the performance. ● All Friday-Sunday shows: Groups receive only adjudicator feedback and scores using the existing sheets. *Fan voting is conducted as a simple ranking system, with the option for special votes to select “best sections” or other unique categories. DCI can be creative with the special vote features, so as to diversify fan engagement from night to night. Following the pilot implementation of this system, corps leadership should be empowered to vote again to expand, retain, or eliminate the system. Purpose: We have identified a few key challenges created by the current adjudication system: ● Corps receive an overload of information, at varying levels of quality, from a very broad range of adjudicators. This sometimes leads to a substantial level of discrepancy in evaluation, particularly for mid and lower-ranked ensembles. ● Judges may receive over-exposure to ensembles, particularly when judging the same or multiple captions night after night. This sometimes leads to unoriginal feedback, and can create an environment in which it is difficult to diversify commentary and perspective. Additionally, the high volume of judged performances leads to highly predictable scoring within specific competitive ranges. ● Members often do not receive opportunities to “test” or perform show changes in an un-adjudicated setting. This can lead to unnecessary pressure and a detractive learning environment, particularly for less mature and less experienced performers. This can also create difficult choices for staff and designers, who may choose to act more or less conservatively on a given day, in order to preemptively work around potential competitive consequences.

● Fans, while attending DCI shows at record levels, often do not get an opportunity to directly provide feedback or engage in shows more holistically. While DCI externally prioritizes fan engagement, including on the current effect sheets, there are missed opportunities to deepen their level of engagement. In summary, the proposed change to the adjudication structure creates opportunities for all of these current conditions to be remedied, as detailed below. Educational Impact: Most critically, this proposal creates select opportunities for students to redirect the focus of their performance from an adjudication-first perspective to an audience-first perspective, with no strings attached. Likewise, it also creates opportunities for students to perform in front of judges without the pressure of a competitive score every single night. For the majority of ensembles that often have less mature or experienced members, this creates a tremendous learning opportunity. Regularly experiencing a full performance setting, without competitive implications, intrinsically creates the opportunity for performers to tackle performance challenges more aggressively. This theoretically prepares them more strongly and increases confidence for fully-judged performances. Given this adjusted emphasis at non-adjudicated shows, there may also be an opportunity to shift the performance order of these shows to create additional rehearsal time for ensembles that typically perform in earlier slots. Creative Impact: Creating space each week for the ensemble to perform in a non-adjudicated setting affords space for designers at all levels to test out ideas, without competitive consequence. As a result, it theoretically will be easier for less experienced ensembles to ease performers into creative changes across a range of shows, from non-adjudicated, to judge-observed, to fully evaluated. Fiscal Impact: For each competitive performance, DCI likely spends between $3,000-5,000 on adjudicators, including salary, travel, and lodging. There is the potential for up to 30% of adjudication costs to be slashed, by removing two days of judged performances each week throughout a full season. ​(Estimated amount?) Audience Impact: The proposal substantially increases audience engagement, particularly at local shows with generally more intimate performance environments. Fans at these shows will have the opportunity to directly participate in the process of ranking and rewarding ensembles, which creates myriad new opportunities for connecting fans with the on-field experience. Show Promoter Impact: Show promoters may be able to leverage fan voting as a tool to drive attendance at smaller local shows. This would likely be proven or disproven through the proposed pilot structure for the system.

Logistics Impact: There is limited logistical impact for shows, aside from the removal of judges at some locations. There could still need to be one DCI representative who manages the fan voting process. Additionally, there would need to be time invested into building a basic online infrastructure for conducting the fan voting. Judging Impact: This proposal would likely cut down on the number of judges required in the circuit, which could be perceived as a positive or negative depending on perspective. Judges who are active may also receive fewer overall reads of certain ensembles, which again could be a positive or negative depending upon how assignments are paced. Submitted By: Chris Komnick, Nick Monzi, Jason Robb Corps: Madison Scouts Signed: Signed:

Proposal: Color Guard Sheet Enhancement Submitted by: Denise Bonfiglio (The Cadets)

22 DRUM CORPS INTERNATIONAL RULES PROPOSAL FORM This form must be filled out thoroughly and succinctly. All critical information should be included to maximize the understanding of the rule and its consequences by all involved in the rule adoption process. This form should stand on its own as a summary of your proposal. Incomplete forms will be returned. If you wish to attach further supporting information, you may enclose attachments. TITLE OF PROPOSED CHANGE: Guard Sheet enhancement DESCRIPTION: Shift the guard sheet away from exclusive skills to a mix of skills and big picture PURPOSE: (Why make this change-what are the benefits?) DCI has a very small pool of judges that are expert at evaluating skills. Opening the sheet up to include big picture would make the sheet more accessible to a larger segment of the judging community. EDUCATIONAL IMPACT: (How does this benefit the students educationally?) Students would hear on judges voice recordings the integration of their contributions within the program along with recognition of what skills they are being asked to achieve. CREATIVE IMPACT: (How does this affect the creative aspects of the activity? How does this affect designers/instructors?) May force more integration of the guard into programs as it once was, however, will also value the range and variety of skills FISCAL IMPACT: (How does this financially affect individual corps and the DCI organization?) None AUDIENCE IMPACT: (How will this affect our audience and their perceptions of the activity?) Don't know SHOW PROMOTER IMPACT: (How will this affect the show promoters-financially and logistically as it relates to None contest production?) LOGISTICS IMPACT: (How will this impact the operations of the individual drum corps and the DCI organization?) None JUDGING IMPACT: (How does this impact the adjudication process and individual judge?) As the details are vetted out during discussion of this proposal, the impact will be clearer. Submitted by: Denise Bonfiglio Representing: The Cadets Corps: Address: Director's Signature Phone: Judge / Caption Head Signature E-Mail:

Proposal: Any Instrument Policy Submitted by: Kathy Black (DCI Board of Directors)

1 DRUM CORPS INTERNATIONAL RULES PROPOSAL FORM This form must be filled out thoroughly and succinctly. All critical information should be included to maximize the understanding of the rule and its consequences by all involved in the rule adoption process. This form should stand on its own as a summary of your proposal. Incomplete forms will be returned. If you wish to attach further supporting information, you may enclose attachments. TITLE OF PROPOSED CHANGE: Any Instrument Policy DESCRIPTION: Allow use of any instrument, including woodwinds, acoustic strings, etc., effective for the 2021 season. PURPOSE: (Why make this change-what are the benefits?) Opening the drum corps activity to young musicians currently excluded is consistent with the DCI mission to bring the life-enriching benefits and enjoyment of marching music performing arts to more people worldwide. DCI and individual corps could leverage revenue opportunities presented by an entirely new target audience of performers, family, and friends. EDUCATIONAL IMPACT: (How does this benefit the students educationally?) The benefits of the drum corps experience would be made available to thousands of young performers currently excluded. CREATIVE IMPACT: (How does this affect the creative aspects of the activity? How does this affect designers/instructors?) New instrumentation would be available to designers. Whether additional designers/instructors would be needed depends upon individual corps decisions to incorporate new instruments. FISCAL IMPACT: (How does this financially affect individual corps and the DCI organization?) DCI and the corps will be able to leverage additional revenue opportunities through marketing to a new target audience of performers, families, and friends. Additional expenses will be minimal for DCI and additional expenses for individual corps will depend upon instrumentation decisions. AUDIENCE IMPACT: (How will this affect our audience and their perceptions of the activity?) DCI anticipates audience growth as new classes of performers become DCI fans, however anecdotal information suggests a subset of the current audience will react negatively. Creative use of new instruments in 2021 should help blunt objections and increase acceptance, paving the way for consideration of expanded use in future years, including the possibility of increasing corps sizes. SHOW PROMOTER IMPACT: (How will this affect the show promoters-financially and logistically as it relates to contest production?) Little to no impact; no expected change in the number or size of vehicles. LOGISTICS IMPACT: (How will this impact the operations of the individual drum corps and the DCI organization?) Individual corps will make decisions on instrument acquisition, maintenance, and instruction. DCI operations should experience little to no impact. JUDGING IMPACT: (How does this impact the adjudication process and individual judge?) New instrumentation will initially be treated in the same manner as other non-traditional instruments (e.g., electric violins). Should corps decide to widely adopt a new class of instruments, such as woodwinds, additional changes to the adjudication process could be considered in future years. Representing: Corps: Submitted by: Kathy Black, Chair, DCI Board of Directors Director's Signature E- Judge / Caption Head Signature

Proposal: Allow for Live Sampling Created in Real Time Submitted by: Matt Jordan, Jon Vanderkolff (Bluecoats)

22 DRUM CORPS INTERNATIONAL RULES PROPOSAL FORM This form must be filled out thoroughly and succinctly. All critical information should be included to maximize the understanding of the rule and its consequences by all involved in the rule adoption process. This form should stand on its own as a summary of your proposal. Incomplete forms will be returned. If you wish to attach further supporting information, you may enclose attachments. TITLE OF PROPOSED CHANGE: Allow for live sampling created in real time. DESCRIPTION: Allow rhythmic effects (such as delay) and live looping to be used on the field. PURPOSE: (Why make this change-what are the benefits?) See attachment. EDUCATIONAL IMPACT: (How does this benefit the students educationally?) See attachment. CREATIVE IMPACT: (How does this affect the creative aspects of the activity? How does this affect designers/instructors?) See attachment. FISCAL IMPACT: (How does this financially affect individual corps and the DCI organization?) See attachment. AUDIENCE IMPACT: (How will this affect our audience and their perceptions of the activity?) See attachment. SHOW PROMOTER IMPACT: (How will this affect the show promoters-financially and logistically as it relates to contest production?) See attachment. LOGISTICS IMPACT: (How will this impact the operations of the individual drum corps and the DCI organization?) See attachment. JUDGING IMPACT: (How does this impact the adjudication process and individual judge?) See attachment. Representing: Corps: Bluecoats Submitted by: Matt Jordan, Jon Vanderkolff, et al Address: Director's Signature Phone: Judge / Caption Head Signature E-Mail:

proposals 2020 Matt Jordan Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:35 PM To: Mike Scott Cc: Corps Design Team Here’s the electronics proposal- Proposal - Allow rhythmic effects (such as delay) and live looping to be used on the field. PURPOSE: (Why make this change-what are the benefits?) Currently, the electronics rule does not allow for two effects/techniques that are commonly used by professional musicians— delay effects and live looping. Both are techniques that create rhythmic intent, but are created live by the performer. Currently, the way around this rule is to sample parts on a note by note basis and have a separate performer trigger these parts on a note by note basis. If our goal is to train performers to have a future in music performance, using these techniques the “right way” makes more sense than needing to find loopholes to get the same musical effects. Some corps have actually used delay before, such as Cadets in 2018, but technically based on the current rule that isn’t allowed. To be clear, this will NOT make pre-recorded or sequenced music legal. This only allows for performers to use delay effects and live looping on instruments being played in real time. EDUCATIONAL IMPACT: (How does this benefit the students educationally?) If our goal is to train students on the techniques and practices of the “real world”, then using delay effects and live looping are educating our students more accurately than the current time consuming system of having an electronics designer “approximate” those effects. CREATIVE IMPACT:(How does this affect the creative aspects of the activity? How does this affect designers/instructors?) This will allow designers to more easily/effectively use these types of effects. It also will offer some additional variety to the instruction needed to help students master the techniques of the new technology. FISCAL IMPACT: (How does this financially affect individual corps and the DCI organization?) None (current audio equipment used by a large majority of the world and open class corps are already capable of all the above mentioned techniques) AUDIENCE IMPACT: (How will this affect our audience and their perceptions of the activity?) Since many groups are already simulating these techniques through workarounds, there should not be a significant difference for the audience. SHOW PROMOTER IMPACT: (How will this affect the show promoters-financially and logistically as it relates to contest production?) None LOGISTICS IMPACT: (How will this impact the operations of the individual drum corps and the DCI organization?) None JUDGING IMPACT: (How does this impact the adjudication process and individual judge?) This really doesn’t significantly change the judging element, because all sounds will still be created in real time—it’s just the method being used that is changing. There will still not be sequenced music. Matt Jordan, DM

Proposal: Rules and Systems Task Force Voted On by the Membership Submitted by: Lindsey Vento (The Academy)



DESCRIPTION: The Rules and Systems Task Force will be voted on by the membership, every three years (in accordance with the current rule notated in 3.2.2 of the Rules Manual). Nominations will come from the membership and then voted on by the membership. The Artistic Director and the Judges Administrator are de facto chair people of the RSTF,even in this new proposal. PURPOSE: (Why make this change-what are the beneifts?) The Rules and Systems Task Force, whose main goal and purpose is to evaluate and implement current rules and systems in place and also spearhead new items, whether .brought forward to them or comprised within themselves, should be a body of people voted on by the membership/voting membership, instead of appointed . This gives the membership a full voice on he how and what of the RSTF, who really speak for the benefit of the whole. This also potentially allows an opportunity for representation all through the world class units (via the Policy manual, an Open Class representative is already supposed to be serving on the RSTF),which can shed more light and insight on potential pros and cons to whatever rules and systems being evaluated and implemented . This change doesn't mandate a broader representative base but it offers the opportunity for that to the result. EDUCATIONAL IMPACT: Anything we can do to potentially spread the voice and representation across more organizations, allowing feedback and discussion to occur with various backgrounds and differing organizational makeups, can only benefit the students/members . By taking all situations and organizational makeups and obstacles into consideration when making rules and systems changes, a more well rounded and informed decision can be made . CREATIVE IMPACT : This proposal has less creative impact, but again, a more well represented TF can only allow more informed decisions and efforts .

Proposal: Scoring System Update Submitted by: Marie Czapinski (DCI Adjudicator)

DRUM CORPS INT ERNATIONAL - RULES PROPOSAL FORM TITLE OF PROPOSED CHANGE: SCORING SYSTEM UPDATE DESCRIPTION: Adjust the scoring system to include these judges, all in the stands: 1 Overall GEJudge (music background) 1 Overall GEJudge (visual background) 1 Visual Ensemble Judge (visual design background) 1 Visual Ensemble Judge (color guard background) 1 Music Ensemble Judge (percussion background) 1 Music Ensemble Judge (brass background) Eachsheet will use two boxes 10 + 10 just as they do now, and the system will calculate final scores based on the following: GEJudge 1 20 points= 20% of total score GEJudge 2 20 points= 20% of total score Visual Ensemble 15 points= 15% of total score Visual Ensemble 15 points= 15% of total score Music Ensemble 15 points= 15% oftotal score Music Ensemble 15 points= 15% of total score Scoresheets, criteria and philosophy already exist for these captions, so there is no need to re-create a system, j ust update it and put it into play. The Music Ensemble sheets would be identical, and the Visual Ensemble sheets would be ident ical, with emphasis provided by the background of the judge . This follows the same philosophy as the General Effect caption. When t he current system was devised, the speed and velocity of movement on the field was considerably less and more predictable. There were f ew props, if any. We have adjusted through the past decade as designers became more creative, however, we have now moved to a level of presenting through the inte rdisciplinary arts that is setting new standards for outdoor production and the evaluatio n system should be updated to properly reward the effo rts bei ng presented. For special awards at DCI Championship events, the scores will be averaged over the 3 days just like the current system. The Ensemble Percussion Judge's score would be used for the Fred Sanford Award; the Ensemble Color Guard Judge's score wou ld be used for the George Zingali Award; the Visual Ensemble Judge's score would be used for the John Brazale Award and the Ensemble BrassJudge's score would be used for the Jim Ott Award. The Don Angelica Overall GEAward would remain the same as it is now.

As the color guard sheet is under philosophy review yet again, including how the guard is utilized as part of the \"whole\" combined with skills, substance and precision rather than just a skill-based sheet is appropriate. That is the way the sheet was intended to be used when it was originally introduced. PURPOSE: Based on the innovative methods both visually and musically being utilized by modern drum corps, this system will provide up-to-date evaluation of the shows being produced, provide safety for the judges and the performers and evaluate the types of exposures presented in today 's shows. The music ensemble judges would consider their caption criteria AND be aware of ensemble cohesiveness between brass, battery, pit and electronics. The visual ensemble judges would consider their caption criteria AND be aware of ensemble cohesiveness between brass, battery, pit, electronics and color guard. 50% of each sheet is still performer reward. EDUCATIONAL IMPACT: The students will benefit from being judged on modern criteria, especially in the areas of the use of electronics; movement and staging concepts; audio visual coordination techniques, stage sets and the like. And of course, their maximum achievement of simultaneous responsibilities (they continue to amaze). CREATIVE IMPACT: Designers will have the freedom to utilize the stage area without concern as to location of judging personnel on the field. Also, without concern as to perceived mandatory staging of various sections of the corps so they are \"seen\" and \"heard\" . The achievement of the performers can be seen and heard from the stands. This system wil l still reward the individual efforts ofthe performers even though the judges are not on the field, as they cannot reach maximum achievement unless skills are mastered as they always have been. It is just a different viewing point. The designers have pushed the state-of-the- art and this system can reward accordingly. FISCALIMPACT: Decrease from 8 judges to 6. Significant savings in travel expenses and judging fees. AUDIENCE IMPACT: Audiences are distracted by the judges on the field, or even across the front as revised last year. believe the audiences will embrace this new system. DCIis not marching band and it is not an indoor activity. Accommodations must be made for our stage and environment and I am certain the audience will understand and welcome this new system. They have accepted the new approach to show produc tion presented by the corps, and this system follows that growth. SHOW PROMOTER IMPACT: All judges in the stands. LOGISTICS IMPACT: The judges off the field and off the track offers more safety as judges are not tripping on props and guard equipme nt; interfering with the pit; runni ng into cameras and/or photographe rs; tripping over wires; and music judges trying to avoid the speakers so they can hear properly.



Proposal: Sound Reinforcement Limits Submitted by: Steve Vento (The Academy)



SOUND REINFORCEMENT PROPOSAL 2020 First of all, I have attached an OSHA regulated form of what typical dBA 's are and what is allowed in the workplace. Howloud is too loud? Typical Sound Levels (dBA) 140 - Threshold of Pain 130 - Jet Takinq Off (200 ft . owo4) 120 - Operotinq HeaY4 Equipment 110 - Niqht Club (w/ musio) 100 - Construction Site 90 - Boiler Room 80 - Freiqht Train (100 ft . owo4) 70 - Classroom Chatter SO- Conversation (3 ft . away) 50 - Urban Residence 40 - Soft Whisper (5 ft . ow04) 30 - North Rimof Grand Cam~on 20 - Silent Stud4 Room 10 0 - Threshold of Heorinq (1000 Hz) A wide variety of noise sources may exist in the workplace. The NJOSH Sound Level Meter App is a tool to measure sound levels in the workplace and provide noise exposure parameters to help reduce occupational noise-induced bearing loss. A more detail ed explanation of common terms , good program clements , and implementation steps can be found in NIOSH Document: Preventing Occupational Hearing Loss - A Practical Guide. Publication No. 96- 110, (October 1996). Noise is measured in units of sound pre ssure levels called decibels, named after Alexander Graham Bell, using A-weighted sound levels (d.BA). The A-weighted sound levels closely match the perception of loudness by the human ear. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale which means that a sma ll change in the number of decibels results in a huge change in the amount of noise and the potentia l damage to a person's bearing.

OSHA sets legal limits on noise exposure in the workplace. These limits are based on a worker's time weighted average over an 8 hour day. With noise, OSHA's permissible exposure limit (PEL) is 90 dBA for all workers for an 8 hour day. The OSHA standard uses a 5 dBA exchange rate. This means that when the noise level is increased by 5 dBA , the amount of time a person can be exposed to a certain noise level to receive the same dose is cut in half, so 95 dBA = 4 hours of exposure 100 dBA = 2 hours of exposure 105 dBA = 1 hour of exposure 110 dBA = 30 min of exposure 115 dBA = 15 min of exposure 120 dBA = 7.5 min of exposure 125 dBA = 3.75 min of exposure The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended that all worker exposures to noise should be controlled below a level equivalent to 85 dBA for eight hours to minimize occupational noise induced hearing loss. NIOSH has found that significant noise-induced hearing loss occurs at the exposure level s equivalent to the OSHA PEL based on updated information obtained from literature reviews. NIOSH also recommends a 3 dBA exchange rate so that every increase by 3 dBA doubles the amount of the noise and halves the recommended amount of exposure time, so 88 dBA = 4 hours of exposure 91 dBA = 2 hours of exposure 94 dBA = 1 hour of exposure 97 dBA = 30 min of exposure 100 dBA = 15 min of exposure 103 dBA = 7.5 min of exposure 106 dBA =3.75 min of exposure 109 dBA = 1.875 min of exposure 112 dBA = 56 seconds of exposure 115 dBA = 28 seconds of exposure I 18 dBA = 14 seconds of exposure 121 dBA = 7 seconds of exposure 124 dBA = 3.5 seconds of exposure Here's an example: OSHA allows 8 hours of exposure to 90 dBA but only 2 hours of exposure to 100 dBA sound levels. NIOSH would recommend limiting the 8 hour exposure to less than 85 dBA. At JOOd.BA, NIOSH recommends less than 15 minutes of exposure per day. In 1981, OSHA implemented new requirements to protect all workers in general industry (e.g. the manufacturing and the service sectors) for employers to implement a Hearing Conservation Program where workers are exposed to a time weighted average noise level of 85 dBA or higher over an 8 hour work shift. Hearing Conservation Programs

require employe rs to measure noise levels, provide free annua l bearing exams and free bearing protectio n, provide training, and conduct evaluations of the adequacy of the hearing protecto rs in use un less changes to tools, equipment and schedules are made so that they are less noisy and worker exposure to noise is less than the 85 dBA. What I am proposing is limiting the levels of dBA 's of sound reinforcement in activity of DCI. Sound reinforcement is limited to 95-105 decibels in large venues. With front sideline seating of 15,000 or more from goal line to goal line. (Wh ich consists of college and pro stadiums) Nothing more. Sound reinforcing is limited to Smaller venues 85 to 95 decibels in all other venues from goal line to goal line (which consist of typ ical HS stadiums) . Nothing more . How can we do this? Easily - save a show file for large stad iums and one for small stadiums. Most of us do a live mix with radio/phone communication or use an iPad for live mix. This will ensure a more enjoyable exper ience to the fan . This will also ensure a better listening environment under the statutes of Health and Wellness . There is no need to go over 110 decibels . I have included anothe r site from link from Miracle-Ear. https://www.m iracle-ear.com/ blog-n ews/what-is-loud-decibe l-chart How can we ensure everyone plays under the same rules . Th is responsibility would fall under the chief judge , tim ing and penalty 's and/or the contest manager. Preferab ly 1 person on the ground and 1 person in the box by the MA/GE adjudicators .

Suggestions: From beginning of the season until July 4th, no penalties are enforced . This will give corps ample opportunities to make sure their sound reinforcement falls within the guidelines. From July 5th to world championships penalties are enforced. 1st offense - warning with a detailed explanation of when and where the violation occurred. 2nd offense - .1 penalty for each violation with a detailed explanation of when and where the violation occurred. But if during the live sound mix the sound engineer controlling the ipad or radio can control the levels of dBA 's to an acceptable level , then no penalty would be assessed at that show . 3rd offense - .3 penalty for each violation with a detailed explanation of when and where the violation occurred . Continued offenses .5 penalty per each violation , with a detailed explanation of when and where the violation occurred . Quarterfinals , semifinals , finals- any violation is .5 penalty per offense. If multiple offenses occur on the same night during the same performance the maximum penalty would be 1.5 points . WHY? A safer experience for staff on a daily basis when rehearsing the ensemble in various venues. A more enjoyable experience to the fan and adjudication panel at contests. A safer experience for fans and adjudicators at shows (in all venues). Being considerate to everyone on what is acceptable volume levels and what is not acceptable volume levels .

Setting a standard in the activity of health and wellness for auditory solutions. Creating an example to all marching bands that louder isn't better and teaching them what is acceptable in live performance in regards to sound reinforcement. Creating an example of what is acceptable in live performance in regards to sound reinforcement to other marching band organizations such as BOA , UIL and a host of others. Where do we go from here? A conversation ... . How do we want to tackle the acceptable levels of sound reinforcement in regards to safety of staff, fans , members , and adjudicators? Or is it just simply- moving the MA/GE judges to the 200 's section instead of the 400's section in Indy or just finding a closer place for the MA/GE judges in all large stadiums so WE (drum corps music designers) don 't feel it necessary to go over a certain decibel level in larger stadiums in order for the same effect to occur in smaller stadiums. All the above are just suggestions that I bounced off many people in many areas of the activity such as arrangers , electronic designers, sound engineers, staff , and judges. In closing , I just want to have a conversation with everyone and decide as a unified group if this is something worth working towards. To possibly set parameters for everyone so when the fans purchase tickets in the \"Blast Zone\" it's not damaging to them. I have been in the activity since 1989, and I lived through 2 valves, to 3 valves , to amplification so we can hear the front ensemble , to electronic enhancement. And I truly LOVE the direction the activity is heading , I

just want to make the fan has the best experience possible in every venue and to create a more safe listening environment to all that attend these shows. Thank you , Steve Vento Brass Arranger and music designer for The Academy .