DAvery

You didn’t really understand what I was saying. It’s not about your skill level. It’s about your philosophy. and to make another point, battery arrangers create. Last time I checked Stravinsky didnt write for a marching snare with a Kevlar head, multi-tenor drums and 5 pitched bass drums.

Because this is art and if you aren’t breaking something you are not doing it right. Can you imagine Stravinsky looking at Mahler or Strauss and saying it’s not broken, so I’m going to do the same thing they are doing. Art is about breaking down boundaries, not creating them.

You and I both know there are acoustic brass instruments on the field being electronically amplified to make up for either imbalanced brass line or sub par ability. If a brass line can amplify instruments, why not acoustic drums in the battery?

In the age of electronics, the acoustic volume of instruments should not matter. I’ve come to appreciate the visual presentation much more than the musical presentation. There is too much sameness in the music, specifically the battery.

You say they can do whatever they want, but I disagree. What are the odds that every percussion writer decides independently to use the same instruments as every other percussion writer? Obviously while there isn't a rule, there is an undeniable expectation of what a battery section sounds and looks like. Not really making it their own, are they? Who decided that being musically appropriate means everyone uses the same instrumentation in the battery?

If you were playing Berlioz, which would be more appropriate - a high tension marching snare with a Kevlar head or a concert snare? if you were playing Tito Puente which would be more appropriate- a multi tenor or a set of timbales?

I’m saying march whatever is appropriate for the music you are performing. Why be limited to marching snare, multi-tenors and pitched basses?

Yes, I remember when Optimists and Kilties did that. And then there was the 1982 San Jose Raiders. I suspect these "options" don't last because the percussion judging community does not know how to put a number on it. When I used all Latin percussion instruments in the battery our percussion scores fluxuated all over the place. If we got a percussion judge that had only a percussion background of DCI, our scores were sometimes very low. If we had a judge with a more varied background, our score were generally pretty high. One thing was consistent were our effect scores relating to percussion. Since there were no specific percussion effect judges (the effect judges were usually wind players), they typically loved our percussion approach. DCI percussion is all just so predictable.

But using a uniquely designed marching snare with a Kevlar head is practical? In what idiom is this instrument commonly used? And in today’s activity with electronics, projection isn’t an issue. When I was a band director we did a Tito Puente show and used all Latin instruments in the battery. At every show judges always commented on how creative that was. But in reality it wasn’t creative at all. It would have more creative to use marching snare, tenors and pitched basses. And by the way, I know the reason why all batteries use the same instruments. It’s easier to put a number on it.

But why does every battery have the same instruments? There are no rules requiring batteries to use marching snares, multiple drum tenors and pitched basses. Why not have a battery of Latin, taiko or African drums?

But that’s my point. Why do we limit the battery to those specific instruments? There is no rule that requires these instruments, but yet every “creative” percussion writer ends up with the same instrumentation.

No, every corps has 7-9 snares, 4-5 tenors and 5 basses. Why?

Why is it that every battery section has the same instrumentation and just about the same number of players on each instrument?

Kingsmen, Boston and Troopers played it in 1974.

The acceptance by judges of the use of electronics to support and hide subpar brass lines.