The Band is banned - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Band is banned (/thread-13192.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Band is banned (/thread-13192.html)
Re: The Band is banned - CTcard - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 02:55 PM)CornFed link Wrote:I'm not really familiar w/ the structure of oversight of the Band in recent years. I presume it has departed quite substantially from the "old" days when Arthur P. Barnes had that responsibility. Without consideration of the difficulty of finding someone who could measure up to Maestro Barnes, is that not a structure to which we might return? Granted, if whoever assumed that oversight role was a bureaucratic potato head, it wouldn't improve the situation. But perhaps the basis of a potential compromise would be if the two sides of the discussion could agree upon a person to fill that position.
I haven't really chimed in on the band threads so far because I have been trying to figure out what I think. But, this seems like a place I can contribute and start working through my own thoughts.
I am a former band member, from the mid-80s. Like all of us, I know best what was going on while I was there and some years on either side. I don't have a clear understanding as to what has been happening lately and don't know what were these mysterious violations in 2011-12 that seem to be the root of the current blow-up.
Arthur P. Barnes was a remarkable guy in a very laid-back, let-it-be kind of way. Dr. Barnes was the Director of the LSJUMB, but he didn't "run" the band. It was a student run organization, and the students developed the shows, cared for instruments and uniforms, scheduled appearances, managed travel, handled auditions, managed at least most of the funding, etc. Dr. Barnes would do some conducting and some musical arranging, would teach drum majors to conduct, and would mentor several students in arranging music. He'd also run interference with administrators when necessary, which was pretty often.
Now, in the letter to the band, Greg Boardman claims he wants to go back to that model, apparently not actually knowing what that model was,
Quote:During Winter Quarter, I will charge a committee, jointly convened by Student Affairs and Athletics, to develop a reconstituted Band governance model to replace the current student-managed structure. In particular, the reconstituted governance model will include a professional Music Director with significant control over Band membership and operations. A model of this sort was in place for more than 30 years, without stifling the Bands unique character, under the direction of Art Barnes. Our goal will be to recreate a model in which there is collaborative leadership between the Music Director and Band membership, but importantly, in which the Music Director retains final control.Â
I can't quite figure out how much that passage heartens me or appalls me.
On the one hand, I do think that was a fairly good mode of operation for the band. There was just enough adult supervision to keep things from getting completely out of control and little enough supervision that the band could develop as they would and do things that official employees cannot quite countenance. If they could really find an Arthur P. Barnes II, I think that would be great.
On the other hand, this doesn't really read to me as if Mr. Boardman actually has any interest in an Arthur P. Barnes II. It seems more a flimsy cover story for wanting something very different, for wanting control. I also wonder who they could hire. Being the Director of the LSJUMB does not seem like a full time job. For Dr. Barnes, it was something he did on the side of his real job as a Professor in the Music Department. My guess is that any current professors would run screaming away from this task. If they do hire somebody full time, somebody will have to figure out what to do with all that time - which generically seems to be the source of an awful lot of administrative overreach.
Finally, I wonder what happened to the last director. Back around 2000 or so the band raised a bunch of money to endow a Director of Bands position. Somebody was in the position at least for awhile. Does anybody here know what happened to him, or what happened to this endowment money?
Re: The Band is banned - Spiny_Norman - 12-12-2016
Hmm. Look what I found - an open position for a full time LSJUMB Music and Operations Director.Â
https://stanford.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?job=72022
It appears to be current. I don't see anything that would imply a heavy-handed attempt to effect an unfriendly takeover of LSJUMB. There is an expectation that the director will "work closely with Student Affairs on many aspects of band management, including coordinating the strategic planning and development of the LSJUMB." But that seems reasonable based on recent events. Let the full time director deal with managing up the chain of administrative bureaucracy rather than expect the students to do so. On the other hand, we should pay close attention if Stanford hires Dolores Umbridge for the position.
Re: The Band is banned - Spiny_Norman - 12-12-2016
Hmm. Look what I found - an open position for a full time LSJUMB Music and Operations Director.Â
https://stanford.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?job=72022
It appears to be current. I don't see anything that would imply a heavy-handed attempt to effect an unfriendly takeover of LSJUMB. There is an expectation that the director will "work closely with Student Affairs on many aspects of band management, including coordinating the strategic planning and development of the LSJUMB." But that seems reasonable based on recent events. Let the full time director deal with managing up the chain of administrative bureaucracy rather than expect the students to do so. On the other hand, we should pay close attention if Stanford hires Dolores Umbridge for the position.
Re: The Band is banned - 82lsju - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 04:57 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Hmm. Look what I found - an open position for a full time LSJUMB Music and Operations Director.Â
https://stanford.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?job=72022
It appears to be current.
and it appears to have been posted on 04 Aug 2016
LSJUMB Music and Operations Director-Full-time
Athletics
Job Posting:08/04/2016 - Requisition ID 72022
Re: The Band is banned - 82lsju - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 04:57 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Hmm. Look what I found - an open position for a full time LSJUMB Music and Operations Director.Â
https://stanford.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?job=72022
It appears to be current.
and it appears to have been posted on 04 Aug 2016
LSJUMB Music and Operations Director-Full-time
Athletics
Job Posting:08/04/2016 - Requisition ID 72022
Re: The Band is banned - 76lsjumb - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 04:57 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Hmm. Look what I found - an open position for a full time LSJUMB Music and Operations Director.Â
https://stanford.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?job=72022
It appears to be current. I don't see anything that would imply a heavy-handed attempt to effect an unfriendly takeover of LSJUMB. There is an expectation that the director will "work closely with Student Affairs on many aspects of band management, including coordinating the strategic planning and development of the LSJUMB." But that seems reasonable based on recent events. Let the full time director deal with managing up the chain of administrative bureaucracy rather than expect the students to do so. On the other hand, we should pay close attention if Stanford hires Dolores Umbridge for the position.
It is, indeed, current. The Band [and Stanford Band Alumni board] have been working quite hard for several months on the effort to get a new Director in place. And, to respond to an earlier post, the prior director -- Giancarlo Acquilanti -- stepped down effective September 1 to go back to concentrating on his other Music Department responsibilities. Also, there remains a very strong endowment available to the Band...assuming, of course, there is a Band.
In a perfect world, the big news in a few weeks might have been [and, who knows, might still be] the hiring of an awesome new director to move the Band forward to even bigger and better things. Alas, this isn't a perfect world...
Still, I remain hopeful that "Come Join the Band" is not inexorably morphing into "Come Join the Banned."
Re: The Band is banned - 76lsjumb - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 04:57 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Hmm. Look what I found - an open position for a full time LSJUMB Music and Operations Director.Â
https://stanford.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?job=72022
It appears to be current. I don't see anything that would imply a heavy-handed attempt to effect an unfriendly takeover of LSJUMB. There is an expectation that the director will "work closely with Student Affairs on many aspects of band management, including coordinating the strategic planning and development of the LSJUMB." But that seems reasonable based on recent events. Let the full time director deal with managing up the chain of administrative bureaucracy rather than expect the students to do so. On the other hand, we should pay close attention if Stanford hires Dolores Umbridge for the position.
It is, indeed, current. The Band [and Stanford Band Alumni board] have been working quite hard for several months on the effort to get a new Director in place. And, to respond to an earlier post, the prior director -- Giancarlo Acquilanti -- stepped down effective September 1 to go back to concentrating on his other Music Department responsibilities. Also, there remains a very strong endowment available to the Band...assuming, of course, there is a Band.
In a perfect world, the big news in a few weeks might have been [and, who knows, might still be] the hiring of an awesome new director to move the Band forward to even bigger and better things. Alas, this isn't a perfect world...
Still, I remain hopeful that "Come Join the Band" is not inexorably morphing into "Come Join the Banned."
Re: The Band is banned - JJJ - 12-12-2016
What we really need is a band alum to fill the position. I remember jokingly suggesting Robbie fill this slot. Now I'm not joking... ROBBIE? Any other alumni? Who needs something to keep themselves busy in their golden years? 8)
*Late add: I distinctly remember a thread about this position earlier in the year, but I can't seem to locate it.
Re: The Band is banned - JJJ - 12-12-2016
What we really need is a band alum to fill the position. I remember jokingly suggesting Robbie fill this slot. Now I'm not joking... ROBBIE? Any other alumni? Who needs something to keep themselves busy in their golden years? 8)
*Late add: I distinctly remember a thread about this position earlier in the year, but I can't seem to locate it.
Re: The Band is banned - TrumpCard - 12-12-2016
In my humble opinion, hiring a new director is not the problem. I'm most concerned about the decision to disband the LSJUMB for 6 months. The clear purpose of that edict is to attempt to reconstitute the band as a different institution with different people.Â
The problem will be reconstituting after such a long hiatus. It's not as simple as just having a bunch of people show up at the first game of the season. The LSJUMB needs to rehearse over the course of the next 6 months or it won't sound very good when it reconstitutes. Also, the current members need to recruit reinforcements every Spring or the numbers will be thin in the Fall, which makes for much less audible performances. Whereas the football-game-attending alumni are concerned about the quality of the musical performance, and those people may think that the administration is finally doing something to help in that regard, the reality is that the administration's plan does not focus on improving the LSJUMB's musical product. Also, the LSJUMB management needs to do a lot of planning over the next 6 months to arrange for all the events and rallies during football season. If they aren't permitted to do their work, the band will be very limited in what it can do next Fall. All of the problems above can create a downward spiral in which students are less attracted to the LSJUMB because the music sounds worse and because there aren't as many events or rallies, and then the lack of student interest prevents the LSJUMB from improving in those fields. Ultimately, I am concerned that the LSJUMB will fail, and the University will have to be far more involved in the creation of a completely new entity. And I am concerned that the administration may prefer that outcome.
Re: The Band is banned - TrumpCard - 12-12-2016
In my humble opinion, hiring a new director is not the problem. I'm most concerned about the decision to disband the LSJUMB for 6 months. The clear purpose of that edict is to attempt to reconstitute the band as a different institution with different people.Â
The problem will be reconstituting after such a long hiatus. It's not as simple as just having a bunch of people show up at the first game of the season. The LSJUMB needs to rehearse over the course of the next 6 months or it won't sound very good when it reconstitutes. Also, the current members need to recruit reinforcements every Spring or the numbers will be thin in the Fall, which makes for much less audible performances. Whereas the football-game-attending alumni are concerned about the quality of the musical performance, and those people may think that the administration is finally doing something to help in that regard, the reality is that the administration's plan does not focus on improving the LSJUMB's musical product. Also, the LSJUMB management needs to do a lot of planning over the next 6 months to arrange for all the events and rallies during football season. If they aren't permitted to do their work, the band will be very limited in what it can do next Fall. All of the problems above can create a downward spiral in which students are less attracted to the LSJUMB because the music sounds worse and because there aren't as many events or rallies, and then the lack of student interest prevents the LSJUMB from improving in those fields. Ultimately, I am concerned that the LSJUMB will fail, and the University will have to be far more involved in the creation of a completely new entity. And I am concerned that the administration may prefer that outcome.
Re: The Band is banned - dabigv13 - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 06:48 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:In my humble opinion, hiring a new director is not the problem. I'm most concerned about the decision to disband the LSJUMB for 6 months. The clear purpose of that edict is to attempt to reconstitute the band as a different institution with different people.Â
The problem will be reconstituting after such a long hiatus. It's not as simple as just having a bunch of people show up at the first game of the season. The LSJUMB needs to rehearse over the course of the next 6 months or it won't sound very good when it reconstitutes. Also, the current members need to recruit reinforcements every Spring or the numbers will be thin in the Fall, which makes for much less audible performances. Whereas the football-game-attending alumni are concerned about the quality of the musical performance, and those people may think that the administration is finally doing something to help in that regard, the reality is that the administration's plan does not focus on improving the LSJUMB's musical product. Also, the LSJUMB management needs to do a lot of planning over the next 6 months to arrange for all the events and rallies during football season. If they aren't permitted to do their work, the band will be very limited in what it can do next Fall. All of the problems above can create a downward spiral in which students are less attracted to the LSJUMB because the music sounds worse and because there aren't as many events or rallies, and then the lack of student interest prevents the LSJUMB from improving in those fields. Ultimately, I am concerned that the LSJUMB will fail, and the University will have to be far more involved in the creation of a completely new entity. And I am concerned that the administration may prefer that outcome.
Very depressing, but I suspect you're correct. Could be the end of the band as we all know it. And that is certainly for the worst.
Re: The Band is banned - dabigv13 - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 06:48 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:In my humble opinion, hiring a new director is not the problem. I'm most concerned about the decision to disband the LSJUMB for 6 months. The clear purpose of that edict is to attempt to reconstitute the band as a different institution with different people.Â
The problem will be reconstituting after such a long hiatus. It's not as simple as just having a bunch of people show up at the first game of the season. The LSJUMB needs to rehearse over the course of the next 6 months or it won't sound very good when it reconstitutes. Also, the current members need to recruit reinforcements every Spring or the numbers will be thin in the Fall, which makes for much less audible performances. Whereas the football-game-attending alumni are concerned about the quality of the musical performance, and those people may think that the administration is finally doing something to help in that regard, the reality is that the administration's plan does not focus on improving the LSJUMB's musical product. Also, the LSJUMB management needs to do a lot of planning over the next 6 months to arrange for all the events and rallies during football season. If they aren't permitted to do their work, the band will be very limited in what it can do next Fall. All of the problems above can create a downward spiral in which students are less attracted to the LSJUMB because the music sounds worse and because there aren't as many events or rallies, and then the lack of student interest prevents the LSJUMB from improving in those fields. Ultimately, I am concerned that the LSJUMB will fail, and the University will have to be far more involved in the creation of a completely new entity. And I am concerned that the administration may prefer that outcome.
Very depressing, but I suspect you're correct. Could be the end of the band as we all know it. And that is certainly for the worst.
Re: The Band is banned - fullmetal - 12-12-2016
I also fear the worst, but I am hopeful that the very qualities that Stanford selects for during admissions will help the Band survive intact despite administrative capriciousness.
Re: The Band is banned - fullmetal - 12-12-2016
I also fear the worst, but I am hopeful that the very qualities that Stanford selects for during admissions will help the Band survive intact despite administrative capriciousness.
Re: The Band is banned - Mick - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 07:12 PM)dabigv link Wrote:[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=16257.msg182401#msg182401 date=1481593685]
In my humble opinion, hiring a new director is not the problem. I'm most concerned about the decision to disband the LSJUMB for 6 months. The clear purpose of that edict is to attempt to reconstitute the band as a different institution with different people.Â
The problem will be reconstituting after such a long hiatus. It's not as simple as just having a bunch of people show up at the first game of the season. The LSJUMB needs to rehearse over the course of the next 6 months or it won't sound very good when it reconstitutes. Also, the current members need to recruit reinforcements every Spring or the numbers will be thin in the Fall, which makes for much less audible performances. Whereas the football-game-attending alumni are concerned about the quality of the musical performance, and those people may think that the administration is finally doing something to help in that regard, the reality is that the administration's plan does not focus on improving the LSJUMB's musical product. Also, the LSJUMB management needs to do a lot of planning over the next 6 months to arrange for all the events and rallies during football season. If they aren't permitted to do their work, the band will be very limited in what it can do next Fall. All of the problems above can create a downward spiral in which students are less attracted to the LSJUMB because the music sounds worse and because there aren't as many events or rallies, and then the lack of student interest prevents the LSJUMB from improving in those fields. Ultimately, I am concerned that the LSJUMB will fail, and the University will have to be far more involved in the creation of a completely new entity. And I am concerned that the administration may prefer that outcome.
Very depressing, but I suspect you're correct. Could be the end of the band as we all know it. And that is certainly for the worst.
[/quote]
I can just imagine the AD singing itself to work this morning..
"It's the end of the Band as we know it..
And I feel fine..."
Re: The Band is banned - Mick - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 07:12 PM)dabigv link Wrote:[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=16257.msg182401#msg182401 date=1481593685]
In my humble opinion, hiring a new director is not the problem. I'm most concerned about the decision to disband the LSJUMB for 6 months. The clear purpose of that edict is to attempt to reconstitute the band as a different institution with different people.Â
The problem will be reconstituting after such a long hiatus. It's not as simple as just having a bunch of people show up at the first game of the season. The LSJUMB needs to rehearse over the course of the next 6 months or it won't sound very good when it reconstitutes. Also, the current members need to recruit reinforcements every Spring or the numbers will be thin in the Fall, which makes for much less audible performances. Whereas the football-game-attending alumni are concerned about the quality of the musical performance, and those people may think that the administration is finally doing something to help in that regard, the reality is that the administration's plan does not focus on improving the LSJUMB's musical product. Also, the LSJUMB management needs to do a lot of planning over the next 6 months to arrange for all the events and rallies during football season. If they aren't permitted to do their work, the band will be very limited in what it can do next Fall. All of the problems above can create a downward spiral in which students are less attracted to the LSJUMB because the music sounds worse and because there aren't as many events or rallies, and then the lack of student interest prevents the LSJUMB from improving in those fields. Ultimately, I am concerned that the LSJUMB will fail, and the University will have to be far more involved in the creation of a completely new entity. And I am concerned that the administration may prefer that outcome.
Very depressing, but I suspect you're correct. Could be the end of the band as we all know it. And that is certainly for the worst.
[/quote]
I can just imagine the AD singing itself to work this morning..
"It's the end of the Band as we know it..
And I feel fine..."
Re: The Band is banned - jacketree - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 04:14 PM)CTcard link Wrote:I.....don't know what were these mysterious violations in 2011-12 that seem to be the root of the current blow-up.
As best I can tell: "The [Stanford] investigation found that the band infringed University policies on alcohol, controlled substances, sexual harassment and hazing." http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/15/investigation-of-band-results-in-one-year-travel-ban/
I think it was a little more than irreverence and beer. Band was put on restriction, including travel and alcohol bans, and the Admin. probably felt that after violating said bans (trip to Tahoe and pitchers at some restaurant, maybe among other things) while on probation, a "time out" is warranted. So yeah, they are treating Band like they are six year olds. But the original two-year time out would have killed them off.
I empathize with Band members who feel that the prosecutorial thread from sexual harassment in 2011-2012 to a full suspension in Spring 2017 is tenuous at best; but welcome to the adult world where if you have a high maintenance history and piss off the wrong people enough times, there are real consequences. Sure a pitcher of beer with some pizza is innocuous in and of itself, but if you are in the middle of an alcohol ban, then well, maybe you shouldn't get alcohol at something that could even remotely be construed as a Band function.
I think the University is OK with rock 'n roll; less so with the (is it truly consensual?) sex and drugs.
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of the Band, mostly because I think they are terrible (at basically being a Band) and don't seem to care that they represent LSJU or have an audience. But I am a fan of due process and am concerned how flimsy it seems here. These kids were in high school when the transgressions went down; the sins of the father/mother and all that....
Pretty clear the University feels that such a visible student-run organization needs some sort of adult supervision. Sure they can all vote, but that doesn't make them adults. Hopefully reasonable minds can come together during this time out to work out an environment supportive of free expression without hazing, drug abuse, and alcohol-fueled idiocy. They could be great within the framework of their self-proclaimed incomparable-ness. They haven't been. One theory: Tough to practice or play well when you are drunk, stoned or harassed.
And their numbers are so low....how do we know there isn't even more student interest in performing with a band that cleaned up its act?
I personally think that if you decide you are going to be Stanford's band, you should try to be as good as possible. This is why I dumped out of GT's band after a quarter, retreating to the alcohol-fueled student section that threw frisbees at the band throughout every show. (And having traveled to ATL this fall for the homecoming game against Duke; the band is orders of magnitude better than in my day.) I can, however, see the other side; where Band is a refuge from stress, and the pressure to, how do I say this nicely....do well.
Anyway, If you feel the need to withhold your financial and emotional and whatever other forms of support there are from the University, do it. Based on a half century of threats, those alumni who swore never to support the University until they got rid of the Band (and who, you know, haven't died) might make up the difference.
Times are different. Liability attaches to sponsoring organizations more than ever. I sincerely hope the Band comes back as its old, funny, rockin' self. But even stronger.
Myself, I am a fan of "toy soldier" bands. Love the aTm band and saw tOSU's TBDBITL entertain MB&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore against Navy. I thought they were great as did the crowd (probably at least 60% from Columbus). I know. Crazy. They saluted USNA rather than insult them. We aren't getting anything as cool as a HBCU band with a moniker like Human Jukebox or Funk Train, so I ventured to Memorial Stadium alone without Calfan wife as it was too soon (4 years!) after her dad died for her, just to watch Grambling State put on a show. But hey, if they are asking for feedback.....
Re: The Band is banned - jacketree - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 04:14 PM)CTcard link Wrote:I.....don't know what were these mysterious violations in 2011-12 that seem to be the root of the current blow-up.
As best I can tell: "The [Stanford] investigation found that the band infringed University policies on alcohol, controlled substances, sexual harassment and hazing." http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/15/investigation-of-band-results-in-one-year-travel-ban/
I think it was a little more than irreverence and beer. Band was put on restriction, including travel and alcohol bans, and the Admin. probably felt that after violating said bans (trip to Tahoe and pitchers at some restaurant, maybe among other things) while on probation, a "time out" is warranted. So yeah, they are treating Band like they are six year olds. But the original two-year time out would have killed them off.
I empathize with Band members who feel that the prosecutorial thread from sexual harassment in 2011-2012 to a full suspension in Spring 2017 is tenuous at best; but welcome to the adult world where if you have a high maintenance history and piss off the wrong people enough times, there are real consequences. Sure a pitcher of beer with some pizza is innocuous in and of itself, but if you are in the middle of an alcohol ban, then well, maybe you shouldn't get alcohol at something that could even remotely be construed as a Band function.
I think the University is OK with rock 'n roll; less so with the (is it truly consensual?) sex and drugs.
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of the Band, mostly because I think they are terrible (at basically being a Band) and don't seem to care that they represent LSJU or have an audience. But I am a fan of due process and am concerned how flimsy it seems here. These kids were in high school when the transgressions went down; the sins of the father/mother and all that....
Pretty clear the University feels that such a visible student-run organization needs some sort of adult supervision. Sure they can all vote, but that doesn't make them adults. Hopefully reasonable minds can come together during this time out to work out an environment supportive of free expression without hazing, drug abuse, and alcohol-fueled idiocy. They could be great within the framework of their self-proclaimed incomparable-ness. They haven't been. One theory: Tough to practice or play well when you are drunk, stoned or harassed.
And their numbers are so low....how do we know there isn't even more student interest in performing with a band that cleaned up its act?
I personally think that if you decide you are going to be Stanford's band, you should try to be as good as possible. This is why I dumped out of GT's band after a quarter, retreating to the alcohol-fueled student section that threw frisbees at the band throughout every show. (And having traveled to ATL this fall for the homecoming game against Duke; the band is orders of magnitude better than in my day.) I can, however, see the other side; where Band is a refuge from stress, and the pressure to, how do I say this nicely....do well.
Anyway, If you feel the need to withhold your financial and emotional and whatever other forms of support there are from the University, do it. Based on a half century of threats, those alumni who swore never to support the University until they got rid of the Band (and who, you know, haven't died) might make up the difference.
Times are different. Liability attaches to sponsoring organizations more than ever. I sincerely hope the Band comes back as its old, funny, rockin' self. But even stronger.
Myself, I am a fan of "toy soldier" bands. Love the aTm band and saw tOSU's TBDBITL entertain MB&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore against Navy. I thought they were great as did the crowd (probably at least 60% from Columbus). I know. Crazy. They saluted USNA rather than insult them. We aren't getting anything as cool as a HBCU band with a moniker like Human Jukebox or Funk Train, so I ventured to Memorial Stadium alone without Calfan wife as it was too soon (4 years!) after her dad died for her, just to watch Grambling State put on a show. But hey, if they are asking for feedback.....
Re: The Band is banned - 82lsju - 12-12-2016
(12-12-2016, 07:59 PM)jacketree link Wrote:Anyway, If you feel the need to withhold your financial and emotional and whatever other forms of support there are from the University, do it. Based on a half century of threats, those alumni who swore never to support the University until they got rid of the Band (and who, you know, haven't died) might make up the difference.
that strategy seemed to work well for the "Bring back the Indians" crowd.......