X DM Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 (edited) The Cadets' vocals were done better in Atlanta than they were last night. Despite the obvious flaws with them last night, it doesn't seem to be reflected in the scores/on the sheets. That's where I REALLY have a problem with this. Nothing should ever be approved without a clear definition of how to adjudicate its use. Agree. Just what is it the judges are judging in the vocalization portion of a show ? If people don't know the answer to this most fundamental of questions, then of course people will be scratching their heads on scores of Corps at the top. Maybe The Cadets are getting solid build up points in their show because of good use of vocalizations. Then again, perhaps The Cadets are not getting the build up points they anticipated because the vocalization portion ( a main component of their show ) is not being rewarded at the level they expected or hoped for from a judge or judges. I'm in the dark ( as I suspect others are as well if they will admit it ) as to what the judge is judging in " narration ". Is is the sound quality of the amplification ? The ease or difficulty it is on the judges ears ? Or is it how the extensive talking points do or not integrate with the show well. In essence, how does a Corps gain points for well executed "narration "in the judging captions ? When the difference between winning and also ran is now only a matter of a very few tenths, this is an important question it seems to me. Edited July 22, 2007 by X DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 People have asked why some have complained about The Cadets vocals and not as much for the Bluecoats vocals. My answer is that it depends which part of the shows you are discussing and how the technical aspects of amplification are addressed.The Cadets shows in Annapolis, Atlanta, and San Antonio have one distinguishing feature. The mics are poorly designed and used. The performers have the mics in front of their mouths. This position makes it very prone to the performer's breathe striking the mic during speaking and causing a low frequency pop with many words that cause a projection of air. They try to mitigate this with foam, but it only reduces it slightly. This is very noticeable, but it has not been improved. If you went to a Broadway show and the vocals were that bad, you would ask for your money back. Why does DCI tolerate it? They must, because if it were judged like horn intonation, the corps would fix it in a flash. This is horrible, and the mixing of The Cadets board makes the effect even worse. I would think that the most ardent Cadets supporter would have to agree that this needs fixing, but if they were to admit a fault they would be decended upon by the haters. Regardless, it needs fixing. Some Cadets supporter need to buy them some professional mics that pick up the voice from the side of the head. The other major user of amped vocals are the Bluecoats. They have purposely mixed their board to remove the low frequency elements so that the voice sounds like it is coming over a megaphone. They purposely give it that rather narrow bandwidth sound that matches the police announcements. Great use of amps to create a feeling. A couple of clarifications. Agree completely about the extremely poor quality of vocal amplification by The Cadets. But about the Bluecoats, they are not running the effect through the board. They are using a small, handheld bullhorn, speaking into it, and putting that through a wireless mic, amplifying that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Time Fan Posted July 22, 2007 Author Share Posted July 22, 2007 A couple of clarifications. Agree completely about the extremely poor quality of vocal amplification by The Cadets. But about the Bluecoats, they are not running the effect through the board. They are using a small, handheld bullhorn, speaking into it, and putting that through a wireless mic, amplifying that. Even better. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cainan Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 You know I have been waiting for this discussion... I am an old school guy. I marched in the eighties and nineties. I was the most anti electronics guy you would have been able to come across. I would rather we didn't have them but they ARE here now and there is nothing I can do about it. I grew up with this activity and I love it still with all my fiber and being. That said, I do think that if we are gonna have electronics, then they should be judged on the same criteria as we do the other captions. Drum corps is all about one single word... EXCELLENCE. Excellence in all we do must carry over to all aspects of the performance. Staff and judges dont tolerate bad horn attacks, or tone quality. They dont tolerate dirty beats or drops in the guard. They dont tolerate dirty marching or phasing, so why do they overlook poor quality when it comes to the use of amplified voice? Why do they tolerate overamped pits (Cavies 05 comes to mind)? The problem you run into is that amplification is an option and not a requirement. Not all corps use amps (i think) and therefor you cant create its own caption or subcaption so where do you award or deduct the points from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrunchyTenor Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) The problem you run into is that amplification is an option and not a requirement. Not all corps use amps (i think) and therefor you cant create its own caption or subcaption so where do you award or deduct the points from? The only area I can think of where it can be evaluated is the ensemble category within the music caption. That's where timing, blend and balance and quality can be incorporated. Maybe GE Music performance, too. Wherever it fits best, it should be factored in for the corps that use it. Garry in Vegas Edited July 23, 2007 by CrunchyTenor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84Cadet Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I totally agree. I have never been impressed with the sound quality from the Cadets mic'd vocals. They always sound "muddy." I'm sure a quality sound guy could work wonders. Right now they sound very amatureish. In contrast, the Blue Devils seem to always do a good job with amplification. Remember how much everybody hated Yowsa? I will say this—that guy sounded fantastic from a quality of sound standpoint. Crystal clear and very easy to understand. And now this year with the laughter—very cool effect and another great job by the Devils! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 The Cadets' vocals were done better in Atlanta than they were last night. Despite the obvious flaws with them last night, it doesn't seem to be reflected in the scores/on the sheets. That's where I REALLY have a problem with this. Nothing should ever be approved without a clear definition of how to adjudicate its use. How do you know their score/ranking swas not impacted? How do you know judges do not know the criteria for evaluation of the mics/amps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 How do you know their score/ranking swas not impacted?How do you know judges do not know the criteria for evaluation of the mics/amps? LOL. The problem is how does anyone know? No one seems to want to tackle that on the judging end and explain it in a concrete way. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 LOL.The problem is how does anyone know? No one seems to want to tackle that on the judging end and explain it in a concrete way. :) Do the corps staffs and judges know about how amps and mics are evaluated? Outside of that, it doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Do the corps staffs and judges know about how amps and mics are evaluated? Outside of that, it doesn't matter. Do they? I don't know. You'd think someone on staff or in a green shirt would have something to offer on it after being fair use for 3+ years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.