cixelsyd

Maybe not. But that is up to DCI, and the show sponsor at sanctioned shows. By the way, I am not a DCI official, so I can only post what I know or believe as an observer. However, someone with closer contact to DCI has already indicated in this thread that SoundSport performers would not require tickets in order to perform. And that makes sense to me... they have marketed this as a low-cost performance option. Additionally, there is supposed to be an avenue for groups to perform at their home base and submit/broadcast their performance via video. That avoids the transportation costs, and renders the ticket question moot. Well, as far as I know, no animals were harmed in the making of SoundSport. But let us know if you find out otherwise.

To answer your question - as far as I know, the default policy is to charge admission to shows. Judging from responses in this thread, not even all members of competing field corps are allowed in the gate free of charge - that privilege is only extended to competing junior corps. DCI creates and promotes events based on lineups of competing WC (and OC) corps who hold membership in DCI at one of those two levels, and who commit to their appearances many months in advance. SoundSport groups and exhibition units do not have that sort of advance commitment, so why should we expect them to get the same privileges? Now, when a show is DCI sanctioned, but run by an external sponsor, that show sponsor controls the gate. If they want to let someone in free of charge, they can make that call. If they can lure an exhibition corps to perform at their show for no pay, in exchange for giving them free seats to see the contest, they can do that. (Judging from the rest of your post, I doubt you really wanted an answer to the question, but here it is anyway.)

Because then, there would be no one left to watch out in the lot.

Have they replaced whoever decided to jack up the level of every ballad on the CDs in recent years? That would be far more significant. I have not bought any physical media for 2012 yet, figuring that the APDs would be a far more accurate representation than the CDs, and more complete than the edited video products. But I am wandering further off topic - my previous post was only meant to point out that an indoor facility is not the optimal sound stage for drum corps. I can see why the production team likes it, as their job is made easier by eliminating the variable weather and lighting of the outdoors. But the end result is a tradeoff, where we get better video by compromising on audio. No matter how fine a job the crew does, the audio result cannot be as good indoors as it could be outdoors.

Apparently, they forget that "video" also contains audio.

To clarify - were these rules banning firearms, or did they extend to the symbolic rifle-shaped objects used by most corps and bands over the past few decades?

And what does that accomplish, really? You take the show away from one of the greatest hosts a drum corps contest has ever had, and leave a gaping hole in the tour between OC finals and WC prelims? OC corps would be stranded on the road for several days with no contests and no paydays. Now, if the deal was sweetened by adding tons of OC corps to WC shows between Allentown and Indy Sunday-Monday-Tuesday, all competing on the same sheets, and all getting appearance fees, maybe that would be a tangibly worthwhile format change.

I did not say that either. This is the second time you have misquoted me. This time, you posted my actual quote, and then made up your own twisted interpretation of it and put it in quotation marks, right underneath what I actually posted. Stop interpreting, and just read. Here is the simple version. Pit players can hear what they play. But they cannot necessarily hear what the speakers are playing. Is that really so hard to grasp? Moving on... it has been my observation (along with others) that sound board operators adjust volume levels during performances. Many stay at the board throughout the performance, while some work via remote control, using a mobile device with an application that allows them to move various channel faders or the overall mix level up/down whenever they desire. I believe there are also a few corps who make adjustments pre-show, then leave the mixing board alone during the show (or maybe I just failed to notice which of their staffers had the iPad). Now, obviously, there are an assortment of tasks for the sound board operator to perform. Some play pre-show audio. Some corps amplify vocal or brass performers, and need the mic channels for those functions muted when not in use. Some corps are applying effects (reverb, for example) at specific times, and need those switched on/off. Maybe some sound board operators restrict their activity to those functions - if you have specific knowledge of any such corps, feel free to share. But I have seen a number of sound board operators with different corps moving faders up and down frequently during performances - both individual channel faders and the master fader. They are clearly taking responsibility for the volume, balance and blend of the pit within the ensemble. This should not surprise anyone, because in the A&E era, the only corps personnel who can properly assess ensemble balance during the performance are the staff who can get far enough in front of the speakers. This is a completely different ballgame from the all-acoustic era, when the performers could all hear each other. We now have several additional "performers" who cannot be adequately heard by the other performers. And for many corps, those "performers" include not just the electronic instrumentalists (synth, EWI, etc.), but the sound board operator as well. Yes - there is no point in continually twisting my words.

The Oregon Crusaders baritone soloist impressed me.

Oh? You had better talk to the judges, then, because there were quite a few of them who picked someone else 1st in GE visual in 2013 shows, even as recently as semifinals. Remember when Crown was slumping a bit mid-season, and Cadets beat them in GE music in San Antonio? Apparently, an argument could be (and was) made then. None of these corps are in a league of their own. Back in June, Crown even beat BD in percussion performance.

a. Who said we do? b. Slow news day. c. Trying our hand at humor. Whew... feel better now? Firstly, I agree that this is not about political correctness. "Political correctness" will be when the corps who do use symbolic "implements of war" face rules, laws or other impediments banning the use of such symbolism. Secondly, no problem with whatever path the Cadets choose. After all, they were the corps doing peace-sign drill* at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national championship in 1970, of all places. They did a show theme of "No More War" back around then, too - decades before shows became thematic by default. But I doubt that they are bent on removing all military imagery from the organization. I mean, the "corps" is called the "Cadets", and they wear West Point uniforms. (* - Speaking of political correctness, the corps faced the real possibility of offending the VFW to the point of a penalty with that peace sign, until a swift thinking staffer told VFW officials that the drill form was really just the Mercedes-Benz logo. Guess it depends on how you look at it - something readers of this thread should learn from.)

Actually, drum corps competition was organized by the AL and VFW as a peacetime activity.

I was going to assume that the meaning of the word "responsibility" was generally understood. My mistake. No one is saying that the pit performers do not employ dynamics or control of their own. However, the final result is different. We also have microphones picking up the sound of various pit instruments at volume level X, transmitting it to a mixing board where a gain is applied under the control (and frequent manipulation) of a sound board operator, and then output through speakers at resulting volume level Y. Total pit sound is now a combination of X and Y. Continuing this train of thought also addresses your next interjection... You know I never said they cannot hear what they are playing. I said they cannot hear the sound output (the end result combination of acoustic and electronic contributions), because they cannot the speaker output well from their location, perhaps not at all at times. That is quite a handicap for music with the wide dynamic range that drum corps contains. Without that ability, the pit performers simply cannot know if their sound output is too little or too great. The responsibility for making that assessment, and making adjustments if called for, lies with the sound board operator.

One tiny clarification: There was no Northeastern Circuit in 1959. The Yankee senior circuit changed their name to the Northeastern Circuit after the 1959 season.

Thank God the Cadets have purged all that military symbolism from their... on second thought, never mind.

Well, it has. The pit was "originally intended" to provide a place for corps to put down heavy percussion items they were already carrying on the field... not to add tons more, and certainly not to add non-percussion devices such as the synthesizer. Beyond that, we have already heard from other pit advocates who have said, in so many words, that amplification in their POV is intended to enable the pit to take on roles that it was not previously capable of (in their opinion, anyway). By the way, grounded equipment was "not originally intended" in drum corps. The spin in that statement is making me dizzy.

No, he is not. You know, when I first saw what skywhopper posted, I thought it was a wild overstatement fully deserving of the grief it would inevitably provoke. But the more I think about it, the more I realize he has a point. The instant we started putting those PA speakers out there, the whole game of ensemble balance changed dramatically. Regardless of what the performers do, the end result of their contribution is controlled by the mixing board. Therefore, the sound board operator is literally "responsible" for the final volume level. Furthermore, another game changer with the speakers is that the musicians (specifically, the pit players) really cannot hear what their sound output is. Those speakers can be annoyingly loud in the direction they are aimed, but they project much less sound at a 90 degree angle, where the pit is. The difference is so dramatic that they become inaudible at that angle when there is enough other competing sound, like that of an audience (or 100 field musicians). Even the location of the mixing board is at too poor an angle to gauge speaker sound output - which is why we see nearly every corps adjusting levels based on observations from in the stands. Either the sound board operator uses remote control and goes in the stands, or they communicate with another staffer in the stands via cell phone or walkie-talkie... much like the manner in which a rock band needs someone off stage to assess their sound checks. What this all means, in practice, is that the modern front ensemble has to adjust their dynamics entirely based on prior verbal instructions from staff, learn it, rehearse it, and repeat it in the contest performance. Unlike the acoustic ensembles (pit included) of pre-2004 drum corps, the present day pit with their upfront speakers does not even have the option of adjusting their performance by ear as it happens. That is not the fault of the performers - it is a limitation of the design. Pointing out this systemic flaw is not saying that pit performers are not musicians. Obviously, they are talented performers, and they have a full range of musical responsibilities. But it is sad to see that a major aspect of the overall result has been taken out of their hands.

I thought it was self-evident that if there were no rules limiting richer schools from luring athletes away from poorer schools, college competition would soon be decided in advance of the event, by dollars spent. Not only is that bad for education, it is also bad for business.

Because that would require them to plot secretly among themselves, in conflict of interest with the overall DCI membership. That is unethical.

For starters, there is often "recruiting" going on, as many other posts have pointed out. But besides that, I would also "blame" the 40+ year long systematic drive toward a stagnated competitive hierarchy. That is the only reason the prospective member can identify the higher ranked corps in advance of their audition. No one knew in November 1971 whether Kingsmen, Cavaliers, Garfield or Blessed Sac would place 1st, 9th or 13th the following year (or even make it to championships). The list of corps with actual hope of making finals BITD was more like 30 instead of 13. Given how many fouls, penalties, and imperfectly-refereed decisions take place en route to a "score" in those games, I think nothing would meet your definition of a "sport".

I have no idea whether to take your post seriously or not. First, you say you "have been to" those seeding shows and the stands are empty. Evidently, you were not there this year - certainly not in Avon Lake. Then you say DCI "gives" venues to open class. Sorry, but those venues have to be paid for. Open class runs their separate tour on their separate budget. They do not get their venues "given" to them. As for the Michigan City show the Cavaliers run, that show is held on a Saturday night. You probably realize that Saturday night events draw better than, say, a Monday or Tuesday night. Then again, if you missed Avon Lake, you missed a tangible reminder of that fact.

Then I guess you missed a few posts in other threads. That could be an interesting analogy. First, I presume that when you say "front ensemble" in this context, you have the keyboards specifically in mind. Front ensembles, unlike mellophones, have the luxury of selecting from among an assortment of different instruments to play at different times. Some of those instruments, such as the ride cymbal or jumbo concert bass, are undeniably audible in the ensemble without amplification. Now, if we are talking marimbas or vibraphones, you have the question of whether they should be audible in the same way as mellophones. As drumcat was asking, should an instrument that has limited dynamic range be audible to most ears over 100 field musicians at fortissimo, when even in a symphonic setting, that instrument is rendered inaudible to most ears at an orchestral fortissimo? Another issue I see from other posters is the desire to have each mallet musician playing unique parts. The mellophones, like any other voice in that 80-horn line we are envisioning, are typically grouped eight to a part. No corps has each players in any brass section playing unique parts, and no one (that I know of) would expect each of the unique parts to be heard in that scenario. It would be even more difficult to make that possible for a lower-volume instrument like the marimba. You also have the question of technique. A common thread among advocates of amplified pit is the desire to play with softer mallets and/or lower arm movement, more like concert techniques. Evidently, this is something that is desired to be audible at ensemble fortissimo. Again, that desire deviates from the natural reality, where even the symphonic setting would render softer mallets and lower strokes inaudible to most ears when the orchestra is loud. The analogy applies to the brass, where fortissimo comes with a different tone characteristic than softer playing. Yes, but they are not quite as "mello" at fortissimo. Sorry, but my observations differ greatly from yours. For many years, we had pits with no amplification where even instruments of limited sound output like the marimbas, vibes, etc., were used effectively when the brass was playing; could play with dynamics, not just at the top of their range; and could even employ softer mallets and/or lower arms when the rest of the corps was not loud.

Regarding Bb horns, or A&E, it is not that no one else was willing to put their name out there. The proposal for any-key brass was authored by Dave Gibbs, and Mark Arnold was the author of at least one of the earlier A&E proposals. But amplification took many, many tries to get passed, and it was Hopkins who became the author of its repeated resubmission until it passed on the 14th try.

What success? We are talking about open class here. Corps are folding left and right. We had half the number of competitors at DCI as compared to just 7 years ago. That is not success. Explain to me the significance of what "percentage of total income" DCI payouts represent for a corps. I do not see what you are trying to say there.

That is one thing I was thinking of as I formulated the polite description "less money to OC".