Clayton column off base
Yesterday, the Wildcat published a commentary by Shaun Clayton claiming that the marching band here, and all other marching bands, serve no purpose and are out of date. He states that if the marching band were useful it would be advertised for the football games. Well, as most know, there has been more than one occasion in the past two years when the band has been the only thing worth watching at the football games. I also know that after every football game and performance the director receives many compliments and positive feedback from students, faculty and fans. As for the statement that marching band cannot stand as an event, I would like to see him tell that to the 10,000+ band members and spectators that show up for UA Band Day. Tell that to those 10,000 people that rise to their feet when the UA marching band, one of the finest in the nation, finishes their last show of the night. I can guarantee that those people don't sit out there in the rain because it's 'tradition.'
On a final note, I am very curious as to how, being a theater and fine arts major, Clayton can criticize another performing group. By comparing the happiness that comes from belonging to a musical ensemble to Jeffrey Dahmer, he only berates himself. If doing theater doesn't make him happy, then why do it? And then, of course, there is the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer murdered people, whereas bands and other performing ensembles not only bring happiness to themselves but to others as well. Live music is also just as worthwhile as live theater. The university could only play pre-recorded music at football games, but then again, they also could terminate theater and everyone could just go to the movies. Mr. Clayton's article portrays him as nothing more than a child who has had a bad day and feels the need to blame it on the rest of the world.
Alicia Lindner
music education sophomore
Marching band important part of game's ambience
It seems that Shaun Clayton is not someone that people come to see when going to a football game, but hey, I don't mind him being there; I'm not going to call him purposeless. Honestly, I get upset during a televised football game and have to sit through a group of ex-football players reviewing what I just watched. Give me the technical performance of undignified toy soldiers, the fluff of pom-poms and cheerleaders (after all, no one goes to the game to see the cheerleaders either, right?). Part of the atmosphere that lends my ears to the screaming trumpets and beat-pounding rhythm section. The field presence itself is a visual spectacle, with every member in sync and in motion with each other. Every foot will move at the same time forming intricate patters that are visual eye candy.
In fact, if it were up to the stadium to pick the music selection, it would be "Who Let the Dogs Out" (excuse me, "Who let the Cats Out") after every touchdown. And maybe Shaun is right, let's get rid of a few traditions, we don't need Christmas. By Shaun's point of view, Christmas is a holiday created by Hallmark and Toys 'R Us to boost the profit margin. Why not get rid of Thanksgiving, we all know the real reason that holiday is around is because Butterball Turkeys make it so. The comparisons and statements that were made are completely fallacious. To compare the marching band tradition to Dahmer has no merit. Sure, both subjects make the participant happy, but one is against the laws of humanity. So no, it is not something to just think about. Believe it or not, there are actual events that have just marching bands that do bring in a considerable amount of money.
The public music programs are already in dire straits because of people that don't see the importance of such activities. The arts are a dying institution that have always served a cultural purpose. To attack the marching band, you might as well as attack the visual arts department and ask why we need those paintings on the wall. My life would not become any better if I saw a painting of a bowl of fruit or just white plaster, but I enjoy looking at that bowl on the wall. Not every musician can start out in a jazz band. To develop those techniques needed by horn players to improve aspects of musicality more often than not are found in the marching band, the rigors of the marching band improves the level of a musician. Besides, I'll take the sounds and visual displays of the marching band and cheerleaders over John Madden during half-time any day.
Andres Angulo
political science junior
Coach's salary "absurd," UA should focus on academics
Is anyone else getting tired of the rationale for paying football coaches absurd wages? Likins and Livengood keep telling us that by having successful sports programs, we'll improve the draw of students and faculty from across the country to the U of A. Gimme a break. If I was a faculty candidate, the prospect of making a tenth of what they pay the football coach would piss me off. I'd seek employment elsewhere. It's clear the UA is about making money, and this latest escapade reinforces that thought.
Nothing draws corporate bucks and alumni checks like winning sports programs, so I don't blame the greedy administration for trying to use sports to raise more cash. But please stop equating high Pac-10 standings with a quality education. It's nice to play the game and win, but we've got to keep sports in perspective; sports are not more important than academics, period. If you allow athletics to 'wag the dog,' your institution is nothing more than part of the farm system for the NFL and the NBA. Pass the hat to alums and Nike if Mackovic needs a million bucks a year, but don't payroll him more than a chemistry professor. Doing so sends the wrong message.
We all know that Arizona's education is in the national cellar for funding and success, yet improving our win-loss record next fall seems appropriate to Livengood. He should take a look at Harvard. They have a proud football tradition, yet they'll never compete for the national championship, and they don't care! They refuse to play the salary escalation game, and they still have all the academic prestige they ever had. Given the option, who would attend Florida State instead of Harvard?
While it's possible to have both great academics and athletics (i.e. Stanford), it takes courage in today's climate to accept a mediocre football team. But it can be done. Let's stop the nonsense and play collegiate football for fun and not for funds. We're at a fork in the road, guys, and you gotta decide if you want to emulate the SEC or the Ivy League.
Scott D. Dreisbach
UA senior chemistry lab coordinator
Marching band on editorial chopping block
Traditions these days on campus are scarce, and it seems that our marching band and its traditions are on the editorial chopping block once again. It seems the semi-annual bashing of the marching band has become a tradition at the Arizona Daily Wildcat as well. The center of the author's debate seems to revolve around the statement, "The marching band is not what people come to see when they watch a football game," could extend to just about every auxiliary program that works together to make the athletic experience what it is: enjoyable and entertaining. If events went the way that Shaun Clayton would have it, there would be no band, no cheerleaders, no mascots and no other marketing promotions. There would only be fans and the media. Sounds like a fun time to me.
A false statement that Shaun makes is that "bands at football games have long been made obsolete through the invention of audio technology." As a former mascot for UA, I didn't experience this when I went to away games. What school did Shaun do his data collection for this article? ITT Tech? Being a senior, Shaun finds himself near the end of his college career and realizes his list of accomplishments is short, so he found a way of blowing out another's candle to make his look twice as bright. His profound realization that his absence at a sporting event would go unnoticed seems to be at the heart of his article. If our band was asked not to be a part of our athletic events, our community would rally to their defense, much like they did in the early 1990s when such an idea was proposed. Time and time again our band has been faithful, even when the fans got up and left. These individuals bust their buns each week to help preserve what little traditions still exist on our campus. Year after year they dedicate their time and their lives to make sure that what they do is worthy of the title "The Pride of Arizona." At the next game, stop by and thank them.
Kirk Sibley
Former Wilbur the Wildcat
UA class of 1999
"Pro-life" does not mean "anti-choice"
I am writing in response to Annie Vanderboom's letter to the editor on Monday. The first order of business is to point out the infantile appeal to rhetoric employed in the title, the word "anti-choice." Pro-life is not anti-choice. You may choose what you have for lunch; you may choose the color of your hair. You should not choose to rape; you should not choose to murder. You should not choose to destroy a growing human life. The pro-life movement seeks to invoke those delightful reinforcement tools known as "laws" to protect the unborn.
Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court decision which interpreted the Constitution. The law is on Vanderboom's side. But consider her company. The Constitution, that hallowed protector of freedom, provides for involuntary slavery and counts a slave as three fifths of a person. The framers, it seems, were pro-choice about slavery. Perhaps appropriately, the argument of the time was that black people are not humans. The Supreme Court, which was in the case a Roe v. Wade a moral guide, had seventy-seven years earlier authorized the notable doctrine of "separate, but equal" in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson. You'll then forgive me for acknowledging neither the Supreme Court nor the Constitution as a moral authority.
Adam Baker
linguistics freshman
