MarimbaManiac

I really don't think that's accurate. I love the show, and their previous few shows. I loved the effects in Tilt and KN, I just think this side-chaining thing is a marketing ploy and doesn't land well.

I'm also going to say that there has been a wider shift in ALL live performances over the last several decades towards electronic enhancement, even in places you wouldn't expect them. In addition, recording technology has developed to a point that everything you hear is heavily engineered, even when the live performances might not be. This has led to an audience expectation that live performances should sound "full" or "clear" or whatever else they are used to hearing. I can't name a single space where I can go and hear live music that isn't amplified or processed. Even if we're talking chamber music or anything in the concert hall, the norm has shifted to amplifying in order to balance the space in a lot of applications, or if the space isn't acoustically pleasing. Even if you don't realize it's happening, it usually is. Add to that, the football field (either open or a dome), is not a great acoustic environment when trying to meet that kind of expectation. There is a lot of balancing that needs to happen to present that wall of well balanced sound that audiences are used to hearing, and that's not even discussing synthesized sounds or electronics effects. So I think for better or worse, acoustic music in a large space like that is just not something people really want to listen to, whether they realize it or not. The choice has already been made for them, and not by DCI, but by Spotify, Apple Music, Live Nation, Ticketmaster, etc. The issue I find, is when the technology becomes the focus, or when the desire to do a specific effect is the driving force, whether or not the effect sounds good (and in this case, it does not).

I completely agree. It would be a great opportunity for students to join corps as a sound designer member or intern, working with the staff. That being said, there is very little happening live for someone to control. By the time you get to the performance, the technology has already been programmed and the person is really just there to make sure things don't blow up or fix something that goes wrong. I don't know the right answer, but I understand the issue about design overshadowing performance. I think it starts with making sure that the effect achieved is rooted in artistic excellence, and not showcasing technology. I think in this case, the design team decided that "side-chaining" was integral to their show concept and wanted to make its use absolutely clear. That was a bad place to start the conversation in my opinion.

Yeah again, it depends on how the technology is being used. There is like 80 years of history with completely electronically generated music, either synthesized Elektroniche Musik like Stockhausen or recorded real worlds sounds with Musique Concrète and Schaeffer. There are examples on both sides of using technology to push artistic goals, and using it to showcase technological advancements. There are some AMAZING Acousmatic/Fixed Media pieces that are purely electronic and really utilize the technology in a way that's both mystifying and artistic. Essentially using the loudspeakers as the instrument. They both have their place, but in terms of performance spaces I am strongly in favor of artistic achievement over anything else. The technological experiments can and should stay in a research oriented space in my opinion.

I don't usually feel that I way. I'm VERY pro technology when it comes to the evolution of the activity, especially considering any professional concert you're going to attend has a high level of production separate from the performers. I think it just makes sense. However in most of the situations I believe it exists to support what the musicians are doing and create the most balanced and professional sound stage to showcase their talent. ...or, it's to do something that performers could NEVER do and elevates the production to a new level (the pitch bends in Tilt, or the field spatialization in Kinetic Noise, both of which I LOVED). This however feels like the electronics team trying to show what they can do (and not doing it particularly well). I'm equally dubious of this in the concert hall space as well, so this isn't specific to DCI or the activity. There is a difference between using technology to enhance the artistic experience, and using technology to showcase technology.

Yeah, I understand, and it definitely leans to technique over musicality at this point. You CAN use amplitude tracking to open and close a gate, but dialing in the window is so finicky, and one drummer can completely muck it up. Opening and closing a gate that quickly without sufficient look ahead is going to sound messy regardless. Maybe if they recorded the brass and gated a file playing from a buffer it would give them more control and flexibility, but trying to do it live, with the spread being used on the field, and the potential for mistakes from 100 different musicians is CRAZY. With techniques like this, any single mistake is going to be augmented considerably in the final product. I went to a conference once where a guy put motion sensors in his hat and used it to control the playback and spatialization of live sound as he moved it around. It was a cool technique, but it wasn't particularly pleasant or interesting to listen to. It's the difference of exploring tech for research purposes, and using tech for artistic purposes. They aren't the same, and this feels like the former.

The problem is...they can't. The technique they're trying to do is tricky live, and is compounded by MANY FACTORS in various spaces, and is definitely being hampered by signal latency. I write concert hall electroacoustic (meaning real-time computer processed acoustic music) professionally, and I would never program this live even in a controlled concert hall setting. There are SO MANY variables that will impact how it ends up sounding, that it's really tricky to pull off. Additionally, the end result in the BEST case scenario just isn't compelling. They need to really think about what their goal is. Is it to be able to say "we're doing this cool technical thing!" or is it to present a compelling audio effect? If their goal is the latter, it can be done by removing some of the live elements and faking it with fixed audio files. If their goal is the former...well congrats, but it sounds like poop.

It's supposed to progress throughout the day unfortunately, coming to a head late this evening.

I bought tickets with my Amex, hoping I can finagle some kind of coverage from them. They're usually great with this kind of thing. Sad though, hopefully something will change with the weather.

I haven't been to a live show in a while...if it rains even moderately I assume they cancel the show or leave electronics off the field? I likely am not making a trek for a truncated or altered show.

Not none, but since 2007 I'd say they deserved probably only half of their titles. Not sorry.

I feel this so hard, and I'm surprised it took this long for the judges to catch on. Knowing and having worked with a lot of the people writing and working on that show, I think one of two things has happened. Either the design team got way too comfortable and complacent and phoned it in, or they have stepped back to let some of the more junior designers and caption heads try and take more ownership. Either way this feels like a lifeless facsimile of what they have put up in the past, and I said that before I watched any of their competition. The BD style just isn't fresh or innovative anymore, and as someone who has felt that way for a decade, I'm glad the judges have stopped rewarding it.

I'm not putting SCV in the same boat as Bluecoats, I have my own issues with SCV's design mostly due to the fact that the musical production is incredibly formulaic at this point...that being said I mostly agree. I think back to some of their previous productions where they routinely used BRIGHT BOLD colors, like 1930 or the Burt Bacharach show, and it looks like the joy has been sucked out of everything this year.

I would disagree with this when it comes to design. The members are of course going to be top tier and well trained, but the show this year is lacking. It feels like it was put together by someone who was trying to emulate the BD style, but without the ability to bring the special sauce that previous shows have had. Their color palate is flat, the music is more jumbled than usual, it's made up of source material we've all heard on the field before, it just doesn't feel fresh or interesting, like the life has been drained from it. I'll admit I've never been a fan of their musical style, but whether or not I liked it I could admit there was something special in the mix. This year it's just a big bag of blah. I'm curious, how much the headline designers are involved, and if they've behind the scenes taken a step back to let some of the people on the ground fill in the gaps?

Nope, I just see the writing on the wall. This is the 4th or 5th SCV show with the same formula. It's weak design, and there is nothing really new or avant-garde about it. So whether it's Pärt, or Kendrick, or Nirvana, or Peter Gabriel, it's the same musical show just repackaged with a different theme. The problem is that the structure they have is flawed. You can put as much lipstick on it you want, it's still a pig.